Hero vs. Zero

By Alemayehu G. Mariam | 29 June 2009

Doublethink, Doublespeak
George Orwell may have understated the situation in the Big Brother totalitarian state of Nineteen Eighty-Four: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” He would be amused to learn that in the police state of Two Thousand and Nine Ethiopia, Big Brother has been unceremoniously replaced by THE P-R-O-C-E-S-S!

Jason McClure of Bloomberg News reported last week the capo dictator in Ethiopia had declared that “there is ‘zero’ chance that opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa will be released from prison in time to compete in the elections scheduled for next May. He also said Birtukan’s jailing is not a pretext to eliminate political opposition… The prime minister also defended local elections last year, in which opposition candidates won just three of 3.6 million seats, saying that ‘democracy is about process, it’s not about outcome…If the process is clean and you get zero, tough luck.’” (Italics added.)

Aha! “It’s About Process, Not Outcome!”

It is about process, not outcome. In other words, it is about smoke and mirrors, window dressing. It’s about putting on a show, going through the motions. Democratic elections have nothing to do with the outcome of legitimately elected leaders. They are about the process of putting on a three-ring elections circus so that people can go through the motions of voting for “leaders” who have already been pre-selected and elected for them. By the same token, courts are not about the outcome of impartial administration of justice. They are about manipulating the legal process to serve Just Us. Trials have nothing to do with the outcome of due process, which is truth-finding based on established legal principles, vindicating the innocent and convicting the guilty, or serving the ends of justice. They are about the process of putting on a kangaroo court show to convict the innocent, exonerate the guilty and exalt criminals. Governance is not about the outcome of informed decision-making, practicing the rule of law, effective delivery of public services, accountability, transparency, legitimacy and the rest of it. It is about the exquisite process of clinging to power like blood-sucking ticks on a cow.

A constitution is not about the outcome of establishing and permanently securing the rule of law so that citizens are protected from arbitrary and abusive use of government power. It is about the process of ensuring the rule of an outlaw who trashes every known human rights law. Parliaments are not about the outcome of formulating sound laws and public policies in a deliberative legislative forum. They are about the process of rubberstamping the delusions and fantasies of a dictator. Federalism is not about the outcome of a clear division of constitutional power between a national government and constituent political units. It is about setting up a fictitious process called “ethnic federalism” for the purpose of creating deep ethnic, cultural, linguistic and regional cleavages to facilitate dictatorial rule.

It is all about The P-R-O-C-E-S-S, stupid! If you haven’t got it by now “tough luck!”

From Doublethink, Doublespeak to Zerothink, Zerospeak

The age of Big Brother and the dark Orwellian future has been replaced in the brave new Ethiopia of the 21st Century by the age of the Big Processor who communicates through zerothink and zerospeak. It is no longer that “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” For zerothinkers and zerospeakers, the outcome of war that people die or suffer and entire communities are laid to waste is unimportant. What is important is the process of using war to extort economic and military aid from donors to cling to power indefinitely (in zerothink, that would be “forever and ever”). In zerothink, it is not about freedom or slavery. It is certainly not about the outcome of human freedom, which is free thought, free expression, free association, free press, free elections and so on. It is about the process of using the idea of freedom to justify tyranny and brutality, and to hoodwink the rest of the world into believing that dictatorship is the only path to freedom. In zerothink, it is not that ignorance is strength; it is about the planned process of creating and maintaining a nation of ignoramuses by denying them free expression, sound education and a forum for a free exchange of ideas. It is about keeping the population weak, confused, divided and domesticated. It is about the process of locking up the population in the proverbial Tower of Babel where no one speaks the same language or understands each other. In the brave new Ethiopia of zerothink and zero speak, it is all about processing: Central processing of lies; micro-processing of corruption, digital processing of propaganda; physical processing of opponents into torture chambers; network processing among nouveau riche supporters; co-processing of fear and loathing and re-processing of rigged and stolen elections. It is all about using The P-R-O-C-E-S-S to control, pacify and subjugate the population.

