Monthly Archives: February 2021

By Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Ph.D., George Mason UniversityFederalism was one of the compromises made by the framers of the US Constitution. (Image: Dennis Diatel/Shutterstock)Being an American Citizen

Have you ever noticed that sometimes it seems like youre a citizen of more than one entity? If youre an American citizen, youre a citizen of your state, and you may have a sense of identity, loyalty, or affinity toward the state where you live. And this sense of belonging to a particular state may make it seem distinct from other states, even the neighboring ones with which your state shares a border.

But youre also a citizen of the United States of America and there is a separate set of associations you may make when you think about your identity as an American.

If it seems like there are separate levels of government all around, its because there are. The American system of government is known as federalism.

This is a transcript from the video series Understanding the US Government. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Federalism is a system of government where sovereign power is divided between the national government and some other more local governments.

In the case of the United States, this is relatively straightforward. There is the national government made up of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and there are 50 sub-national governments, one in each state.

Sometimes the language used to talk about federalism is confusing because the people use the term federal government when they are referring to components of the national government, like the president or Congress.

However, the term federalism refers to the division of sovereignty between the national government and the sub-governments.

Learn more about the major types of government.

When we say that a unit of government has sovereignty, what is meant is that that unit has the ultimate governing authority.

In a democracy, when we talk about a unit of government having authority, what we often mean is that the people have given their authority to this unit. This may just seem like semantics, but its important for understanding where the source of power comes from in politics.

In a democracy like the United States, the sovereignty comes from the people. There is no god or king who asserts authority by some intrinsic nature and creates laws. Rather, it is the people who develop institutions to which they give power.

In the United States, that power is given to different units. Some authority is given to the states, some to the national or federal government, and some powers are shared between them.

When one thinks about why federalism developed in the United States, it is important to remember the historical context under which the institutions were created.

There was considerable conflict in America at the time the Constitution was written. The framers of the Constitution were arguing over everything from how to select the president, to how to divide representation in Congress, to who would hold the power of taxation.

In almost every instance of conflict, the framers came to a compromise that allowed them to agree on that segment of the Constitution. Federalism was one of these compromises.

Learn more about the concept of civil liberties.

It is important to recognize that the framers did not resolve all of their conflicts. Nor did they come to successful compromises to settle all of their disagreements.

Most notably, the framers did not settle their differences regarding slavery. Instead, the compromises that were put in place to address slavery were done in such a way that the framers could support the Constitution, but without resolving slavery.

For example, to determine how many representatives each state would have in the House of Representatives, they agreed to the 3/5 Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population. In this way, this compromise reflects the attitude held by many at the time that slaves were sub-human and deserved no natural rights.

The framers failure to adequately resolve conflicts over slavery is deeply tied to the creation of the federal system that remains in place today.

Because the economies and legal structures of southern states were developed around the practice of slavery, prohibiting slavery at the national level would have significantly impacted those states. Therefore, in an effort to maintain their way of life, the representatives of slave-owning states argued for the necessity of state sovereignty.

The desire of some southerners to preserve the practice of slaveholding explains a great deal about why federalism was so valued.

In the end, to achieve the larger goal of ratifying the Constitution, the framers accepted compromises on slavery and states rights. This trade-off set in place the conditions of political inequality that would lead to the Civil War, nearly 80 years later.

Learn more about congressional elections.

However, the preservation of slavery was not the only reason the United States became a federal system.

There were two other important reasons why the federal system was adopted. One is that federalism allowed government to more readily protect individual liberties. The other is that federalism created a built-in check on the powers of government.

Since many of the early settlers were drawn to the American colonies in search of greater individual liberties, protecting those liberties was very important to the framers of the Constitution.

To ensure these liberties could not be infringed upon by government, the framers sought to formalize their protection, as outlined in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. They describe all of the things that government cannot do to individuals.

The framers believed that when power is concentrated in a small group of people, it can threaten the liberties of everyone else. This is what the framers thought of as tyranny.

They believed tyranny could happen when a powerful person or small group of people have all of the control and authority, and they strip the rest of the people of their individual liberties.

