Viewpoint: Can Ethiopia survive the Trump threats?

Viewpoint: Can Ethiopia survive the Trump threats?

Picture credit: REUTERS/Carlos Barria


By Dejen Yemane Messele @MesseleDejen &

Yohannes Eneyew Ayalew @yeayalew

“All sovereign states are equal…inequality of power does not affect this equality; a dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful kingdom.”Emer de Vattel, 1758                                    

Addis Abeba, October 27/2020 – Trump’s sabre-rattling remarks on Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam (GERD) that tips Egypt will blow up the dam has become a hullabaloo in Ethiopia and constitutes a breach of international law.

International law
governs the relationship between sovereign states on the basis of equality. The
classical tenet that states are equal on the basis of the UN Charter—is now
being eroded by hegemonic powerful states. Few powerful states such as—the
United States, in the name of facilitating a good office, tends to coerce some
states in negotiation and treaty making. This would give rise to questioning
the legitimacy of powerful states’ acts under international law. This essay
interrogates the notion of sovereignty—in context of the Grand Ethiopian
Renaissance Dam (GERD) water filling controversy mainly between Ethiopia and
Egypt— in a bid to raise the debate whether Ethiopia survives the Trump’s
repeated threats. In examining this, we unpack how hegemonic international law
is now being resurfaced as a threat to the existing international system
founded on basis of the United Nations (UN) Charter.

Taking sovereignty seriously

Despite the
unconscionable concept of über-sovereignty where some states exercise a
sort of imperial powers in international relations, states are equal not only
in the international system founded on the basis of the UN Charter but also
under the classic understanding of international law. In this respect, Emer de Vattel, who articulated the pre-1914 law of nations in his
classic essays of 1758, put it:

sovereign states are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature, in such a situation they are ‘naturally equal’, and inequality of power does not affect this equality; a dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful kingdom. 

Judge Max Huber
aptly set forth the classic definition of sovereignty in the Island of Palmas arbitration
in 1928 that sovereignty in the relations between states means independence.
Hence, such independence in regard to a portion of the globe enables states the
right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions
of a state. In the Reparation Opinion,
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that states are “political
entities equal in law, similar in form, (…)  the direct subjects of
international law.” (p. 177-178) In the same way, the UN Charter recognises the sovereign equality of states, and forbids
states from using force. Article 2(4) provides that:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Also, article 2(7)
the UN Charter prohibits states from intervening in the affairs of other states
which essentially fall within the gamut of domestic jurisdiction unless
authorised under Chapter VII.

Building on the
works of James Crawford, sovereignty bestow states the following entitlements.
First, sovereignty inheres in the state, considered as an autonomous
territorial community across time. Second, sovereignty is the exclusive
authority over territory, i.e. the capacity to exercise, to the exclusion of
other states, and includes the capacity to make binding commitments under international
law. For example: Ethiopia has a sovereign right to construct a dam over its
natural resources. Third, such sovereignty is exercisable by the governmental
institutions established within the state. Fourth, the government of the state
depends on the fact of local control, not on democratic legitimacy.

Hegemonic international law

Throughout
history, different empires were exercising a kind of hegemonic control over
other states. For instance, the Roman empire was a kingdom, which epitomises a
classic hegemony, successfully maintained client states. The Roman empire had
brought a framework governing the relationship of the empire with other states
in terms of personal arrangement of
private law, the patrocinium
. This
relationship between the patron—Roman empire, and client states— had imposed
obligations on each of them, though not reciprocal ones. Over the years,
international law has been an instrument for legitimatising the
power of hegemonic states
such as—Spain,
Britain and now the United States.

On the other hand,
Ethiopia is an historical polity which preserved its civilisation from
foreign domination and had successfully defended its sovereignty
from colonial rule. Ethiopia was a founding member of the
League of Nations, and also to the UN.

States—be it
powerful or weak or wealthier or poor—are supposed to be equal under
international law on the basis of article 2(1) of the UN
Charter
. However, the United States tended to
appear as a hegemonic superpower and was accused of meddling in the internal affairs of
states.

