We write to formally request the correction of the false and misleading allegations made against China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) in your articles titled “Taps Run Dry in Somali Region Amid Unattended Corruption Allegations and Unfinished Water Projects” and “Investigation: Shedding Light on the Convoluted CCECC Somali Water Project Scandal”, published on February 1 and 22, 2025, respectively.

For over 18 years, China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) has been a driving force behind Ethiopia’s infrastructure transformation. As a globally recognized state-owned enterprise with projects in over 100 countries in the world, our commitment to development is more than just a promise—it’s a proven legacy.

From the landmark Addis Ababa Light Rail to a multitude of large-scale government initiatives, CCECC has played a pivotal role in shaping Ethiopia’s urban and regional landscape. But our dedication extends beyond transportation and construction—we recognize the urgent challenges communities face.

In the Somali region, where water scarcity remains a pressing concern, CCECC has worked hand in hand with the regional government to implement sustainable solutions. Throughout our contract period, we have actively contributed to alleviating this crisis.

However, we are deeply concerned about the inaccurate and unfounded claims made in the aforementioned articles, as well as in the report titled “Somali Water Bureau Chief Axed in Light of Corruption Allegations”, published on February 8, 2025. These reports contain misleading statements that have caused significant reputational damage to CCECC.

Following the allegation report, we have repeatedly reached out to both The Reporter magazine and the Editor-in-Chief of the English edition of The Reporter. Despite repeated assurances that the corrections would be made, no action has been taken to date.

We once again urge The Reporter to uphold our right to a fair and accurate representation. As a reputable media outlet, it is your professional and ethical responsibility to ensure that incorrect and misleading information is promptly corrected to prevent further reputational damage to CCECC.

Specific Inaccuracies:

1. Misrepresentation of CCECC’s Role in the Jigjiga Clean Water Project

Your article states, “…clean water project for Jigjiga…, which awarded the contract to the Chinese contractor China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC).” This statement is misleading. CCECC was only responsible for a portion of the project, specifically the procurement and installation of pipelines and fittings. Our contractual scope did not include well construction or water transportation to residents. Furthermore, CCECC successfully completed its obligations and was granted a Provisional Acceptance Certificate on April 30, 2024. Your report inaccurately attributes responsibility for unfinished aspects of the project to CCECC.

2. Unsubstantiated Allegations of Corruption and Unlawful Price Increment

The article further states, “Chinese contractors are allegedly involved in corruption in the construction industry, as well as foul play in public procurement procedures.” This generalization is defamatory, unsubstantiated, and demonstrates bias against Chinese corporations. Such accusations not only have serious legal implications but may also give rise to diplomatic concerns. In addition, allegations of an unlawful price increase are unfounded and made without a full understanding of the contract.

3. The claim that CCECC failed to provide the performance guarantee is entirely unfounded. CCECC submitted the project’s advance payment guarantee and the performance guarantee on July 21, 2021. The original guarantees were duly submitted to the Employer.
4. The claim that the project negatively impacted existing infrastructure and that CCECC is liable for all defects and damages is unfounded and unsubstantiated. CCECC has adhered strictly to the contract design and its approved amendments.
5. The article incorrectly cites contract terms, claiming that price adjustments are unlawful shows the report’s lack of impartiality and also contravenes the novel principle of balancing news in journalism. In addition to design revision, there were [a] number of acceptable and justified factors under the general conditions and accepted practices in the construction agreements.
6. The article misrepresents the scope of CCECC’s contractual responsibilities. Additionally, CCECC questions the legality of The Reporter’s access to contract details. The contract’s confidentiality provisions commit both parties to their confidentiality obligations. The Reporter is required to provide a formal explanation regarding the legality of its access to contractual information.
7. The article alleges that CCECC attempted to intimidate The Reporter and demanded the retraction of its coverage on the Jijiga Water Project and related disputes. However, CCECC’s request for retraction was based on factual inaccuracies in the reporting, and at no point did it engage in any form of intimidation. It’s our right to defend unlawful requests from any side and stand for our guaranteed freedoms under national and international laws. On the contrary, it’s the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper that has continuously demanded unlawful quests for bribe[s] from an international corporation that motivates the consecutive defamatory and misleading reports. Once again, CCECC, wants to reaffirm its strong stand in defying such unlawful demands.

