The despotical doctrine of Meles Zenwaye

Documentary exposes Ethiopia’s political vulnerability amid risks of following Burma and Zimbabwe into tyranny

In May 2005, the ruling Ethiopian Revolutionary Patriot’s Democratic Front won elections amid allegations of electoral fraud and a campaign of intimidation against opposition groups. Six months and two protests later, nearly 200 civilians were killed and tens of thousands had been arrested, including high profile opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa. the former judge and popular politician was initially jailed for life, pardoned and then commanded to serve out the rest of her sentence.

Next year, Ethiopians will go to the polls again but the political manoeuvring is already underway. Last week, the Sudan Tribune reported on the Meles Zenawi government claims of an alleged coup plot masterminded by former opposition leader Behanu Nega, now an academic in the United States of America. And on Wednesday May 27 2009, the opposition Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) had their permit application for a protest against the Zenawi government in Addis Ababa’s Meksel Square rejected by the city’s administration. A spokesman for the UDJ, Hailu Araya, was quoted as saying the government continued to play political games, thus weakening the UDJ’s effectiveness in the country.
Ethiopia is an important ally for the United States. Its strategic location near the Horn of Africa makes the country key to Barack Obama's attempts to win the War On Terror.
Amidst the backdrop of the 2010 election, the documentary Migration of Beauty is due for released on the international film festival circuit. Directed by Chris Flaherty, the film recalls the experiences of Ethiopian genocide survivors of the 1970s and the community activism led by the Ethiopian diaspora in Washington D.C. in the run-up to the 2005 election. Flaherty spent two years researching and befriending the witnesses involved in the historic event covered in the film. Migration of Beauty has screened at the AFI Institute in Maryland and Goeth-Institute in Washington D.C.

The Ethiopian government has sent a chilling message to all opposition groups by declaring that it will achieve peace at all costs, a clear reference to the protests that tainted the last election four years ago and reviving haunting memories of the Dergue's massacre of students and other civilians in the 1970s. Although the country is not officially a one-party state, the signs pointing to political intimidation mean Ethiopia's past risk leading the nation following Burma and Zimbabwe into tyranny.
Chris Flaherty speaks to Foreign Policy Journal’s David Calleja about what could be in store for sub-Saharan Africa’s second most populous country.



D.C.- Four years after the violence that occurred in the aftermath of Ethiopia's general elections, what news do you have of the mood in the country, and how do you think this will affect the lead-up to the 2010 poll?

C.F.- Obviously I have been keeping track of recent events as they relate to the upcoming Parliamentary election in Ethiopia. I would have to say that at this point it looks pretty grim. I think the party in power has been doing a good job at intimidating any possibility of viable opposition against themselves in 2010. With the re-arrest of one of Ethiopia's strongest opposition leaders, Birtukan Mideksa and the recent announcement by the Ethiopian government that they have launched an investigation against people suspected of overthrowing the government, the prospects look grimmer by the day.. From what I have observed many Ethiopians appear to be slipping into a feeling of helplessness. Many are saying, "Here we go again, this government will stop at nothing to retain power." The biggest fear for me is that Ethiopians will simply give up and accept what happens no matter how illegitimate the outcome.

D.C. - What factors compelled you to make your documentary Migration of Beauty? Why did you feel that it was necessary to tell people what happened in the 1970s under The Dergue as a prelude to the 2005 elections?

C.F.- Perhaps the biggest factor that helped me mold the idea for Migration of Beauty was the inspiration I experienced from documenting seemingly powerless immigrants from a third world country engaging the U.S. political process. During the filming I was able to better understand the conditions that drove many of them to zealously fight for ideas that most ordinary Americans take for granted. My approach was to tell their deeply personal human stories about struggling for freedom and dying for it. Some of the people in the film lived through one of the most horrific chapters of Ethiopian history, the "Dergue" period or the "Red Terror".

By bringing their stories to light I was trying to make clear that it doesn't matter who takes away your freedom as much as it is a criminal for anyone to do such a thing. Otherwise, if your freedom has been taken away the end result is always the same no matter who takes it away, weather it's Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Mengistu Haile Mariam or Meles Zenawi. And while the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi has not committed acts as open and obvious as his predecessor Mengistu Haile Mariam, he is still repressing democratic ideas and has committed numerous human rights abuses. It was important for the Ethiopian/Americans in Migration of Beauty to connect both stories. They have seen it all before.

D.C. -There were some moments in the documentary in which you were prevented from filming. Who was behind the threats and what level of intimidation did they offer to the crew or yourself?

C.F. - I did B-roll filming in Ethiopia directly after the 2005 election massacres. There was a certain tension in the streets. Foreign journalist and filmmakers are highly suspect in the eyes of the Ethiopian government. The Ethiopian government has a long history of repressing the media so I expected I might run into problems. There were two instances where I and my Director of Photography were stopped by the police. The first time I managed to talk my way out of potential arrest by speaking in Amharic and smoothing my way out of the situation. The second time it was the Ethiopian Army that tried to stop us. I quickly discovered that they did not speak Amharic, therefore my language skills yielded no results. I could not understand what they were saying but it was obvious they wanted the video camera. My DP and I simply took off running. For whatever reason they stopped following us and we lost them. We quickly realized that we had to keep our equipment "under the radar" and out of sight. I have heard of worse stories involving intense harassment and arrest of video camera operators. There is one such instance documented in my film.

D.C. - Last year, the opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa was jailed for life. According to Voice of America report, Prime Minster Meles Zenawi government's official line was that "she had not asked for the pardon" handed to her. What do you think is the real reason for the order to serve out her life sentence? What does Meles Zenawi have to fear from her?

C.F. - The situation of jailed dissident Birtukan Mideksa is a very interesting one. The former District Judge represented the biggest threat to the party currently in power, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). And while she was jailed for what would appear to be rather "convenient" technical reasons it's obvious to me that she was put away because there was a good possibility she would beat the EPRDF in a fair election. Considering what happened in 2005 the ruling party appears not to be taking any chance of losing a national election. This is an old story and a proven formula: intimidate, jail and kill all of your viable opponents in order to keep power. No matter how proper and clean everything appears on the surface it's all the same.

D.C. - The same report from Voice Of America indicated a tough stance from the government, vowing that they will not allow the protests of 2005 to occur again in 2010. Zenawi allegedly said that, "We will do everything in our power to have peace." He has also vowed to not only stop any anti-government protests in the wake of the results, but also prevent any possible build-up of opposition support. What tactics do you think he intends to deploy?

C.F. - We can only speculate what the Zenawi led government has planned for the next election. I will acknowledge that the Prime Minister is extremely crafty with words and has leveraged this skill to benefit his position in the world view. However, to say, "We will do everything in our power to have peace" is an extremely ominous indication considering his well documented past endeavours to keep the peace. Besides possible use of military force, it's a safe bet to expect him to shut down the press completely and quell all avenues of dissent. My fear is that it could be much worse than it was in 2005. I'm not sold on the idea that everyone will go back into their houses if the government murders a bunch of unarmed civilians. It appears that the populace is deeply frustrated and they might go much further with the civil disobedience than they did in 2005. Either way, I sincerely hope no one gets hurt.

D.C. - You have quoted Dr. Jedyani Frazer as to making remarks about the dangers of a free press being a danger at the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, and that in African countries, could lead to "ethnic cleansing", such as what happened in Rwanda in 1994. What message do you think Dr. Frazer's remarks send, and what justification did he use?

C.F. - I was taken aback with Dr. Frazer's comment. To specifically call out the so called "irresponsible press" without mentioning the dangers of media repression is a horrible proposition. Considering Dr. Frazer’s past influence on foreign policy in Africa it was a chilling comment. If the government in hand deems their press to be irresponsible are we to base our foreign policy on their beliefs? Exactly who gets to decide the parameters of irresponsibility? And while Dr. Frazer did not specifically mention the role of the press in the Rwandan Genocide, most people know it is the 5000 pound elephant in the room. And therein lies the question- how do we balance the two?

