By Alemayehu G. Mariam
Late last month, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid Bin Sultan fired a shot across the bow from the Arab Water Council in Cairo to let the regime in Ethiopia know that his country takes a dim view of the "Grand Renaissance Dam" under “construction” on the Blue Nile (Abbay) a few miles from Sudan’s eastern border. According to Prince Khalid, “The [Grand] Renaissance dam has its capacity of flood waters reaching more than 70 billion cubic meters of water… [I]f it collapsed Khartoum will be drowned completely and the impact will even reach the Aswan Dam…” The Prince believes the Dam is being built close to the “Sudanese border for political plotting rather than for economic gain and constitutes a threat to Egyptian and Sudanese national security…” The Prince raised the stakes by accusing the regime in Ethiopia of being hell-bent on harming Arab peoples. “There are fingers messing with water resources of Sudan and Egypt which are rooted in the mind and body of Ethiopia. They do not forsake an opportunity to harm Arabs without taking advantage of it…”
A spokesman for the regime in power in Ethiopia sought to minimize the importance of the Prince’s statement by suggesting that the Saudi Ambassador in Addis Ababa had disavowed the Prince’s statement as official policy or a position endorsed by the Saudi government. The alleged disavowal of the statement of a member of the Saudi royal family and top defense official seems curiously disingenuous after the fact. But that is understandable since “an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” The regime spokesman also insinuated in fuzzy diplomatese that such inflammatory statements could result in war between Arab countries and African countries in the Nile basin.
The real possibility of a water war between countries of the upper Nile basin, and in particular Ethiopia, and Egypt and Sudan over the so-called Grand Renaissance Dam is the (white) elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about openly and earnestly at this stage. But in November 2010, the late dictator Meles Zenawi in an interview with Reuters seemed to defiantly relish the possibility of war with Egypt. With taunting, dismissive and contemptuous arrogance, Meles not only insulted the Egyptian people as hopelessly backward but bragged that he will swiftly vanquish any invading Egyptian army. “I am not worried that the Egyptians will suddenly invade Ethiopia. Nobody who has tried that has lived to tell the story. I don’t think the Egyptians will be any different and I think they know that…The Egyptians have yet to make up their minds as to whether they want to live in the 21st or the 19th century.” Meles also accused Egypt of trying to destabilize Ethiopia by supporting unnamed rebel groups which he promised to crush. Meles served the Egyptians an ultimatum to engage in “civil dialogue”: “If we address the issues around which the rebel groups are mobilized then we can neutralize them and therefore make it impossible for the Egyptians to fish in troubled waters because there won’t be any… Hopefully that should convince the Egyptians that, as direct conflict will not work, and as the indirect approach is not as effective as it used to be, the only sane option will be civil dialogue.”
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit denied Meles’ allegations and expressed amusement and amazement over Meles’ braggadocio. “I'm amazed ... by the language that was used. We are not seeking war and there will not be war… The charges that Egypt… is exploiting rebel groups against the ruling regime in Ethiopia are completely devoid of truth.” Gheit may have been diplomatically deescalating the war of words, but his statement belies statements by a long line of top Egyptian leaders over the decades. President Anwar Sadat in 1978 declared, “We depend upon the Nile100 per cent in our life, so if anyone, at any moment, thinks of depriving us of our life we shall never hesitate to go to war.” Boutros Boutros Gahali, when he was the Egyptian Foreign State Minister (later U.N. Secretary General), confirmed the same sentiment when he asserted “the next war in our region will be over the water of the Nile, not politics.”
“If it comes to a crisis, we will send a jet to bomb the dam and come back in one day, simple as that.”
What will Egypt will do if Meles’ “Grand Renaissance Dam” is in fact built? "Simple." They will use dam busters to smash and trash it.
An email from the American private security organization Stratfor released by Wikileaks citing its source as “high-level Egyptian security/intel in regular direct contact with Mubarak and Suleiman”, “If it comes to a crisis, we will send a jet to bomb the dam and come back in one day, simple as that. Or we can send our special forces in to block/sabotage the dam. But we aren't going for the military option now. This is just contingency planning. Look back to an operation Egypt did in the mid-late 1970s, I think 1976, when Ethiopia was trying to build a large dam. We blew up the equipment while it was traveling by sea to Ethiopia. A useful case study…”
The same source further indicated that Egypt is “discussing military cooperation with Sudan” and has “a strategic pact with the Sudanese since in any crisis over the Nile, Sudan gets hit first then us.” That military cooperation includes stationing Egyptian “commandos in the Sudan for ‘worst case’ scenario on the Nile issue. Sudanese president Umar al-Bashir has agreed to allow the Egyptians to build a small airbase in Kusti to accommodate Egyptian commandos who might be sent to Ethiopia to destroy water facilities on the Blue Nile…The military option is not one that the Egyptians favor. It will be their option if everything else fails.” So far Egypt has successfully lobbied the multilateral development and other investment banks and donors to deny or cut funding for the dam and to apply political and diplomatic pressure on Ethiopia and the other upstream Nile countries. The World Bank has publicly stated it will not to fund any new projects on the Nile without Egypt’s approval.
The Grand Renaissance Dam or the grand dam (de)illusion?
All African dictators like to build big projects because it is part of the kleptocratic African “Big Man” syndrome. By undertaking “white elephant” projects (wasteful vanity projects), African dictators seek to attain greatness and amass great fortunes in life and immortality in death. Kwame Nkrumah built the Akosombo Dam on the Volta River, at the time dubbed the “largest single investment in the economic development plans of Ghana”. Mobutu sought to outdo Nkrumah by building the largest dam in Africa on the Inga Dams in western Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) on the largest waterfalls in the world (Inga Falls). In the Ivory Coast, Félix Houphouët-Boigny built the largest church in the world, The Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro, at a cost of USD$300 million. It stands empty today. Self-appointed Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic built a 500-room Hotel Intercontinental at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars while millions of his people starved. Moamar Gadhafi launched the Great Man-Made River in Libya, dubbed the world’s largest irrigation project, and proclaimed it the “Eighth Wonder of the World.” Gamal Abdel Nasser built the Aswan High Dam which could be affected significantly if upstream Nile countries build new dams. Ugandan dictator Yuweri Museveni built the Bujagali dam which was completed in 2012. The backflow from that dam has submerged a huge area of cultivable and settled land forcing migration and resettlement of large numbers of people.
Meles Zenawi hoped to build the “Grand Renaissance Dam” as the mother of all dams on the African continent to outdo Nkrumah, Mobutu and Gadhafi. Like all of the African white elephants, this Dam is a vanity make-believe project partly intended to glorify Meles and magnify his international prestige while diverting attention from the endemic corruption that has consumed his regime as recently documented in a 448-page World Bank report. Meles sought to cover his bloody hands and clothe his naked dictatorships with megaprojects and veneers of progress and development. The “Grand Renaissance Dam” is the temporary name for the “Grand Meles Memorial Dam”. Meles wanted to be immortalized in that largest cement monument in the history of the African continent. To be sure, he had a “dry run” on immortality when he commissioned the construction of Gilgel Gibe III Dam on the Omo River in southern Ethiopia which has been dubbed the “largest hydroelectric plant in Africa with a power output of about 1870 Megawatt.”
The Dam and the damned
There is little doubt that IF the “Grand Renaissance Dam” is completed, it will have a significant long term impact on water supply and availability to the Sudan and Egypt. The general view among the experts is that if the dam is constructed as specified by the regime in Ethiopia, it could result in significant reduction in cultivable agricultural lands and water shortages throughout Egypt. According to Mohamed Nasr El Din Allam, the former Egyptian minster of water and irrigation, if the dam is built “Millions of people would go hungry. There would be water shortages everywhere. It's huge.”
The regime in Ethiopia claims the depth of the Dam will be 150 meters and the water reservoir behind the Dam could be used to irrigate more than 500,000 hectares of new agricultural lands. Experts suggest that the water reservoir behind the dam could hold as much as 62bn cubic meters of water; and depending upon seasonal rainfall and the rate at which the reservoir is filled, there could be significant reductions in the flow of water to Egypt and Sudan. The environmental impact of the Dam in Ethiopia will be catastrophic.Experts believe such a dam if built will “flood 1,680 square kilometers of forest in northwest Ethiopia, near the Sudan border, and create a reservoir that is nearly twice as large as Lake Tana, Ethiopia’s largest natural lake….” The so-called tripartite committee of international experts is expected to issue its report on the potential environmental impacts of the Dam in May 2013.
The legal dimensions of the Nile water dispute
The are many knotty legal issues surrounding the treaties and agreements concluded between Britain as a colonial power and the countries in the Nile basin (Burundi, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Sudan, and Egypt) on the use of Nile water. Beginning in 1891, Britain concluded at least seven agreements on the use and control of the Nile. In the major treaties, the British included language which effectively prevented Ethiopia and other upstream countries from “construct[ing] any irrigation or other works which might sensibly modify its flow into the Nile” or its “tributaries.” For instance, the May 15, 1902 Treaty regarding the Frontiers between the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan, Ethiopia and British Eritrea, restrained “His Majesty the Emperor Menelik II, King of kings of Ethiopia” from “construct[ing] or allow[ing] to be constructed, any works across the Blue Nile, Lake Tsana or the Sobat,… except in agreement with his Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Sudan”.
