Tibor Nagy is a veteran diplomat who has served in the US foreign service in various capacities, including as Assistant Secretary of State. During his four-decade diplomatic career, he closely followed and worked on US-Africa relations, serving terms as ambassador to both Guinea and Ethiopia.
During the Trump administration, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. He is currently a professor emeritus at Texas Tech.
Even following his retirement from government service, Nagy is outspoken about developments in Africa, often with positive and favorable views. He continues to keep a close eye on geopolitics in the Horn of Africa, including happenings in Ethiopia.
RELATED POSTS
Some appreciate his advocacy for Africa, whereas others bitterly criticize his views and actions in his former capacities, opposing his oftentimes controversial comments on current issues in Ethiopia and the Horn.
The Reporter Magazine‘s Bewket Abebe spoke with Ambassador Tibor Nagy for his take on recent developments in the Ethiopian geopolitical landscape and the Horn at large. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter Magazine: Looking at statements you have made at different times on different platforms, you appear to advocate for increased U.S. attention to Africa. Could you elaborate on that? What does ‘more attention’ refer to? What specific actions do you believe the U.S. government should take to increase its attention on Africa?
Ambassador Tibor Nagy: It’s no secret that Africa has always been the lowest American geostrategic priority amongst all the continents. By ‘lowest priority’, I do not mean it was not important. The way I characterize it is if there is a pickup basketball game among Olympic athletes, somebody gets picked even though they are Olympic athletes. What that means is, from the American perspective, Africa has always received the least amount of attention. The US embassies in Africa have had the lowest number of staff and resources. They have had a lot of junior people assigned although the challenges in Africa have always been extreme and very difficult environments. The United States has not given Africa the attention it deserves I would say from independence. Every American administration unveils a ‘policy on Africa’ and there is always a lot of publicity. But at the end of the day, it is the same old thing. The embassies are still small, the operating funds are not as much as the other places. Look at Ethiopia. You have around 130 million people. Imagine a country with 130 million people anywhere else in the world only having one US office.
Had it been in Europe or Asia, they would have had a US embassy and at least one if not two consulates. Africa just does not have the kind of attention it deserves. But at the same time, there are current affairs in Africa which are critically important not just to the US but to the world. You can see it from the perspective of what I call the ‘the Youth Tsunami’ where Africa is going to be the one continent where the population doubles. We love young people. They can be good consumers. They are hard workers, especially educated young people. Africa is the place where you have all of the strategic minerals the world is going to need in the 21st century. Africa represents very many positive forces but also negative forces. Look at the instability in Africa; the conflicts that are going on. The world’s worst conflict is not in Gaza nor Ukraine. It is in Sudan. But how much attention is the conflict in Sudan getting? They need attention. They need the world’s attention. But they are really not getting it. That is why I have advocated, ever since I set foot on the continent in 1979, that there should be much more attention and resources devoted to our relations with Africa; our diplomatic relations, commercial relations, cultural relations, and educational relations.
The Biden administration appears to support creating two permanent seats on the UN Security Council for African states, as announced recently. To what degree do you believe this support will improve Washington’s relations with, and attention to, Africa and what limitations do you see in it?
You can add two more seats to the Security Council. And that may improve the perception of the United States in Africa. But I question whether it will improve the functionality of the Security Council. You and I both know that the Security Council is totally incapable of dealing with difficult issues these days. There is a split on the Council. It represents the world of 1945. It does not represent the world of 2024. You have a couple of choices; either you make the Security Council represent today’s world with veto power for a lot more people or take away the veto power. I doubt if the permanent members will allow the veto power to disappear. I love England and France. I have wonderful friends in France and England. But should France and England be on the Security Council with veto powers? Because they are not. Maybe the European Union should be on the Security Council with veto power. Look at the continent that is growing the most—Africa. Look at some of the countries on the continent. By 2050, the third most populous country will be Nigeria, replacing the United States. What will Ethiopia’s population be in 2050? What percentage of the population will be under the age of 25? Imagine what the Security Council would look like if the United Nations was being created today
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield, was quoted saying ‘none of the permanent members want to give up their veto power.’ She stated that the idea of expanding the veto power across the board would make the Council more dysfunctional. Do you agree with that assertion? Do you buy the idea that it would be ‘dysfunctional’?
Yes. Absolutely, I agree with her. US ambassadors and assistant secretaries can recommend policies. They do not make policy. They have to support the policy that is made by the Secretary of State and the White House. What Ambassador Linda said is absolutely correct. She loves Africa, she understands Africa. She is phenomenal. And yes, under current circumstances, I doubt if any of the permanent members would give up the veto power. And if you add more seats with veto power, the Council would become more dysfunctional than it is.
