Feminist foreign policy is often difficult to define and specific policy measures in the implementation exclusively within the contemporary field seem even more elusive. In most instances, the public commitment to include gender issues are emerging more so in the process of foreign policy-making. It is a new set of values that are held as important, if not crucial, for determining the interactions a country has on the international level.
In October, Abiy Ahmed, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, won the Nobel Peace Prize 2019. It might have been the case that many people were perplexed by this surprising announcement because they simply had no idea who Ahmed was. On closer inspection, it is clear why he won the prestigious award: being a fighter for democracy, human rights and peace.
Abiy Ahmed came to power in April 2018, inheriting a country that has long been plagued by ethnic violence, authoritarian practices and a decades-long war with its neighbor to the north, Eritrea. But Ahmed was determined to fix his country, and immediately brought about much-needed reforms aimed at promoting democracy, human rights, and economic prosperity.
Within months of becoming Prime Minister, Ahmed ended the war with Eritrea. The two countries had been at war for twenty years over competing claims to the border town of Badme — a city with no strategic importance or valuable resources. The war turned from a petty dispute to a bloodbath with 100,000 people dying in just two years of fighting. The two countries signed a peace agreement in 2000 and a border commission was appointed to decide the fate of Badme — which was awarded to Eritrea in 2002. However, Ethiopia never recognized the commission’s decision, leading to nearly twenty years of intermittent border skirmishes and tensions between the two countries. Two months after being elected, Ahmed announced that he would honor the commission’s decision and so now the two countries have finally agreed to end the bitter war. The newfound peace has created new economic ties, spurring economic growth in both countries. The two countries had consistently opposed each other on nearly everything, including the war in neighboring Somalia, as Eritrea backed Islamist fighters, while Ethiopia supported the internationally recognized government. The newfound peace will not only bring stability to Ethiopia and Eritrea, but to the entire region, hopefully spurring economic development and stability in the Horn of Africa at large.
In addition to ending the war with Eritrea, Ahmed has introduced many reforms in order to open up Ethiopian society. He fired incompetent bureaucrats, lifted bans on certain newspapers and websites, freed tens of thousands of political prisoners, partially privatized inefficient state-owned companies, ended a controversial state of emergency used to crack down on protestors, appointed women to his cabinet, fired the head of the prison system and shut down the infamous Maekelawi jail, a symbol of authoritarianism and torture. All of these reforms came within less than a year and a half since Ahmed came to power. Ahmed has made incredible progress in democratizing Ethiopia and fostering the beginnings of a society that respects human rights and civil liberties.
For these reasons, its clear to see why Ahmed won the Nobel Peace Prize back in October. However, today the country has been driven to the verge of collapse while Ahmed no longer seems to be the reformer the world thought he was.
By no longer cracking down on political opponents and allowing more freedom of speech, Ahmed has opened a pandora’s box. Ethnic groups that have been mistreated and silenced by previous dictators are releasing decades worth of anger and strife aimed squarely at Ahmed. This boiling over of tensions has led to renewed ethnic conflict and violence. In July, there was a coup attempt that left the president of the Amhara ethnic region and several military officers dead. In October, protests against Ahmed’s government led to the death of nearly 70 people; which was made worse by the fact that he was in Russia and said nothing about the protests. Ahmed has lost the support of many of those in his Oromo ethnic group after a very influential Oromo activist and media mogul, Jawar Mohammed, claimed Ahmed and his security forces tried to assassinate him. Meanwhile, he has failed to denounce an Oromo ethno-nationalist movement, prompting other ethnic groups to claim Ahmed is favoring Oromos in his government. Lastly, the Tigrayan ethnic group that long-held power in Ethiopia, but makes up only 6% of the population, is supporting ethno-nationalist movements across the country to destabilize the country and Ahmed’s government.
The U.S, the UK and the E.U. should be doing all in their power to urge Ahmed to continue democratization and implore him to engage in efforts to reduce the growing ethnic violence in his country. Ahmed is starting to stumble down a slippery slope towards autocracy, while the threat of state collapse looms large in Ethiopia. The West praised Ahmed and awarded him with a Nobel Peace Prize. It is time for the West to get more involved in Ethiopia, and ensure Ahmed stays true to his early reforms and intentions. The world must push Ahmed to ensure the people of Ethiopia are safe in their country and have their rights protected. If not, the country of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa may plunge into catastrophic violence and instability, putting hundreds of millions of people at risk. It’s time for the world to take Ethiopia seriously.