The current legal and political controversy over the Nile water revolves around the 1929 Nile Waters Agreement (which guarantees disproportionately high volumes of Nile water (85 percent) to Egypt and gave Egypt the right to monitor the Nile flow in the upstream countries and veto powers on all Nile projects upstream) and the 1959 agreement between Britain and Egypt in regards to the use of waters of the River Nile for irrigation purposes which recognized “Egypt’s natural and historic rights in the waters of the Nile and its requirements of agricultural extension…”
A number of the upper-riparian states including Ethiopia, Tanzania and Burundi have rejected the validity of the 1929 Treaty and believe that they have the right to do whatever they choose with the water that flows through their boundaries (“Harmon Doctrine”). In 1964, the Government of Tanganyika openly disavowed the 1929 agreement (“Nyerere Doctrine” which asserts that a newly independent state has the right to “opt in” or selectively succeed to colonial treaties): “The Government of Tanganyika has come to the conclusion that the provisions of the 1929 Agreement purporting to apply to the countries ‘under British Administration’ are not binding on Tanganyika.” On similar grounds, Uganda and Kenya subsequently rejected that agreement. Even Sudan has challenged the allocation ratio of the water it got under that agreement.
Ethiopia’s legal position on the various colonial treaties is explored in full in Gebre Tasadik Degefu’s authoritative work, The Nile: Historical, Legal and Developmental Perspectives (2003). Gebre Tasadik challenges the validity of the treaties on the grounds that “while Ethiopia’s natural rights in a certain share of the waters in its own territory are undeniable…, no treaty has ever mentioned them. This fact would be sufficient for invalidating the binding force of those agreements, which have no counterpart in favor of Ethiopia.” He also points out significant technical issues in the treaties. He suggests that the “English version of the 1902 agreement obliged Ethiopia to seek prior accord with the united kingdom before initiating any works that might affect the discharge of the Blue Nile… The Amharic version does not oblige Ethiopia to request permission from the British Government…”
Others have argued that Ethiopia is not bound by the 1902 treaty with Britain because the “treaty never came into force as Britain did not ratify it and the Ethiopian government had rejected it in the 1950s”. Even if that treaty were valid, Britain is said to have violated its terms by “supporting and recognizing the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in violation of Article 60 of the 1902 agreement”. Technical interpretation of the relevant clauses of the 1902 treaty are also said to favor Ethiopia since that treaty “does not prohibit use of the Nile” but obliges Ethiopia “not to arrest of the Nile, which is interpreted to mean total blockage.”
The 1959 Nile Waters Agreement between Egypt and Sudan sought to give the two countries full control and utilization of Nile water by modifying certain aspects of the 1929 agreement. But that agreement completely ignored the interests of any of the upstream countries, particularly Ethiopia.
Egypt has refused to renegotiate the 84-year-old treaty and insist on the perpetual binding authority of the colonial era treaties as legal formalizations of Egypt’s historical and natural rights over the Nile water. They also insist that the international law of state succession makes the treaties made by colonial Britain binding on successor post-independence African states.
The general consensus among informed commentators is that the Nile treaties are not binding in perpetuity. They point to the inequitable elements of the various agreements on upper riparian states and the radical change in the scope of obligations under the agreements over the past eight decades to challenge the validity of the colonial era treaties.
The paramount question is not whether the Nile water dispute can be resolved in an international court of law or other tribunal but what political accommodations can be made by the basin states to equitably benefit their nations and strengthen their bonds of friendship. Equitable sharing of Nile water is necessary not only for regional stability and amity but also to meet the growing energy and food production needs of the populations of all Nile basin countries in the coming decades. There is no shortage of predictions of doom and gloom over the looming water scarcity worldwide. Over a decade ago, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan warned, “Fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future.” Insisting on the eternal validity and binding nature of the Nile water treaties is untenable and unreasonable.
The Nile Basin Initiative was established in 1999 to develop a scheme for the equitable distribution of water among the Nile basin countries. Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Kenya have signed the Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (Entebbe Agreement). This agreement allows construction of projects that do not “significantly” affect the Nile water flow. Egypt has rejected the Agreement because it necessitates renegotiation of its share of the Nile water and surrender of its veto power guaranteed under the old agreements.
Water, water everywhere… and Meles’ "damplomacy" of brinksmanship
Whether there will be an actual “Grand Renaissance Dam” is the $5bn dollar question of the century. Because Egypt has been successful in pressuring multilateral development and investment banks not to fund the project, the regime in Ethiopia has defiantly forged ahead to fund the project itself. But is self-funding of the mother of all African dams a realistic possibility?
The regime has kept much of the details of the Dam behind smoke and mirrors. The regime claims that the dam is 14 percent complete (whatever that means) and will reach 26 percent completion by the end of 2013. When it comes online in 2015 as scheduled, the regime claims the dam will have the power generating capacity of nearly 6,000MW, much of it to be exported to the Sudan, Egypt and the Arabian peninsula.
But the whole “Grand Renaissance Dam” project is being staged in the theatre of the absurd. Is it possible to raise USD$5bn by 2015 from the people of the second poorest country in the world, the vast majority of whom live on less than USD$1? The dam is said to cost as much as the country’s total annual budget of USD$5bn. Is the largest recipient of international aid in Africa capable of raising multiple billions of dollars from its citizens for the Dam? Can a country which “lost US$11.7 billion to illicit financial outflows between 2000 and 2009” be able to undertake construction of a USD$5bn dam (unadjusted for cost overruns) on its own? According to the World Bank, Ethiopia’s “power sector alone would require $3.3 billion per year to develop” in the next decade. Can the regime in Ethiopia be able to build the largest dam in Africa and other energy projects resorting to such “desperate measures” as “musical concerts, a lottery and an SMS campaign to raise funds”? Can a country which the IMF describes as having “foreign reserves [that] have declined to under two months of import coverage” as of June 2012really be able to build the largest dam in African history? Can a country whose external debt in 2012 exceeded USD$12bn be able to build a $5bn dollar project?
The regime has forged ahead to build the “Grand Renaissance Dam” by “selling bonds” domestically and in the Ethiopian Diaspora. The regime claims to have collected USD$500 million from bond sales and “contributions” of ordinary citizens. Business and institutions have been forced to buy bonds. The regime’s Diaspora bond sales effort has been a total failure. Most Ethiopians in the Diaspora have been unwilling to bet on imaginary and speculative future earnings from operations of the dam because of the regime’s morbid secrecy and lack of transparency. They have little confidence in the regime’s capacity to guarantee their bond investments. For instance, current underpricing in power tariffs which have ranged between “$0.04-0.08 per kilowatt-hour are low by regional standards and recover only 46 percent of the costs of the utility.” That does not bode well for long term bond holders.
The regime in Ethiopia also has serious problems of cost overruns and poor project management in dam construction. For instance, the Tekeze hydroelectric dam on the Tekeze River, a Nile tributary, in northern Ethiopia was initially estimated to cost USD$224 million, but when it was completed seven years later in 2008, its cost skyrocketed to USD$360 million. How much the "Grand Renaissance Dam" will eventually cost, if built, is anybody’s guess. Regime ineptitude and mismanagement of Gilgel Gibe II on the Omo River in February 2010 resulted in a “tunnel collapse [which] closed the largest hydropower plant operating in Ethiopia, only 10 days after its inauguration.”
To add insult to injury, the Meles regime has the gall to say that it intends to sell the power from the "Grand Renaissance Dam" to the Sudan, Egypt and the Arabian peninsula once construction is complete. That is not only nonsensical but downright insane! Why would Egypt or the Sudan buy power from a dam that damns them by effectively reducing their water supply for agriculture and their own production of power?
Meles and his disciples have always known that they do not have the financial capacity to complete the Dam. They also know that actually completing the constructing the dam will be dangerous for their own survival as a regime should regional war break out. But Meles has always been a peerless grandmaster of intrigue, machination, duplicity, one-upmanship and diplomatic gamesmanship. With this Dam, he was merely pushing the envelope to the outer limits. His real aim was not the construction of dam but to use the specter of the construction of a gargantuan dam on the Nile to fabricate fear of an imminent regional water war. His price for continued regional stability, avoidance of conflict and maintenance of the status quo would be billions in loans, aid and other concessions from the international community and downstream countries.
Meles' diplomatic strategy shrouded a clever deterrent military strategy: If Egypt goes for broke and attacks the "Grand Renaissance Dam", Ethiopia could retaliate by attacking the Aswan dam. Meles likely believed the threat of mutual assured destruction will prevent an actual war while maintaining extremely high levels of regional tensions. By playing a game of chicken with Egypt and the Sudan, Meles hoped to strong-arm donor and development banks and wealthy countries in the region into giving him financial, political and diplomatic support. There is no question Meles would have driven on a collision course with Egypt only to swerve at the last second to avoid a fatal crash had he been in power today. It is unlikely that Meles’ disciples have the intellectual candlepower (“megawattage”) or the sheer cunning and artfulness of their master to play a game of chicken with Egypt to skillfully extract concessions.