In the framers minds, one way to prevent this from happening was to give two levels of government the ability to ensure and protect liberty. By setting up a sovereign authority at both the state and national levels, they created two places where government could act to ensure one was not becoming tyrannical over the other.

Federalism is a system of government where sovereign power is divided between the national government and some other more local governments.

To determine how many representatives each state would have in the House of Representatives, the framers of the US Constitution agreed to the 3/5 Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population.

The framers of the US Constitution set up a sovereign authority at both the state and national levels, and so created two places where government could act to ensure one did not become tyrannical over the other.

View post:

US Federalism: Definition and Background - The Great Courses Daily News

Hitherto, the service chiefs were Gen Abayomi Olonisakin, Chief of Defence Staff, General Tukur Buratai, Chief of Army Staff, Air Marshal Siddique Abubakar, Chief of Air Staff and Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Ibok Ekwe Ibas. They have now been replaced by Major-General Leo Irabor, Chief of Defence Staff; Major-General I Attahiru, Chief of Army Staff; Rear Admiral AZ Gambo, Chief of Naval Staff; and Air-Vice Marshal IO Amao, Chief of Air Staff.

The Presidents action led toheaving a sigh of relief. Replacement of the service chiefs sparked off a litany of clarion calls on the president for a long time by well meaning Nigerians. The agitation was that the president should change them due to growing insecurity in the land and the absence of a corresponding performance in terms of securing the country by the erstwhile service chiefs. Public sensibility was even offended when for example the army chief said that it would take more than two decades to tackle the security challenges in the land.

However, the replacement provided auspicious opportunity to instrumentalise governability by mainstreaming elements offederalism in the affairs of the country, in other words, manifesting representative bureaucracy in the composition of the armed forces of Nigeria. But the President, who has always evinced his predilection to clannishness by ignoring the countrys diversity, did the predictable: He shunned federal character, which nurtures the quintessence of federalism.This time, the Igbo ethnic nationality was not favoured in any of those prime positions and his media managers said reflecting federal character was not necessary, in the circumstances. This lacuna elicited the reaction ofthe former leader of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Chief John Nnia Nwodo, who bemoaned the omission. He alleged that the non-inclusion of an Igbo among the service chiefs as disdainful, and implicates the thinking in government circle that the Igbos are not considered fit enough for such service positions.

Federalism has proven to be a veritable tool for managing diversity, and the writers of our constitution are aware of this reality of our country. They engrossed the federal character principle in the constitution to assure every nationality about justice and equity in the running of the country.

This principle states in section 217(3) that, The composition of the officer corps and other ranks of the armed forces of the federation shall reflect the federal character of Nigeria. This must be brought into consideration by the president in the appointment of service chiefs as spelt out in section 218(1)(2) of the 1999 constitution as amended. Section 1 states: The powers of the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation shall include power to determine the use of the armed forces of the federation. Section (2) states, The powers conferred on the President by subsection (1) of this section shall include power to appoint the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff and heads of any other branches of the armed forces of the federation as may be established by an Act of the National Assembly.

Constitutionally, it can be argued that the president erred by the non-abidance to clearly set out provisions of the constitution. Even if the constitution does not have express provisions, the craft of governance would dictate otherwise: in a plural society, inclusivity is to be cherished to clientelism and outright isolation. They are the ingredients for the unmaking of many a country. Beyond catering for inclusivity, equitable representation in the armed forces will also ensure responsiveness and accountability.

Security is a sensitive national issue. Countries with diversities, especially ethnic ones, have regional commands to guarantee the mutual security of all. Given the growing mistrust of the military and allegation of a partisan organisation lending support to herdsmen in their brutal killings across the country, it is high time the leadership of the country began to ensure what Chief Anthony Enahoro called equitocracy in the armed formation of the country. In a proper federation, this type of practice is an abnormality, and does not strengthen national integration. If the country must endure as single entity, a functional representative bureaucracy is the key to nurture national cohesion, which is being undermined by the current state of affairs.In the same vein, the recent signing of COVID-19 Health Protection Regulations 2021 as part of efforts to boost the COVID-19 response in the country looked good but the application isnt good for a vast country with the complex diversity we have been contextualising. It is the same way we have been mismanaging the omnibus anti-graft federal laws through three agencies that are based in the nations capital. Specifically, the EFCC and ICPC laws are applicable in all the states of the federation. Law officers attached to the three agencies including the Code of Conduct Tribunal have been picking up suspects from any of the 774 local councils in the country. This partly explains why anti-corruption prosecution has been largely unsuccessful. What should be ideal is encouraging each of the 36 states to enact their laws, which will be easier to manage in this complex federation of more than 200 million people.