But one day, it will all be about service of process!

Zerothink and the Zero Sum Game Process

In the social sciences, scholars use “game theory” to understand the behavior of individuals in strategic situations in which one individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices and actions of others. In a zero-sum game, one person will lose and one person will win. The win (+1) added to the loss (-1) equals zero.

The capo dictator’s statement on the primacy of process over outcome provides a unique window into a particular zero sum game player mindset. The game strategy for the dictators is to ensure that opposition or rival elements always lose while they always win. The dictators have been playing such a zero sum political game in Ethiopia for nearly two decades. As the dictator glibly quipped, “democracy is about process, it’s not about outcome…If the process is clean and you get zero, tough luck.” For two decades, the people of Ethiopia have been forced to play a zero sum game of “process democracy” (or make-believe democracy) and have accumulated a grand total score of zero. The winning formula for the zero sum “elections process” has been finely tuned: Announce a date for “elections” with great fanfare. Set up a process for make- believe elections. Hand select and pre-elect your candidates. Scandalize and demonize your political opponents and rivals. Let people think their votes count. Declare victory before the votes are counted. Announce to the world that “opposition candidates won just three of 3.6 million seats.”

There is a better way. It is a non zero sum game based on a “win-win” strategy in which each side can gain and minimize losses through a process of bargaining, negotiation, compromise and conciliation. The dictators seem to be incapable of understanding or playing a non zero sum game. That is because they perceive the larger society as their enemy while sitting and fretting in their echo chamber of intrigue. They see any one else winning in any matter small or big (political or economic) as a devastating loss to them. They have a mindset of losers. So the real problem is the zero-sum mindset of the dictators. They must undergo a change in mindset and overcome the belief and conviction deeply ingrained in their collective psyche that political opponents committed to democratic principles are not mortal enemies, merely competitors for votes.

In a real democracy, winning and losing for political parties and candidates is the natural order of things. You win some, you lose some. The winners and losers are determined by the people who cast their votes freely, without intimidation, extortion, threats, vote rigging or other fraudulent electoral practices. Losing an election the old fashioned way (through free and fair elections) is not the end of the world in a real democracy; it is merely the stepping stone to the next round of electoral contests. The fact remains that as long as the dictators remain prisoners in their echo chambers of intrigue chained to a zero sum mindset of fear and loathing, there can be no real political change; only missed opportunities. It is conceivable that a few in the dictator’s inner circle understand that the only way they can find the peace of mind and accord with others that has eluded them for nearly two decades is by embracing a multi-party democratic system where rivals are not perceived as enemies but potential partners in a dynamically evolving and shifting competitive political process.

On the other hand, even the most skilled strategic zero sum game players expect perpetual losers to win one day, and win big. What happens then? What happens when the tables are turned and the dictators find themselves on the receiving end? (Admittedly, this question sounds silly to anyone sitting in an invincible echo chamber fortress, but suppose that were so, for the sake of argument.) Indeed, in a zero sum game, the short-term loser may be the winner in the long term by learning to develop skills useful in creating “win-win” situations where through compromise, negotiation and conciliation higher level political and social objectives could be attained. Real democracy is not a zero sum game process. It is a political outcome based on a non zero sum game model. It is not necessary for all to lose and one party to win all the time. It is possible to pursue strategies that produce “win-win” results for everyone. But that is the strategy of the hero.

Hero vs. Zero

We are told there is “zero” chance that our heroine, Birtukan Mideksa, “will be released from prison in time to compete in the elections scheduled for next May.” (Translation in zerospeak: “Birtukan is enjoying herself at the exotic, all-inclusive vacation club known as the Kality Resorts, and is unavailable for the mundane business of running for office.” But the fact of the matter is that Birtukan is not interested in participating in an election P-R-O-C-E-S-S. She is not interested in an election process in which the outcome is predetermined now, a year before it is held. She wants no part of an election process where 3 (three) opposition candidates win from among 3.6 million candidates fielded by the dictator’s party. She would rather tough it out with her “tough luck”. Our hero does not want to be part of a zero-sum election process. Truth be told, even in a zero sum game, zero plus zeros equal to zero, not hero!