For love of white elephants and war of the damned
Water is a source of life. War is a source of death. The water of the Nile has given life to Ethiopians, Egyptians and the people of the Nile basin countries since time immemorial. If Meles prepared for war by building his dam, his disciples shall surely inherit war. But Meles should have reflected on the words of Ethiopia’s poet laureate Tsegaye Gebremedhin before embarking on his “Grand Renaissance Dam” project: “O Nile, you are the music that restores the rhythm of existence…/ You are the irrigator that cultivate peace…/ ...From my Ethiopia sacred mountains of the sun…”
Meles’ legacy could indeed be a water war of death and destruction on the Nile, but he will never have a cement monument built on the Nile to celebrate his life. Meles’ disciples would be wise to remember an old prophesy as they march headlong to build their doomsday dam on the Nile: “God gave Noah the Rainbow Sign: No more water. The fire next time!”
Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Ethiopia: Rumors of Water War on the Nile?
Ethiopia: Not Just About Salvation or Religious Freedom
It has been suggested that of all the ideologies that sprang up during the 20th century (Communism, National Socialism and Islamic Fundamentalism), none are more toxic than Islamism. Islamism or Radical Islam or otherwise also known as Islamic Fundamentalism, driven by Islamists, is an ideology designed to use religion as a means of acquiring state power and forcibly converting those in its path to accept Islam as their religion. Islamism is different from the ideologies of Communism and National Socialism in that in the later two, those intoxicated by the ideology are the elite and the leaders. The masses figure out pretty quickly that there is not much in it for them after a while. Under Islamism, or Radical Islam, those forced into an intoxicated state by the ideology are the masses—the followers. The leaders simply wish to use religion as a tool to acquire power, and having accomplished that, they wish to rule their conquest by placing it under one law—Sha ria or Islamic Law. It is impossible to find the prevalence of democratic rights in those Moslem countries that are not declared secular societies.
Much has been written and said about the weekly protests in Ethiopia by Muslim citizens. For its part, the government has arrested those that are allegedly the ring leaders of this ‘movement’ by claiming that laws have been broken, and in a country where every one is free to choose his or her version of any religion, the demands being voiced are simply an entre to something else. For their part, the leaders of the ‘movement’ and their Diaspora supporters claim that the cause of the unrest is the interference of the government in the religious affairs of Muslims through out the country. And as a result, the government has violated the Constitution, and unless it relents, the protests will continue as there is no force that can stop them. They cite the Arab Spring movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other places as an example of what can be accomplished when a determined public rises up against its oppressors and mobilizes its energies to control the outcome of events, and by definition, the future.
Let me acknowledge first, that Islam and its followers in Ethiopia have coexisted with Christians and Jews for centuries though there have been tensions between the religions from time to time. The one major exception of great consequence was the Muslim offensive and subsequent conquest of most of southern and western Ethiopia in the 15th and 16th century, notably during the merciless offensives of Gragne Mohammed (Mohammed the Left Handed). Secondly, one needs to be very careful not to confuse Islam and its followers with Islamists. The followers of Islam are peace-loving people just like the followers of Christianity. Islamists, on the other hand, want to use religion as a tool of government—as a means of subjugating the conquered and forcing their will on the vanquished—all in the name of religion. They wish to dry out the roots of all other forms of religion including any form of spiritual life. Their aim is to conquer the world; abolish politics as such and run the world by men trained in Islamic law; and abolish national states. They wish to annihilate non-believers and non-followers. They are, in short, genocidal. One need not look too far in the distant to see what sort of rule has emerged whenever and where ever Islamists have taken over state or governing power. Thirdly, to use the Arab Spring movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya as an example of movements for democracy is, at best, a misreading of events, and hence, a wrong interpretation of history. The Arab Spring has been less about democracy and freedom than about corruption, abuse and despotism. The people of Tunisia did not revolt in the name of democracy. They revolted against a despotic regime that was squandering the wealth of the nation; they revolted against an uncaring regime that was bent on amassing family wealth rather than improving the lives of a relatively highly educated citizenry. The youth in Cairo, Egypt did not revolt in the name of democracy. Instead, they revolted against the despotic regime and the abusive treatment it meted out to its citizens. They revolted against a regime they perceived relegated the interests of their country to that of Western interests; they revolted against a regime that failed to look South to its African brethren rather than just east to the center of the Middle-East in search of cash. The people of Libya, egged on by outsiders, revolted against a despotic regime that had lost its ways and had awfully squandered the wealth of the nation. They revolted against a regime that failed to find a pathway for the employment of the youth. As a result, these are hardly examples that should be cited to equate the situation of the Muslim concerns in Ethiopia.
I grew up in the center of a vast ‘awraja’ in Ethiopia whose inhabitants were about 90% followers of Islam. Many of the small towns in this part of the country had at best, one mosque and a church or two. Unlike the assertion by some, including the politically motivated functionaries of the government, the number of mosques or even churches was a function of finances rather than active prohibition by the state. True, the growth of Christianity was encouraged either directly through the provision of finances (endowments and gifts by the royal family) or indirectly through the encouragement of missionary settlements where such existed. What was very different then was the fact that there was no practical separation between religion and state even though there was an explicit declaration that ‘religion is personal, country is for all’. In practice, however, the king not only had to have a bona fide bloodline, but must also be a Coptic Orthodox. The Ethiopia of today is much different than the one in which I grew up. The late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, had disavowed religion publicly, and current Prime Minister Haile Mariam Desalegn is reportedly a protestant!
Any one visiting Ethiopia today will witness the multitude of mosques all over the land. There are mosques in the cities, mosques in the countryside, mosques near deserted highways and hamlets, and mosques next to churches and schools. In 2000, the noises blaring out of loud speakers in the cities of Addis Ababa, Nazret (Adama), Dire Dawa, Mekele and Harrar was deafening, and if Ethiopia had the equivalent of an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), it would have banned such practices. Today, the public loud speakers have been dialed down because of the noise pollution, but the number of mosques has multiplied even more. If this is not an illustration of the progress that has been made by our Muslim brothers and sisters, it could be cited as an example of the level and degree of tolerance exhibited by non-Muslims as well as by the government. As a matter of fact, one of the wisest concepts enshrined in the new Ethiopian Constitution is the separation of religion and state. It is forbidden by the Constitution to mix religion and political activity. While this by itself does not equate to religious freedom, it is an expression of both the intent and the willingness of the signatories to acknowledge the sensitive nature of the issue in Ethiopian society.
So, why are Muslims in Addis Ababa protesting every Friday after prayers, and why has the government allegedly locked up some of the ‘leaders’ of the Islamic movement in Ethiopia?
Ethiopia, a land-locked country by choice, has a large population of Christians and Muslims. It is a country immediately surrounded by Muslim countries: Somalia, Sudan (with the exception of South Sudan), Djibouti, and Somaliland. There is a sizeable Muslim population in Eritrea, Kenya, and Uganda as well. Ethiopia’s traditional antagonists have been Egypt—a stone throw away, and Saudi Arabia--across the Red Sea, and Yemen. Although Yemen has had very close relationship with Ethiopia for centuries, the relationship between Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia can be said to be more utilitarian than close. There are other countries of import in the region that have had designs on Ethiopia not as an adversary but as a country that could eventually be taken over by Islam. And indeed, for Islam and Islamists, Ethiopia could be viewed as the crown jewel of an Islamic conquest were it to become an Islamic country. A simple look at the regional map would support the point just made. As a result, there are a number of countries that wish to stir up trouble in Ethiopia. Many attempts have been made over hundreds of years to effectuate such conquest. The Ottoman Empire, the Egyptians and the Dervishes have all attempted to change the course of history in this part of the Horn of Africa. Egyptian attitude towards Ethiopia is driven by its unfounded fear of what might happen to the Nile should Ethiopia ever become an unfriendly source of the longest river and it’s lifeline. What has changed, however, is that, today, the conquest is not to be effectuated by an invading army, but if possible, by the misguided, the disgruntled and the religiously intoxicated citizenry itself.
That there is an unnecessary schism in the relationship between Ethiopia and Egypt is testimony to the colossal failure of Egyptian vision and policy with regard to, and jingoistic attitude towards Ethiopia. Egypt should have strived to form the best of relationships with Ethiopia, and should have cultivated a policy of mutual cooperation and development instead of belittling Ethiopia’s ambitions and aspirations. There could be no better ally to Egypt than Ethiopia. We drink the same water (our Um al Dunya), both have a long and proud tradition of early civilization and the people are closer to one another than their leaders admit.