Guided by the
principles of sovereignty, equality of states and national independence of
states; the UN General Assembly reinforced these ideals by passing a resolution
entitled — ‘Inadmissibility
of the Policy of Hegemonism in International Relations
’ in 1979. But the United States opposed this resolution.
According to this resolution, hegemony is defined as:

a manifestation of the policy of a States, or a group of States, to control, dominate and subjugate, politically, economically, ideologically or militarily, other States, peoples or regions of the world.

In practice,
states have their own national interests, in many cases, but may not be
tailored by international law principles. As a result, states may drive a
hegemonic policy aiming at a position of dominance across the globe. Article 8
of the
resolution
sets out states’ right to determine their socio-economic policies
without intimidation, hindrance or interference from outside. Nevertheless,
during GERD negotiations between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan; the United States
was coercing Ethiopia to strike an unconscionable deal over the filling and operation
of the dam. When the Ethiopian government was unable to make a deal, the Trump
administration exerted its pressure by
cutting development aid
to Ethiopia. The
Trump administration’s latest move is counterproductive in many ways. To
mention an instance, Ethiopia is an Anti-Terrorism ally of the United States in
the Horn of Africa. As such, severing its usual partnership with Ethiopia will
cost the United States more than expected. Undeniably, Egypt and Ethiopia are
equal partners of the United States. But in terms of strategic importance —
Egypt is a more equal partner than Ethiopia.

The Trump factor—failing international
order?

President Donald
Trump, whose first presidential term draw to a close, is being a threat to
multilateralism and the international
system
.  He is blamed for his
populist propensity both at home—and abroad. His foreign policy moments  exhibit his contested presidential routes. Critics
do not hesitate to take Trump as a reason for every evil happening in
America.  The deadliest Coronavirus, hurricane, wildfire, racial based attacks, and impeachment trials  are the Achilles heel of the Trump administration.
Since his ascension to the helm of presidency, he has not only altered the
course of the US foreign policy but has also withdrawn the US from
major international treaties
. Thus, the Trump factor has traversed national boundaries and changed the global
order. 

Trump was pretty
sure of brokering a deal when he invited the Foreign Affairs and Waters
Ministers of the three countries in his Oval Office. He had a trust because
Ethiopia will receive the highest loan and aid from his country. Ethiopia’s
recent request for a mammoth billion-dollar loan and aid gave him more
confidence to win the GERD negotiation in Egypt’s favour.  Since Trump
courted the ministers in his office and directed them to reach into a deal
within a short time of negotiation, Ethiopia was on a risky boat. The
negotiation was almost close to a deal until reversed by a popular resistance
that advances Ethiopia’s sovereign right over the GERD. The secret of how
Ethiopia saved itself from the Trump storm was phenomenal. The public protest
against the Washington process compels the government to quit forthwith. 
But the Trump administration was not forsaken and they were working hard to
compel Ethiopia to accept the deal brokered by the Department of Treasury. Following Ethiopia’s refusal, the Treasury, World Bank
Groups Director, the White House Security Council, and State Department made a
continuous overt and covert call for Ethiopia to strike a deal on
the GERD.   After all such pressures, Ethiopia remains fair-minded and
declined to seal a GERD deal. As a result, the Trump administration
halts some 100 million dollars of aid
.

 Ethiopia’s diplomatic clanger

We found that
Trump’s good office role was infamous since it was criticised by writers
for undermining sovereign
equality of states
. For example: the deal
brokered by Trump in the matter of Kosovo and Serbia ended up bringing an
unintended outcome. Kosovo’s version provides that “Kosovo and Israel agree to
mutually recognise each other”, while Serbia’s version states it will “open a
commercial office and a ministry of state office in Jerusalem by September 20,
2020 and move its embassy to Jerusalem by July 1, 2021.” This abrupt appearance
of Israel – which has had no involvement whatsoever in the Serbia/Kosovo
dispute may be a harbinger for creating a binding obligation on third states.
When the content of the agreement was read by Trump, the Serbian President Vučić was surprised as he never knew of such moves.

