Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons With Respect to the Humanitarian and Human Rights Crisis in Ethiopia

Overview

Executive Order Intent and Context

Executive Order 14046, issued on September 17, 2021, by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., targets the ongoing humanitarian and human rights crisis in northern Ethiopia. The order declares a national emergency, as the situation poses a threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy due to the escalating conflict and humanitarian distress marked by widespread violence and severe human rights violations. This initiative seeks to deter entities involved in perpetuating the crisis through economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Regulatory Framework

This order is rooted in a robust legal foundation, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which empowers the President to regulate commerce following a national emergency declaration responding to "unusual and extraordinary threats." Additionally, it leverages the National Emergencies Act and sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act to enact measures such as property blocking or entry denial to implicated foreign individuals, highlighting a comprehensive strategy to address the crisis.

Social Policy Considerations

The Executive Order seeks not only to halt the behaviors contributing to the Ethiopian crisis via sanctions but also emphasizes the U.S. commitment to enhancing diplomatic efforts and fostering international cooperation towards resolving the conflict. While placing pressure on those responsible for the humanitarian situation, it concurrently stresses the importance of maintaining legitimate aid and remittance channels to support affected populations, reflecting a balanced approach between punitive actions and humanitarian support.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Changes

Although the order does not introduce new constitutional provisions, it operates within the existing statutory frameworks, reinforcing presidential authority via IEEPA to curtail international trade and financial operations involving targeted foreign individuals. This resonates with precedents established by previous administrations in addressing international human rights abuses, asserting significant executive authority in foreign policy implementation.

Policy-based Adjustments

The order reinforces the Biden administration’s foreign policy focus on human rights and regional stability, subtly critiquing the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments by associating them with entities exacerbating conflicts and human rights issues. This focus on collective accountability reflects a departure from prior less interventionist approaches, enhancing the emphasis on international law and ethical responsibility.

Implications for Immigration Policy

By potentially restricting the entry of individuals associated with the crisis into the United States, the order influences immigration policy, marking the use of entry restrictions as a tool to assert foreign policy stances. This reinforces the strategic deployment of immigration measures to signal disapproval and apply pressure on international actors who are perceived as destabilizing forces.

Who Benefits

Humanitarian Organizations

The order predominantly benefits humanitarian organizations and non-blocked persons within Ethiopia. By ensuring channels for legitimate remittances and aid supplies remain open, entities such as international NGOs, the United Nations, and non-profits can continue providing essential services in a region precariously poised on the edge of famine. This assurance seeks to maintain support for the most vulnerable populations despite the sanctions placed on culpable entities.

Political Stability Advocates

Proponents of negotiated, diplomatic solutions to the Ethiopian conflict stand to gain from this order. With the U.S. government actively advocating for a ceasefire and political dialogue, peace-promoting entities within Ethiopia could receive increased international community backing, aligning with U.S. leadership that prioritizes nonviolent conflict resolution methods.

International Bodies and Coalitions

International bodies focused on human rights enforcement and regional stability also benefit from this decisive U.S. response, which establishes a benchmark and may invigorate collaborative efforts among similar global entities to combat issues such as ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses, fostering coordinated multilateral actions against violators.

Who Suffers

Ethiopian and Eritrean Governments

The governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea, particularly entities and individuals implicated in human rights abuses or aid obstruction, confront heightened pressure due to restricted access to U.S. financial systems and markets. Such sanctions risk prompting diplomatic isolation and economic constraints, potentially exacerbating interregional tensions and curtailing resources vital for governmental operations.

Impacted Civilian Populations

Despite efforts to shield at-risk civilian populations, the secondary effects of sanctions could place additional stress on regional economies, constraining economic conditions and hindering the general availability of goods. This may intensify existing hardships for non-sanctioned individuals struggling to meet basic needs.

Military and Security Forces Involved

Military and security forces accused of intensifying the conflict encounter punitive measures that inhibit their operational capacities. These restrictions aim to curtail violent actions contributing to the crisis, encouraging these groups to pivot towards peace-oriented resolutions instead of continued aggression.

Historical Context

Precedents of Presidential Sanctions

Executive Order 14046 aligns with a historical practice amongst U.S. presidents of employing sanctions as a tool in international crisis response. Since the late 20th century, administrations have utilized similar measures to address human rights abuses, reinforcing America's role as a global proponent of peace and democracy.

Biden Administration Foreign Policy Trends

The Biden administration adopts an overtly diplomacy-focused international policy, emphasizing foreign relations deeply rooted in human rights. Contrasting previous administrations' “America First” approaches, this order marks a shift towards robust, multilateral engagement in resolving regional conflicts, reflecting broader strategic redirection in foreign policy.

Ideological Continuities and Differences

The principles within Executive Order 14046 resonate with longstanding U.S. commitments to human rights advocacy and regional stabilization, differing from isolationist policies. This order embodies a collaborative diplomatic ethos, engaging international systems to uphold freedom and human dignity, aligning with broader historical U.S. foreign policy themes.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Issues of Sovereignty and Intervention

Controversies may arise around accusations of infringing on Ethiopian and Eritrean sovereignty, with sanctions potentially perceived as coercive diplomacy. This could incite tensions among international actors focused on respecting sovereign decisions while balancing the enforcement of global human rights standards.

Effectiveness and Unintended Consequences

The efficacy of economic sanctions often sparks debate, with critics arguing they may fail to effect desired policy changes or could deteriorate humanitarian conditions. Historical evidence provides mixed outcomes on sanctions achieving long-term objectives, prompting discussions about whether their diplomatic and economic costs outweigh the proposed benefits.

Domestic and International Pushback

Domestically, executive orders like this may face scrutiny from Congress or stakeholder opposition, contending that unilateral actions could damage foreign relations or set contentious precedents. On an international scale, allies might express concerns regarding coordinated responses, questioning U.S. leadership initiatives not undertaken with broader consensus compliance.