As the self-appointed keeper of the faith, Saudi Arabia has interest in expanding Islam where ever conditions permit and its vast resources allow. The recent outburst and unprecedented rebuke of Ethiopia by the Deputy Minister of Defense should be seen in that light. By cracking down on the self-appointed ‘leaders’ of the Islamic movement, the government of Ethiopia is viewed has having frustrated the efforts of Saudi Arabia to achieve its goals surreptitiously. Earlier, and as a sign of their frustration, the religious police in Saudi Arabia had arrested 53 Ethiopians while they were praying in a private home. Yes, they have religious police in their country but wish to export religious fundamentalism to other lands!
After decades of civil war, the government and people of Ethiopia have a nation to re-build, and a huge as well as very diverse country to manage. Arguably, the government has allowed both for freedom of speech and freedom of religion although there is considerable debate if that had been achieved in reality. The government is not blameless. It believes in the principle of group rights as opposed to individual rights, and courted the Muslim community by making concessions to it while it was consolidating power. Many argue that, in the past, the government had manipulated events, and some see more effort at manipulating public opinion here as well. Misguided but well-meaning friends of the protestors have labeled the recent public release of a film about Islamists and terrorism as a public disinformation campaign—a form of propaganda. Yet, none have condemned the sinister propaganda of the Islamist leaders themselves and their Jihad declaring friends in suit and tie. Even beyond that, and incredibly, none have come to view the issue within the context of the international contest for religious superiority. It takes a bit of mental exercise to recognize that terrorism and Islamic radicalism have to be fought precisely with the same weapons and instruments it chooses to wage its wars: propaganda with propaganda, and when it chooses to engage, regrettably, with massive engagement.
Today, the tolerance of moderate dissent is an essential part of governing. But the religious and ideological dissent must not be allowed to go on forever and simmer. It is not a violation of religious freedom to prevent extremists from using religion as a cover for sedition and criminality. To combat radicalism in any religion or any form, governments have a duty to remove legitimate grievances and reduce or eliminate resentment where possible. But no one should expect this to succeed in an environment where the actors are more loyal to external influences, or where they hold entrenched positions that make compromise difficult. It seems to me that radical Islam has set out to make Ethiopians strangers to one another. Knowledge of each other and respect for one another was what made us one family, one country. Some of that has been lost now for a number of reasons. But tolerance for intolerant groups is very foolish. Indeed, it can be deadly!
There are extremists in all religions and in all ways of life. This is due partly to ignorance, selfishness, or passion. At the very least, inordinate passion and ignorance lead to violence, and the most disturbing of all violence is the one that seems to justify itself in the name of peace and/or religion. Radical Islam, just like radical Christianity, is less about salvation and religious freedom. It is about control, conquest and subjugation.
The writer may be reached at teshome2008@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Opinion: The former Ethiopian Prime Minister is dead, get over it by YohannesY
Yes, the former Ethiopian Prime Minister is dead and he is supposed
to be history by now, but the EPRDF government and also the opposition treated
him as if he is still alive and well.
Can you learn from your PM? with all TPLF pride and arrogance he is dead and get over it!
Monday, March 4, 2013
From Expediency to Consistency
Perhaps most worrying of all is the unwillingness of Obama and other Western leaders to say or do anything to support the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Ethiopians who have been demonstrating peacefully against government interference in their religious affairs for more than a year. (The Ethiopian government claims the country has a Christian majority, but Muslims may account for up to one half of the population.) You’d think a nonviolent Islamic movement would be just the kind of thing the Obama administration would want to showcase to the world. It has no hint of terrorist influence, and its leaders are calling for a secular government under the slogan ‘We have a cause worth dying for, but not worth killing for.’ Indeed, the Ethiopian protesters may be leading Africa’s most promising and important nonviolent human rights campaign since the anti-apartheid struggle.
Is Dr. Epstein correct in her profound observation that the Ethiopian Muslim “protesters may be leading Africa’s most promising and important nonviolent human rights campaign since the anti-apartheid struggle.” Are the Muslim protests that have been going on for nearly two years the moral equivalent of an anti-Apartheid movement in Ethiopia? Is Obama failing an Ethiopian Spring?
The importance of religious freedom to Americans and in U.S. foreign policy
Religious freedom is arguably the most important cornerstone of all American liberties. Promoting religious freedom worldwide is so important that the U.S. Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) affirming religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and in various international instruments, including Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Obama Administration’s record on international religious freedom in general has been deplorable. In 2010, Leonard Leo, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Commission openly complained that the Administration is ignoring religious persecution throughout the world to the potential detriment of U.S. national security. “We’re completely neglecting religious freedom in countries that tend to be Petri dishes for extremism. This invariably leads to trouble for us… Regrettably, this point seems to shrink year after year for the White House and State Department.”
The Obama Administration’s disregard for religious freedom and tolerance of religious intolerance and persecution throughout the world is incomprehensible given the centrality of religious freedom and separation of religion and government in the scheme of American liberties. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of all American liberties, first and foremost prohibits government involvement in religion in sweeping and uncompromising language: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The “establishment” clause guarantees government neutrality by preventing government establishment of religious institutions or support for religion in general. The “free exercise” clause protects against religious persecution by government.
In the 1796 “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary”, the U.S. formally affirmed to the world the sanctity of religious freedom in America without regard to doctrine or denomination: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (Art. 11.)
Many of the American Founding Fathers including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were deeply suspicious of government involvement in religion, which they believed corrupted religion itself. George Washington championed separation of religion and state when he wrote, “I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” Thomas Jefferson believed religion was a personal matter which invited no government involvement and argued for the “building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Jefferson wrote, “Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that … of liberty to worship our Creator… a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.” James Madison, the “father of the U.S. Constitution” was a staunch defender of religious diversity: “Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society.” President John Adams minced no words when he wrote, “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”
President Barack Obama himself made it crystal clear that he personally disapproves of government’s involvement in religion or government imposition of religious orthodoxy on citizens. “I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody’s religious beliefs -including my own- on nonbelievers.” In his first inauguration speech, President Obama declared, “Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
The right of freedom of religion is the quintessential “rights of man” and an “ideal that still lights the world”. Yet, neither President Obama personally nor his Administration collectively have made any statements or taken any action concerning religious persecution in Ethiopia. It seems President Obama has given up the “ideal” of religious freedom for “expedience’s sake”. Such facile expedience is difficult to comprehend because President Obama was a constitutional lawyer before he became president.
It seems the President Obama now prefers a foreign policy based not on principle and the ideals of the Constitution but rather one based on expediency. It is more expedient for President Obama to have drone bases in Ethiopia than to have bastions of religious freedom. It is more expedient to sacrifice human rights at the altar of realpolitik than to uphold the right of Ethiopians to worship at the altar of their faiths. It is more expedient to chase after terrorists in the name of counterterrorism while sharing a bed with state terrorists. It is more expedient to tolerate dictatorship than to uphold the fundamental rights of citizenship. It is more expedient to support a benighted police state that to use American “ideals that still light the world” to enlighten it.
Why is the Obama Administration tone-deaf and bat-blind about religious freedom in Ethiopia given the established fact that the ruling regime in that country has engaged in egregious religious persecution with reckless abandon. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent body constituted by the Congress and the President of the United States to monitor religious freedom worldwide, recently reported:
Since July 2011, the Ethiopian government has sought to impose the al-Ahbash Islamic sect on the country’s Muslim community, a community that traditionally has practiced the Sufi form of Islam. The government also has manipulated the election of the new leaders of the Ethiopia Islamic Affairs Supreme Council (EIASC). Previously viewed as an independent body, EIASC is now viewed as a government-controlled institution. The arrests, terrorism charges and takeover of EIASC signify a troubling escalation in the government’s attempts to control Ethiopia’s Muslim community and provide further evidence of a decline in religious freedom in Ethiopia. Muslims throughout Ethiopia have been arrested during peaceful protests: On October 29, the Ethiopia government charged 29 protestors with terrorism and attempting to establish an Islamic state.
U.S. foreign policy of expediency in Africa
Expediency has been a guiding principle in American foreign policy in Africa for quite a while. “Expediency” emphasizes “pragmatism” or “realpolitik” over principles and ideals. It is an approach that dictates consideration of each case in light of prevailing circumstances. Expediency subordinates values, ideals and principles to particular political or strategic objectives. Expediency justifies full support for blood thirsty African thugs just to advance the national interest in global “war on terror”. Expediency sacrifices principles and ideals on the altar of hypocrisy. Expediency has allowed the Obama Administration to pump billions of America taxpayer dollars to strengthen the iron fist of Meles Zenawi and his cronies in the name of fighting the so-called war on terror while preaching a hollow sermon of human rights to ordinary Africans.
What is most disconcerting is the fact that President Obama speaks with forked tongue. In Accra and Cairo, he hectored African dictators and made promises and affirmations to the people of Africa: “Development depends on good governance… We must support strong and sustainable democratic governments… Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty… That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there…” He spoke of a “new partnership” with Africa, but his Watusi dance partners were Kagame, Museveni, Zenawi and their ilk.