In the same vein, the application of the COVID-19 Health Protection and Regulation 2021 should have taken a similar path: Governors should have been directed to sign their own regulations governing their states. In the main, governors should begin to exploit challenges of the moment as veritable opportunities to restructure the country the way Dr. Agbakoba too just prescribed that there should be intentional and legal devolution of powers to overcome crisis hampering the development of this country.

According to the former NBA President in a recent publication, regional autonomy, a critical element in federalism, would resolve the countrys diversity challenges. He said devolution of powers would allow subsidiarity to deliver public service at the base of the nation as it did in the Western Region under self-rule in 1951. Agbakobas is one more voice of reason and courage in support of what this newspaper has been harping on for the past 16 weeks. It is our hope and prayer that authorities in Abuja and the governing party would not continue to remain recalcitrant and even deaf to the voices of reason on federalism as the only way forward for the worlds most populous black nation.

Go here to read the rest:

Editorial: Federalism is the answer, after all Part 16 - Guardian

This programme has topics including Indias Foreign Policy, Connectivity issues like air, water & land, attracting foreign tourists to India, common areas of interest including Para-Diplomacy.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has launched a special week long training programme which will help in equipping the States/UT officers in international engagements. This is the second such programme which has been organised by MEA at the Sushma Swaraj Institute of Foreign Service which started February 9, 2021.

Who is participating?

A batch of 17 officers from 7 States. These include, according to MEA, Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Karnataka, Odhisa, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

Addressing the 2nd batch of these officers from different states, Rahul Chhabra, Secretary (Economic Relations), MEA, talked about the initiative of the States Division of MEA that Such an initiative can put Boots on the Ground for States and UTs, through the network of Indian Missions and posts around the world.

This initiative of the MEA is in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modis vision of promoting cooperative/competitive federalism.

According to Mr Chhabra, This initiative is to promote Team spirit, making States an integral part of Team India in engaging the world.

External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar has earlier commended the new initiative undertaken by the MEA.

More about the programme

The whole programme has been carefully designed. And the content of the week long programme is aimed at inculcating among the State and UT officials, the knowledge, awareness and the skills to deal with the world.

This programme has topics including Indias Foreign Policy, Connectivity issues like air, water & land, attracting foreign tourists to India, common areas of interest including Para-Diplomacy.

Managing the global COVID pandemic and the role of States & UTs: Indias success story; also, the course will touch upon the consular & diaspora issues, issues faced by foreign businesses in states & UTs. Protocol matters- which will focus on the incoming & outgoing visits by foreign dignitaries.

This time there is a new dimension of the programme to reap multiplier effect: Training the Trainers they are from Haryana Institute of Public Administration on a pilot basis.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE, NSE, US Market and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, Check out latest IPO News, Best Performing IPOs, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know markets Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Financial Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Biz news and updates.

Link:

Towards competitive Federalism: MEA trains officers from different states to put `Boots on the Ground - The Financial Express

The coming February 13 marks the 25th year of the start of the Peoples War by the Maoists in Nepal. In 2012, I remember my daughter Manushi telling me, Mother, you are so lucky to be part of the history in making this country a republic. We may not have any contribution to make in our lifetime. I had said, Dont worry, a revolution is generally followed by a counter-revolution, and you may be required to fight against it. I am baffled to note how fast the counter-revolution has come in Nepal.