Even after the
Trump administration has suspended the aid to Ethiopia, Trump is waiting for
Ethiopia to sign the Washington drafted
treaty
on the GERD, a hope that will never
come true in the face of Ethiopians. Trump’s remark though spiteful was not
unexpected. His speech on GERD seems to be a summary of speeches told since the
US seized of the matter. In the end, Trump openly stated:

Because I had a deal done for them, and then unfortunately, Ethiopia broke the deal, which they should not have done.  That was a big mistake.  And we have stopped payment to them of about — of a lot of aid because they did it.  And they will never see that money unless they adhere to the agreement.  But they built a dam, which stops water from flowing into the Nile. 

Reciting his
recent aid cut actions in return of Ethiopia’s refusal to sign that document,
Trump misinforms the international community that GERD is about to stop the
water flows of the Nile. 

But Trump was not
the only person who takes the blame. Rather the Ethiopian successive
governments who brought a unilateral-sovereign dam up for negotiation. Despite
the dam being built on a transboundary river, the Ethiopian government should
not in the first place bring its unilateral project for negotiation rather find
ways to multilateral basin-wide treaty. As explained above, sovereignty bestows
to exclude other states in domestic matters. The biggest clanger  was
committed when the government of Ethiopia accepted the United States offer as a
good office to facilitate the negotiation process during the Africa-Russia summit
held in Sochi
in 2019.

We are here due to the imprudent decision making of the government. Afterwards, the government has supplemented the escalation and securitization strategy of Egypt. This might be something related with the Medemer diplomacy where the country does not embrace the habitual labeling of states as ‘friends’ and ‘foes’. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, in his book of ‘Medemer’ (p.257), argues that there is no such dichotomy of friends and foes amongst states in international relations.

“በመደመር ዉጭ ግንኙነት ፓሊሲ በአገራት መካከል ‘ወዳጅና ጠላት’ ብሎ ነገር የለም” ፡፡

This is however
quite flawed in some vital national strategic interest issues—such as the GERD
since Ethiopia needs to uphold realistic diplomacy. Ethiopians should be
vigilant in restraining the government from going for rush deals not only on
the GERD but also other vital issues of national interest.  Now is the
time to draw a lesson from previous mistakes through the lens of realistic
diplomacy.

(Un)likely rhetoric of blowing up the dam

In an occasion
of  the Israel-Sudan
Normalisation Agreement
, Trump made a
vindictive statement on the GERD and accused Ethiopia for breaking a deal that
his administration had once prepared. He then warns that Egypt may blow up the
dam. Trump outrageously remarked:

It’s
a very dangerous situation, because Egypt is not going to be able to live that
way. And they will end up blowing up the dam.  And I said it — and I say
it loud and clear, They will blow up that dam.

His mal fide
remarks in the GERD is one of the recent threats against Ethiopia’s sovereign
rights on the Nile. Following this, a statement came out from the Prime Minister office
of Ethiopia
slamming Trump’s comment as incitement to war. The threats are affronts to Ethiopian sovereignty and
clear violation of international law.

Under the accepted
norms of jus in bello (laws of war), dams are not the object of an armed
attack.  For instance, article 56 of the Additional Protocol I
to the Geneva Conventions
adopted on 8
June 1977 clearly prohibits attacking dams during international armed
conflicts. This means states shall not target dams even where these objects are
military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces
and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. In our case, GERD
has already filled with 4.9 BCM
waters
, if the Ethiopian dam attacked, the
entire Sudan would be devastated by the floods, and resulted in catastrophic
loss of civilian lives. If Egypt blows up GERD, Ethiopia may end up taking
serious countermeasures justified under international law including targeting
Aswan High Dam. Assume Ethiopia takes a counter-attack, and detonates Aswan
High Dam—the impact on civilians would be catastrophic.  No matter how
Egypt be mighty in economy, Ethiopia remains invincible in battlefields’, and
its military prowess is known in history. It shall be recalled that Egypt had
fought twice with Ethiopia at the battle of Gundet in 1875 and the battle of
Gura in 1876 and lost. These two battles were Egyptian attempts at imperial control over the source of the Blue Nile. We do not  however rule out the possibility of attacks,
but hoping these scenarios will not happen as Trump wishes.