In light of the above, CCECC hereby makes the following official statement:

1. CCECC lawfully participated in the project bidding process. CCECC has strictly adhered to Ethiopian laws, regulations, and internationally accepted commercial standards in all its project tenders and contract signings in Ethiopia. It has secured projects through legitimate and compliant means.
2. CCECC has strictly complied with legal and contractual obligations during project implementation. Throughout contract implementation, CCECC has consistently abided by Ethiopian laws, regulations, and international standards and norm[s] on civil engineering. It has maintained a strong stance against any form of corruption and has fulfilled all contractual obligations, ensuring smooth project implementation and obtaining acceptance certificates, without any behaviors against the Ethiopian laws or commercial ethics.

CCECC has never engaged in any irregularities. It remains committed to the principles of transparency, fairness, and legality in all its commercial activities.

We firmly reject these misrepresentations and urge The Reporter to adhere to journalistic ethics by ensuring balanced reporting and consulting experts on construction contract matters before publishing such huge allegations and hasty generalizations.

We appreciate your quick attention to this matter and look forward to your response. Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

CCECC Ethiopia Branch,

Editor’s Note

In an article titled “Investigation: Shedding Light on the Convoluted CCECC Somali Water Project Scandal” and published on February 22, 2025, The Reporter delved into the allegations of corruption and mismanagement surrounding the Jigjiga Phase Two Project after residents and officials in the Somali Regional State approached its editors with complaints, accompanied by evidence, regarding water shortages in the region despite the inauguration of the high-budget project in mid-2024. The Reporter was also tipped off about dysfunctional piping and the use of substandard materials in the water supply project.

Accordingly, The Reporter conducted an in-depth investigation, analyzing over 450 pages of documents related to the project and interviewing officials, insiders, and residents.

Among other things, the investigation found that:

• The project was directly awarded to the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) without a proper bid procedure.
• The project’s civil, mechanical and electrical works were awarded to CCECC, though the company claims it was only responsible for pipe fitting installations.
• The project budget was increased by 150 million birr within three months of the initial contract signing, even though the contract agreement states that price revision is possible only a year after the signing.
• CCECC failed to resume the project within the contractual timeframe.
• CCECC claimed force majeure due to inflation and birr deprecation, though these were not among the preconditions for force majeure listed in the contract agreement.
• The Somali Water Development Bureau accepted the contractor’s force majeure claim despite the supervising consultant, MS Consultancy, advising its officials to rescind the agreement.
• The terms of the contract agreement hold the contractor responsible for any project failures or errors that may occur or become apparent within 12 months of project completion.

The investigation uncovered several inconsistencies and points of concern that, in a country with strong anti-corruption laws, would have been used as a stepping stone for a campaign to ensure accountability in public projects.

Nonetheless, instead of providing evidence to back their counter-claims, the company (CCECC) and its attorneys resorted to ploys to discredit The Reporter and its editors, including bribery and intimidation tactics, at one point threatening the family of one of our editors.

The company and its legal representatives repeatedly warned The Reporter not to publish the investigative article, instead calling for a formal apology and a retraction of the previous articles published on the subject and accusing it of breaching journalistic principles. The attorney also claimed the article can have implications for the diplomatic ties between Ethiopia and China.

The Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA), a public institution mandated to oversee the media, also issued a letter to The Reporter, accusing it of publishing articles based on “unfounded” evidence.

The Authority made no effort to review the evidence and documentation The Reporter has on hand before making the accusations on February 28.

The Reporter would like to state that it has no interest beside revealing facts and advocating for the public interest with the highest journalistic standards. Exposing corruption, bad governance, static failures; and promoting peace, democracy, development and free speech, will remain sacrosanct for The Reporter.

I am writing about the article ‘Policy Paper Sheds Light on Fundamental Gaps in Transitional Justice Initiative’ published by The Reporter on February 1, 2025.

I appreciate Mr. Abraham Tekle’s and The Reporter’s engagement with the discussion on Ethiopia’s Transitional Justice (TJ) process and your efforts to inform the public on this critical issue. However, I would like to clarify several inaccuracies in your reporting, both in terms of its framing and the content attributed to me.

The article refers to a “policy paper” that was presented during the discussion. However, I would like to clarify that no policy brief was prepared. The presentation was a research-based discussion, not an official policy document or institutional position. Characterizing the presentation as a policy paper creates the incorrect impression that formal recommendations were issued, which was not the case.