Before delving into revolution and counter-revolution, let us examine the positions of the political parties before the Maoist conflict started. Although all of them were working to weaken the monarchy, there were different tendencies. The Nepali Congress was known for fighting for democracy, but they could not go beyond multiparty democracy under the monarchy. Various brands of communist parties, particularly the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) were fighting for a republic, but they could not go beyond abstract class issues. There were small parties such as the Janmukti Party and Sadbhawana Party that were campaigning for federalism, but they could not go beyond identity issues. There was only the Maoist Party that pursued a package programme of democracy, republicanism, federalism and secularism making it a holistic movement.

Synchronised leadership

It is interesting to note how the parties were functioning when the People's War was going on. Most of them, including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, would condemn the Maoists as extremists when they were out of power; but when they were in government, they were keen to engage with the same Maoists. At the same time, the Maoist Party was spreading throughout the country because it not only addressed class issues but also nationalist, regional, gender, Dalit and other issues. There was also synchronised leadership during this period.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal played a pragmatic role in infusing power to the party while Baburam Bhattarai gave vision and direction, and Mohan Baidya made sure the party was not deviating from the path of classical revolution. A critical examination showed that Dahal represented a petty, bourgeois demagogue who named the partys ideology after himself, as Prachanda Path. Bhattarai represented an idealist leader who was more theoretical and was involved in developing Marxism in the present context. Baidya represented a dogmatist leader who liked to bask in the past.

Despite various lacunas, the People's War created a situation for launching the second People's Movement in cooperation with other parties, resulting in the promulgation of the constitution through a Constituent Assembly. However, after the promulgation of the new constitution, the structure of most of the political parties didnt change. They engaged in power-mongering instead of pursuing transformative action, and they are still hesitating to make their parties inclusive as demanded by the constitution. They still have a hangover of the feudal mindset whereby democratic norms are hardly practised within the party.

Ironically, the counter-revolution today is not being led by former king Gyanendra and his regressive forces, but by KP Oli, the so-called proletarian president of the Nepal Communist Party. Dahal, former Maoist leader and co-chairman of the Nepal Communist Party, is on the streets demanding the reinstatement of the dissolved Parliament. At the same time, many people are asking questions about the actions, or lack thereof, of the former Maoists in the Nepal Communist Party. How is it that the womens movement has taken a back seat?

The Dalits were much-empowered during the People's War, and were known for making and maintaining arms and ammunition for the Maoists. But the recent brutal killing of a Dalit youth and his friends by former Maoists in Rukum, once a hot spot of the People's War, shocked the nation. The young man had dared to love the daughter of a so-called upper caste Thakuri for which he lost his life. Even then the Dalit organisation of the Nepal Communist Party said not a word. Take the case of the Janajatis who had autonomous provinces based on identity during the People's War, but who kept their mouths shut when the provinces were formed without any regard to the spirit of identity and federalism. During the People's War, martyrs and disappeared persons were honoured by having landmarks named after them. But today the former Maoist leaders are in no hurry to conclude the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Hunger for power

Why have the Maoists lost steam? How come their vision has become nearly void? This is mainly due to Prachandas hunger for power at the cost of principles and issues. There is a potential for conflict if ethnic and regional oppression is not addressed. If the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not effectively implemented, renewed conflict may result. But KP Oli wants to turn the clock back by trying to replace the 2015 Constitution with the 1990 Constitution. No wonder dust is gathering in the streets for another storm, the third Jana Andolan!

In many ways, parallels can be drawn between Aung San Suu Kyi, who was hailed as the leader of democracy in Myanmar for fighting against the military junta, and Dahal, who was hailed as a leader who fought against the monarchy to make Nepal a federal republic. In course of time, Aung San Suu Kyi succumbed to the same military authority, disappointing those who had conferred the Nobel Prize on her. Recently, she has been stabbed in the back by the military that has imprisoned her. Similarly, Dahal succumbed to Oli who was against federalism and republicanism, disappointing those who stood for inclusive issues. Today, he is being stabbed in the back by Oli who has sent him to the streets. I wish he is not imprisoned like Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar!

Read more:

Revolution and counter-revolution - The Kathmandu Post

On Monday, Canada hit a dark milestone of over 20,000 deaths from COVID-19. One reason for this disturbing statistic is the intergovernmental finger-pointing 10 months into the pandemic; the ability of Canadian federalism to meet this national crisis continues to be tested.