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

Report relased by State Department About Human Trafficking!

Ethiopia - A source country for trafficked people - State Department

ETHIOPIA (Tier 2)

Ethiopia is a source country for men, women, and children trafficked primarily for the purposes of forced labor and, to a lesser extent, for commercial sexual exploitation. Rural Ethiopian children are trafficked for domestic servitude and, less frequently, for commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor in agriculture, traditional weaving, gold mining, street vending, and begging. Young women from all parts of Ethiopia are trafficked for domestic servitude, primarily to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, but also to Bahrain, Djibouti, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Djibouti, Egypt, and Somaliland are reportedly the main transit routes for trafficked Ethiopians. Some women are trafficked into the sex trade after arriving at their destinations. Small numbers of men are trafficked to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States for low-skilled forced labor. While the number of registered labor migration employment agencies rose from 36 to 90 between 2005 and 2008, the government significantly tightened its implementation of regulations governing these agencies over the same period. This resulted in an increase in trafficked Ethiopians transiting neighboring countries rather than traveling directly to Middle Eastern destinations.

The Government of Ethiopia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. While the Ethiopian government’s ongoing efforts to provide pre-departure orientation to Ethiopian migrant workers and partner with a local NGO to detect cases of child trafficking within the country are notable, its limited capacity to prosecute trafficking crimes is a continued cause for concern. Police investigators remain unable to properly distinguish trafficking cases from those of other crimes or to conduct thorough investigations, and the judicial system routinely is unable to track the status of trafficking cases moving through the courts.

Recommendations for Ethiopia: Improve the investigative capacity of police and enhance judicial understanding of trafficking to allow for more prosecutions of trafficking offenders, particularly perpetrators of internal child trafficking; institute trafficking awareness training for diplomats posted overseas; engage Middle Eastern governments on improving protections for Ethiopian workers and developing a mechanism to refer trafficking victims for assistance; partner with local NGOs to increase the level of services available to trafficking victims returning from overseas; and launch a campaign to increase awareness of internal trafficking at the local and regional levels.

Prosecution
While the government sustained its efforts to prosecute and punish international trafficking offenders and initiated investigations of internal child trafficking during the reporting period, prosecution of internal trafficking cases remained nonexistent. In addition, law enforcement entities continued to exhibit an inability to distinguish human trafficking from smuggling, rape, abduction, and unfair labor practices. Articles 596 through 600 and 635 of Ethiopia’s Penal Code prohibit all forms of trafficking for labor and sexual exploitation.

The Federal High Court’s 11th Criminal Bench was established in late 2007 to hear cases of transnational trafficking, as well as any trafficking cases discovered in the jurisdiction of Addis Ababa. In June 2008, the court sentenced a man under Proclamation 104/1998 to 15 years’ imprisonment and fined him $1,357 for illegally sending an Ethiopian woman to Lebanon where she was forced to work as a domestic servant and later thrown from a building by her employer. A second defendant received five years’ imprisonment and a $452 fine for facilitating the same woman’s trafficking for domestic servitude. In 2008, police at Addis Ababa’s central bus terminal received 899 reports of internal child trafficking, an increase over the previous year. However, unlike prior reporting periods, the unit did not provide statistics on the number of cases referred to the prosecutor’s office in
2008 or the status of cases referred to the prosecutor’s office in the preceding year. Some local police and border control agents are believed to have accepted bribes to
overlook trafficking.