The introduction of the article states that the presentation was given by “researchers at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS),” which is incorrect. The presentation was delivered by an individual senior researcher at ISS, not as an institutional position of ISS as an organization. ISS does not engage in transitional justice processes by issuing institutional positions. It is essential to make this distinction clear, as framing it as the collective view of ISS misrepresents both the nature of the presentation and ISS’s approach to its work.

The report incorrectly suggests that I portrayed the TJ process as fundamentally flawed or as a failed initiative. While I did highlight areas where improvements are needed, my discussion focused on key aspects—particularly victim participation—rather than identifying “fundamental gaps,” as stated in the article’s title. It is misleading to suggest that I characterized the process as fundamentally defective. In fact, I explicitly stated that the TJ process remains the best available framework for addressing past violations and that stakeholders should work to refine and enhance its effectiveness.

In particular, my discussion on gaps focused on the categorization of perpetrators and how different categories of actors involved in violations should be addressed; the scope of crimes covered by the TJ process; and victim participation, particularly the urgent need for psychosocial support and a structured framework to ensure meaningful engagement.

These points were raised to enhance the effectiveness of the TJ framework, not to suggest that the entire initiative is failing.

The article suggests that I claimed the government has rejected the TJ process outright. I did not say this. Instead, I described the different phases the process has undergone—from an initial period of rejection to acceptance, uncertainty, and now the pre-implementation stage. My remarks were aimed at illustrating the complexity of the process rather than implying that the government has categorically rejected transitional justice.

Dr. Tadesse Simie Metekia

Senior Researcher: Rule of Law 

Special Projects

Institute for Security Studies, Addis Ababa

First of all, it is crucial to understand that the export procedures applied to Ethiopian commodities are on the basis of the shipping terms Free On Board (FOB). In such arrangements, the buyer nominates the shipping company to transport the goods to his country. In order to provide flexibility to exporters, buyers often nominate up to three shipping companies, ensuring seamless coordination and adaptability.

The shipping lines apply what’s called ”the cut-off time of 12 hours” in shipping terms. It means that export containers must be positioned at the terminal at least 12 hours before the ship’s scheduled arrival. This is an international rule of operation determined by the shipping lines, not the Port Authority.

While some delays occasionally occur when exporters miss this critical cutoff window, it is important to note that, as is standard practice worldwide, ships do not wait for cargo; rather, cargo waits to meet the ship’s schedule.

Regarding logistical and supply chain challenges, Djibouti Ports recognizes the complexities faced by Ethiopian export cargo. The Ethiopian exporters want to work with the practice of just in time (flux tendu). This current process involves direct transport from trucks to containers and then to ships, which they have difficulties achieving.

When it comes to ”Just in Time,” if the trains and the trucks carrying the export commodities miss the ship schedule, it is not the responsibility of Djibouti Ports. This issue is not new. More than 15 years ago, Djibouti Ports and Free Zones Authority proactively offered free storage in Djibouti’s Free Zone to Ethiopian exporters, allowing for the pre­ positioning of cargo and ensuring readiness for shipment. Unfortunately, this proposal has not been accepted, and the logistical inefficiencies persist.

Another critical challenge lies in the lack of communication within the transportation process. When Ethiopian export trucks begin their 48-hour journey to Djibouti, there is no communication between the truck drivers, cargo owners, freight forwarders, or shipping lines regarding arrival schedules. Upon arrival, trucks are directed to the PK12 parking area, without proper communication. It is important to emphasize that Djibouti Ports does not intervene in these commercial transactions, as they are managed by the exporters, freight forwarders, and shipping companies.

We are also surprised by the claims made in the article regarding the Bill of Lading. The process surrounding the Bill of Lading is a matter strictly between the exporter’s bank, the buyer’s bank and the shipping line.

Exporters are provided with three original copies of the Bill of Lading by their export bank, provided by the shipping line nominated by the buyer.

Finally, it is worth reiterating that Djibouti’s Ports tariffs have remained unchanged for export commodities for the past 20 years, underscoring our commitment to providing a stable, predictable, and competitive business environment.

The Port Authority is fully committed to maintaining the highest standards in port operations and logistics. While we recognize the challenges faced by exporters, we believe it is essential to address the root causes collaboratively with all stakeholders involved. We remain open to constructive dialogue and partnerships aimed at improving the supply chain’s efficiency and ensuring the seamless movement of goods.

We are ready to offer training to the staff of Ethiopian export companies on international export trade practices, at Djibouti Ports and Free Zones Authority.