My belief is that it is the right of the press to be free.... We must base our foreign policy on the ideas we believe in ourselves, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us feel. And when a particular government is proven to repress their media we should call them out and do nothing to lend credence to their credibility. It was the Ethiopian Ambassador to the U.S. himself, Samuel Assefa who told me that the Ethiopian government must control the press otherwise Ethiopians might commit ethnic genocide on themselves. All this is coming from a government that has instituted a policy of "Ethnic Federalism" which intentionally creates a divide between the many ethnic tribes within the country. This government has done little or nothing to foster a sense of national identity.. It's an old formula, control the press and divide everyone to decrease the threat of losing power. Comments like the one Dr. Frazer made simply send the wrong signal to the world..


D.C. - What has U.S. President Barack Obama said regarding the Ethiopian leadership and what foreign policy initiative has he proposed? How can he be more effective in dealing with Meles Zenawi than his predecessor, George W. Bush?

C.F. - To date, I haven't heard much from the Obama Administration in regards to issues of democratic process in Africa. It's obvious they are being very careful. In this respect I believe they are doing the right thing. However, many Africans as well as those in the diaspora appear to be holding their breath to see exactly where he will stand. I can safely say that many have high hopes. It's a very difficult line for Obama to walk. News coming out of Somalia gets grimmer by the day and the Zenawi led government is the only one that appears to support our interests in the region.

In fact, the Ethiopian government makes this very clear to our elected officials. In my view, it is perhaps the biggest bargaining chip Zenawi can leverage. He knows that many U.S. Congressmen and Senators deplore his style of government but they are willing to deal as long as he represents our so called interests. He's proven himself to be very skillful in keeping just within the parameters of acceptability in the U.S. As far as Obama is concerned he must make clear where his priorities lie. It was the Bush Administration that justified dealing with any despotic regime in the name of fighting the war on terror.

This policy has proven to be disastrous for the U.S. It makes no sense to support governments that use military force to control their people in the name of fighting terrorism. In fact, the whole idea is absolute insanity to me. This is a special time in U..S. history. We stand at a precipice. We are forced to decide who we are as a nation in the eyes of the world. So often we have preached the virtues of democracy and freedom to virtually everyone. And now more than ever we are understandably challenged on those core beliefs. It is my hope that the Obama Administration will understand and adapt our foreign policy with this in mind.

D.C. - Do you believe that Birtukan Mideksa is Africa's answer to the jailed leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? Are there any similarities between the Burmese military regime and the Ethiopian leadership?

C.F. - No doubt, jailed dissident leader Birtukan Mideksa is an aspiring figure. I notice many similarities between her and Aung San Suu Kyi. Besides both of them being women they possess the types of charismatic characteristics that would help them go far in national appeal. Both are smart and unwavering in their ambitions to see true democracy and freedom in their countries. In the case of Ethiopia I think many Ethiopians have become disillusioned with the opposition in the past. From what I have been able to access there appears to be tremendous anger with the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party (CUDP) opposition, the party Birtukan used to lead with Hailu Shawel.

Like anyone anywhere, Ethiopians need to believe in the strength of their leadership. Many felt let down and betrayed when the CUDP failed to stand their ground after their arrest in 2005. Many felt that they made deals selling out the cause of democracy and freedom simply to get out of jail. However, Birtukan was able to help form her own party, the Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) Party and appeared to have a change of heart concerning the conditions of her release from prison. At this point she appears willing to stand her ground against Meles Zenawi and her popularity has dramatically risen as a result. Like Aung San Suu Kyi, her status could become legendary as long as she remains unwavering in her peaceful struggle for true democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia. It will obviously be a long hard struggle but if she has the stomach for it she could be instrumental in leading her country to a better future.

While there are many similarities between the regimes in Ethiopia there are also many differences. The regime in Burma appears to be "straight out" dictatorial rule. They make no secret of their endeavours to ruthlessly quash dissent. They have shown time and again that they will send out their military to shoot unarmed civilians in the streets and make no apologies for doing it. However, it's a bit more complicated in Ethiopia, as the government claims to have something called an "emerging" democracy and says it's not perfect as it is evolving. In the mean time the end results are always the same.

When push comes to shove, the Zenawi-led government has shown to the world they will commit the same exact human rights crimes the regime in Burma has done. And while Ethiopia has labored very hard to create the perception of legitimacy they will use their military on their own people if they feel threatened to be removed by democratic process. In my opinion the only measure of democracy is weather you have it or weather you don't. If you have no ability to change the government by virtue of free and fair elections then it doesn't exist. This is the case in Ethiopia.

D.C. - How organized and active is Washington DC's Ethiopian community? What messages have they delivered and who has been at the forefront of such efforts?

C.F. - From what I see, organization within the Ethiopian diaspora over opposition and election issues is sporadic at best. Certainly I have seen nothing on the level I witnessed a couple years ago in the fight for the Human Rights and Accountability Bill, HR 2003. True, the Ethiopian government has spent millions to stall the bill in the Senate but zealous petitioning from the Ethiopian diaspora has gone flat. I get the sense that many are just frustrated and tired of the fight.

I believe one of the biggest problems is their inability to nationalize the cause. They have a tendency to internalize the issues and keep it to themselves. It's sad because their causes are ones most Americans can identify with. In my opinion it might work best for them if they phrase their cause as a universal human rights struggle rather than as an internal one. I think it would be most effective if they appealed directly to the American voters themselves the way the Cuban/Americans have done.

In the past, the diaspora worked so hard to gain the assistance of people like Congressmen Chris Smith and Donald Payne and now the diaspora is almost never heard from. Nonetheless, I still have high hopes that they will eventually use their rights as U.S. citizens to bring deafening light to their cause, especially as the next Ethiopian election approaches in 2010.


D.C. - What role has Ethiopia's past played in shaping a future catastrophe? Do you believe that the persona of former dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam is still prominent in shaping the fear instilled by the Ethiopian leadership today?

C.F. - This is a very good question. No doubt, many Ethiopians possess what I call “generational fear” which is the type of fear passed down and learned from family and others. For the latest generation of Ethiopians this is not a fear based on personal experience. During the period of the Red Terror thousands were brutally murdered in the streets and as a result an overpowering sense of fear has virtually become part of the culture. Who could blame them? If you knew how young men and women were systematically murdered, their bodies pinned with notes warning everyone to heed the Red Terror, you might better understand. It’s no wonder that the older generation warns their children to, “stay away from politics, it will get you killed”. The damage of cultural fear has stifled healthy interest in governmental participation.

Without a doubt, the Zenawi government has effectively capitalized on the culture of fear instilled by Mengistu Haile Mariam. I am aware that some Ethiopians might be offended by what I am saying but I am speaking from my heart. Recently I read that an opposition party was desperately struggling to get a permit to hold a peaceful rally in a public area known as Meskel Square. Of course the government denied the permit. I was dismayed because no one had the courage to stage the rally without the permit. The rally was planned to be peaceful with no malice intended against the government. While I absolutely do not condone violence, I do believe in peaceful protest. Martin Luther King routinely staged public demonstrations without permits. He knew people would get hurt but he also knew they would never be able to advance their movement if everyone stayed home because there was no permit.

D.C. - In 1999, the BBC reported that the US Embassy in Harare admitted to assisting Mengistu in finding a safehaven where he was eventually offered sanctuary by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. Should Obama publicly acknowledge that this tactic was a mistake and has this contributed to the political unrest experienced by Ethiopia since?

C.F. - While it might not bring total closure for Ethiopians the gesture would certainly go miles to break down the years of mistrust they have been feeling as a result of our misguided foreign policy. Besides the issue of the U.S’s involvement in Mengistu’s escape to Zimbabwe they should also be more transparent about their motives with the current regime. From my point of view, the U.S.. has very little to lose by appealing to the Ethiopian people apart from the government.