Then how can the U.N. represent the world of today? On the one hand you appear to believe the UN has to represent today’s world and on the other hand you buy the idea that expanding the veto power across the board would make the Security Council more dysfunctional. What possible approaches do you see?
It should represent today’s world. The word is ‘should’, which is theoretical. Here is my idea; a Security Council that is representative of today’s world would be one with no veto power at all. That would be my idea. But ideas and reality are two different things.
You don’t believe it can be practical?
I don’t think so. Maybe there will be two seats added with no veto for Africa. Frankly, my view again, if you add two seats for Africa, can you imagine the debates that will take place in Africa over who should represent. You remember the debate that happened when the Organization of African Unity was formed? Thank God for Ethiopia. It was the one neutral place where you could put the headquarters. Otherwise, the French and English-speaking former colonies would still be arguing.
Given the complex nature of the current situation in Ethiopia, how do you assess the engagement of the U.S. government in terms of genuine support for sustainable solutions to the ongoing crisis?
Here is the situation again. The US Department of State is not organized to give Africa the attention it needs or to address various crises. There are 24 hours in the day and seven days in the week. You can only deal with so many crises. When I was Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, there were 51 or 52 countries the US had relations with. There were 48 ambassadors. Any day, we would have up to four or five major crises going on. It is impossible to give each of those crises the attention it deserves. We are very fortunate to have Ambassador Mike Hammer as a Special Envoy. I know he gets criticized by everybody. But given the differences of opinions in Ethiopia, any American diplomat who simply mentions ‘Ethiopia’ will face immediate criticism. Because the issues are so passionate and so emotional and people feel so strongly about them that no special envoy could do his job without being brutally criticized. I have a great deal of sympathy for Ambassador Mike.
What, in your view, has Ambassador Mike Hammer delivered?
I cannot speak for him. You need to ask him the question.
But you said you have a great deal of sympathy?
Because I know him. He was my ambassador in Kinshasa when I was Assistant Secretary. I saw the work he did.
You often state that he deserves praise and major credit for the work he does in Ethiopia. Why?
Ok. Here is the deal. The northern war ended. Thanks be to God the northern war ended. And there is a process being made in transitional justice. I know everybody is impatient. But there is an official policy of transitional justice. There is the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission. Things are moving but when it comes to negotiations between the federal government and the Fano groups, that is not for the US to try to force it. It can be supportive in the process.
When it comes to engagements, both Special Envoy Mike Hammer and US Ambassador Massinga have been observed directly engaging more frequently with TPLF party leaders than with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister whom they are supposed to have direct contact with or the President who symbolizes the nation at large. What does that imply? Critics question the nature of such diplomatic interactions.
It simply implies that they cannot do their job without being criticized. I know that Ambassador Mike got some grief; I think he was in Mekelle for the Ethiopian new year. If he had been in Dire Dawa, he would have gotten criticism. He would have gotten criticism had he been in Addis Ababa with the Prime Minister.
An American special envoy is not going to do his consultations in public. When I was Assistant Secretary and the war started, I had many phone calls with people at the highest levels of the Ethiopian government that I did not then go and tell the media what I was saying and who I was saying it to. You just have to assume that there are discussions with everybody.
When I was ambassador, if you remember, I visited every single major town in Ethiopia and I would meet with the officials. It is the job of the United States ambassador to travel throughout the country to know what is going on in all the various regions and right now what is going on in Tigray has to be very concerning not just for America but I hope it is very concerning for people in Ethiopia.
The US policy, immaterial of the administration, tends to be to try to address the crisis; to end the misery as quickly as possible. It is not a matter of taking this side or that. When I was an assistant secretary, I was accused of both empowering ‘TPLF terrorists’ and at the same time I was also accused of the ‘Tigray genocide’. To be able to do both things is impossible. That is how it is. American policy is one: you cannot devote the amount of time the crisis really needs. And two: such highly emotional issues really need to be decided on by Ethiopians not by foreigners. The best thing you can do is try to support a process that leads to ending the crisis, an internal reconciliation process, internal transitional justice that will end the cycle of violence and help heal all of the terrible hurts that happened, and to also promote accountability.
Do you believe the U.S. government is currently playing that role? Do you believe it is playing a role in leading stakeholders to genuine dialogue and reconciliation?
The U.S. government can only play that role up to a point. At some point, Ethiopians themselves have to step forward and provide most of the energy. Just like what the Rwandans did after the genocide; they came up with their own internal process because they realized that the formal justice system could not deal with the huge numbers involved.
International mediators cannot want a solution more than the people who are actually involved. They can be supportive. But they are not the ones who should take the majority of the action. I ran into this when I was ambassador in Ethiopia. Some problems happen and Ethiopians tend to cross their arms and expect us to fix it. No, sorry. No international person is going to fix it.