As a strong supporter of President Obama and one who sought to exhort and mobilize Ethiopian Americans to support his election and re-election, I feel pangs of conscience when I say the President has been a poor advocate of American ideals in U.S. foreign policy in Africa. He has hectored ordinary Africans and African dictators about the need to be “on the right side of history”. For four years, President Obama has talked a good talk to Africans that America symbolizes freedom, liberty and democracy. But when it comes to walking the talk, we see him sitting in a wooden wheel chair that ain’t going nowhere fast. This paralysis has created a monumental crises of credibility for the President personally. Few Africans believe he is on their side and even fewer believe he is on the right side of history. But they do see him standing side by side with African dictators.
But could there really be expediency in dealing with blood thirsty African dictators? President Obama knows Ethiopia is a virtual police state. He knows elections are stolen there in broad daylight as those in power claim victory by a margin of 99.6 percent. He knows thousands of political prisoners languish in Ethiopian jails considered by international human rights organizations to be among the most inhumane in the world. He knows civil society institutions in that country have been wiped out of existence. He knows opposition parties, the press and dissidents have been crushed. He knows of the crimes against humanity that have been and continue to be committed in the Ogaden region, in Gambella, the Omo region and many other parts of the country. He knows about religious persecution. President Obama personally knows that 193 unarmed protesters were massacred and 763 wounded following the 2005 elections and that no one has been brought to justice for those crimes against humanity. That crime against humanity is on par with the Sharpeville Massacre of March 21, 1960 in South Africa in which South African police slaughtered 69 unarmed black protesters in the township of Sharpeville and wounded 180.
It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows. But must the Obama Administration get in bed with those who have committed the most heinous crimes against humanity in the 21st Century? Is it worth sacrificing American ideals to coddle and consort with brutal African dictators just to get drone bases?
Can Ethiopian Americans hold the Obama Administration accountable?
Yes, we can! The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-292) [IRFA] was enacted to promote religious freedom as a foreign policy of the United States, and to advocate on behalf of persons and groups facing religious persecution throughout the world. Very few people are aware that IFRA came into being as a result of the religious persecution of a Christian Ethiopian man named Getanah Metafriah who was “imprisoned and tortured by the Communist rulers of Ethiopia for talking about Jesus.” Getanah’s cause “manage[d] to help start a grassroots movement to publicize religious persecution abroad” eventually leading to the passage of IRFA.
IFRA requires that the United States designate as “country of particular concern” (CPC) those countries whose governments have engaged in or tolerated systematic and egregious and “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” and prescribes sanctions against such countries. IRFA provides the President 15 options ( 22 U.S.C. § 6445(a)(1)-(15)) to consider against states violating religious freedom including demarches (diplomatic protest) , private or public condemnation, denial, delay or cancellation of scientific or cultural exchanges, cancellation of a state visit, withdrawal or limitation of humanitarian or security assistance, restriction of credit or loans from United States and multilateral organizations, denial of licenses to export goods or technologies, prohibition against the U.S. government entering into any agreement to procure goods or services from that country, or “any other action authorized by law” so long as it “is commensurate in effect to the action substituted.” Once a state is designated a CPC, the President is required by law to conduct an annual review, no later than September 1 of each year, and to take one or more of the actions specified in IRFA.
Based on the USCRIF (a body auhtorized by IFRA) report cited above, there is no question that the regime in Ethiopia meets the IRFA criteria of engaging in “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations of the religious liberty of Ethiopian Muslims. It is noteworthy that the 2012 Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom March 2012 (covering April 1, 2011 – February 29, 2012)) documenting serious abuses of freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief around the world does not include religious persecution of Muslims in Ethiopia (which was reported by USCRIF in Novemeber 2012).
The first action Ethiopian Americans who believe in religious freedom in Ethiopia should take in an organized and collective manner is to file a request, (and if necessary a demand) that USCRIF amend or append to its 2012 report religious persecution and government interference in the profession and practice of the Islamic and Christian faiths in Ethiopia and make recommendations to the Secretary of State (SoS) for sanctions or alternative actions. In the alternative, they should insure that the violation is reported in the 2012-2013 USCRIF report with recommendations to the SoS for appropriate action. The SoS is required by IRFA to take “into consideration the recommendations of the Commission [USCRIF]” in formulating subsequent action.
By having USCRIF amend or append to its report and submit appropriate recommendations, Ethiopian Americans concerned about religious freedom in Ethiopia will have a legal basis to demand that the President “take all appropriate and feasible actions authorized by law to obtain the cessation of violations” (22 U.S.C. § 6445(a)(1)-(15)) or make Presidential certification and issue a waiver. In other words, the President would be in a position to take action or not to take action because taking action would be against U.S. “national security”. Either way, the Obama Administration could be held accountable under IFRA. No doubt, any such organized effort by Ethiopian Americans will stir the hornet’s nest of the K Street lobbyists who will rub their palms with glee and grin ear to ear as they come to feast at the trough of poor Ethiopian taxpayers.
The second action Ethiopian Americans who believe in religious freedom in Ethiopia should take is to establish an interfaith council to work on broader issues of religious freedom in Ethiopia. In my July 2012 commentary “Unity in Divinity”, I argued that a threat to the religious liberty of Muslims is a threat to the religious freedom of Christians. I urged Ethiopian “Christian and Muslim religious leaders [to] play a critical role in preventing conflict and in building bridges of understanding, mutual respect and collaborative working relations…” I suggested the establishment of “interfaith councils” patterned after those in the U.S. “These [interfaith] councils bring diverse faith communities to work together to foster greater understanding and respect among people of different faiths and to address basic needs in the community. Many such councils go beyond dialogue and reflection to cooperative work in social services and implementing projects to meet community needs. They stand together to protect religious freedom by opposing discrimination and condemning debasement of religious institutions and faiths. There is no reason why Ethiopians could not establish interfaith councils of their own.”
I reiterate my call for interfaith councils to bring together members of the two faith communities in the United States, and possibly elsewhere, for collective action. Religious freedom in Ethiopia is not an issue that concerns only Muslims. It is of equal concern and importance for Christian Ethiopians who have undergone similar egregious interference in the selection of their religious leadership just recently.
What is needed is sincere and open dialogue and interaction between Ethiopian Americans who are Christians and Muslims to advance the cause of religious liberty and equality for all in unity. Members of these two faith communities must come together in a historic meeting and develop a joint agenda to guarantee and safeguard their religious freedom, overcome any traces of sectarianism and reaffirm their long coexistence, diversity and harmony in a unified country based on the rule of law. They must jointly develop principles of cooperation and coordination. They must develop solidarity which can withstand narrow sectarian interests and the whims and personalities of those in leadership positions. They must relate with each other in the spirit of mutual respect, trust and co-operation and find ways to deepen and strengthen their relations.
Perhaps such dialogue may not come so easily in the absence of existing institutions. It may be necessary for leaders of both faiths to join together and establish a task force to study the issues and make recommendations for the broadest possible dialogue between Ethiopian American Muslims and Christians in America. Christian and Islamic spiritual authorities and laymen should be encouraged to work together not only to defend each other on matters of religious liberty but also to propose long term solutions to reduce the dangers of sectarianism, fanaticism, conflict and misunderstanding and institute a permanent dialogue between members of both faiths. There is no reason why an interfaith council cannot organize joint conferences, meetings, workshops, seminars, press conferences and informational campaigns in the media in both faith communities. The Ethiopia of tomorrow can be built on a strong foundation of dialogue of Muslims and Christians today. Dialogue is a precursor to national reconciliation.
From expediency to consistency
The Obama Administration must do a lot more to improve human rights in Africa. President Obama must not only talk a good talk, he must also walk the talk. But with religious liberty, he must walk the talk and follow the letter and spirit of IFRA. If he does not, he would have betrayed not only the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution but also disregarded the law he is sworn to uphold. There is no reason why the Obama Administration cannot find a harmonious convergence of national security and human rights in Africa. When America cannot lead by ideals it will be forced to follow up by exacting ordeals.
Are the Ethiopian Muslim protesters leading Africa’s most promising and important nonviolent human rights campaign since the anti-apartheid struggle? Yes, they are.
Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Will the U.S. Stand by the Side of Brave Africans? ALEMAYEHU G MARIAM
....Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans, and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions… [G]overnments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful…
His message to the people of Africa was inspiring, upbeat and passionate:
…You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can conquer disease, end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can. Because in this moment, history is on the move.
President Obama also made a solemn promise to Africans:
… What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance – on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption… to advance transparency and accountability.
Now, at the cusp of the beginning of President Obama’s second term, we have to ask some tough questions: Are there more African strongmen in 2012 than in 2009? Are there fewer brave Africans on the streets and more of them in jail in 2012 than in 2009? Does Africa today have more debilitated institutions than it had in 2009? Do more African governments respect the will of their people today than they did in 2009? Is there less conflict in Africa today than in 2009? Does Africa today have good governance and is the rule of law the rule in Africa? Are more opposition voices heard, more civic participation seen and more youth and women involved in the political process in Africa today than they did in 2009? Does the U.S. today “stand with all those who seek to advance human dignity”? Is history in Africa today on the move forward to democracy, freedom and human rights, or is Africa marching backwards into the darkness of dictatorship and tyranny?
