Bait and Switch Diplomacy: Is the U.S. an “Observer”, A “Facilitator” or a Snake Oil Diplomatic Salesman in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance (Hedase) Dam Discussions?
Author’s Note: In 1959, Egypt and Sudan made a deal to share the waters of the Nile allocating 78 percent to Egypt and 12 percent to the Sudan. Ethiopia was not consulted or involved in the deal. Egypt in a variety of ways is seeking to preserve that privilege and schemes to constrain Ethiopia’s use and development of the Nile River. Today, Egypt is hellbent on maintaining its hegemony and monopoly over the Nile River by declaring it will “defend its interests by all means necessary.” For a scholarly analysis of Nile water use, see Arthur Okoth-Owiro.
As a practicing constitutional lawyer in the United States, it is my opinion that any “agreement” drafted by Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the World Bank Group’s David Malpass is unconstitutional and in violation of federal law and therefore NULL AND VOID. — Alemayehu G. Mariam
U.S. Bait and Switch Diplomacy in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Discussions
There is a time dishonored marketing scam (fraud) in America called “bait and switch”.
Unscrupulous merchants would bait (bring in customers into their stores) advertising products or services at low prices. When customers show up, they do the old switcheroo and apply pressure on customers to buy inferior quality or higher-priced merchandise.
Did Ethiopia get snagged in a diplomatic “bait and switch” scam in November 2019 when it agreed to join Egypt and Sudan for “discussions” in Washington, D.C. under the “observer” sponsorship of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the World Bank?
But wait, what is wrong with this picture?
When did the Treasury Department and the World Bank replace the State Department as the foreign policy and diplomatic organ of the United States Government?
The State Department was established by an Act of Congress of July 20, 1789 with the singular mandate to manage and administer
… and communications with the ministers, consuls and agents of the United States, in foreign countries, and with the ministers and other officers of foreign powers… to perform and execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to the Secretary for the Department o Foreign Affairs by the President of the United States, agreeable to the Constitution, relative to correspondences, commissions or instructions to or with public ministers or consuls, from the United States, or to negotiations with public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs, as the President of the United States shall assign to the said department…
In other words, the “discussions”, “negotiations” and “agreements” between the U.S and “officers of foreign powers” and “negotiations with public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs,” are within the statutory jurisdiction of the State Department, not the Treasury department.
The Treasury Department was created by an Act of Congress of September 2, 1789 with the
[assigned] duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue, and the public expenditures; to superintend the collection of revenue; to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns…
In other words, the Secretary of the Treasury is the U.S. Government’s bean counter not executor of foreign policy.
Neither the Treasury Department nor the Secretary of the Treasury, and needless to say the World Bank, have any legal authority or power to usurp the legal jurisdiction of the State Department and engage in “negotiations with public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs.”
How do Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and President of the World Bank Group David Malpass justify this outrageous and flagrant usurpation of the legal and constitutional role of the Department of State?
I shall address this question either in a forthcoming commentary or before an appropriate constitutional tribunal.
On November 6, 2019, the Treasury Department announced:
The foreign ministers of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan and their delegations met with the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the World Bank in Washington, D.C. on November 6, 2019. The ministers reaffirmed their joint commitment to reach a comprehensive, cooperative, adaptive, sustainable, and mutually beneficial agreement on the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and to establish a clear process for fulfilling that commitment in accordance with the 2015 Declaration of Principles.
The announcement specifically stated:
… The ministers agreed that the World Bank and the United States would support and attend the meetings as observers… If an agreement is not reached by January 15, 2020, the foreign ministers agree that Article 10 of the 2015 Declaration of Principles will be invoked. (Italics added.)
Why wasn’t the matter referred back to the parties under Article 10 of the Declaration of Principles on January 15, 2020 as set forth in the November 6, 2019 announcement?
I believe Ethiopia was given false and deceptive representations by Mnuchin and Malpass when it agreed to participate under the auspices of the United States as “observer”.
The Ethiopians were baited to the Washington discussions by the innocent-sounding U.S. “observer” role and once they showed up the switch was made and the fix was in. IN the blink of an eye, the U.S. transformed itself into a “facilitator”, arm twister and choke holder. The World Bank watched as the as Ethiopia was rotisseried on the coals.
The U.S. never intended to be a neutral observer in the GERD talks but an enforcer for Egypt.
I doubt the Ethiopians would have participated in the Washington discussions if they knew the “observer” status was bait to reel and trap them in the iron claws of an unconscionable adhesion agreement.