In a past interview, you said ‘something complex is even more complex when it comes to Ethiopia’. What do you think makes the case of Ethiopia more complex? Can you recall a specific instance from your experiences in your capacity as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs or U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia?
When I arrived in Ethiopia, the Eritrea war was going on. You know, you look at things and you make assumptions if you look at it with American eyes. But then you talk to Ethiopians and you find out there is so much more going on related to history, ethnicity, family connection, and on and on. Any ‘ferenj’ that says that they understand Ethiopia is simply wrong. Some of my best sources when I was an ambassador would be Addis Ababa taxi drivers. They understand the situation much better than any ‘ferenj’ ambassador does.
Understanding Ethiopia is like taking off the layers of an onion. You peel off a layer and there is another layer underneath it.
You believe Ethiopians are different?
Complicated. That is what they are.
Considering the significant size of the Ethiopian diaspora in the United States, what role can they play in effectively leveraging their influence to shape U.S.-Ethiopia relations and advocate for U.S. policies that benefit Ethiopia? How active and effective do you believe the Ethiopian diaspora has been in this regard?
They could play a very significant role. Their political influence in the US could be enormous. You have large diaspora communities in states that are key to US elections. For example, you have a large diaspora community in the Atlanta, Georgia area and we know that Georgia is a very close state between the Democrats and Republicans. You have many Ethiopians in Virginia. Again, Virginia could be a key state. You have very large Ethiopian communities in the state of Texas. Though Texas is a republican state, it is moving in a much more competitive direction.
If Ethiopian communities were united in what they wanted, they could make their voices very loud. Ethiopia could have much more attention from U.S. governments. Because the U.S. government makes many decisions based on political influence. While foreign policy is the responsibility of the President, the U.S. Congress has tremendous influence. If members of Congress had Ethiopian constituencies who make their voices known, they would certainly tell the State Department or the White House that they want more attention to Ethiopia.
For example, take the decision to end the AGOA status with Ethiopia, which was really a very negative decision in my view. If the Ethiopian communities had come to Congress and said ‘that has to be reversed; Ethiopia deserves AGOA’. I am sure that the U.S. State Department would act quickly.
There are divisions in the Ethiopian diaspora based on ethnic backgrounds. Do you see any particular group among the diaspora that has been more effective in advocating for their causes?
That is the situation. Just like Ethiopians are divided in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian diaspora is divided abroad. They do not speak with one voice. They speak with many voices. And I know from experience. If, on Tuesday, one group comes in and says you should do ‘X’ and the other group comes in on Wednesday and says you should do ‘Y’; in this case, the best policy is to do nothing.
They all try and they have some eloquent spokespersons. But I see it from the point of view of a policy maker. And if you are a congressional officer, let’s say in the Africa bureau, you have different groups coming with different points of view, you know it is not going to help. Every one of the groups has a very specific and a fairly narrow point of view. Those groups describe the same situation totally differently. The groups cancel each other out. I am just very sorry. I love Ethiopia and would love nothing better than to see Ethiopia succeed and the diaspora could do so much if they could at least unify at some point. But it seems like the diaspora cannot agree if that is the moon or the sun in the sky right now.
I was a member of the Hungarian diaspora before Hungary gained its independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the Hungarians were united to support democracy. But the Ethiopian diaspora community is pulling in so many directions. There are a couple of things that everybody agrees on. One is the GERD. The other would be to bring back AGOA. It is all about helping poor women. It doesn’t matter what ethnicity they are.
You know Ethiopia has a significant number of intellectuals and university professors and I read some of the things they write and often laugh. Literally, they argue about the most archaic points in Ethiopian history, ethnicity, you know philosophical arguments instead of together contributing to a solution and being leaders of unity to help Ethiopian to solve its problems. What they do is analyze, analyze, analyze and criticize each other. If it were not tragic it would be funny.
What strategies or approaches do you think would allow the diaspora community to effectively advocate for their interests? What would you recommend to maximize their impact?
Stop writing 20-page letters. That is the first one. Ethiopians seem to have fun with words no matter what ethnic group [laughs]. Be specific and very concise. Then organize and engage with American politicians at the local level. You have some American politicians that care a great deal about Africa. The Ethiopian community needs to be strategic and to have realistic goals. I will underline three times; realistic! Instead of expecting the US to come and tell PM Abiy to get out of power or to do this and that with the constitution. No! The U.S. will never do that.
What are those realistic goals like?
Like I mentioned, AGOA. Like the GERD, to ask the U.S. to stay neutral in the GERD issue instead of [backing], let’s say, Egypt. Those are realistic goals.
How about enabling the U.S. government to grasp the on-the-ground realities in Ethiopia? Some groups seem to be more effective than others in advocating for their agendas to US foreign policy makers. What are your thoughts on this?
