A response to the NY Times Editorial “Don’t Turn on Ethiopia” by Vicki Huddleston and Tibor Nagy

By Agere Mekuria

The OP-ED piece written by Vicki Huddleston and Tibor Nagy, entitled “Don’t Turn on Ethiopia” is lacking in the profound analysis and treatment required for such serious issues as the current situation in the Horn of Africa. Its conclusions and inferences rely on unfounded reasoning and unsuccessful attempts to make direct connections between the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 (H.R. 2003, which, having passed the House, is currently in the U.S. Senate), and the long-brewing conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. For anyone who has read the bill in its entirety, the assertion made by this OP-ED piece that the passing of this bill will “fuel the march toward war” between Ethiopia and Eritrea is preposterous. It appears that Huddleston and Nagy advance their baseless assertions with the assumption that the readership is completely ignorant of the situation in the Horn and has not, at the very least, read a synopsis of H.R. 2003. In fact, from reading the editorial, it is doubtful that the authors of the editorial have done so themselves. It is astounding to see two diplomats, with past experience as chiefs of mission in the region, taking on the role of lobbyists and making weak attempts to derail a bill whose purpose, as stated in its text, is “To encourage and facilitate the consolidation of peace and security, respect for human rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia”.

In a tone imbued with fear mongering, Huddleston and Nagy also advance the ridiculous notion that in supporting this bill, “Congress [is] unwittingly on the side of Islamic jihadists and insurgents”. In reading this statement, one is forced to question whether Huddleston and Nagy are referring to the same bill (H.R. 2003). This is a valid question since the bill is not specifically mentioned in the editorial, although it is quite evident that the bill’s abrogation is the intent. The arguments and opposition advanced against the bill and its implied correlation to the current situation in the horn are thoroughly implausible and far-fetched.

It is clear, even for those who only take a cursory look at the bill that its contents, in letter or spirit, are not contrary to finding a solution to the “threat of insurgency and war”, as implied by Huddleston and Nagy. Instead, the bill, consistent with U.S. policy and the concept of universal human rights, “supports the advancement of human rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development” in Ethiopia and establishes metrics for gauging progress in these areas and holding those in power accountable for trampling upon the inalienable rights of the Ethiopian people.

The weak case made by Huddleston and Nagy’s editorial to equate the support of the U.S. Congress for the advancement of human rights and the establishment of democratic institutions in Ethiopia with fanning the flames of conflict in the region makes one wonder about their motives for this endeavor. One possible motive is that Huddleston and Nagy are attempting to gain some ground on the inter-governmental battle for the share of the international policy-making pie for the executive branch, of which the diplomatic corps is an extension. This is hinted at by the seemingly well-meaning suggestion that “Congress should put aside its bill and instead use creative diplomacy”.

Although the efficacy of diplomacy as a contributing arm in a multi-prong approach to conflict resolution can not be disputed, trying to thwart and misrepresent the efforts of the legislative branch from achieving the same goals through legislation is, at the very least, counterproductive. As such, the suggestion that “creative diplomacy”, as argued by these two career diplomats, single-handedly, will bring about much needed democratization and transparency to Ethiopian government institutions and guarantee the protection of human rights, along with holding government officials accountable for violations against these rights is ludicrous and naïve. Furthermore, the argument that supporting the establishment of democracy and insuring the protection of human rights in Ethiopia is contrary to US interests in the region and that somehow it will further exacerbate the current situation in the Horn of Africa is equally absurd.
_________________
Agere Mekuria can be reached at [email protected]