As I said, many politicians in the U.S. are very uncomfortable with the Ethiopian government. Since the 2005 election massacres their credibility has never been the same. The U.S. absolutely needs to acknowledge the bravery of the thousands who struggle for true democracy and freedom in Ethiopia.

Authors’ note: Following a trial that lasted 12 years, an Ethiopian court sentenced Mengistu to life imprisonment in absentia in March 2007 for his role in the genocide that took place during the 1970s. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch estimate that between half a million and 1.5 million people were killed during Mengistu's reign, beginning in 1974 and ending in 1991.

Before receiving asylum in Zimbabwe, Mengistu is said to have pocketed an undisclosed figure following Israel's purchase to evacuate 5,000 Falasha Jews at a cost of $USD300 million. to Israel. In addition, he pocketed all proceeds following the sale of the Livestock Development Company for $USD10 million shortly before fleeing Ethiopia for Zimbabwe, where he is now a permanent resident. The Ethiopian people received no compensation.

The Zimbabwean Government has said that it would not force Mengistu to return to Ethiopia. A spokesman for Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said that the role Mengistu played in supplying arms and pilot training to the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) in its war against white minority rule in the country formerly known as Rhodesia, helped resistance fighters achieve independence. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) accuse him of masterminding President Mugabe's Operation Murambastvina (Clean Out The Trash), whereby government militiamen allegedly bulldozed the houses of between 700,000 to 1 million civilians in Harare, mainly MDC supporters. He is reportedly offered personal protection by Mugabe's Presidential Guard battalion and owns multiple properties.

(Source: Bridgland, F. (2007), “Ethiopia; Why Mugabe Rejects An Appeal For Extradition of Mengistu”, The Addis Ababa Reporter, in Genocide Watch,

Website: Genocidewatch.org)

The Culture of Impunity

Written on Monday, May 25th, 2009
Al MariamBy Alemayehu G. Mariam | 25 May 2009

The Culture of Impunity

David Dadge, Director of the Vienna-based International Press Institute, the oldest press freedom organization in the world, recently wrote a compelling commentary in The Guardian which should be of special interest to all Ethiopian human rights advocates.1 He suggested that the current dictatorship in Ethiopia operates in an entrenched culture of impunity (not to be confused with the equally gripping culture of corruption that afflicts it) in which gross human rights abuses are committed routinely without legal accountability of the abusers and active complicity of officials. He argued that this culture could be brought to an end or significantly curtailed by donor countries and international lending institutions.

Dadge offered a partial list of the crimes committed by the current dictatorship with impunity:

… An authoritarian government rules Ethiopia with virtual impunity. Prime minister Meles Zenawi, in power for 18 years, has crushed the opposition. His ruling party dominates public institutions. Worse still, in a vast and redominantly rural country, the prime minister’s underlings control broadcasting and maintain a choke-hold on other media… Four years ago this month, Zenawi’s Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Party (EPRDF) suffered its worst loss at the polls since the former guerrilla overthrew a ruthless, Soviet-backed regime in 1991. Rather than accept its losses, the EPRDF-run government responded with a brutal crackdown, claiming outright victory and accusing the opposition of trying to stage an insurrection. Security forces attacked peaceful protesters, jailed opposition leaders, sent thousands of their supporters to gruesome detention camps and accused independent journalists of treason – a crime punishable by death.

The Legacy of Impunity

Ethiopia’s modern history has been disfigured by unfathomable acts of official cruelty and inhumanity. Few have ever been held to account for criminal acts of depravity that can be soberly described as monstrous. The enduring legacy of impunity is too painful to remember: There was the criminal and extreme indifference of the imperial regime to the hundreds of thousands of famine victims in the early 1970s. The fire stoked by that famine consumed the monarchy, and from its ashes rose a military dictatorship of unimaginable savagery. Mengistu and his henchmen orchestrated official “terror” campaigns which resulted in the extermination of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. Justice has yet to catch up with those criminals. Today there is a diabolically cruel and wicked criminal enterprise masquerading as a government that has continued the sadistic and barbarous legacy of impunity. The current dictators in Ethiopia operate on the belief that they can commit any crime whatsoever without fear of punishment, legal accountability, or retribution. This culture of impunity must end!

Practicing the Culture of Impunity

Over the past decade, there has been massive documentation of human rights violations in Ethiopia. Yet there has not been a single independently verified prosecution of human rights violations under the current dictatorship. No regime official or member of its security or military force has ever been prosecuted for crimes against humanity. There have been no prosecutions even when there is clear proof of gross human rights violations in the possession of the regime. Just last year, Col. Michael Dewars, the internationally renowned riot control expert, hired by the dictatorship to make ecommendations on riot control improvements stated in his report that the Director General of the Ethiopian Federal Police told him, “As a direct result of the 2005 riots, he [had] sacked 237 policemen.”2 This evidence directly contradicts previous statements by the dictatorship denying specific knowledge of any criminal conduct by the riot plicemen who fired into crowds of innocent protesters indiscriminately. It also shows the entrenched and hardcore nature of the culture of impunity in the dictatorship: Even suspects who are “directly” implicated in the massacres of nearly 200 protesters and maiming of nearly 800 others four years ago have yet to be brought to justice. On December 13, 2003, more than 400 Anuaks were massacred by uniformed soldiers of the dictatorship, and tens of thousands were forced to flee to the Sudan. Though there are multitudes of eyewitnesses to the massacres, not one of the implicated “soldiers” has been prosecuted.

Even when U.N. Undersecretary GeneralJohn Holmes in 2007 visited the Ogaden region and later recommended to the leader of the current dictatorship that large numbers of civilians had been killed by regime troops, their homes burned and deprived of adequate food or medicines, the official response was, “There have probably been cases of [human] rights violations by government troops [but] the violations were not widespread or systematic.” No one was ever identified, investigated, arrested or prosecuted for these “human rights violations”. Indiscriminate shelling of civilians in Somalia by the regime’s troops have resulted in mind boggling civilian casualties and displacement of over 1.5 million people from their homes. No one has been charged with war crimes. There are also thousands of cases in which official criminal acts have been perpetrated against individuals in violation of the dictatorship’s own constitution and criminal laws as documented fully in the annual reports of the various international human rights organizations. No prosecutions in such cases have taken place. To add insult to injury, the dictatorship recently drafted a so-called antiterrorism law which aims to provide full “legal” armor to its decadent culture of impunity. (Legal history buffs will no doubt be amused by the curious similarity of the text, tenor and spirit of the dictatorship’s “anti-terrorism law” with the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, which accelerated the entrenchment of the Nazis by giving them a legal cudgel to hammer down their opposition on mere suspicion of “terrorism”.)

Ending the Culture of Impunity

Dadge argues convincingly that donor countries and multilateral lending institutions providing “development” funds have significant leverage against the dictatorship in Ethiopia, and could help bring accountability for human rights violations and closure to the culture of impunity:

The European Union and the United States will pump about $2.5bn into Ethiopia this year, a sum that does not even begin to include the cost of medicines, famine relief and countless other services provided by non-profit groups… There are ways to pressure Zenawi: Donors should deny Ethiopian ministers a seat at diplomatic tables… The Development Assistance Group, created by the EU and other principal donors to

co-ordinate aid projects in Ethiopia [should] ensure that international resources do not support policies that are anathema to human rights values…. The EU should aggressively enforce the Cotonou Agreement, which requires Ethiopia and other nations that receive European assistance to respect ‘human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law’. The EU and the US should wield more of their clout at the World Bank and other international organisations to link development grants to progress on press freedom and human rights.