Aboubaker Omar Hadi

Chairman of Djibouti Ports and Free Zones Authority

 ICRC

Editor’s Reply

Prior to publishing the article in question, we had spoken with the ICRC communication team. Asked about ongoing talks for a potential prisoner exchange, the communication team responded with the following: “…regarding your question about hostages being taken by one of the parties and ICRC being requested to bring the people who are detained back to their families; that is a discussion between the ICRC and relevant parties. We cannot publicly disclose these discussions….”

We recognize ICRC’s core principle of protecting the confidentiality of its engagements with conflicting parties, and apologize for any repercussions that may have been caused by our publication. However, we hope your organization can recognize that The Reporter also has a duty to provide its readers with full and unbiased news.

• CEHRO has conducted the mentioned research studies and presented preliminary findings inviting key stakeholders including officials representing the companies. However, the final draft of the research studies is currently under printing process and has not yet been made public.
• The headline “New report implicates MIDROC, state sugar enterprise in human rights violations” is misleading and does not completely represent the findings. We suggest replacing it as “Independent investigation indicated the necessity of adopting National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights to ensure respect for human rights in state-owned Omo Kuraz Development Projects and MIDROC’s operations”.
• “The study reveals the use of mercury…………… at Lega Dembi.” This was taken out of context. The study did not go through lab tests to check chemical usage during the extraction process, but the information gained from the company indicates that MIDROC is using c Nevertheless, there are allegations by the community that mercury may be used by both the company and other small-scale and artisanal miners, and the study recommended an in-depth investigation to be conducted by experts in the field.

We believe in enabling business and human rights agendas and strongly advocate for human rights due diligence by businesses. We are committed to contributing to sustainable and responsible business operations in Ethiopia that respect and promote human rights.

We appreciate your interest in our work and hope this clarifies any confusion.

Best Regards,

Beresa Abera

Acting Program manager

Consortium of Ethiopian Human Rights Organization (CEHRO)

The Reporter’s story titled “New report implicates MIDROC, state sugar enterprise in human rights violations” and published on April 27, 2024, is completely baseless and compiled intentionally to damage the good name of our company. Therefore, unless The Reporter immediately takes corrective measures, we will proceed to legal action.

Dula Mekonnen

Mining division deputy CEO

MIDROC Investment Group

The article reads “The repayment of foreign debt by state-owned enterprises such as the Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) and the Public Enterprise Holding and Administration (PEHA) is dragging far behind schedule as the federal government continues to grapple with the country’s crippling forex drought.”

PEHA is not a state-owned enterprise (SOE). It is a supervisory body for nine SOEs under it. There are also 27 SOEs under the supervision of Ethiopian Investment Holdings (EIH).

The article painted a picture that SOEs under EIH are paying their external debts in a better way compared to SOEs under PEHA.

 Some SOEs like Ethiopian Airlines are commercial, whereas others like the Ethiopian Railways Corporation are developmental. Most of the SOEs in Ethiopia are neither purely commercial nor developmental. Rather, they have a hybrid mandate.

Most of the SOEs under EIH are commercial, and those remaining under PEHA are mostly SOEs with developmental mandates rather than profit.

The way SOEs under PEHA and EIH operate, their business models, and the way they access local and foreign currencies, is different. To give you a perspective, the recently-established Liability and Asset Management Corporation (LAMC), which is under PEHA’s supervision, soaked over ETB 540 billion [in SOE debts]. A significant portion of these loans transferred to LAMC are from the SOEs currently under EIH.

Therefore, comparing SOEs under PEHA and EIH and giving your readers the idea that SOEs under PEHA are poorly performing is utterly wrong and misleading. We would also like to underline that PEHA is not, under any terms, in competition with EIH.

In general, there is significant improvement in SOEs’ project management, IFRS adoption, auditing, risk management, debt service, cost reduction, value addition and other reforms. However, The Reporter’s article portrays a bad image of the performance and management of SOEs in Ethiopia, where reputation risk is still a challenge.

Wondafrash Assefa

PEHA Director-General Office Head

However, the Ministry of Peace has, in fact, prepared three distinct draft documents on national identity, national values, and national interest.

The document concerning national interest outlines several pillars aimed at safeguarding Ethiopia’s strategic and economic interests. The Red Sea issue is mentioned within the context of the ‘national interest’ document, serving as one of the pillars.