On January 31, 2020, the Treasury Department issued an announcement stating:
… The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Water Resources of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan and their delegations met with the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the World Bank, participating as observers in negotiations on the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), in Washington, D.C. on January 28-31, 2020… (Italics added.)
At a press conference on February 18, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State addressing the GERD issue stated, “A great deal of work remains, but I am optimistic that over the coming months we can resolve this…”
Ten days later, on February 28, 2020, the Treasury Department issued an announcement stating:
… The United States facilitated the preparation of an agreement on the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) based on provisions proposed by the legal and technical teams of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan and with the technical input of the World Bank… (Italics added.)
The Treasury Department imperiously commanded:
… [F]inal testing and filling should not take place without an agreement.
How is it that Secretary of State Michael Pompeo would tell the world he is “optimistic that over the coming months we can resolve” the GERD issue yet Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin commands the parties to sign the “agreement” he prepared ten days after Pompeo’s announcement?
Who is running American foreign policy?
How is it possible for Secretary Pompeo to be so clueless about one of the most important foreign policy issues of the day?
Nonetheless, the Ethiopian Government has flatly and unequivocally rejected the findings and conclusions of the Treasury Department:
Ethiopia does not accept the characterization that the negotiation on the Guidelines and Rules on the First Filling and Annual Operation of the GERD (Guidelines and Rules) is completed. The “text” reportedly initialed by the Arab Republic of Egypt in Washington D.C. is not the outcome of the negotiation or the technical and legal discussion of the three countries. Ethiopia made it clear that the Guidelines and Rules must be prepared by the three countries. The Countries are yet to address outstanding issues pertaining to the finalization of the Guidelines and Rules.
In a twitter message, Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister Gedu Andargachew condemned the Treasury Department’s announcement:
The statement issued by US Treasury on GERD is unacceptable & highly partisan, Ethiopia believes in continued engagement with Egypt & Sudan to address the outstanding issues and finalize the Guidelines and Rules on a win-win basis for all.
The Trojan Horse of “Observer” Status: The bad faith diplomatic games the Treasury Department and World Bank have been playing in the GERD discussions
It is clear to me that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin and President of the World Bank Group David Malpass set up the whole “GERD negotiation in Washington, D.C.” to snooker Ethiopia into signing an “agreement” they themselves drafted, NOT THE THREE PARTIES.
I believe Mnuchin and Malpass, out of pure arrogance and hubris, believed they can strong arm, arm twist and put a chokehold on Ethiopia to sign their agreement.
Their arrogance and hubris are beyond words can describe.
Mnuchin had total and utter contempt and disrespect for Ethiopia’s concerns and interests.
I don’t know for sure, but I personally believe Mnuchin thought Ethiopia is one of those “s_ _t hole countries in Africa” he can kick around.
I don’t know what else would explain the fact that Mnuchin would order the Ethiopian ministers, like colonial lackeys, to come to Washington and sign the “agreement” he and Malpass drafted?
I believe Mnuchin from the inception was convinced in his mind that he can boss the Ethiopian participants into signing the agreement he drafted with Malpass come hell or high water.
I believe the whole “observer” status hogwash was devised to flim-flam Ethiopia into signing an agreement drafted in covert consultations with Egypt.
From the very beginning Mnuchin himself declared the role of the U.S. was to play the role of “observer”. What did he mean by it? What did the parties to the GERD discussions understand the U.S. “observer” role to be?
In international relations and diplomacy “observer status” allows “observers” to have a limited role in the activities they “observe”.
There is no instance in international diplomacy in which an “observer” hijacked the discussions or negotiations and imposed binding resolutions or agreements on the parties in dispute or negotiations.
But that is precisely Mnuchin and Malpass did in the so-called Washington GERD discussions.
What is even more shocking is the fact that without any announcement or explanation, Mnuchin had transformed the U.S.’s observer status to “facilitator”.
In the final announcement, Mnuchin declared, “The United States facilitated the preparation of an agreement…”
At what point between November 6, 2019 and February 28, 2020 did the U.S. role change from “observer” to “facilitator”?
Were the parties notified of the U.S. change of status from “observer” to “facilitator”? What exactly is the difference between an “observer” and “facilitator”?
Manifestly, from the statements of Mnuchin and Malpass, there is a distinct difference between the status of “observer” and “facilitator”?
A “facilitator” obviously has the sole power to draft an agreement and impose it on the parties.