Implicit in Dadge’s argument are three vital propositions: 1) The indulgence and benign indifference of the EU, the U.S. and international lending organizations are partly responsible for emboldening the dictatorship to continue to practice its culture of impunity. 2) These same donors and lenders hold the key to ending that culture of impunity by making all non-humanitarian aid to the dictatorship contingent on improvements in human rights. 3) The dictatorship will continue to conjure up the specter of terrorism, regional instability and internal chaos to cling to power and perpetuate reflexive support from the donors and lenders.
Implicit


We have witnessed the Bush administration turning a blind eye to massive human rights violations in Ethiopia so long as the dictatorship was willing to undertake a proxy war in Somalia. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown chose to be romanced by smooth talk of democracy and intellectual pretensions; they too turned a blind eye. Brown insulted the intelligence of all Africans when he invited the current dictator in Ethiopia, universally condemned for his dismal human rights record, to represent Africa at the G-20 meeting. But that has been the history of duplicity of the Bush-Brown-Gordon axis. The EU must also be outed for its hypocrisy. Not long ago, it rewarded the dictators in Ethiopia with a gift of €250 million shortly after they clamped down on NGOs and civic society institutions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund suspended some aid in feigned outrage against the dictatorship following the 2005 elections, but later opened up the floodgates of loans to sustain it. None of the donors and lenders did much to stop the killings, mass arrests, imprisonments and persecution of innocent Ethiopians. It is self-evident that for more than a decade, there has been a tragic failure of donor and lender policy in not supporting good governance in Ethiopia based on the principle of the rule of law. Donors have sought to evade the truth about the dictatorship by justifying its egregious human rights abuses as manifestations of benign ignorance, inexperience, incompetence or lack of technical understanding of modern governance. Donors and lenders must be made to support democracy and the rule of Ethiopia!

From a Culture of Impunity to a Culture of the Rule of Law

Dadge is telling us that the culture of impunity practiced by the dictatorship could be changed by transforming international donor and lender policies. The first step in bringing about this change is to get donors and lenders to take moral responsibility for their complicity in the dictatorship’s human rights abuses. We must do everything possible to get them to publicly condemn the regime’s repression and atrocities. Second, we must demonstrate to them with empirical evidence that the aid and development loans they provide to the regime are pivotal in sustaining the system of repression and human rights abuses. We must make convincing moral, political and legal arguments that show the rule of law and growth of democratic institutions in Ethiopia will serve their practical and long term interests better than the expediency of supporting a regime that can sustain itself only through violence and brutality. In short, we must use all of our resources to force Western donor countries and multilateral lending institutions to publicly chose between democracy and the rule of law in Ethiopia on the one hand, and dictatorship and human rights abuses on the other. That should be the cornerstone of our global advocacy strategy!

We challenge Ethiopians exiled in Europe to do their part and follow up with Dadge’s suggested courses of action. They have a powerful legal tool to make their case before the European Union. They must insist that the EU live up to its legal obligations under the 2000 Cotonou Partnership Agreement, and deny aid and loans to governments that do not “respect human rights, uphold democratic principles based on the rule of law and maintain transparency and accountability in governance.”

We are not unmindful of the tired, worn out and silly sovereignty arguments (”no donor or lender can tell us to improve human rights”) of the dictatorship. There is one simple truth the dictators need to understand clearly: Beggars can not dictate terms to their benefactors! They accept graciously and gratefully what they are given. Taxpayers of Western donor countries have no moral or legal obligation to provide material support to regimes who use their aid to commit crimes against humanity. A truly sovereign government takes care of its people, abides by the rules of international law and does not depend on the perpetual charity and goodwill of others to feed its people, run its government and maintain its social institutions.

Zero Tolerance for a Culture of Impunity

We must consistently advocate a policy of zero tolerance of a culture of impunity in Ethiopia. This means torturers, killers and other violators of human rights must be thoroughly and independently investigated, prosecuted, convicted and punished. The time to build a transitional bridge from a culture of impunity to a culture of the rule of law is now. Exiled Ethiopians alone can not build this bridge. We must make allies of the citizens of the EU countries and the U.S. and convince them that their hard earned tax dollars must not be used to bankroll a depraved dictatorship in Ethiopia. In the U.S., many of us have taken that challenge directly. We shall continue to work with Congressman Donald Payne and Senators Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy to bring to fruition the “Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act” (formerly H.R. 2003), which links U.S. non-humanitarian aid to improvements in human rights in Ethiopia. We are also confident that the Obama Administration will be sympathetic to our cause of human rights accountability. We believe the new administration will not turn a blind eye, a deaf ear and a mute tongue to our plea for help in stopping human rights abuses, ending the culture of impunity and in establishing the rule of law in Ethiopia.

Letter writing campaigns, public demonstrations and petitions are important; but to end the culture of impunity and bring human rights violators to justice much more is needed. Persuasive, convincing and cold hard evidence is required. We must expand and develop an ongoing data collection effort that documents human rights violations on a systematic basis throughout the country. We must apply creative strategies to monitor harassment of human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists, use video and audio technologies to document incidents of abuse particularly by members of the security forces, locate and maintain witness lists for abuse incidents, keep photographic and documentary records of torture and abuse victims and perform other similar activities. We thank those courageous Ethiopians who have undertaken such tasks to date.

Those Who Refuse to Learn From History Should Learn From Their Constitution

George Santayana admonished, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If we do not learn from the burdensome legacy of the culture of impunity, we shall be condemned to prolong and tolerate it for ages to come. The old adage holds true in Ethiopia’s case: “The limits of tyrants are set by the level of tolerance of those subjected to tyranny.” The people of Ethiopia have tolerated a ruthless dictatorship for eighteen years. They are now a hungry and angry people. They are hungry not only for food to sustain their bodies, but also a human rights culture anchored in the principle of the rule of law and democratic institutions to nurture their spirits. They are angry because their basic human rights are violated everyday. Freedom from the rule of those wallowing in a culture of impunity comes at a high price. Many Ethiopians pay that price on a daily basis. We believe history is a great teacher; but the law is a formidable disciplinarian. Article 28 of the dictatorship’s constitution is prophetically instructive:

Crimes Against Humanity. There shall be no period of limitation on persons charged with crimes against humanity as provided by international conventions ratified by Ethiopia and other laws of Ethiopia. The legislature or any other organ of state shall have no power to pardon or give amnesty with regard to such offences.”

Those who refuse to learn from history would be wise to learn from their own constitution!

The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He can be reached at almariam@

Crimes of willful ignorance

Crimes of willful ignorance
By Alemayehu G. Mariam | May 18, 2009

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam Barking Up the Wrong Tree

This past week, the attack dogs of the dictatorship in Ethiopia were unleashed against Amnesty International (AI) because that organization had requested publication of the names of suspects arrested for allegedly conspiring to assassinate high officials and blow up government buildings. Ermiyas Legesse, a “State Minister of Government Communication Affairs”, offered the incredibly ignorant legal analysis that AI’s request for a list of the suspects represented a human rights violation and an interference in the country’s legal process: “Amnesty was giving a verdict before the Ethiopian court, the only legal institution to make any judgment on the issue. Now Amnesty is committing a prejudice. It is hindering our judiciary system, which by itself is violation of human rights.” Shimeles Kemal, the notorious legal flunkey and spinmeister of the regime and star persecutor of the Kinijit kangaroo court chimed in with his signature gobbledegook: “At a time of conducting investigation against criminal, it is so difficult to release information as it may frustrate the investigation process.” Identifying suspects who are held incommunicado while the regime is stage managing a media circus frenzy about their sinister crimes against the state will hinder a criminal investigation and constitute a human rights violation? Such is the illogic of a regime that is trapped in the throes of political turmoil and survival. Such is the loony logic of a regime in terminal paranoia!