*Photos are disseminated by Abiy Ahmed’s Office and are public domain images. The pictures are “free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.”
Although there is little consensus on whether Bolivia’s recent shift in leadership constitutes a coup, there is a power struggle plaguing the nation. Amidst widespread protests, it is clear that the resignation of former president Evo Morales carried very real consequences for the Latin American nation and its people. But to what extent? The fall of Morales — the country’s first indigenous president — after nearly fourteen years in office sparked violent protests between his native loyalists and defected police forces. While mostly rooted in deep-seated fears of regression, strong opposing ideologies in Bolivia date back to earlier times involving oppressive post-colonial structures.
The current interim president and successor, Jeanine Áñez, is a senator of European descent with a problematic history of anti-indigenous tweets. And since Morales’ resignation, Áñez has only served to further aggravate this ethnic tension. All things considered, Morales’ legacy may be the only tangible piece in the complex puzzle of Bolivia’s future.
Morales’ ascension to power in 2006 was strongly regarded as a victory for indigenous Bolivians, who have long been subjected to hegemonic rule under a small elite of European descent. For many, Morales was a much-needed break from the tradition of the Spanish colonial era that had long divided the population. Under his administration, the stark social divisions of the past were completely disrupted by a rhetoric of populism and racial distinction. Morales’ Bolivia saw a growing number of indigenous representatives within the government, along with a revival of indigenous culture and the establishment of the Wiphala as an official flag. Despite criticism that his discourse was polarizing and sparked disunity, it is apparent that Morales had a major hand in uplifting the long-marginalized indigenous people of his nation.
Economically, the impoverished Bolivia thrived under his presidency, with two million people being lifted out of poverty through the redistribution of natural gas assets and maintenance of a balanced national budget. For a country that has long suffered from instability and poverty, Evo Morales was a beacon of hope — and then things started to change.
Eventually, Morales’ desire to protract his rule manifested in increasingly concerning behaviors. As more and more of his opponents were prosecuted and institutions become packed with pro-Morales figures, Bolivians began to search for a way out. Their victory in a referendum that enacted term limits was short-lived; soon after, the nation’s Constitutional Court ruled that such an imposition would violate Morales’ human rights. Years of dissatisfaction with the president culminated in this year’s presidential election, during which results were halted for an entire day prior to the announcement that Morales’ lead margin was enough to avoid a runoff. Amid mass accusations of fraud by the incumbent president, the Organization of American States confirmed the presence of irregularities and urged for a new election. This revelation only further incensed Bolivians, who took to the streets in late October to protest against Morales.
These demonstrations proved to be the conditions for Morales’ fall, but the death blow came when police commandos in Cochabamba sided with protestors against the president’s re-election. The initially localized mutiny triggered a nationwide defection of security forces — an action that foreshadowed Morales’ demise. Now in the streets themselves, police officers across the nation voiced their disdain for Morales, burning the Wiphala flag and tearing the symbol from their uniforms. After weeks of protest, the military requested that Morales resign from the presidency to restore peace in the country. The demand — coup d’état or not — was successful, and the embattled Morales left Bolivia for Mexico soon after.
Into today, the ex-president’s retreat has not become the solution that the military expected it to be. As Morales’ opponents scaled back from the streets, they were subsequently replaced by his supporters, who fear the loss of political gains made for indigenous communities. Jeanine Áñez — the self-proclaimed interim president — has done little to pacify this new unrest, seemingly condoning the police’s escalating violence against indigenous defenders of Morales and ignoring the rising death toll of these protests. Even with the promise of new presidential elections within ninety days, the opposition senator has faced incredible condemnation, particularly for creating a caretaker cabinet without any indigenous members and having made derogatory tweets against indigenous people — including one that referred to Morales as a “poor Indian”. With the nation in such a fragile state, Áñez must work quickly — before the crisis escalates into a violent and unforgiving civil war.
For now, Evo Morales will likely remain in Mexico, where he has been granted asylum. Despite his desire to return to Bolivia and finish his term, it may be too late to make amends. For many, Morales’ legacy is already set in stone.