Here is the truth. As far as the U.S. is concerned, Ethiopia is not as important as the Ethiopian community believes it is. The Ethiopian community believes Ethiopia is the center of the universe. They think that what the US president thinks first in the morning is Ethiopia and the last he thinks about at night is Ethiopia. What I can assure you is that weeks can go by without the US president ever thinking about Ethiopia. People need to have a sense of reality and what they can and cannot influence. The Secretary of State is not going to spend 24 hours a day trying to figure out how to help this Ethiopian group or that Ethiopian group. He may have a half hour meeting and then he goes on to have a half an hour meeting with somebody else. Realistic expectations are extremely important in order to exert political influence. Some groups understand this, others do not.
But the U.S. government is certainly engaged, the question is whether its engagement is aligned with the best interests of the entire Ethiopian people.
I agree with you. But the U.S. government can be influenced as to what the priorities are. Not trying to do two hundred things at the same time. You know as well as I do that if everything is important, nothing is important. What really matters to Ethiopia? That is where the diaspora can be very helpful instead of arguing these esoteric points which no one except intellectuals cares about.
How significant is Ethiopia’s recognition of Somaliland, considering both de facto and de jure recognition in international law? Could this act push other countries like the UK, UAE, or Israel to follow suit?
I think so. Let’s be honest. Somaliland in many respects is a much more real country than Mogadishu. Somaliland, in a way, was fortunate that when it declared its independence it did not receive a massive amount of assistance from anybody so they had to stand on their own two feet. They remind me a lot of Ethiopia in that the people of Somaliland are very nationalistic; proud of their own country. If anybody tries to force them to do something, just like Ethiopians, they tell them to go to hell, which I always admire about Ethiopians. I admire that about Somaliland as well.
The Heritage Foundation, in its Project 2025 document, recommends that the U.S. formally recognize Somaliland’s independence. How likely is the recommendation to be implemented?
There is a good chance. I would put it that way. Just because it is in the project 2025 document does not give it any assurance of being implemented. Project 2025 is just the Great New Deal. It is a proposal written by 900 people. And as with anything written by 900 people, there are going to be things that are absolutely not realistic. It is a proposed guide not a blueprint for the next Republican administration. Of course, the Democrats are making all kinds of political points out of it when they know that is not true. But there is a good chance. There is a lot of sympathy for Somaliland in Washington even today.
If a Republican administration is elected come November, there is a good chance that it will recognize Somaliland. Frankly, we were talking about that at the end of the last administration. There was considerable support for that. I got to know former President Egal quite well because he used to come to Addis when I was ambassador. He was always very frustrated because everybody knew that if somebody recognizes Somaliland first, then a number of countries would recognize it immediately after. But Somaliland has found it very difficult to get that first country to recognize it. We all know the reasons; historical and geopolitical reasons. Yes, if there was a formal recognition given to Somaliland by somebody who matters, then I think it would go very quickly.
By ‘somebody who matters’ do you mean a country like Ethiopia?
Yes. Ethiopia matters a huge deal. It is a very important country.
This whole port deal between Ethiopia and Somaliland has been complicated by issues that are decades old. All of a sudden, this one deal is highlighting some of the larger regional issues; Ethiopia’s access to the sea, Somaliland’s recognition, Egypt and the GERD. All of these things are now coming up in this one deal. We will just see how it plays out. But everybody knows Somaliland is a real country.
Everybody knows it is a de facto country. It stands on its two feet. It is not a beggar nation. And yet it is not de jure. And yet you go to Hargeisa on Ethiopian Airlines, and you can have dinner with the representatives of various countries. You have consulars there or trade officers. It has every sense of a country. Meanwhile Somalia is struggling.
I don’t know if you have been to Hargeisa and Berbera. I have. The country is very impressive. Something else I can tell you is that I was on the Ethiopian border in Somaliland. The personal relations between local officials on the two sides is quite excellent.
As a diplomat with extensive experience closely observing the geopolitical dynamics of the Horn of Africa, what major happenings shaping the region’s geopolitical landscape do you anticipate will occur in the coming years?
My soul is optimistic. Right now, the Ethiopian situation is similar to flying an airplane that has engine problems and is also on fire. First, you have to put the fire out and then fix the engine and then land. That is the bad news. The good news is that the airplane has been flying for several thousand years. It has had several crash landings but it always takes off again and flies. I am absolutely optimistic about the future of Ethiopia. It will get past this current very troubled time because it always does. I have to believe that the three thousand years of tradition of Ethiopians will play a very prominent role in the Horn of Africa.
Sooner or later, Somalia will come to its senses and work with others to resolve the problems with al-shabaab and the Islamic state in Puntland.
We have to assume that the Sudanese situation cannot go on forever. When Bashir fell, we said that it is not the Horn of Africa but the ‘Hope of Africa’. I want to see the young people growing up now be able to benefit from peace, tranquility and prosperity.