Dictatorship of Ignoramuses

All of the brouhaha about the AI request for the list of suspects would have amounted to no more than comic relief but for the fact that we are seeing laid out before our eyes the makings of a legal lynching in a Kangaroo Kriminal Kourt. We have seen it all before during the two years of “prosecution” of the Kinijit and other pro-democracy leaders. (See my 32-page analysis of those proceedings .)The careful observer will no doubt be amused by the spectacle of this manifestly mindlessness make-believe trial of 40 suspects officially dubbed “desperadoes”: 1) Could the regime possibly believe that any reasonable person who has marginal familiarity with their long record of human rights abuses and miscarriage of justice will give an iota of credibility to their silly kangaroo judicial process? 2) Are they so lacking in intelligence that they simply can’t see their legal pretensions are mere exercises in futility? Or are they just playing dumb? Perhaps they think the rest of the world is so. 3) Could it be that they are cleverly trying to distract attention from the real issues facing the country such as endemic corruption, famine, prisons full of political prisoners, skyrocketing cost of living and so on by stage managing a media circus around the infamous “Case of the Desperadoes”? 4) Is it possible that they are taking a preemptive strike against international human rights organizations and put them on the defensive in anticipation of criticisms they expect to get as they proceed with their bogus prosecutions? 5) Could it be that they are just ignorant of general principles of criminal law, their own constitution and criminal law and procedure? We will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are legal ignoramuses.

Criminal Procedure 101 for Kangaroo Court

As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.” The criminal dictatorship put on a dog and pony legal show for nearly two years following the 2005 elections. They fooled some people then, but they won’t be able to fool many people twice with their “40 Desperadoes” kangaroo court road show. We will call them out on their own constitution and laws: Article 9 of their constitution provides, “This Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” No “laws, practices, and decisions of public officials” can negate it. Article 10 provides, “Human rights and freedoms as inherent rights of man are inalienable and inviolable.” Article 13 provides that the rights of Ethiopian citizens “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” Among the fundamental constitutional rights of the accused listed in the “supreme law of the land” include the right “the presumption of innocence until proved guilty by a court of law, a public hearing before an ordinary court of law without undue delay” and written notice of the charges. (See also Arts. 19, and 11.)” Art. 61 guarantees the right of “any person detained on arrest or on remand” to “call forthwith” and consult a lawyer of his choice. Article 24 guarantees “Everyone shall have the right to his human dignity and good reputation.”

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is incorporated in the “supreme law” by express reference provides “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 9 provides “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention…. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. (See also Art. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code.) A criminal defendant is entitled to a change of venue if “a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in any criminal court.” (Art. 106, Crim. Proc. Code.)

Presumption of Innocence

The “40 Desperadoes” are presumed to be absolutely innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The burden of proving their guilt based on legally admissible evidence rests entirely on the prosecution. As defendants, they do not have any burden of proof whatsoever! In determining the issue of guilt, the judge(s) must rely solely and exclusively on the evidence presented at trial. It is obvious that the “40 desperadoes” have not only been presumed guilty -- indeed they have been found guilty -- before they are even served with notice of the written charges. Bereket Simeon, a “communications minister” and chief advisor to the regime leader declared, “six of the suspects were army officers on active duty, including one general, 34 of the suspects were ex-army men expelled from the army on grounds of misconduct. [The suspects did not intend] to stage a coup but assassinate individuals, high ranking government officials and destroying some public facilities and utilities … like telecom services and electricity utilities… They intended to create conducive conditions for large scale chaos and havoc.” What is truly appalling is the fact that a statement of such gravity made by the second most powerful man in the regime is tantamount to an irrevocable verdict of guilty. What judge in the land will have the guts to overrule such an outrageously politically-motivated legal conclusion intended to prejudge the defendants’ case, cripple their defense, deny them a fair trial and railroad them straight to jail or worse?

Notice of Charges

Most of the suspects in the alleged terrorist conspiracy were arrested on or about April 24 amidst a media circus complete with pictures and videos of weapons caches allegedly to be used in the plot. To date, none of the suspects has been charged, and all remain in detention. What is required to charge the suspects under the regime’s constitution is a plain and concise statement of the acts constituting the alleged criminal. Indeed, Simeon’s statement alleges sufficient facts which minimally point to “terrorism”, attempted insurrection and conspiracy. If the evidence against the suspects is as ironclad as the regime suggests, there is no need for any delay in charging them or identifying them in public. But we have seen this game played before during the prosecution of the Kinijit and other defendants. (See link at footnote 1.) The regime makes general allegations in the media, shuttle the detained suspects back and forth to “court”, request interminable delays to investigate the case and locate witnesses (fabricate evidence) and let the suspects languish in prolonged pretrial detention until it decides to announce all of them are guilty.

Fair and Impartial Trial

Is it remotely possible for the “desperadoes” to have a “fair and impartial trial” in the regime’s kangaroo courts? Could there be a judge(s) throughout the land who can hear and impartially decide the issue of guilt without improper influence, inducements, pressure, threats or political interference by the dictators? To answer this question in the affirmative is to assert that the rule of law prevails in Ethiopia, and that the “supreme law of the land” is actually followed. As evidenced in the Kinijit kangaroo trials, there will be perjury-fest in the courtroom. There will be funny capers with the evidence. Endless requests for continuances and postponements of court dates will granted to the prosecution to investigate the case (why file charges if the prosecution is not ready for trial?). Possibly, there will be international observers who will sit in kangaroo court and cringe in silence as they see a monumental miscarriage of justice unfold before their very eyes. A troika of the regime’s best judicial hacks will be enthroned on the bench having taken the oath of “see nothing, hear nothing and do nothing”. Fair trial in a criminals’ court, what a quaint idea!

Right to Counsel

The “desperadoes” supposedly have the constitutional right to counsel. It is a universally accepted axiom of the law that there can never be a fair criminal trial in which the defendant is denied the assistance of counsel. The defense lawyer advises the defendant of his rights and explains the various stages of the criminal process, ensures the defendant's constitutional and procedural rights are not violated, investigates the facts and prepares legal defenses. As the various international human rights organizations have documented for years, access to counsel by pretrial detainees in Ethiopia is non-existent. In ordinary criminal cases, public defenders may be appointed if the matter goes to trial. In political cases, the authorities tightly regulate the attorney-client privilege arbitrarily denying consultations, limit consultation times, intrude upon privileged attorney-client conferences, intimidate defense lawyers who represent their clients zealously and even sanction them for vigorously defending their clientsin court. Under such circumstances, can anyone reasonably expect a fair trial?

Human Dignity and Good Reputation

The 40 individuals suspected of involvement in the conspiracy were officially characterized as “desperadoes” despite their constitutional right to dignity and good reputation. The choice of epithet is calculated. It is intended to ridicule and belittle them, and diminish their status as military officers. They are trying to create a public image of these officers as “good soldiers gone bad”. By describing them as “desperadoes”, the regime aims to caricature them in the manner of the reckless outlaws of the frontier American West who would shoot up the saloon in a drunken rage. They want to depict and demean them as criminal thugs and draw upon them public hatred, ridicule and contempt while destroying the self-esteem of these officers and their standing community. But the fact remains that they have a constitutional right to good reputation as officers and gentlemen, and are presumed innocent until proven desperado!

Trials as a Tool of Political Persecution: The Need to Understand Abuses of Criminal Procedure in Human Rights Cases

It is important to understand abuses of criminal procedural rights in human rights cases because enforcement of the criminal law and denial of procedural rights of suspects is the principal tool used by dictators to accomplish multiple purposes: 1) The misuse, manipulation and denial of procedural rights (the process by which guilt is proven and punishment exacted) to suspects presents dictatorships tremendous opportunities for oppression and human rights violations without attracting much criticism or condemnation. It gives them an opportunity to avoid accountability by claiming that any questioning of what they do or not do is a “hinder[ance] of our judiciary system.” 2) Disregard for lawful procedures in criminal cases often serves as a method for stifling expressions which are critical of the dictatorship. That was precisely what Legesse and Kemal were trying to do in claiming that Amnesty International’s request for a list of suspects is a “human rights violation” and an obstruction to investigation. 3) Manipulation of criminal procedural rights in dictatorships are also often used to send a warning to other opposition members that the full wrath and weight of kangaroo law could be visited upon them at any moment.