Theres a sharp contrast between Canada and Australia, also a federal state, in how each country has managed the pandemic. Australia crushed the curve, while Canadas approach has been much less successful. Canadians are justified in asking why.

Despite the challenges of heading a coalition government, Australias Liberal prime minister has navigated the rocky shoals between federal and state governments to implement significant measures including lockdowns affecting businesses, minority groups, and those less advantaged. In contrast, Canadas federal-provincial coordination has been mixed, which may have resulted in higher rates of infection and death than in Australia.

A Canadian consensus to act decisively and co-operatively was evident earlier in the pandemic. Last March, premiers were unanimous in their support of lockdowns. They also publicly supported their public health officials, and mobilized health ministries and procurement authorities. Together, the latter snapped into action, acquiring and distributing personal protective equipment, collaborating, and sharing public-health guidance across jurisdictions. Fluid and dynamic conversations were had at a dizzying and productive pace among leaders from all orders of government in the federation: local, provincial/territorial, federal, and Indigenous. Indigenous governments and leaders managed to attract billions of federal dollars, and to get support from the Canadian Armed Forces. Federalism in Canada was indeed working.

However, by summers end, such informal co-operation between governments began to fray. Canadas Constitution provides few formal mechanisms for national coordination. The Peace, Order and Good Government clause in section 91 of the Constitution Act has been interpreted as giving the federal government emergency powers, but its use is controversial. The federal Emergencies Act would seem tailor-made for this situation (a public-welfare emergency being one of four kinds contemplated by the Act), but the Act requires consultation with the provinces. Provinces were unanimous in opposing its invocation as an intrusion in an area squarely within their jurisdiction under the Constitution Act.

Throughout the fall, COVID infections multiplied. At a meeting of first ministers in December, Ottawa briefed them on its vaccine plans, and shared data on national and regional trends. The provinces and territories decided to use their collective voice to ask Ottawa for more health-transfer money. Meanwhile, Australia was locking down again.

That meeting may be remembered as a low point for Canadian federalism. Clearly, an opportunity for the federation to serve Canadians was missed. Was that really the time for provinces and territories to argue for perennial increases in health-care transfers?

Instead, they could have forged a joint plan of action, with coordinated lockdowns, travel restrictions, and bans timed according to vaccine distribution. Australia has shown that, with vaccines in sight, a hard shutdown to crush the curve is not only tolerable, but popular. Canada got its first shipment of vaccine 10 days after that December meeting.

According to a recent Angus Reid Poll, 51 per cent of Canadians say the No. 1 problem the federal government should be dealing with right now is the pandemic. Thats the highest proportion saying so since the pandemic began. Health care is second on the priority list, at 38 per cent, and the economy is third, at 29 per cent.

In the collective best interest of Canadians, maybe premiers could agree to a coordinated 90-day lockdown (excepting schools). Imagine what the federation could achieve: stabilize vaccine supply and distribution; relieve pressure on hospitals intensive-care units; bend the curve; and limit the spread of the virus and its variants.

After 90 days, the federation could be as effective and strong as Australias.

Stephen Van Dine is the senior vice-president at the Institute on Governance.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the authors alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

See the rest here:

A tale of two federations and their (mis)handling of the pandemic - iPolitics.ca

Since Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed assumed office in April 2018, experts have optimistically predicted the countrys emergence as a regional power. Factors such as a large population, rapid economic growth, and a reform-minded head of government seemed to support this proposition, until recent instability in federal relations threatened an upset to Ethiopias position as an emerging power.

After the federal governments recent incursion into the Tigray region of Ethiopia and subsequent fighting, reports suggest that several thousand citizens are dead and upwards of 40,000 are displaced. The conflict has drawn attention from the African Union and various other international actors. The crisis in Tigray is not an isolated event, but a manifestation of the security threats and political instability plaguing Prime Minister Ahmed Abiy in his campaign for national unity. Should Addis Ababa fail to resolve Ethiopias underlying grievances, Ethiopia risks losing both its position as a regional power and its cache as an international partner.