Is the U.S. today standing tall with the brave Africans or in bed with Africa’s strongmen?
Whatever Happened to the Brave Africans President Obama Spoke About in 200?
According to the U.S. Department of State’s Human Rights Practices Report for 2011 (May 2012), many of the “brave Africans” President Obama spoke about in 2009 are jailed, tortured, silenced, on the run, dead or just scared stiff under relentless official harassment and persecution. Arbitrary arrests, lengthy pretrial detentions, torture, and mistreatment of detainees by security forces, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, illegal searches and seizures and infringements of citizens’ privacy rights, restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press and assembly in one form or another are the common facts of African daily life. African societies and institutions are decimated by official corruption and bloated bureaucracies. Justice is traded to the highest bidder in politically-controlled judiciaries; and rubberstamp parliaments crank out laws and proclamations like a Chinese toy factory. African societies are plagued by discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, language, religion, culture and region.
Among the most flagrant violators of human rights in Africa is the regime in Ethiopia. In May 2010, the ruling party in that country “won” 545 of 547 [99.6 %] seats in parliament. A White House Statement on that election turned a blind eye and voiced muted “concern”:
An environment conducive to free and fair elections was not in place even before Election Day. In recent years, the Ethiopian government has taken steps to restrict political space for the opposition through intimidation and harassment, tighten its control over civil society, and curtail the activities of independent media. We are concerned that these actions have restricted freedom of expression and association…
In a speech given at the National Endowment for Democracy in October 2012, Karen J. Hanrahan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor characterized the deplorable human rights situation in Ethiopia as merely a “challenge”:
… In Ethiopia, we are faced with a challenge. The principal question is how to work constructively with both the government and civil society to advance democracy and human rights when the government has limited political and civil space. This has included restrictions on civil society organizations, the curtailment of media freedom, and the conviction of journalists and members of the political opposition under the Anti-terrorism Proclamation. We’re particularly concerned about the Charities and Societies Proclamation and the Anti-terrorism Proclamation…
The “challenge” Hanrahan talks about includes the arrest of “more than 100 opposition political figures, activists, journalists, and bloggers,” massive suppression of the independent press, virtual bans on civil society and nongovernmental organizations,beatings and torturing of detainees by security forces and poor prison conditions. It also includes the unlawful persecution and imprionsment of the 2012 PEN America Freedom to Write Award winner Eskinder Nega; Reeyot Alemu, the 2012 winner of the International Women’s Media Fund’s Courage in Journalism Award; Woubshet Taye, editor of a popular weekly, opposition party leaders Andualem Aragie and Natnael Mekonnen among many others. The evidence reported in the latest U.S. State Department Human Rights Practices Report on Ethiopia (May 2012) shows that describing the human rights situation in Ethiopia as a “challenge” and glossing it over with a polite expression of “concern” is tantamount to adding insult to injury. The human rights situation in that country should provoke unmitigated moral outrage and immediate and direct action to uphold democratic principles and standards of universal human rights.
Perhaps current U.S. leaders could learn valuable lessons from their predecessors who faced similar “challenges” posed by tyrannies and dictatorships. President Truman once said, “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of the opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” Such is the indisputable fact of life in Ethiopia today and no amount of empty talk about “concerns” and hollow promises about overcoming “challenges” will change the situation!
The U.S. Record in Africa Today Leaves Much to be Desired
According to Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson who heads the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of African Affairs, there are “five pillars that serve as the foundation of U.S. policy toward Africa.” These include “(1) support for democracy and the strengthening of democratic institutions including free, fair, and transparent elections; (2) support for African economic growth and development; (3) conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution; (4) support for Presidential initiatives such as the Global Health Initiative, Feed the Future, and the Global Climate Change Initiative and (5) working with African nations on transnational issues such as drug smuggling, money laundering and trafficking in persons.” Carson reported that U.S. policy in Africa “in recent years”
has contributed to democratic transitions in Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Niger; successful elections in Nigeria; and a referendum that led to the independence of South Sudan. The Bureau promotes African economic development through the annual Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Forums. It is actively striving to end sexual and gender-based violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and eliminate the atrocities perpetrated by the Lord’s Resistance Army throughout Central Africa. Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s global food security initiative, is focused on 12 African countries…
In her Preface to the U.S. Department of State’s Human Rights Practices Report for 2011 (May 2012), Secretary Hilary Clinton declared:
In my travels around the world as Secretary of State, I have met many individuals who put their lives on the line to advance the cause of human rights and justice. In ways small and large, they hold their governments accountable for upholding universal human rights… The United States stands with all those who seek to advance human dignity…
These quite modest accomplishments in Africa fall far short of President Obama’s lofty and eloquent words and majestic promises in Accra and his Administration’s actions to support good governance and promote human rights in Africa. Shakespeare said, “Action is eloquence.” Though there is always a gap between political rhetoric and political action, one should not confuse the eloquence of words with the eloquence of action. But this is not the time to look back and engage in recriminations, teeth-gnashing, belly-aching and finger pointing. We shall march to our President’s battle cry and “Keep Moving Forward”.
Time to Put Up or Shut Up?
Americans are generally known for straight talk, cutting down to the chase or cutting out the bull. It is one of the great qualities I have always appreciated in ordinary Americans and some of their great leaders. They say what they mean and mean what they say. It was “plain talkin’” President Harry S. Truman who said, “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.” So, I will do a little bit of straight talking. We have heard enough of human rights pontifications and declarations. We know all about the “challenges”, “problems”, “difficulties” and “issues” in improving human rights and good governance in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa. We have also heard enough grousing, whining and complaining in Diaspora Ethiopian communities, particularly in the U.S., about what the U.S. has done, not done or could have done to to promote good governance, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. In President Obama’s second term, there are only two choices: Put up or Shut Up! Put another way, the U.S. can step up and stand tall with the brave Africans or roll over in bed with the shameless and cowardly dictators who cling to power through handouts, World Bank and IMF loans and the barrel of the gun.
How to Help the Brave Ethiopians: Where to Start?
Many veteran Ethiopian human rights advocates will no doubt remember H.R. 2003 (“Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007”; originally introduced as H.R. 4423 “Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005” by Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey when he chaired the Subcommittee on Africa and later renumbered as H.R. 4423 and H.R. 5680 in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs). Congress Donald Payne of New Jersey took the lead on H.R. 2003 when he became chairman of the Africa Subcommittee in 2007 and obtained the co-sponsorship of some 85 members of Congress. That bill passed the House in October 2007. Its key provisions focused on a number of issues central to good governance and protection of human rights in Ethiopia, including the release and/or speedy trial of all political prisoners in the country, prosecution of persons who have committed gross human rights violations, financial support to strengthen human rights and civil society groups and establishment of an independent judiciary, support for independent media operations, training assistance to strengthen legislative bodies, electoral commission and civil society groups, among others. Unfortunately, the bill never made it for a floor vote in the Senate.
Recently, the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed an important piece of legislation last week known as the “Sergei Magnitsky Law” (Senate Bill 1039 sponsored by democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, a long-time civil rights and civil liberties advocate and co-sponsored by 33 other Senators; and H.R. 4405 in the House sponsored by the well-known human rights advocate and democratic Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and co-sponsored by 15 other members). This law is designed to “impose sanctions on persons responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the conspiracy to defraud the Russian Federation of taxes on corporate profits through fraudulent transactions and lawsuits and for other gross violations of human rights in the Russian Federation.” The “Magnitsky” language was incorporated in a larger legislation (‘‘Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012’’).
Sergei Magnitsky was a brave and principled 37-year-old Russian lawyer who exposed massive government corruption involving money-laundering by Russian officials. He died in prison in 2009. Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, citing the conclusions of the independent Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, reported that Magnitsky was illegally arrested, detained and denied justice by the very courts and prosecutors of the Russian Federation he was investigating and accusing. While in detention Magnitsky was denied necessary medical care and died from beatings he received by prison guards. Despite overwhelming evidence of official criminality in the Magnitsky case, no officials have yet to be brought to justice.
The key provisions of the Magnitsky Law requires the State Department to maintain a list of human rights abusers in Russia, freeze their assets and deny them U.S. visas.
Section 404 of the law (“Identification of Persons Responsible for the Detention, Abuse and Death of Sergei Magnitsky and Other Gross Violators of Human Rights”) requires the President to submit to Congress within 120 days “a list” of names of persons likely to have been involved directly or indirectly in “the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky” and other individuals “responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the Government of the Russian Federation.”
Section 406 requires the President to use his legal authority to “freeze and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of a person who is on the list required by section 404(a) if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.” The law further imposes penalties on any “person that violates or conspires to violate” the law to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act.