Of course, the use of trials as a tool of political persecution is nothing new. Dictatorships in history have used the court system and the trial process to vindicate their own legitimacy as leaders and the legitimacy of their state institutions by prosecuting those they perceive as threats. It is no different here. The dictators in the “desperado” cases are using the kangaroo court show trials as opportunities for the demonstration of their own legitimacy as a government and control of state institutions while impressing the party faithful with their use of an iron legal fist. But Stalin had perfected these techniques decades ago. He consolidated his absolute power in the Great Purges of the 1930s by staging kangaroo court proceedings to eliminate “opportunists”, “counter-revolutionary infiltrators”, “enemies of the people”, and “terrorist organizations and terrorist acts (for which he enacted a special law). During the purge of the Red Army, thousands of military leaders and officers were convicted of treason and other offenses against the state, and jailed or killed. But Stalin spared no one. Workers, peasants, housewives, teachers, priests, musicians, soldiers, pensioners and even beggars were arrested and punished on mere suspicion or no suspicion at all. As terminal paranoia widens its grip, similar outcomes could be expected in Ethiopia as well. The fact of the matter is that the show trials of the “desperadoes” will be used as a tool to facilitate their conviction, and most importantly, as a sophisticated means of repression of dissent and suppression of democratic impulses.

Kangaroo Justice: Verdict First, Trial Second

We know exactly what has happened with the 40 desperadoes. They have been found guilty as sin by the powers that be even before they are charged with a single crime. The coming kangaroo trial is just window dressing for a guilty verdict that has already been reached. It is all a charade, a legal game in which there will be prosecutors and defense lawyers (maybe), party-hacks-in-robes pretending to be judges and endless court dates. Who needs constitutional rights, procedural protections, human rights laws and other such quaint legal niceties when we can play kangaroo court: “The Case of the 40 Desperadoes. Let the Games Begin!”

-----
The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. For comments, he can be reached at almariam@gmail.com

Last three articles

Democracy at Bay
Terminal Paranoia
The Arc of Justice

Ethiomedia.com - An African-American news and views website.
© Copyright 2008 Ethiomedia.com. Email: editor@ethiomedia.com

BACK TO ETHIOMEDIA FRONT PAGE

Terminal Paranoia! A Plot Here! A Plot There! A Plot Everywhere!

By Alemayehu G. Mariam

April, 2009. “The ‘desperadoes’ are here! They are going to ‘assassinate high ranking government officials and destroy public facilities and utilities!’” Some forty individuals are officially said to be arrested for “terrorism” (but the real number may be at least five times as many). December, 2006. “The jihadists are coming! The Al-Shabaab terrorists are coming!” They never came but nearly 20,000 Somali civilians were killed, 29,000 wounded and 1.7 million displaced. May 2005. “Kinijit is plotting to ‘overthrow the constitutional order’! Kinijit is agitating an insurrection in the streets!” Nearly 200 unarmed protesters were massacred in the streets, 763 wounded and 30,000 jailed by official Inquiry Commission accounts. Top Kinijit leaders and dozens of human rights activists, journalists and civic society leaders were also jailed. The pretext of mysterious plots has proven to be a worn-out trick used by the dictatorship in Ethiopia to hammer down opponents, ratchet up the repression and divert public attention from its crimes and poor governance.

Triumph of Paranoia in Ethiopia

The latest saga of brutal repression in Ethiopia comes in the form of an alleged “desperado” conspiracy to “overthrow” the dictatorial regime. Leading the phalanx of “desperadoes” include an 80-year old grandfather, a young man and an active duty officer. But the official version of events followed the usual repertoire of lies and mendacity. Simon, a “communications minister”, concocted a bizarre tale of a gallery of “desperadoes”, “terrorists,” “disgruntled” military officers, shadowy assassins and a “dangerous” international “mastermind” who manipulated them all by remote control from the United States. According to Simon,

Six of the suspects were army officers on active duty, including one general, 34 of the suspects were ex-army men expelled from the army on grounds of misconduct. [The suspects did not intend] to stage a coup but assassinate individuals, high ranking government officials and destroying some public facilities and utilities … like telecom services and electricity utilities… They intended to create conducive conditions for large scale chaos and havoc. The police have also found evidence implicating some ex-CUD members released on pardon. With the exception of some three or four of the desperadoes group who are still at large, the police have arrested almost all members of the conspiracy.

Simon in self-congratulatory mode assured the world that “if there had been laxity from the government, there would have been problems.” In any case the “terrorist desperadoes” would not have succeeded, he said, because “our army is in a very good shape based on democratic and constitutional values.”

It is obvious that the regime is undergoing another one of its periodic paroxysms of fear, loathing and total bewilderment. The arrest of these so-called “desperadoes” says more about the regime’s desperation than the occurrence of an imminent assault by a “desperado” outfit. The fact of the matter is that the regime and its leaders are scared of their own political survival: They have nosedived from an acute state of high anxiety into the abyss of terminal paranoia. The signs are unmistakable: arresting and jailing every potential opponent or dissident on trumped up charges, intimidation of opposition leaders, military purges, scapegoating and demonization of imaginary foes, denunciation of alleged worldwide provocateurs and troublemakers, asset seizures of businesses and arrests of merchants, show trials and a campaign of inane propaganda to hoodwink the public and the international community of an impending doom. The steady retrogression of the dictatorial regime into totalitarianism over the past four years demonstrates that they are themselves the modern reincarnation of the frontier desperadoes of the American Old West -- violent, vicious, vulgar, thuggish, reckless, rash and hopeless.

The Psychologic of the Regime’s Paranoia:

Fear of Sudden Mass Uprising

The regime’s paranoia can be explained by reference to specific evidence. Their innermost fear is the likelihood of a spontaneous mass uprising. Regime leaders are terrified by the prospect of a sudden popular uprising breaking out and literally consuming them. That is precisely what Simon pointed out when he crystallized his allegations against the 40 “desperadoes” by claiming that they were plotting “to create conducive conditions for large scale chaos and havoc.” He knows all too well that the “conducive conditions” are already present on the ground (no need for “desperadoes” to create it): His regime has made Ethiopia a Prison Nation in a police state; hunger and famine are facts of daily life for the majority of the Ethiopian population; the economy has ground to a halt; the banks have been emptied of cash and gold and there is little money to run the state apparatus; corruption is so endemic and rampant that Ethiopia is listed at the top of failed states; there is widespread dissatisfaction and discontent in the military; there is infighting among different segments of the dictatorship and the entire officialdom is permeated by a lingering malaise of uncertainty and self-doubt; and the regime has become an international pariah universally rejected for its long record of massive human rights violations. They are worried because they know the uprising will not be televised!

Fear of Accountability and Retribution (Dismounting the Tiger):
The regime leaders know they have committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, war crimes and serious crimes punishable under their own criminal laws and constitution. They also know that their regime is a glorified pluto-kleptocracy (government of rich thieves) which has accumulated enormous wealth through rapacious raids on the public treasury and outright theft from ordinary citizens. Of course what is known of their crimes today is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is not difficult to understand that they fear prosecutions at home and by international tribunals should they be dislodged from power. Those at the top are particularly concerned about accountability under the “chain of command” doctrine pursuant to international criminal laws for the terrible crimes they have committed within and without the country. (Under well-established principles of international law, officials in the chain of command who order human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes or who, knowing about it, fail to stop it are criminally responsible.)

