When Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) addressed a gathering of mostly Ethiopian-origin constituents in late September, he
The threat appears to have worked: The floor vote on the resolution has been indefinitely postponed.
This may be viewed as just another instance of an authoritarian government playing the counterterrorism card to avoid international criticism for a bad human rights record. But in the case of Ethiopia, it is more than that.
While the resolution contains provisions that call for sanctions—under the Global Magnitsky Act—against Ethiopian officials responsible for committing gross human rights violations, the more important reason why the government took the severe step of threatening the U.S. Congress is the damage that this resolution could do to the country’s image.
Defending a lucrative myth
Over the past decade, the government of Ethiopia has carefully crafted its reputation as a development success story, a champion of peace, and a bastion of stability in the troubled Horn of Africa region. In response, international donors have poured in billions of dollars in aid, amounting to roughly
In addition, Ethiopia is a current member of the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council. For the government in Addis Ababa, all this international recognition is not only about looking good and important in the eyes of the international community. It is also a powerful propaganda tool that has been diligently exploited to boost the regime’s increasingly shaky legitimacy at home.
The Ethiopian government vigorously fought all previous attempts to hold it accountable for abuses of human rights and democratic norms, and it has opposed the current measure from its inception. In January 2017, it hired a Washington-based
However, both resolutions were revived over the summer, and H. Res. 128 passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with no opposition in July. Ethiopia’s threat to suspend security cooperation represents a last-ditch effort to prevent this resolution from advancing any further.
An increasingly unstable bastion of stability
Ethiopia’s latest bout of unrest and state repression began when a government development plan for the capital region triggered protests in the surrounding Oromia region, whose residents faced displacement under the plan. The demonstrations continued even after the scheme was rescinded, driven by deep frustration with decades of ethnic exclusion under the authoritarian regime. The ruling party’s formal diversity masks the ethnic Tigrayan elite’s de facto dominance of all aspects of public life, and the protests have drawn much of their support from the sidelined Oromo and Amhara populations—which together form a majority in the country.
Over
The government
Diplomacy alone has so far failed to change the behavior of the Ethiopian government and to stop its relentless attacks on human rights and prodemocracy activists. H. Res. 128 is important and necessary not just as a response to Ethiopia’s heavy-handed tactics against largely peaceful demonstrators, but also as an incentive for the government to open up civic space and promote inclusive governance.
With antigovernment protests increasingly taking a violent turn in recent months, a strong and unequivocal signal from the United States demanding accountability and concrete reforms is required to avert an all-out crisis and to create a path toward sustainable regional stability. Counterterrorism partnership should not give Ethiopian authorities a pass to continue killing and jailing political opponents with absolute impunity, and Ethiopia may not be of much value as a security partner going forward if the bond between state and society is allowed to disintegrate in this manner.
Passing H. Res. 128 would send a powerful message to Addis Ababa to get serious about undertaking reforms, and the Ethiopian government’s bullying tactics should not derail it. Members of Congress should call the bluff, place the resolution back on the House agenda, and approve it. Experience shows that Ethiopia would never follow through on the threat to halt security cooperation. The government fully understands who would be the ultimate loser if it did.
Analyses and recommendations offered by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of Freedom House.