Helping Ethiopia’s “Magnitskys”
In his 2009 Accra speech, President Obama told Africans that the U.S. will “increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance… to advance transparency and accountability.” He also said that it is possible to “make change from the bottom up because in this moment, history is on the move.” Well, the moment of history to get Ethiopian human rights legislation passed through the U.S. Congress is now! There is a perfect alignment of the bipartisan legislative stars. Human rights as a policy issue is taking front and center among both Democrats and Republicans. The Magnitsky Law was a significant legislative victory not only for the memory of the brave Sergei Magnitsky but for all brave victims of official human rights abuses everywhere. Senator Cardin toiled for years to get the bill through Congress and managed to do so with the support of senior republicans. (Truth be told, the Obama administration did not support linking the human rights legislation to a trade bill, but in the end had to give in.)
The bipartisan support for human rights as evidenced in the Magnitsky Law is refreshing, invigorating, inspiring and long overdue. Republican Arizona Senator John McCain said the United States had a moral obligation to speak out for Magnitsky, as well as others who are still alive and languishing unjustly in Russian prisons: “We are sending a signal to Vladimir Putin and the Russian kleptocracy that these kind of abuses of human rights will not be tolerated without us responding in some appropriate fashion. I believe that this legislation is not anti Russia. I believe it’s pro Russia…. I continue to worry about them and I pray for them.” Republican Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said the bill should have applied to all countries. Democratic New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen said that the United States intends to pay attention to human rights everywhere. “We will stand up for those who dare to speak out against corruption. This bill is for all the Magnitskys around the world.” Senator Ben Cardin said he would push to make it universal in scope so it could be used to punish other human rights violators around the world. “Now we start a new chapter in human rights. The legislation sets a precedent for international conduct that we expect will be honored globally.” Even the White House issued a Statement indicating that the President will support legislation that will “promote the rule of law and respect for human rights around the world”.
There are thousands of “Ethiopian Magnitskys” who have been denied justice, languishing in prison and forgotten. For starters, there has been no accountability for the post-2005 election massacres in which, according to an official Ethiopian Inquiry Commission, some 200 unarmed demonstrators were gunned down and another 800 wounded by security and police officials of the regime. There is a certified list of at least 237 individuals known to be involved or strongly suspected of direct involvement in these crimes against humanity. It is mandatory that these officials be brought to trial without delay.
It is great to see a sea change in the U.S. Congress on the issue of human rights. There seems to be a new attitude and renewed commitment to human rights and good governance and a recognition that human rights are an integral part of international law and civilized humanity. President Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.” President Jimmy Carter said, “America did not invent human rights. Human rights invented America.” In Ethiopia and many parts of Africa, the noblest aspirations of the human spirit go unfulfilled. And just like human rights invented America, I believe it is time for human rights to reinvent Ethiopia and the rest of Africa.
As far as I am concerned, what is good enough for the brave Sergei Magnitsky of Russia is good enough for the brave Melesachew D. Alemnew, age 16, Hadra S. Osman, age 22, Etenesh Yimam, age 50, Teodros Gidey Hailu, age 23, Gashaw T. Mulugeta, age 24, Lechisa K. Fatasa, age 21…. of Ethiopia! History is on the move. Now Ethiopian Americans, let’s get a move on! Yes, We Can have an “Ethiopian Magnitsky Law”! With a little help from our friends!
Standing tall with the “brave Africans” is standing up on the right side of history.
Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Stolen Childhoods: Child Prostitution And Trafficking In Ethiopia
By Graham Peebles
Prostitution, perhaps the most distressing form of child abuse, is an epidemic throughout Ethiopia. The innocence of a childhood shattered, causing a deep feeling of shame, poisoning the sense of self and excluding the child from education, friends and the broader society. A society, which stands idly by whilst children suffer, speaking not in the face of extreme exploitation, denying the truth of extensive child exploitation and acts not, is a society in collusion.
In the capital, prostitution abounds, “It is difficult to give an exact figure for the prevalence of child prostitution in Addis Ababa but observation reveals that the numbers are increasing at an alarming rate in the city”1 The joint Save the Children Denmark and Addis Ababa City administration (SCD) study states: “Interviewing children revealed that over 50% started engaging in prostitution below 16 years of age. The majority work more than six hours per day”
There are many grades or levels of prostitution, “Some children engage in commercial sex in nightclubs, bars and brothels, while others simply stand on street corners waiting for men to pick them up.” (CPAA)
The SCD study “identified types of child prostitution: working on the streets; working in small bars; working in local arki or alcohol houses; working in rented houses/beds and; working in rent places for khat/drugs use. Each location exposes the children to different risks and hazards.”
“The major problems that have been faced by children engaged in prostitution include: rape, beating, hunger, etc. Based on the responses of children engaged in prostitution, about 45% of them have been raped before they engaged in the activity”. (CPAA)
The dangers associated with child prostitution affect the girls physical and mental/emotional health. Violent physical abuse, being hit and raped is common, Birtuken a 17 year old child sex worker (CSW), “prostitution is disastrous to the physical and social wellbeing of a person.” (CPAA)
The impact on the long-term mental health of a child working in prostitution, can often cause chronic psychological problems, “the emotional health consequences of prostitution include severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self-medication through alcohol and drug abuse; and eating disorders.2
The risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) and HIV/Aids is great, so too the chances of unwanted pregnancies, as men, immersed in selfishness and ignorance, refuse to wear condoms. Their arrogance and macho bravado is a major cause in the spread of HIV/Aids in Ethiopia USAID3 suggests, “1.3million people are now living with the virus in the country”. It is estimated that “70 per cent of female infertility is caused by sexually transmitted diseases that can be traced back to their husbands or partners.”4 “Women in prostitution have been blamed for this epidemic of STDs when, in reality, studies confirm that it is men who buy sex in the process of migration who carry the disease from one prostituted woman to another and ultimately back to their wives and girlfriends.” (EoP)
There are various causes for the growth in child prostitution in urban and rural areas as well as Addis Ababa, arranged marriages, illegal under Federal Law is cited as a key factor, “Research carried out in 2005 established that most victims of commercial sexual exploitation found in the streets of Addis Ababa had been married when they were below 15 years of age” (SAACSEC) In highlighting the factors that drive children away from their homes and into commercial sex work, the CPAA study found that “Most of the child prostitutes came from regions to look for a job, due to conflicts at home, early marriage and divorce.
Poverty, death of one or both parents, child trafficking, high repetition rates and drop out from school and lack of awareness about the consequence of being engaged in prostitution are key factors that push young girls to be involved in commercial sex work”. (CPAA)
In addition to arranged marriage, which is a significant cause, the study found that “the major reasons identified by the children themselves for engaging in commercial sex work are: poverty (34%), dispute in family (35%), and death of mother and/or father. 40% joined prostitution either to support themselves or their parents. Quite a large number of girls (35%) have joined prostitution due to violence within the home. Thus violence within the family is the main cause for children fleeing from home.”
The causes listed are complex and interrelated. At the epicenter of these diverse reasons though sits the family. Conflict at home is for many girls (and boys) the force driving them away from family and onto the streets of Addis Ababa, or one of the provincial towns and cities. Division and conflict grow from many seeds, repeated physical abuse at the hands of a parent or stepparent, rape at the hands of a Father, stepfather or extended family member, physical and verbal abuse, all are factors that force girls to leave the home and seek release from what has become a prison like existence of servitude, intimidation and fear. “When physical and psychological punishment becomes intolerable, it may lead to the child running away from home. Girls tend to become prostitutes when they run away from home.” (VACE2)
Another burgeoning group from which many children fall into the net of prostitution is that resulting from HIV-orphans who have lost their parents to the virus. “Ethiopia has one of the largest populations of orphans in the world: 13 per cent of Ethiopian children have lost one or both parents…the number of children orphaned solely by HIV/AIDS has reached over 1.2 million. These children find themselves at a very high risk of entering commercial sex to survive, yet there is very limited support available for them either from government [emphasis mine}.”(AACSE)
Coherent or dysfunctional, the social fabric is a tapestry of interrelated, interconnected strands. Neglect by the Ethiopian Government in areas diverse, and fundamental is the glue that is binding together a polluted stream of suffering and pain.
Bussed in Married off
In 2006/7, I worked with the Forum for Street Children Ethiopia (FSCE), running education projects for the children in their care. Girls living and working on the streets, mainly the hectic cobbled broken pathways around the Mercato Bus station. “This extremely poor neighborhood in the city has become ‘the epicentre of the capital’s illegal [emphasis mine] industry of child prostitution’5
The children at FSCE ranged in age, although many did not even know their date of birth; most the children do not have documentation “the problem is further aggravated by a widespread lack of birth registration” (CPAA). Some were as young as 11 years old, “over 50% started engaging in prostitution below 16 years of age” the study states. “In almost every case the girls come to the city from the countryside, their families cast many out, others sent to Addis to work”.
Arriving at the city’s main bus-station, shrouded in naivety and fear, with little or no education, the girls make easy pickings for the men that greet them, with a warm smile, and a cunning mind only to mistreat, use and exploit them. With nowhere else to go, and no alternatives, the girls find themselves working the street and the journey into the painful, destructive prison of prostitution has begun.