The specter of prosecution is undoubtedly worrisome to them. This is evidenced in the fact that the current dictator has been talking philosophically about the need and wisdom of “restorative justice” in his public defense of the war crimes fugitive, Omar al-Bashir. The dictator proposed that al-Bashir’s horrific crimes in Darfur should be resolved within the framework of “restorative justice”. Simply stated, there will be a truth commission; al-Bashir will take public responsibility for his actions and offer heartfelt apologies to the Darfurians; they will get some sort of closure from his admission of guilt and everything else will be forgotten. It is logical to infer that the regime is hoping for precisely the same outcome in the event it is no longer in power: Let bygones be bygones, have a truth commission, go through the motions and forgive them for their monstrous crimes. But to let bygones be bygones would be very wrong. It would be an affront to the very essence of the principle of the rule of law. Justice is served only when the rule of law applies to ALL. In the final analysis, their problem is the same as the proverbial tiger rider’s. They have been riding the Ethiopian tiger for nearly two decades. But one day they know they have to dismount. When they do, they will be looking at the sparkling eyes, gleaming teeth and pointy nails of one big hungry tiger! As Reed Brody, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, observed, “Times have changed. The days that a tyrant could brutalize his people, pillage the treasury, put his bank account somewhere and then seek exile abroad have ended. What we see now is dictators can hide, but they cannot run.”

Fear of No Future (Institutional Decay and Crises of Leadership)

Fear permeates the ruling dictatorship. The fear factor operates in different ways for the regime. They have used fear to cement their ugly and divisive ethnic politics. By setting one group against another and inspiring distrust and hatred, they have managed to cling to power for so long. But that is changing before their eyes. The façade of political institutions they have created for the various ethnic groups to maintain their control no longer works. Their appeal to ethnic loyalty inspired by fear of what other groups might do to one group no longer holds sway. They are overwhelmingly rejected by every single ethnic group in the country, bar none. The people have come to the obvious realization that the ethnic divides created for them make everyone a loser and winners of only the dictators. This has created an insurmountable problem for the personal rule of the current dictator and his phony coalition of political parties. Personal control of the various groups is becoming increasingly difficult, particularly within the dominant political party. There is unrest among the members of the inner circle and coterie of followers within his own party. This is a source of major vulnerability for the dictator. Since the regime is based on personal rule, if the dictator fails his lieutenants, political allies and appointees, followers, relatives, friends and supporters within and outside the regime will also fall. The bottom line is that his political base will have to make a very tough choice: discipline (oust) the dictator and initiate a process that could produce a potential change of some benefit to them under some other leader from their own group, or prepare to make a deal with others in the opposition. The other alternative is to continue to support the dictator and face the likelihood that they will be big losers when change inevitably comes. For the general population, none of this calculation matters: The increasing repression has brought the political situation to the tipping point.

Fear of Continuing Western Ostracism

Internationally, the regime has a huge problem. Their human rights record and suppression of democratic institutions has brought them into collision with Western governments. Continuing human rights violations, imprisonment of leading opposition leaders, detention of large numbers of political prisoners, the absence of the rule of law, etc., have made them virtual international pariahs. Their biggest fear now is how the West will receive their already-won 2010 elections. It can be said with absolute certainty that there will not be a free and fair election in 2010. The reason is obvious: the regime will never take a chance of being defeated at the polls as it did in 2005.

On the other hand, rigged or “show elections” will not do for the West. Consequently, their elections shenanigans could result in donor sanctions. It will be necessary for the regime to find a way to hoodwink the West into believing that even if the elections are not free and fair, the alternative to their rule will be a total disaster for Ethiopia. Just as they went after the “Al Shabaab” terrorists to save Somalia, they will trot out more “desperadoes” and wild-eyed “terrorists” to convince the West that the country is going to hell in hand basket. They will do whatever it takes to spook the West into accepting the results of a bogus election in 2010, and they will not hesitate to paint a picture of chaos and anarchy that is too awful to contemplate. We will predict that as the election date draws near, they will manufacture political instability in the country, ratchet up the intimidation and violence and parade before the international media an endless gallery of “desperadoes”, “terrorists”, “insurgents”, “agitators” and others to justify free and fair elections can not be held in Ethiopia in 2010. By the same token, we will predict that the iconic political prisoner, Birtukan Midekssa, will be used by the regime as a pawn, bargaining chip, to mitigate any Western sanctions resulting from a rigged 2010 election. It will not work. (Long Live Birtukan Midekssa!)

The fact of the matter is that the regime leaders do not seem to have realized that the world around them has changed, and they have not. Obama is not Bush, and they will find out that it is futile to bait Obama on the “terrorism” rubbish they have so successfully used on Bush. Obama has articulated his “best” position on the future direction of U.S. foreign policy:

I feel very strongly that when we are at our best, the United States represents a set of universal values and ideals -- the idea of democratic practices, the idea of freedom of speech and religion, the idea of a civil society where people are free to pursue their dreams and not be imposed upon constantly by their government. So we've got a set of ideas that I think have broad applicability. But what I also believe is that other countries have different cultures, different perspectives, and are coming out of different histories, and that we do our best to promote our ideals and our values by our example.

Neither the EU nor the donor European countries will buy the regime’s lame arguments for rigged elections and continuing human rights abuses. The bottom line is that the regime can fool some of the Western countries all of the time, and all of the Westerns countries some of the time. But it can not fool all of them all of the time.

The Self-Delusion of Dictatorships

One of the common traits of all dictators is the display of arrogant self-confidence which completely blinds them to reason. Anyone with the critical thinking skills of a Philippine Tarsier (world’s smallest primate) would find the allegation of a 40-person “desperado insurrection” ludicrous and absurd. No reasonable person could believe that even real desperadoes (who in the Old West were considered to be full-time drunk outlaws) would attempt an overthrow of a regime which spends a better part of its state budget on its military and security forces. But because dictators often spend so much time in a bubble, they are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. They become surrounded by ‘yes’ men who tell them only what they want to hear, and live comfortably in a state of denial. Consider Mugabe. A trillion dollar note to buy a loaf of bread made perfect sense to him. For Saddam Hussien, an electoral victory by 99.9 per cent of the voters made sense. For Slobodan Milosovic, the ethnic cleansing of over 200 thousand Muslims in Kosovo made perfect sense. Chanting the mantra of a made-up 12 per cent economic growth as proof of runaway economic development when a quarter of the population is facing starvation and the rest can barely eke out an existence also makes perfect sense if you live in a bubble. But the idea that 40 “desperadoes” could overthrow a regime with a massive security apparatus and an “army that is in good shape” is so idiotic it does not make sense! To believe in the regime’s theory of a “desperado” coup is to suspend belief in reality and completely abandon logic.

It is in the nature of dictatorships to demonstrate omnipotence over their victims and make their victims feel helpless. Simon was casually suggesting his omnipotence and describing the helplessness of his victims when he declared “our army is in good shape”. Dictatorships work tirelessly to spread defeatism, dissension and division among their opposition. But they are not as omnipotent as they project themselves to be. Undoubtedly, their true strength lies in the inability of their opponents to create a united front in the defense of the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights.

Our Fear: Are We Ready for Post-Dictatorship?

We must understand that removing a brutal dictator or a one-party dictatorship does not a stable democracy make. A study of the history of the rise and fall of dictatorships from Albania to Zimbabwe over the past two decades shows the immense difficulties in institutionalizing democracy in the aftermath of a dictatorship. In the Ethiopian case, the ethnic, religious, linguistic and regional divisions created and nurtured by the current dictators will present massive challenges in a post-dictatorship society. This combined with the enormous social and economic problems facing the country will present challenges unlike any the country has faced in modern times. That is why it is absolutely necessary to maintain serious dialogue and consultation among all pro-democracy Ethiopians on the fate of post-dictatorship Ethiopia. We should not be terribly concerned about the fall of this or any other dictatorship. As Gandhi said, “I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always." So the question written for us on the mirror is: “What do we do when the dictatorship falls?” Think of it: “What do we do when the dictatorship falls?”