Violence in Tigray commenced in early November 2020 when Abiy ordered federal troops into the region. While the invasion was ostensibly a reaction to looting by the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF), most observers agree that the military action was intended as punishment after regional leaders held elections last September in defiance of a federal ban. Abiy declared victory on November 28th after federal troops took control of Tigrays capital, Mekelle. However, fighting in the region remains heavy. International observers have also raised concerns of war crimes after Ethiopian armed forces threatened to target civilians.

At the heart of this contest between Abiy and the TPLF is a debate around Ethiopian governance and the extent to which Addis Ababa should exercise centralized control. The Tigray conflict has highlighted Ethiopias unique system of ethnic federalism, which gives semi-autonomous power to the countrys states, each of which was created along ethnic lines. Since this system was first implemented in 1995, certain ethnic groups notably the Tigray have enjoyed a degree of political control disproportionate to their demographic representation.

Abiys 2018 election marked a challenge to Ethiopias status quo. As the countrys first Oromo prime minister, an ethnic group which is demographically dominant but historically marginalized, Abiy has prioritized the blurring of ethnic lines. His program of Ethiopianization envisions a unified national identity that would take precedence over ethnic divisions. But after enjoying 15 years of special advantages achieved through their political clout, powerful ethnic groups fear losing their superior position to homogeneity. The resulting discontent has destabilized Ethiopian governance, as regional leaders fight to maintain their power and autonomy while Abiy tries to solidify central control.

The degree of violence seen in Tigray and the seeming intransigence on both sides of the federalism debate has led some analysts to warn of a broader civil war in Ethiopia. These fears are likely overblown. Two months of intense conflict in Tigray have strained TPLF resistance, and no other state in Ethiopia has the economic or military assets to successfully launch a revolt at this scale. However, it is clear that tensions between Addis Ababa and powerful regional contingents are not going away.

Although it received the most press coverage, what happened in Tigray is not an isolated event. Amharas attempted regional coup and the Sidama regions vote for autonomy from the Southern Nationalities, Nations, and Peoples Region, both in 2019, represented earlier challenges to Abiys anti-federalist agenda. Nationwide, escalating violence from ethnic paramilitary groups has also threatened Ethiopianization. In the face of continuing resistance, Abiy must be prepared to use force to retain control over the country. Tigray demonstrated his military willingness towards this end, and recent purges of opponents from top positions have shorn up his political might. Abiy should also realize that ruling under martial law may seriously jeopardize Ethiopias position as a regional leader and international power.

Ethiopia has some natural advantages that set it up as a regional power, including its size and resource wealth. But the countrys leadership has also sought out an expanded role in recent years: Addis Ababa hosts the African Union headquarters; the countrys National Defense Force coordinates and oversees multilateral peace and security operations in the region; and Ethiopian heads of government have mediated conflicts among neighboring states. Today, as Kenyan-Somali ties disintegrate and the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia generates ill-will in the region, strong leadership over the Horn of Africa is more important than ever.

The Tigray situation is already having harmful effects on regional relations. Federal troops came into direct conflict with Ethiopias western neighbor after patrol operations ambushed Sudanese forces. The burdens that come with mass refugee flows also threaten regional ties, as Tigrayan civilians surge over the border into Sudan and Eritrea. Perhaps the most serious consequence for Ethiopias position in East Africa, however, are the indirect effects of Abiys battle for centralized control. The guarded militarism inherent in this fight against state autonomy does not lend itself to legitimate leadership, raising the potential for increased distance from neighbors and regional institutions.

Of even greater concern to world leaders is the risk that an Ethiopian implosion could disrupt international security operations in the Horn of Africa. Prime Minister Abiy and his predecessors have operated in close partnership to American and European powers in counterterrorism and anti-piracy initiatives. With terrorist capabilities surging in the region and piracy ramping up off the coast of Somalia, international actors depend on capable, stable partners like Ethiopia. Unless Abiy finds a peaceful and sustainable solution to conflict over federalist governance, Ethiopia will lose its position as that go-to ally.

Like Loading...

Related

Follow this link:

Conflict in Tigray: Implications for Ethiopia's International Standing - Charged Affairs