Therefore, we believe that the article has created the impression that the Ministry has solely focused on the Red Sea as Ethiopia’s national interest. This is out of context of the document we provided you and should be corrected as: the Ministry has prepared a comprehensive draft document on Ethiopia’s national interest, wherein the Red Sea is merely mentioned as one component.

FDRE Ministry of Peace

DKT Ethiopia revised its business model in 2021 and 2022 after a comprehensive and detailed evaluation in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including some donors. Once approved, the plan was endorsed by the board of directors of DKT International and implemented by senior management in Ethiopia.

The new business model improved DKT Ethiopia’s cost-structure and eliminated outdated and costly incentive schemes. These changes were business decisions made by DKT’s management to improve effectiveness in response to a changing donor landscape, as well as to close the family planning commodity gap in Ethiopia. A new incentive system was put in place starting Jan 01, 2022 and payouts according to performance are being made accordingly.

The changes made within DKT Ethiopia were made according to Ethiopian labor laws. DKT’s legal team, local management and the Washington DC-based management led the implementation of these changes in an effort to ensure a fair transition for employees and the organization. As part of that process, there were significant layoffs, but all employees who were terminated or opted to resign because of these changes – including higher management – were provided support, including severance as applicable per Ethiopian law.

Some employees were not happy with this decision and forty-one (41) employees challenged the organization’s changes in the labor department. Currently 38 of those employees are still pursuing the matter. All 38 of those employees pursuing recourse from the labor department continue to be employed by DKT Ethiopia. These employees received above market increments due to economic inflation, allowance adjustments and continue to enjoy a comfortable and a fair work environment. There has been no retaliation against any of these employees related to their involvement in the ongoing lawsuit.

We respect our employees’ right to approach labor and higher courts. The Labor department in Ethiopia has suggested DKT provide a partial payment to settle the matter and DKT is now litigating the matter in the high court awaiting a decision. Once the issue is decided by the court, DKT will abide by it accordingly. Because this issue is under judicial consideration, we are prohibited from further public discussion, or comment.

In 2023, DKT Ethiopia paid supply partners $6.8 million for commodity procurements, which supported programming for the people of Ethiopia, especially women, young adults and adolescents. There are no outstanding financial obligations to our supply partners. The suggestion by The Reporter that DKT has not paid out suppliers is false.  

With regard to DKT’s financial standing and its current donor funding, DKT Ethiopia is annually audited by a reputable external auditor, and exhibits a strong financial position. Since the reorganization is early 2022, DKT Ethiopia has delivered more with less. The impact results for the year ended Dec 2022 were 3.47 million “Couples Year of Protection” (CYPs); which were 35% higher than 2021. DKT Ethiopia is on track to achieve its target goal of 3.9 million CYPs for FY2023. The organization has further met all its financial obligations, both internal and external, with performance against KPIs, showing an improved value for the contribution of donors.

It is true that global funding from donors for sexual and reproductive health was greatly reduced due to austerity measures taken by donors and conflicting global priorities in the recent past, but the funding landscape is recovering. DKT Ethiopia receives generous support from its donors and is proud to continue its long legacy of service to the people of Ethiopia for many more years to come.

The friendship relation and economic cooperation between the Republic of Djibouti and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is not new. This economic integration between the two countries is progressing day by day. The two countries, which are jointly members of several regional, continental and international organizations, collaborate in different fields, through joint commissions on subjects on common interest, with a climate of mutual trust.

The Djiboutian authorities, aware of the capital importance of this fruitful cooperation, are sparing no effort to further develop and perpetuate it. It is with this in mind that the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on customs transit in November 2008.  This protocol has enabled the Djiboutian and Ethiopian customs administrations to set up a framework for frank dialogue with a view to finding appropriate solutions to the constraints related to transit between the two countries.

The need to further streamline customs transit, the movement of goods and people, as well as the establishment of optimal interconnection between customs systems were at the heart of discussions during a meeting held on March 21th to 23th, 2023 in Djibouti between the customs authorities of the two countries.

Important decisions were made jointly during this meeting. Among the decisions taken, the creation of an electronic system (E-tracking) of interconnected cargo ships. This should make it possible both to improve the fluidity of traffic and to combat the phenomenon of smuggling more effectively. Similarly, the two parties, aware of the importance of the coding of goods (HS Code) and the customs value, have made the commitment to work together in order to remedy the difficulties linked to customs control and the future implementation of the COMESA regional guarantee on goods in transit.