The future of GERD negotiation

GERD is now being negotiated in
Africa
under the observation of the
African Union (AU). Nevertheless, there will not be a major departure from the
old terrains as far as the result is concerned. If Ethiopia remains firm in its
positions, there will never be a GERD deal. A no-deal completion of the negotiation
or signing a basin-wide multilateral treaty is a win-win solution for the
disputing parties. Until then Ethiopia is on an uncertain journey on a risky
boat.

The GERD deal
tabled by the Trump administration was a honey-coated poison, and will be a
threat to Ethiopia’s national interest because it will foreclose present and
future generations’ right to utilise its natural resources. Following the adage
‘better safe than sorry’ is good to protect the GERD from a bad deal. It is
better to skip any GERD deal than getting in trouble in the aftermath of the
deal.

Ethiopia’s
negotiating team seems ambivalent on their stand towards completing or
discontinuing the GERD negotiation with no-deal. They are optimistic to strike
a deal in one hand and they know the unbearable nature of Egypt’s claims in the
negotiation. Most likely their positions would be towards a no-deal completion
unless they are beleaguered by the highest political decision makers. We would
argue that negotiators at all stages of talks must take the notion of
sovereignty seriously. Hopefully, they will not stand on the wrong side of
history, and endures to the end.

Conclusion

International law is a law of nations governing states in a symmetric way. Powerful states should not coerce less powerful states using hegemonic compliance tools. Indeed, international law is not the law of the jungle that powerful states apply their self-interest and impose onerous terms to weaker states. It should be noted that Trump’s statement regarding the GERD violates the very purposes of the UN Charter. 

Obviously, Trump’s statements violate the duty of member states to maintain international peace and security—by refraining from the threat or use of force. In particular, his outrageous statement ‘Egypt will blow-up the GERD’ is a blatant violation of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the article 8 of UN General Assembly Resolution that discourage hegemonism, which in turn, undermine the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. On 23rd of October when he made a UN Day Proclamation, Trump tends to be faithful to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter yet the irony is on the same day he flouted his words and made sabre-rattling remarks against Ethiopia.  Also, it is a shameful act and unfortunate moment that the President of the United States (POTUS)—a leader of the permanent member of the UN Security Council who was supposed to be a pacifier of international peace and security—made a blunt word of inciting aggression against Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government should take the matter seriously as Trump’s words might be the tip of the iceberg. Specifically, the government should resolve internal human right abuses properly, and disarm armed non-State actors since they are still at large operating in Benishangul Gumuz region where the dam is situated. This is because at this time waging an international armed conflict would be unlikely and counterproductive to Egypt. Rather they may assist and support armed non-state actors as they used to. 

The government has to solve the row with the Tigray regional state, and reinforce its internal unity. Having this been done, Ethiopia should keep negotiating in good faith to strike a basin-wide treaty otherwise ending the tardy negotiation with no-deal better maintains its national interest. Should the government continue in its firm stance and address the domestic issues, Ethiopia can survive Trump’s threat—and once more will not succumb to any form of neo-colonialism. AS

_____________________________________________//_______________________________

Editor’s Note: Dejen Yemane Messele is a PhD candidate at School of Law, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. He is a lecturer in law at school of Law, Wollo University (currently on study leave). He holds Master of Laws (LL.M) in Public International Law (Addis Abeba University), and Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Wollo University. Dejen’s research interest lies in the broader areas of public international law and international transboundary rivers law.

Yohannes Eneyew Ayalew is a PhD candidate at Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Prior to joining Monash Law, he was a lecturer in law at School of Law, Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. He has Master of Laws (LL.M) in International Human Rights (University of Groningen, the Netherlands), LL.M in Public International Law (Addis Abeba University) and LL.B (Wollo University). Yohannes’s research interest covers a range of issues in international human rights law, and public international Law.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are that of the authors and do not reflect the editorial stand of Addis Standard’s on the GERD.

The post Viewpoint: Can Ethiopia survive the Trump threats? appeared first on Addis Standard.

Source: Link to the Post

Leave a Reply