-----
The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. For comments, he can be reached at almariam@gmail.com

Help Obang Metho and The Solidarity Movement

The Genocide Case Against Meles Zenawi In the aftermath of the 2005 Ethiopian Election, soon after Meles Zenawi declared live on Ethiopian Television that the security services, police and army were under his direct control, his TPLF security forces (Agazi) massacred 193 people who protested against election fraud in June and November 2005. The victims were shot, beaten and strangled. The demonstrators were unarmed, yet the majority died from shots to the head. Many people were killed arbitrarily, old men were killed while in their homes, and children were also victims of the attack while playing in the garden.

“We also believe that the Ethiopian people have been waiting long enough for genuine justice and relief from the harsh oppression and brutal tactics committed by a government that purports to be a partner in the War on Terror” Dr. Gregory Stanton, President of Genocide Watch. Dr. Greg Stanton, the Founder and President of Genocide Watch, and the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, created the Eight Stages of Genocide to provide a methodical analysis to predict, and prevent genocides. The Eight Stages of Genocide are: Classification, Symbolization, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Extermination, and Denial.Th Woyane leader Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose government has also beenimplicated in a pattern of widespread perpetration of serious human rights atrocities in Ethiopia . He and those within his government may be keenly aware of their own vulnerability to similar actions by the ICC in the future that could upend a deeply entrenched system of government-supportedimpunity that has protected perpetrators from any accountability.I first became knowledgeable regarding the abhorrent human rights situation in Ethiopia when Genocide Watch and Survivors Rights International were called by the head of the Anuak Justice Council, ObangMetho, (now the leader of the newly formed Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia) to investigate the brutal massacre of 424 Anuak carried out in Gambella, Ethiopia in December of 2003. The Anuak are atiny, dark-skinned ethnic group who live in a remote section of southeastern Ethiopia.

PLEASE HELP ATO OBANG TO DO THE JOB HE START IT TO BERING WOYANE LEADERS TO THE WORLD COURT . ETHIOPIAN KILLED BY WOYANE EVERYDAY. WE NEED TO HELP . FOR THOSE OF YOU WANT TO HELP FROM NORTH AMERICA ( USA AND CANADA) PLASE CONTACT HARAR THE ECADF ROOM ADMIN ,SEND CASH OR MONEY ORDER BY HIS MAIL ADDRESS.

THE ADDRESS Is

Telahun Abebe
12 Wallingford courtBrampton
Ontario L6Y 4V7
Canada

e-mail: harar382@yahoo.com

EPRDF's Bogus Charges and Zero Sum Games

By Zeinab Amde

The recent charges Meles and Bereket are fabricating against opponents are merely intended to hit two clusters of political opponents with one stone that is fighting the growing discontent in the patched up army while at the same time using the crackdown to attempt to implicate the Ginbot Sebat movement. Although I am not willing to fabricate any evidence as Meles is doing, no one denies that the army and security machinery are becoming assertive and ballooning beyond the control of Meles.

Meles gave too much money and power to the army and the security to silence dissent, but now they are coming back to ask questions and claim their dues. This effect is accentuated by the emergence of different power groups in the government structure that start to ask the big question 'What if?' What if popular movement pulls the ground from under our feet and Meles leaves just as Mengistu did? What if the need arise to sideline Meles to save the EPRDF when Meles becomes a target of charges of Genocide or Crime against Humanity? Well, the Inquiry Commission sanctioned by the Ethiopian parliament had found that Meles, who took effective control of the security apparatus beginning from May 16, 2005, has authorized excessive force that resulted in the deaths of 200 innocent lives and the maiming of 750 people! What about the countless Amharas, Oromos, Anuaks, Sidamas, who were massacred over the years? What about the rest who were killed in Addis Ababa, Awassa, Tepi,? These questions beg for answers when a dictatorial machinery heads to its eventual cliff and the leadership submerges in decadence and the need for a replacement shrills sharp.

So the recent charges leveled against army officials, and of course the Ginbot Sebat, is symptomatic of a far graver problem for Meles in the army and the security machinery.Meles surly is growingly being surrounded by enemies from within and without. First and foremost, the people affirmed that they are under a tyranny as this status was cemented in the day light robbery of the May 2005 elections. Next, the fact that the EPRDF is paranoid is evident in the manner it is foring the population in party membership. The membership has evolved from the first 15 years of 'bastardization' (recruiting members by other members based on kinship) to 'blackmail recruitment' (forcing candidates by blackmailing them with grant or denial of jobs, land, security, and other benefits). Now Meles is bragging like Mengistu claiming that membership has skyrocketed by 4 million in a matter of 1 year after 17 years inability to recruit members. Keep the irony in mind - that the 4 million came to be EPRDFits after EPRDF LOST elections. This astronomical blackmail recruitment is reminiscent of Issepa's last days and shows how the EPRDF is desperate.

EPRDF's recent attempt is similar to that of the changes it orchestrated against Professor Asrat Woldeyes, Defence Minister Siye Abraha and Dr. Taye Woldesemayat. But this latest attempt is futile and destined for a crash as the Ethiopian people have grown out of Meles's shrinking wisdom and baseless tricks. What is more, the international setting has shifted since May 2005 as he is certified to be an illegitimate leader only recognized for filling the vacuum. In the country, Meles has lost his bearing as the times are changing and no one seriously believes that he has the mandate as he seized power by reversing the verdict of the Ethiopian people who told him that they have decided to change his government. Meles's charges could have held some water if he was a democratically elected leader, but we all know that he is here with blood dripping from his hands, recently from the June and November 2005 brazen killings. Plus, Meles has no credibility as he has shown his contempt to the people of Ethiopia and the Constitution by killing citizens and staying in power after voted out of office. So Meles's dream that the Ethiopian people would take him seriously by acting like a legitimate government is a futile attempt that is going to fall into pieces.

This completely futile exercise by Meles and Bereket is a zero sum game for the EPRDF. To the contrary, there are two significant outcomes out of this. The first is that Meles and Bereket have planted the seed of mutiny in the army and security machineries opening the door for the army to intervene when dictators hijack and reverse popular will and elections. Although most who read this discount this point as the army is dominated by one ethnicity, no one denies the fact that the declaration of an attempted coup (even a mutiny by army) has erected the notion and possibility that the army can act independently in certain eventualities. When we read the statements of Bereket and Meles backwards, their fear is that the army could and would intervene when street demonstrations begin in the future.

The second outcome of the coup charges lays bare the fragility of the patched up Meles army, which is being held together with favoritism, corruption, and discrimination. The army is not cohesively held by conviction of truth or even an appearance of an ideology. The army is held together by lies, corruption, benefits, which could be affected by changes in the economy, the overpowering of convicting truths and the popular thrust. Thus, when these changes come, this opens the way for re-alignment inside the ranks of the army and to be affected by the views of ordinary people thereby tilting the tyrants to thinks twice before pursing their undemocratic ways.

That is why this whole circus is a zero sum game for Meles and Bereket further isolating them and narrowing the diminishing ground of credibility. This constant shrinking of their ground always leaves them fighting to stay in power a fight that has been going on for 18 years now. An unelected and illegitimate regime always lives under paranoia and struggling to survive and not out of mandate and legitimacy given by it from the people. Additionally, this absolutely desperate act would expose the lies that Meles endlessly fabricates only to trap opponents whose only crime is fighting for democracy and to change the illegitimate government that clings to power through killings and vote fraud.

All Ethiopians shall prepare and work for the democratization of the country as whatever support Meles had is being extinguished (do not even count as true followers those outwardly EPRDF members who seek temporary benefits as 'members'). The inside walls of the regime are rotting and it is not far before Meles and Bereket would pay for the killings and harm they perpetrated against countless innocents before an international or domestic court. The Ethiopian people be it in the army, the security or government apparatus shall understand that their accountability is for their country and their people and not for individuals who shall face the law. Everybody is equal before the law and we shall all perform our legitimate duties and responsibilities.