Suddenly, Ethiopia is forced to deal with not with a neutral observer but an active “facilitator”, in my view, a one-sided, partisan and unfair facilitator in the service of Egypt.
Were the United States and the World Bank in cahoots with Egypt when they proposed to participate as “observers” to get Ethiopia to Washington and do the old switcheroo and make the U.S. a facilitator?
The answer is provided by Ambassador David Shinn, in his February 29, 2020 blog intimated he could smell a rat in the whole so-called agreement “facilitated” by Mnuchin and Malpass:
The fact that the U.S. Treasury Department is in charge of this effort is surprising. In any other administration, the State Department, which actually has expertise on this issue, would broker the agreement. So, I wonder. What are the United States up to?
Ambassador Shinn added:
The United States seems to be putting its thumb on the scale in favor of Egypt. Perhaps it is time to make the agreement public so that everyone can see what the United States is proposing.
Why would the U.S. put its thumb on the scale to favor Egypt?
I have heard different explanations. But the common one is that the U.S. believes Egypt could facilitate its policy in the Middle East, particularly in the Palestinian situation.
After Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the “Trump Peace Plan” by stating “one thousand times no,” Egypt issued a statement
calling on both parties involved to carefully consider the U.S. vision to achieve peace and to open channels for dialogue to resume negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis where they can discuss their visions under U.S. patronage to reach a comprehensive and fair peace agreement that meets the aspirations and hopes of the two peoples and leads to an independent Palestinian state,” read a foreign ministry statement late Tuesday. (Emphasis added.)
The fact that the so-called agreement was NOT prepared or drafted by the parties was confirmed by the Egyptian Foreign Ministry on February 26, 2020, three days before Mnuchin issued his announcement. In an official press release posted on Facebook:
Chancellor Ahmed Hafiz, minister of foreign affairs, said that Egypt is committed to the negotiating path Sponsored by the United States and the world bank, especially since the goal of the current meeting in Washington as agreed by the three countries is to complete the agreement to fill and operate the renaissance dam, which was developed by the American side and the world bank. In Light of the round of negotiations between the three states since the first Washington meeting on November 6, 2019. (Emphasis added.)
How is that an observer-cum-facilitator takes over the whole discussion/negotiation process and dictate to the parties what agreement they should sign or not sign?
But what is behind the hubris and arrogance of Mnuchin’s and Malpass’ ultimatum, fait accompli, they wanted to impose on Ethiopia?
Were Mnuchin and Malpass, under orders from above, try to threaten, dupe, hoodwink, bamboozle, hornswoggle, outplay, outwit and outmaneuver Ethiopia and make her sign an agreement, by any means necessary, in a bogus forum staged for the exclusive benefit of Egypt?
There is no question in my mind Mnuchin and Malpass were in cahoots trying to screw Ethiopia in the GERD discussions in favor of Egypt.
This is evident to me in the Egyptian official press release posted on Facebook on February 28, a day before Mnuchin’s announcement, in which the Egyptian Government openly began saber-rattling and beating the drums of war:
All organs of the Egyptian State will continue to give this subject the great attention it deserves in the exercise of their national responsibilities in defending the interests, potential and future of the Egyptian people by all means available. (Emphasis added.)
What I find personally offensive is Mnuchin’s final imperial edict:“[F]inal testing and filling of the dam should not take place without an agreement.”
I am offended because Mnuchin is implicitly threatening Ethiopia with unspecified action or punishment if she violates his scared edict.
My question is what will Mnuchin do if final testing and filling takes place without his “agreement”?
But in all fairness, should an observer-cum-facilitator issue such veiled threats?
The meaning of Egypt’s threat to “defend its interest by all means available”
Let’s descramble Egypt’s thinly veiled threat that it will “defend its interests by all means available” with respect to the waters of the Nile.
First, what the Egyptian Government really means is, “by any means necessary”, not “by all means available.”
Egypt is using the word “all” and “available” instead of “by” and “necessary” to be politically correct and to avoid potential criticism since the meaning of the radical phrase “by any means necessary” is well-understood in the English vernacular.
What Egypt means with the phrase, “defend its interests by all means available” are the following, among others:
Egypt will conduct war on Ethiopia — a war of arms, a war of words, diplomatic wars, proxy wars, psychological wars.
Egypt will undertake a surgical air strike of the GERD.
Egypt will actively work to destabilize Ethiopia, including the promotion of asymmetric wars and by meddling in Ethiopian internal matters.
Egypt will directly support specific groups and organizations to undermine or otherwise weaken the government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.
