By Eden Tafesework
The West, spearheaded by the U.S., has maintained an unflinching position on the conflict in Northern Ethiopia, threatening to impose a series of sanctions unless the conflict is de-escalated and forces on both ends withdraw their forces. Given the country’s strategic significance, it may not be surprising to witness such pressure.
For example, the U.S. threatened to freeze aid that was planned to be delivered to the country, while the European Union postponed 90 million euros ($109 million) in budgetary support to Ethiopia due to the “lack of access to the country’s Tigray region to deliver humanitarian aid”. The Biden administration has also paused $272 million worth of development and security assistance to Ethiopia, linking the resumption of assistance to several factors related to the Tigray crisis. Moreover, the President has allowed the US Treasury and State Department to sanction leaders and groups on both ends ‘if they do not soon take steps to end the violence. Additionally, a sanctions regime was announced most recently that will allow the U.S. “to target those responsible for, or complicit in, prolonging the conflict in Ethiopia, obstructing humanitarian access, or preventing a ceasefire”. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US would delay the imposition of sanctions if the warring parties “cease ongoing hostilities and enter into ceasefire negotiations immediately and without preconditions. In a similar vein, the United Nations Security Council, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have remained focused on the conflict, holding numerous meetings over the situation.
Why is Multilateralism being Challenged?
The reason why there is a great likelihood to accept the weaknesses observed so far in multilateral engagements has a lot to do with the observed fragility in the institutions erected for this purpose. As the altercations happen to take place either between strong states that are equipped with economic and military/nuclear arsenals, the imposition of strong measures to effect needed change has been minimal. The justification behind this has to do with the inability of the rest of the world to pressure these countries into getting back to respecting set out international principles of respect for sovereignty, equal status of states, and the principle of respect of states’ will to the end of achieving needed goals. As the saying goes “some states are more equal than others,” the international framework appears to prioritize the most powerful states in terms of fulfilling their setout goals. However, the basic principles of international law stipulate that all states are equal before international law, no matter the size of their territory, population, economy, or military. This principle is likely to be challenged because some states are indeed bigger and more influential than others due to their economic capacity. Such a development is taking place with respect to the Russian-Ukraine conflict, where despite pressures being wielded by global institutions, the conflict has continued without resolution.
Even though diplomatic pressure, modalities of carrots and sticks, are likely to result in the needed results for the most part, as can be witnessed from recent developments, it has become insufficient to lead to expected outcomes. The contributions of the states in question are of paramount importance in determining their level of influence. Undoubtedly, those with significant contributions happen to be active in the conflicts taking place.
This is the reason behind Russia’s reluctance to implement needed change in its aggression against Ukraine. However, because both states are armed to the fullest in military and nuclear capabilities, there is pressure on both parties to instill pressure to this end.
Way forward:
Moving on, a full commitment to effectively implementing the principles that states are duty-bound to observe is crucial to eliminate possibilities that portray a lack of commitment. In view of respecting the international principles that states have given (part of their sovereignty) to international organizations, they have to respect and have the readiness to put the guiding principles into effect. This is the only possibility to maintain the integrity of the very institutions they established to aid in the maintenance of peace, security, and economic stability. It is incumbent upon them to ensure their continuity because states give their commitment, demonstrating their willingness to be bound by the principles enshrined as signatories to international conventions/covenants. This is especially cumbersome at a time such as this when global principles to maintain stability and recovery are seriously being challenged.
You can reach the writer via edentafesework@gmail.com.