Beyond the customs agreements, the two countries discuss and cooperate on a permanent basis in areas as varied as common social projects (water and electricity), trade and financial exchanges, strengthening economic integration, as well as the cross-border challenges, particularly security and migration. Joint work has made significant progress thanks to the tenacity of joint commissions and committees and sub-committees of experts from both countries.

It is therefore important to emphasize that the Djibouti customs authorities are members of the various commissions of discussions and are in permanent contact with the Ethiopian customs authorities. This contradicts the comments contained in an article published on April 8, 2023 in the newspaper “The Reporter“.

Indeed, in the event of a specific problem, the Djiboutian authorities always hasten to solve it, in collaboration with the Ethiopian authorities, as explained by the head of the branch of the Ethiopian Maritime Authority (EMA) in Djibouti. He said that although he has not received any official complaints from the complaining exporters.

He added that “If a logistics company or exporter has encountered a problem with cargo facilitation, it is preferable for them to submit detailed complaints to the EMA in order to obtain a solution through a proper procedure, as the problem of importing cargo facilitation was solved“.

In conclusion, there was no need for the Logistics Company or exporter to make a false trial against the Djiboutian customs authorities because there is a legal procedure for complaining in order to have adequate solutions.

China, as a comprehensive strategic cooperative partner, always bears in mind Ethiopia’s needs in various sectors, including financing. It has made, is making, and will always make contributions to Ethiopia’s economic and social development with the principles of sincerity, real results, amity, and good faith. After the conflict in the northern part of Ethiopia, China is making great efforts in its rebuilding and rehabilitation process. A friend in need is a friend indeed—this must be a reflection on China for most Ethiopians.

Nonetheless, there are misconceptions that need be addressed. In its weekly issue, The Reporter discussed Ethiopia’s foreign debt to China. Data never lies. As of December 31, 2020, the total public and publicly guaranteed (PPG) external debt of Ethiopia was USD 28.9 billion, of which multilateral creditors accounted for more than 50 percent, according to available data from the IMF.

In particular, the World Bank’s claims were as high as USD 10.9 billion, accounting for nearly 38 percent of Ethiopia’s total external PPG debt and making it the country’s largest creditor. Bilateral creditors (including China) only accounted for nearly 37 percent of the total. Thus, the report’s claim that “China holds three-quarters of Ethiopia’s USD 27 billion external debt” is inconsistent with the facts.

China attaches great importance to Ethiopia’s debt treatment under the Common Framework. As the co-chair, China has always been the most firm and powerful promoter of Ethiopia’s Creditor Committee. The Chinese side has endeavored to eliminate political interference and actively cooperated with the French side to promote the convening of the creditor committee. A total of five creditor committee meetings have been held to discuss key issues. After the first and fourth meetings, a joint statement of the creditor committee was issued, fully expressing its firm position on assisting Ethiopia in solving its debt problem.

The progress of the debt treatment process has been greatly affected, mainly due to the lack of technical materials and data information such as debt sustainability analysis (DSA) and financing gaps, which are the basis for the Committee’s follow-up work.

China has called on multilateral technical experts at previous meetings to advance Ethiopia’s DSA and loan assessment work as soon as possible to provide financial support to Ethiopia at an earlier date. As the co-chair of the Creditor Committee, China’s efforts to coordinate and promote the progress of Ethiopia’s debt treatment are obvious to all.

In response to Ethiopia’s request, China has completed the bilateral debt restructuring in 2019 and the G20 debt suspension from 2020 to 2021. This has taken a huge load off Ethiopia’s shoulders when it comes to servicing its debts. China has responded positively to every request in difficult times and has always provided Ethiopia with the greatest support within its capacity, actively making efforts to alleviate Ethiopia’s debt distress, and is by no means the party that delays the progress.

Even though it was said that China should be responsible for why Ethiopia’s debt restructuring program got stuck, it is a well-known fact that China always helps Ethiopia out. The zero-tariff treatment for 98 percent of the tariff line with 8,804 items of products exported to China is just a recent case in point.

The preferential treatment should also relieve the pain caused by the US’s ban on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Such an arrangement, like all other tangible cooperation, will produce a rich harvest for the two peoples and, in particular, improve the well-being of Ethiopians.

(Balew Demissie (PhD) is a communication and publication consultant at the Policy Studies Institute.)

Contributed by Balew Demissie (PhD)