Egypt will actively promote ethnic and religious tensions in Ethiopia by providing arms and money with the ultimate aim of dismembering the country.
Egypt will use neighboring countries to attack the GERD.
Egypt will use diplomatic means to isolate Ethiopia in the region and throughout the continent.
Egypt will use its resources to pressure the United States and European governments, the World Bank and other organizations to choke off the flow of aid and loans to Ethiopia.
Is the U.S. an “observer”, “facilitator”, “honest broker” or just a snake oil diplomat?
Just as there are fake news, there are also fake observers, fake facilitators and fake agreements.
In my view, the GERD “agreement” drafted and prepared by Mnuchin and Malpass are as fake as a three-dollar bill.
I do not know what is in Mnuchin’s and Malpass’ agreement.
Ambassador Shinn expressed it best when he wrote, “Perhaps it is time to make the agreement public so that everyone can see what the United States is proposing.”
I join Ambassador Shinn in calling Mnuchin and Malpass to “make the agreement public so that everyone can see what the United States is proposing.”
Why not?
What justifiable reason would Mnuchin and Malpass have to keep the agreement they prepared secret?
Do Mnuchin and Malpass really think the Government of Ethiopia would sign a secret agreement on the GERD by keeping its people in the dark? The days of selling Ethiopia’s interests to the highest bidder are gone, gone, gone forever.
It is a new day in Ethiopia.
It is a new day where the people of Ethiopia are sovereign. They and only they decide on the issue of the GERD.
Only after the people of Ethiopia – with the diverse stakeholders — have conducted open, robust and public discussions on the “agreement” prepared by Munchin and Malpass will there be any action.
In full recognition of the sovereignty of the people of Ethiopia, the Government of Ethiopia has publicly pledged to undertake full “internal consultations” on the GERD issue. After all, the GERD was built largely by the contributions of individual Ethiopians.
I must say I am quite amused by Mnuchin’s and Malpass’ snake oil diplomacy in the GERD discussions.
Mnuchin in his last announcement declared:
The signed agreement on the GERD will be transformational for the region, resulting in significant transboundary cooperation, regional development and economic integration, and improvement in the lives of the more than 250 million people of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan.
That is old style snake oil salesman talk.
Back in the second half of the 19th century, there used to be hucksters who would roam the countryside selling tonics which promised to cure all sorts of ailments and diseases.
It is my personal belief that Mnuchin and Malpass are modern day snake oil diplomatic wannabe salesmen promising to cure the problems of “250 million people of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan” with one secret “agreement” that is unknown t0 anyone except themselves and those in cahoots with them.
Why are the U.S. and Egypt so confident they can arm twist, jawbone and bring Ethiopia to her knees begging, “Please, please Uncle Sam…”
I believe Mnuchin and Malpass were convinced they could break Ethiopia’s back and force her to her knees and sign their “agreement” because they thought Ethiopia was looking straight into a triple-barrel shot gun they are holding to her face.
I believe Mnuchin and his boss and Malpass believe they can pull a “Ukraine-style quid pro quo” on Ethiopia.
Simply stated, Mnuchin, Malpass and their uber boss believe if Ethiopia does not sign the agreement, they will cut off all foreign aid.
Simply stated, Mnuchin, Malpass and their uber boss believe if Ethiopia does not sign the agreement, the World Bank will cut off all loans to Ethiopia.
Simply stated, Mnuchin, Malpass and their uber boss believe if Ethiopia does not sign the agreement, the U.S. will actively support or turn a blind eye if Egypt takes military action on the GERD or on Ethiopia in general.
Simply stated, Mnuchin, Malpass and their uber boss believe they can bring Ethiopia to its knees begging, “Please, please Uncle Sam…”
That will happen only when hell freezes over and the devil goes ice skating.
Ethiopians are a proud people.
They will not be bullied.
They will not be browbeaten, bulldozed, railroaded, hectored, coerced or terrorized into signing an agreement that will bargain away the rock-solid interest of their country and coming generations.
Egypt’s greatest fear: Ethiopia becoming a regional power, not reduced water flow from the Nile
Egypt’s concern and protestations are not really about the GERD.
Egypt’s greatest fear is that if the GERD is completed Ethiopia will become a formidable regional economic and political power.
The World Bank reported, “Ethiopia With about 109 million people (2018), Ethiopia is the second most populous nation in Africa after Nigeria, and the fastest growing economy in the region.”
