Part One
When we talk about limiting foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a certain country, what do we have in mind exactly? We have seen several times that some countries quite often intervene in the internal affairs of other countries presenting justifications under various guises. Some look like pretexts rather than real concerns but at times such interventions could be considered highly desirable not only for the countries concerned but also to their neighbors in the region.
Interventions could be recommended and initiated even by international bodies such as the UN but we have also seen unilateral interventions by close associates or allies of certain countries. We have seen, for instance, France having intervened in some countries in the Sahel region with the declared objective of helping in the fight against terrorism. Hence, there could be not only a welcome call in these cases but given the relations and interactions among certain nations.
There are circumstances in which foreign countries cannot stay indifferent and watch passively when unpleasant or even disgusting things happen in a certain country and the government fails to stop it. We have seen condemnation of coups in many African countries even by fellow African countries and most notably by the continental body AU which aspires for the advancement of democracy and freedom as well as justice on the continent. These moves can be taken as practical intervention.
But can countries allege sovereignty and prevent foreign intervention of any form in their internal affairs given the current interdependence of countries and the intricate relations they have? Could for instance a certain country persecute a part of its population convinced that no one from outside has ‘the right to intervene’? What are the criteria and what are the limits of such interventions in another country’s affairs? How do we settle or reconcile with these disputes in today’s world? These are interesting questions to discuss.
It is a delicate question that needs to be addressed because not always the demarcations are clear. Not always there is consensus on this issue and not always things go as planned for the intended objectives. At times, we have seen certain countries invoke these principles to take advantage of treating unjustly their population or citizens applying crude force and certain harsh methods of oppression.
The international community is morally required to reject and condemn such acts. Such condemnation usually leads to various forms of sanctions. But do these sanctions have effect on the political leaders or subjects to further suffering on the population? When certain governments openly violate what are consecrated as international precepts and principles that must be observed, it would be logical to expect condemnations from various corners.
International bodies and most notably human rights organizations are seen as the principal advocates of people who are considered subjugated wherever they might be, and they say they are ‘the voice for the voiceless’. There seems to exist a common understanding that no country in the world can commit what are called ‘crimes against humanity’ such as ‘genocide’ for instance and continue undeterred.
Some days ago, Ethiopia seems to have encountered one of these famous interventions by certain foreign countries considered traditional allies or partners in its internal affairs. Immediately the government in Addis Ababa has expressed its regret besides presenting its stance clearly rejecting such ‘intervention’ as uncalled for, and as ‘misplaced’ because it says it was based on ‘unsubstantiated’ and ‘fabricated’ evidence presented by parties that have done a huge tort to the country. The message cannot be any clearer.
First of all, we have to ask ‘what is the basis of such ‘intervention’ or better still ‘demand’ or to put it more bluntly ‘order’? What are the moral imperatives of such an intervention? What are the legal imperatives that led to this conclusion? What are the facts that created the political or diplomatic background of such a blunt ‘statement’ which some ‘patriots’ have immediately labeled as ‘humiliating’, a dark spot on the reputation of a great nation such as Ethiopia which has a long history of independence and resistance to any form of colonial dominion, be it in any kind or vest?
The only consolation that many Ethiopians can think of is that this is not the first time that we have heard of similar pronouncements by a government against several other countries before it has reached the beaches of Ethiopia. Each time such orders or suggestions were forwarded against another country we’ve had our reservations because there seemed to exist some form of ‘hierarchy’ between the interventionist (usually we have seen that it is a major power such as the US or even the EU) and other countries whom we heard saying that they cannot condone any form of violations of human rights of peoples regardless of the location.
Analysts note that using sanctions against not liked governments has been one form of the foreign diplomatic policy of some governments. If it was thought that this country worked against their strategic interests, this was the usual path followed. Several reasons may be presented but in many cases the sanctions consist of ‘travel bans’ of authorities of these countries, freezing of bank accounts and assets, or even putting ‘restrictions’ on aid and assistance promised or already in the pipeline.
These are leverages that are easily felt by these not so strong countries. The sense of dependency is even felt more heavily when certain critical aid may be part of the recurrent budget and is suspended or delayed. Some of the reasons presented look like ‘pretexts’ imposed just because they did not like the regime in power. History has shown us several examples in this category. One example could be that of Cuba, another one could be that of North Korea, and yet, another one could be that of Iran, Russia, and China etc.
There may be different factors playing into these ‘sanctions’. These could be historical, political, security wise or even general long term strategic interests of the West particularly the US or plainly as we see them described as issues of human rights violations committed by these nations. Nevertheless, many observers say when one thinks of the US and ‘human rights
violations’, one cannot avoid thinking immediately of the multiple and perennial violations of human rights violated on practically a daily basis on the territory of its own boundaries or in places where their citizens reside or opt to travel and engage in various endeavors and projects. No one in their right minds or sound health could claim that the US is the natural habitat of human rights. Hence, many wonder how can such a government or country have the moral authority to claim that ‘others’ should respect human rights or else they will face this sanction or that one?!
Everyone who has some familiarity with the government of the US is aware of what sort of systematic violations of human rights have been reported against minorities, and for years, without any signs of diminishing or improvement. The question naturally erupts: ‘where is the moral higher ground to demand others to do what they themselves fail to do?’ In fact, international human rights bodies do not spare even the US government and its people in general of their consistent violations of human rights even if on the other side we should admit that there are strong civic societies, vibrant media and an independent judiciary which play a huge role in never acquiescing to these violations every time they are reported, even if convicting them has been a huge challenge they always faced.
Many observers have been heard stating that what the US government is trying to carry out in Ethiopia is just like adding insult to injury. This is because the US commits the crucial mistake of not giving any recognition to the fact that the Ethiopian government and people have been brutally attacked by the now labeled ‘terrorist’ force called TPLF and has risked to be dismantled by the irresponsible and selfish power maniacs of the failed party!
If the US does not recognize this harsh reality, to begin with, these observers note, all the consequences that follow become illogical and unjust. The premise to this conflict must be crystal clear before we even go ahead one step.
The government has expressed through its various ambassadors and press secretaries that Ethiopia was the victim and not the aggressor no matter how loudly the terrorist TPLF and its cohorts yell using every media outlet and lobby group they have bought using the robbed resources and wealth of the Ethiopian people. This was a result of systematic looting and plundering of the national economy at will.
The arguments of Ethiopian representatives at any given platform have been underlining that the US and other forced cannot be unaware of these facts. They have every channel available to know about them adequately. These few individuals who controlled the party for years and managed all its finances secretly have been preparing for such a ‘contingency’ and that was why they never tried to abide by the rules of democracy and would care little if thousands die for their glory and success!
BY FITSUM GETACHEW
The Ethiopian Herald June 11/2021
