EU’s Borrell criticizes countries over reaction to Ethiopia conflict.

EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell said sanctions should have been imposed on those involved in the conflict in Ethiopia. Getty ImagesEU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell said sanctions should have been imposed on those involved in the conflict in Ethiopia. Getty Images

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on Monday scolded the bloc’s countries for not having imposed sanctions on those involved in a bloody conflict in Ethiopia, a move he said might have helped to reduce violence in the East African country.

The war in Ethiopia’s northern region of Tigray, which began about a year ago and has since spread to other parts of the country, has resulted in thousands of deaths.

A  joint investigation by the United Nations and Ethiopia published last month said “there are reasonable grounds to believe” that all sides fighting in the war have committed violations that could be classed as war crimes.

In comments to reporters following a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, Borrell said the situation in Ethiopia was “one of my biggest frustrations” of the year “because we were not able to react properly to the large-scale human rights violations, mass rapes using sexual violence as a war arm, killings and concentration camps based on ethnic belonging.”

In September this year, the Biden administration rolled out a new executive order  authorizing targeted financial sanctions on those found to be responsible for, or complicit in, exacerbating the conflict in and around the Tigray region of Ethiopia, hindering humanitarian assistance in the region, or undermining Ethiopia’s democracy or territorial integrity.

In its announcement, the White House was explicit in putting all of the parties to the conflict on notice, underscoring that the sanctions could apply to those in the Ethiopian government, the Eritrean government, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), and the Amhara region’s government and forces.

The unsurprising determination, which was months in the making, follows a series of steps aimed at shifting belligerents’ cost-benefit calculations away from escalating military conflict.

But the reaction from Ethiopia illustrates just how hard it will be for the United States to effect meaningful change on the ground in part because leaders have wholeheartedly embraced jingoistic, uncompromising narratives that foreclose the possibility of negotiated solutions.

In an open letter to President Biden posted on Twitter , Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed bemoans Washington’s failure to see his campaign in Tigray as an extension of the global war on terror and posits that U.S. policy is rooted in “an orchestrated distortion of events and facts on the ground” and “policymakers and policy influencers’ friendships with belligerent terrorist groups like the TPLF.”

In his telling, Ethiopia’s problem in Washington is not the millions of Ethiopians in desperate crisis, the metastasizing conflict, the crimes against humanity, or the ominous ethnic profiling, but rather that the United States is getting the story used to justify or dismiss these realities—all wrong. Abiy seems unaware of how badly his credibility has been eroded by the gulf between some of his public statements and demonstrable facts on the ground.

The United States hopes that influential Ethiopians aware of the difference between self-serving propaganda and the catastrophic consequences of worsening conflict will begin to puncture the alternate reality that partisans have constructed and energetically reinforced since November.

But it is not readily apparent who remains respected enough to be heard and courageous enough to try to challenge the competing narratives.

Notably, when a number of Ethiopian civil society organizations came together earlier this month to call for peace and reconciliation in the country, they  requested a cessation of not just hostilities but also “war propaganda.” When prominent African intellectuals  called for more involvement from the African Union and political rather than military solutions to the conflict, they made it clear that many Ethiopian colleagues had expressed agreement in principal but fear retaliation if they publicly join the effort.

The best that international pressure can do is clarify some of the economic and reputational stakes and the opportunity costs of continued conflict for those willing to reckon with the complex realities of the country’s crisis. An actual change in course will only happen when Ethiopians themselves insist on it.

Share the news