Many, according to Save the Children Denmark (STCD), come from the Amhara region, the second most populated region, with a population of over 20 million. These children arrive in the capital knowing nobody, with (probably) no money and no contacts.”Enforced child marriages, abuse, and the prospects of ending their days in the grip of poverty are factors pushing Ethiopian girls as young as nine years of age’” (VACE), to risk their childhood and their lives in the city.
According to (CPAA) “There are many factors pushing the girls away from the region, (Amhara) including poverty, peer pressure and abuse. But child marriage is one of the most common explanations we hear when interviewing the girls,” Arranged marriages are widespread in the (Amhara) region in the north of Ethiopia, where young girls, children are forced to marry adult men, all too often this ‘union’ results in rape, abuse and violence, from which the innocent child is forced to flee, only into the clutches of exploitation, violence and abuse. And do they recover, is there healing and release, is a childhood stolen, a childhood lost, let us pray it is not so.
Marriages entered into unwillingly by extremely young girls, some as young as seven years old usually in exchange for reparations of some kind, money, cattle, land, lead all too often to abuse and violence, “traditional practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) and early marriage, are causes for the increased violence against children.” 14-year-old boy 6 “in Wolmera Woreda, the practice of FGM is nearly universal since girls must be circumcised before marriage.” (VACE2) Once committed to a marriage, by parents who often regard the child as no more than an object to be traded, the girl is frequently raped and mistreated and treated as a servant. “Abduction, rape and early marriage may ultimately lead many girls to prostitution. Early marriage and abduction seldom produce successful marriages. In fact, such relationships are short-lived. As a result, most of these young girls run far away from their husbands in an attempt to start a new and happier life elsewhere. Unfortunately, many of them end up as prostitutes.’ (VACE2)
“Early marriage is illegal (except under particular circumstances), weak law enforcement [Emphasis mine] allows this practice to be widely followed throughout Ethiopia; the phenomenon is reported in almost every region of the country.
Nationwide, 19 per cent of girls were married by the age of 15 and about half were married by the age of 19; in Amhara region, 50 per cent of girls were married by the age of 15. “When the marriage finally collapses, the girls usually migrate to urban areas since breaking a marriage arranged by their relatives is considered a shameful act and they are no longer welcome within their families and communities.
Once in larger towns they end up living in the streets given their lack of skills to find employment. Such dire circumstances lead many girls to be exploited in commercial sex.” (CPAA)
To break free of a forced marriage entered into against the child’s will, and be punished by banishment from the family home, is a form of social injustice based on traditions, which have long failed to serve the children, the family or the community at large. It is time long since past that these practice’s where changed. Education, cultivating tolerance and understanding of the Human Rights of the Child are keys to undoing such outdated destructive sociological patterns, together with the enforcement of the law to deter parents and prospective ‘husbands’.
No options, no hope
No child enters into prostitution when they have a choice, “prostitution is seen as a social ill that is unaccepted, prohibited and fought in most parts of our continent. Prostitution is not only a question of morality but a human problem, a problem of human exploitation, a problem of societal failure in providing equal opportunities.” (CPAA) “At the end (of the interview) Belaynesh said that no girl/woman would like to be a prostitute but the problems force them to be in such a situation.” The circumstances that lead a young girl away from the games and innocence of childhood and what should be, the love and gentle kindness of her family, into the shadows of prostitution, may vary and circumstances differ, suffering though is common to all those forced into such a lifestyle, the impact long lasting and severe, the consequences dire, destroying many lives.
The children at FSCE in Mercato told us their stories, often with shame, through tears and embarrassment, always with pain. A thread connected them all, yes poverty, was a major issue, so too poor education however, the stream that united the group of wonderful 11 to 18 year olds, was a breakdown in human relationships, of one kind or another.
Once outside the family, and society, young girls desperate to survive have little choice but to work as CSW. For those recruiting and selling girls It is a business, for the children on the streets it a torture. “Almost all respondents do not like prostitution (99%). Almost all the girls are involved in prostitution not because they like what they are doing but due to other factors, to support themselves or their families.” (CPAA) “Child prostitution [is] a big business involving a whole series of actors from abductors at bus stations, to blue taxis and bar/hotel owners who tend to see children as the spices of their trade. The business actors, oblivious to pervasive taboos, have long abandoned recruiting adult prostitutes.” (CPAA)
Trafficking lives
Child prostitution and trafficking of children are inextricably linked. They are of course both illegal. All international conventions, from The Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to International Labor Organisation (IL0), as one would expect, outlaw them. So too do Ethiopia’s Federal laws, “The 1993 Labor Proclamation forbids employment of young persons under the age of 14 years.
Employment in hazardous work is also forbidden for those under 18. The Penal Code provides means for prosecuting persons sexually or physically abusing children and persons engaging in child trafficking including juveniles into prostitution. Federal Proclamation no.42/93 protects children less than 14 years not to engage in any kind of formal employment.” (CPAA) And yet both child prostitution and the trafficking of minors goes on, and on and on. “The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported that girls are trafficked both within the country and abroad to countries in the Middle East and to South Africa.”7
Children are brought from rural areas of Ethiopia to the capital city by brokers, “ttraffickers, who feed on parent’s low awareness with false promises of work and education for their offspring.” The numbers are staggering, the money tiny, the damage unimaginable “up to 20,000 children, some 10 years old, are sold each year [for around $1.20 to $2.40] by their parents and trafficked by unscrupulous brokers to work in cities across Ethiopia.”8 And who would do such a thing. Who would ‘sell’ an innocent child; condemn a child to slavery and brutal exploitation, pain and acute distress? “These traffickers are ‘typically local brokers, relatives, family members or friends of the victims. Many returnees are also involved in trafficking by working in collaboration with tour operators and travel agencies.”9
“The Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism has not been signed by any travel and tourism company in Ethiopia.” (CPAA) The Ethiopian Government acting in the interest of the children upon their homeland, and their responsibilities under international law, should rightly and immediately make all tour operators sign the afore mentioned treaty, or face closure, and criminal prosecution.
“The International Organization for Migration (IOM) stated that Ethiopian children are being sold for as little as US$ 1.20 to work as domestic servants or to be exploited in prostitution.” The Middle East is the major international destination of choice for traffickers, “Many Ethiopian women working in domestic service in the Middle East face severe abuses indicative of forced labor, including physical and sexual assault, denial of salary, sleep deprivation, and confinement. Many are driven to despair and mental illness, with some committing suicide. Ethiopian women are also exploited in the sex trade after migrating for labour purposes – particularly in brothels, mining camps, and near oil fields in Sudan – or after escaping abusive employers in the Middle East.”10 “At least 10,000 have been sent to the Gulf States to work as prostitutes.”(CTE)
Let us not even begin to look at the complicity of such states in the destruction of the lives of these children and women, the ‘little ones’ that dance upon the waters of life, seeking only a gentle heart to trust, finding the dark days of Rome, and in despair we cry “Men’s wretchedness in soothe I so deplore,”11
Meles Zenawi loves to ‘talk the talk’ to his western allies, the US, Britain, the European Union and the like, whilst turning a blind eye, a deaf ear to the cries of the child being beaten, the young girl being raped and traded for sex and the teenager separated from her family, her friends and her childhood, sold into servitude and abuse within Ethiopia and across the Red Sea in the oil rich ‘Gulf States’.
(This article is part of a series).
Notes:
1. Addis Ababa City Admin Social & NGO Affairs Office (SNGOA), Save the Children Denmark (SCD) and ANNPPCAN-Ethiopian. Child Labor in Ethiopia with special focus on Child Prostitution Study. ‘Child Prostitution in Addis Ababa 2006 (CPAA)
2. Health Effects of Prostitution (EOP), Janice G. Raymond
3. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/ethiopia.html
4. Jodi L. Jacobson, The Other Epidemic
5. Sofie Loumann Nielsen. The Reporter 10 September 2010
6. Violence against children in Ethiopia (VACE). Africa Child Policy Forum
7. http://www.childtrafficking.org/cgi-bin/ct/main.sql?ID=2067&file=view_document.sql
8. ILO. http://www.childtrafficking.org/cgi-bin/ct/main.sql?file=view_document.sql&TITLE=-1&AUTHOR=-1&THESAURO=-1&ORGANIZATION=-1&TOPIC=-1&GEOG=-1&YEAR=-1&LISTA=No&COUNTRY=-1&FULL_DETAIL=Yes&ID=2067. (CTE)
9. Ecpat Global Monitoring report status of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children, Ethiopia. (AACSE)
10. http://ovcs.blogspot.com/2008/01/ethiopia-is-source-country-for-human.html
11. Faust Part One, Mephistopheles.
(About the author: Graham Peebles is Director of The Create Trust, a UK registered charity, supporting fundamental social change and the human rights of individuals in acute need. He may be reached at graham@thecreatetrust.org)