With an output of 6.45 gigawatts, GERD will have the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa. It will be the seventh largest dam in the world. Ethiopia will have the potential not only to power its economy but also become the hub of regional and continental economic activity. That scares Egypt!
Ethiopia has a huge youth population. By focusing on youth development, Ethiopia can accelerate its development tenfold in less than a decade.
Ethiopian Airlines dominates the friendly African skies as the New Spirit of Africa.
Ethiopia is rising to become Africa’s Peacemaker.
H.E. Prime Minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s peace initiatives and dividends in the Horn region are paying off in so many ways.
Egypt sees that as a threat to its assumed birthright hegemony in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
PM Abiy Ahmed in his Nobel Peace Prize speech entitled, “Forging A Durable Peace in the Horn of Africa” declared a policy of peace towards (I would argue, “Peace by all means necessary.) neighboring countries:
We now strive to live with our neighbors in peace and harmony. The Horn of Africa today is a region of strategic significance. The global military superpowers are expanding their military presence in the area. Terrorist and extremist groups also seek to establish a foothold.
We do not want the Horn to be a battleground for superpowers nor a hideout for the merchants of terror and brokers of despair and misery. We want the Horn of Africa to become a treasury of peace and progress. Indeed, we want the Horn of Africa to become the Horn of Plenty for the rest of the continent. (Emphasis added.)
Egypt has now announced it has chosen the path to war.
I have always believed Ethiopia is for peace. Peace with its neighbors and friends. Even peace with its foes and adversaries.
Ethiopia does not seek war with anyone. But the Battle of Adwa should teach a sober lesson to all who seek to wage war on Ethiopia.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed said peace is what Ethiopia wants. But there are “some [who] say things about use of force (by Egypt). It should be underlined that no force could stop Ethiopia from building a dam. If there is a need to go to war, we could get millions readied. If some could fire a missile, others could use bombs. But that’s not in the best interest of all of us.”
Any “Agreement” prepared, drafted or otherwise tendered to the parties by the Treasury Department and the World Bank in the GERD talks is unconstitutional and therefore null and void
As a practicing constitutional lawyer in the United States, it is my opinion that
Any “agreement” drafted by Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the World Bank Group’s David Malpass is unconstitutional and in violation of federal law and therefore NULL AND VOID.
Ethiopia has no obligation to sign or even participate in a diplomatic exchange conducted by unauthorized officers of the United States. Secretary Mnuchin and President Malpass are unauthorized officers of the U.S. to conduct foreign policy.
By engaging in “negotiations with public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs”, Mnuchin and Malpass have illegally usurped, and continue to usurp, the jurisdiction of the State Department and flagrantly violate the Act of Congress of July 20, 1789.
“Negotiations with public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs” can ONLY be done by the State Department within the meaning of Act of Congress of July 20, 1789.
The departmentalization of function, duties and roles mandated by Congress to federal agencies must be observed so that the respective areas of jurisdiction of such departments shall not be corroded. What Mnuchin has done in the case at hand corrodes Congressionally-mandated jurisdictions of the State and Treasury Departments.
Given the fact that Ethiopia and the United States are in “dispute” over the GERD “agreement, David Robert Malpass, President of the World Bank Group and a private American citizen, is in violation of the Logan Act, 18 U.S. Code § 953, in participating in the so-called “Washington DC GERD Talks” and in drafting and preparing foreign policy instruments.
In “preparing” the “final agreement” Secretary Steven Mnuchin unconstitutionally trespassed on the powers of the State Department and his actions are ultra vires as a matter of federal law.
ETHIOPIANS UNITED CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED.
Today, March 1, 2020, we celebrate the 124th anniversary of our victory over the colonial forces of Italy at the Battle of Adwa.
The Battle of Adwa was fought over an “agreement”, the Treaty of Wuchale (also spelled Ucciali).
In Article XVII of the Treaty of Wuchale, the Italian version asserted Ethiopia “must” use the services of the Italian Government in its dealings with foreign powers and the Italians declared Ethiopia their protectorate.
In the Amharic version the phrase reads “could” use Italian services. In 1890, Emperor Menelik II repudiated the Italian claim and in 1893 denounced the whole treaty.
The issue was resolved in a half-day battle and total defeat of the Italians at the Battle of Adwa on March 1, 1896.
Let those who want to impose a lopsided, one-sided, partisan “agreement” on Ethiopia take notice!
OUR UNITY IS OUR STRENGTH. OUR STRENGTH IS OUR UNITY. ETHIOPIANS UNITED CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED.
To be continued…
