‘Sense of Duty’ Puts Veteran US Envoy in Middle of Ethiopia Conflict

UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman speaks during a news conference in Colombo March 3, 2015. (Reuters)
UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman speaks during a news conference in Colombo March 3, 2015. (Reuters)
TT

‘Sense of Duty’ Puts Veteran US Envoy in Middle of Ethiopia Conflict

UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman speaks during a news conference in Colombo March 3, 2015. (Reuters)
UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman speaks during a news conference in Colombo March 3, 2015. (Reuters)

As UN political affairs chief, Jeffrey Feltman met Iran’s supreme leader and top North Korean officials. Now back with the US foreign service, his focus is compelling a Nobel Peace laureate and rivals to stop a war and avert famine in Ethiopia.

After leaving the United Nations in 2018, Feltman was happy in what he dubbed “quasi-retirement” and “government service fell into the ‘been there done that’ category.” Then, as rumors swirled that the Biden administration would ask him to be the US envoy on Syria, he was instead asked to take on the Horn of Africa.

“My sense of duty kicked in,” Feltman, 62, who spent more than 25 years as a US diplomat, told the US Institute of Peace on Tuesday.

Feltman took up his US role in April - five months into a conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region between forces loyal to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the army of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for settling Ethiopia’s longtime conflict with Eritrea.

Aside from trying to bring an end to the fighting in Ethiopia, Feltman is also contending now with a military coup in Sudan, where he traveled two weeks ago. Now he is in Ethiopia.

During his six years at the United Nations - forming UN policy and overseeing mediation efforts - Feltman regularly dealt with world leaders. In 2012 he visited Iran with then UN chief Ban Ki-moon to meet supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

Then in 2017, Feltman visited North Korea - the highest-level UN official to visit since 2011 - describing his four-day trip at the time as “the most important mission I have ever undertaken.” It came amid former US President Donald Trump’s blunt rhetoric and sanctions campaign against Pyongyang.

Six months after Feltman’s visit, Trump first met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore in a failed bid to get Kim to give up his nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

‘Unusually creative’
Former UN aid chief Mark Lowcock, who worked alongside Feltman for a year, praised him as deeply knowledgeable and “unusually creative in solving problems.”

“He was always good at spotting when leaders realized the direction they were heading in was going to land them in deep doo-doo and helping them change course without unhelpfully rubbing their faces in it,” Lowcock, who is now a fellow at the Center for Global Development, told Reuters.

But some Ethiopians are wary of Feltman, questioning his 2012 visit to the country as a top UN official. He represented the United Nations at the funeral of Ethiopian strongman Meles Zenawi, who led the country for more than 20 years, promoting economic growth while clamping down on dissent.

“I had no idea ... that a ceremonial, representational appearance would - nearly a decade later - be fodder for misinformation on social media: that the newly appointed US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa was somehow hopelessly partisan, in favor of a man I never actually met,” Feltman said.

He is again in Ethiopia amid a growing conflict in Africa’s second most populous country that has killed thousands of people, forced more than two million from their homes, and left 400,000 people in Tigray facing famine.

Abiy declared a state of emergency on Tuesday as the Tigrayan forces threatened to push forward to Addis Ababa. Then in a speech on Wednesday he pledged to bury his government’s enemies “with our blood” as he marked the start of the war in the Tigray region one year ago.

“We do not believe that either side will be able to assert themselves militarily ... they will not be able to win militarily. So we’ve been saying that one needs to look at other means,” Feltman said on Tuesday. “We’re not getting much response, the military logic is still prevailing.”



Win the Vote but Still Lose? Behold America’s Electoral College

Voters head into a polling location to cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the 2024 election on November 1, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Getty Images/AFP)
Voters head into a polling location to cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the 2024 election on November 1, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Getty Images/AFP)
TT

Win the Vote but Still Lose? Behold America’s Electoral College

Voters head into a polling location to cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the 2024 election on November 1, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Getty Images/AFP)
Voters head into a polling location to cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the 2024 election on November 1, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Getty Images/AFP)

When political outsider Donald Trump defied polls and expectations to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, he described the victory as "beautiful."

Not everyone saw it that way -- considering that Democrat Clinton had received nearly three million more votes nationally than her Republican rival. Non-Americans were particularly perplexed that the second-highest vote-getter would be the one crowned president.

But Trump had done what the US system requires: win enough individual states, sometimes by very narrow margins, to surpass the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the White House.

Now, on the eve of the 2024 election showdown between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, the rules of this enigmatic and, to some, outmoded, system is coming back into focus.

- Why an Electoral College? -

The 538 members of the US Electoral College gather in their state's respective capitals after the quadrennial presidential election to designate the winner.

A presidential candidate must obtain an absolute majority of the "electors" -- or 270 of the 538 -- to win.

The system originated with the US Constitution in 1787, establishing the rules for indirect, single-round presidential elections.

The country's Founding Fathers saw the system as a compromise between direct presidential elections with universal suffrage, and an election by members of Congress -- an approach rejected as insufficiently democratic.

Because many states predictably lean Republican or Democratic, presidential candidates focus heavily on the handful of "swing" states on which the election will likely turn -- nearly ignoring some large states such as left-leaning California and right-leaning Texas.

Over the years, hundreds of amendments have been proposed to Congress in efforts to modify or abolish the Electoral College. None has succeeded.

Trump's 2016 victory rekindled the debate. And if the 2024 race is the nail-biter that most polls predict, the Electoral College will surely return to the spotlight.

- Who are the 538 electors? -

Most are local elected officials or party leaders, but their names do not appear on ballots.

Each state has as many electors as it has members in the US House of Representatives (a number dependent on the state's population), plus the Senate (two in every state, regardless of size).

California, for example, has 54 electors; Texas has 40; and sparsely populated Alaska, Delaware, Vermont and Wyoming have only three each.

The US capital city, Washington, also gets three electors, despite having no voting members in Congress.

The Constitution leaves it to states to decide how their electors' votes should be cast. In every state but two (Nebraska and Maine, which award some electors by congressional district), the candidate winning the most votes theoretically is allotted all that state's electors.

- Controversial institution -

In November 2016, Trump won 306 electoral votes, well more than the 270 needed.

The extraordinary situation of losing the popular vote but winning the White House was not unprecedented.

Five presidents have risen to the office this way, the first being John Quincy Adams in 1824.

More recently, the 2000 election resulted in an epic Florida entanglement between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.

Gore won nearly 500,000 more votes nationwide, but when Florida -- ultimately following a US Supreme Court intervention -- was awarded to Bush, it pushed his Electoral College total to 271 and a hair's-breadth victory.

- True vote or simple formality? -

Nothing in the Constitution obliges electors to vote one way or another.

If some states required them to respect the popular vote and they failed to do so, they were subjected to a simple fine. But in July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states could impose punishments on such "faithless electors."

To date, faithless electors have never determined a US election outcome.

- Electoral College schedule -

Electors will gather in their state capitals on December 17 and cast votes for president and vice president. US law states they "meet and cast their vote on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December."

On January 6, 2025, Congress will convene to certify the winner -- a nervously watched event this cycle, four years after a mob of Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol attempting to block certification.

But there is a difference. Last time, it was Republican vice president Mike Pence who, as president of the Senate, was responsible for overseeing the certification. Defying heavy pressure from Trump and the mob, he certified Biden's victory.

This time, the president of the Senate -- overseeing what normally would be the pro forma certification -- will be none other than today's vice president: Kamala Harris.

On January 20, the new president is to be sworn in.