Protection
Although the government lacks the resources to provide direct assistance to trafficking victims or to fund NGOs that provide victim care, police employ victim identification and referral procedures in the capital, regularly referring identified internal trafficking victims to NGOs for care. During the year, the Child Protection Units (CPUs) – joint police-NGO identification and referral units operating in each Addis Ababa police station – rescued and referred children to the CPU in the central bus terminal, which is dedicated exclusively to identifying and obtaining care for trafficked children. In 2008, this unit identified 899 trafficked children, 75 percent of whom were girls. It referred 93 trafficked children to NGO shelters for care and family tracing and reunified 720 children with parents or relatives in Addis Ababa and in outlying regions. Local police and officials in the regional administrations assisted in the return of the children to their home areas. The Addis Ababa city government’s Social and Civil Affairs Department reunified an additional 46 children with their families in the capital and placed 40 children in foster care in 2008. During the year, police in Dessie Town, Amhara region replicated the CPU’s social programs without international assistance. In July 2008, the government assisted IOM with the repatriation of Ethiopian trafficking victims from Dar es Salaam to their home regions. Ethiopian missions in Jeddah, Riyadh, and Beirut have offices that provide general services to the local Ethiopian community, including limited referrals for labor-related assistance. The Ethiopian government showed no sign of engaging the governments of these destination countries in an effort to improve protections for Ethiopian workers and obtain protective services for those who are trafficked. The government made no effort to interview returned victims about their experiences in the Middle East.

Returned women rely heavily on the few NGOs that work with adult victims and psychological services provided by the government’s Emmanuel Mental Health Hospital. In 2008, there were no reports of trafficking victims being detained, jailed, or prosecuted for violations of laws, such as those governing immigration. While police encourage trafficking victims’ participation in investigations and prosecutions, resource constraints prevent police from
providing economic incentives to victims. In January 2009, the government passed the Charities and Societies Proclamation, which, among other things, prohibits foreign-funded NGOs from informing victims of their rights under Ethiopian law or advocating on behalf of
victims; this proclamation may have a negative impact on Ethiopia’s protection of trafficking victims.

Prevention

Ethiopia’s efforts to prevent international trafficking increased, while measures to heighten awareness of internal trafficking remained limited. In May 2008, after a series of deaths of Ethiopian maids in Lebanon, the government officially banned its citizens from traveling to the country; the ban remains in effect. During the reporting period, the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (MOLSA), employing two full-time counselors, provided 18,259 migrating workers with three-hour pre-departure orientation sessions on the risks of labor migration and the conditions in receiving countries. While these pre-departure preventative measures are commendable, they need to be matched by meaningful victim protection measures provided by the Ethiopian government in the countries to which the workers were destined. In addition, Private Employment Agency Proclamation 104/1998 governs the work of international employment agencies and protects Ethiopian migrant workers from fraudulent recruitment or excessive debt situations that could contribute to forced labor. These statutes prescribe punishments of five to 20 years’ imprisonment, which are sufficiently stringent and exceed those prescribed for other grave crimes, such as rape. In 2009, an amendment to Proclamation 104/98 outlawing extraneous commission fees and requiring employment agencies to open branch offices in countries to which they send migrant workers was submitted to parliament for review. In January 2008, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs established a Women’s and Children’s Trafficking Controlling Department to collect data from Ethiopian diplomatic missions, NGOs, and police sub-stations on the status of migrant workers. Though this office has not yet issued its first report, in December it hosted an interministerial discussion on child trafficking and labor abuse for mid-level government officials from the Ministries of Labor, Justice, and Women and Children’s Affairs.

During the year, state-controlled Ethiopian Radio aired IOM’s public service announcements in four languages, as well as a program for listeners in Addis Ababa on the risk of trafficking through visa fraud. The Ministry of Education, in partnership with an NGO, revised primary school textbooks to include instruction on child labor and trafficking in the curriculum. Four teachers’ training colleges in Southern Nations Nationalities Peoples’ Regional State incorporated these topics in their teaching materials in 2008. The government did not undertake efforts to reduce demand for commercial sex acts during the reporting period. Before deploying Ethiopian soldiers on international peacekeeping missions, the government trained them on human rights issues, including human trafficking. Ethiopia has not ratified the 2000 UN TIP Protocol.

SOURCE

LAND GRABBING

GENEVA / BRUSSELS — The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, on Thursday proposed a minimum a set of principles and measures based on human rights in the elaboration of large-scale transnational land acquisitions and leases, more commonly referred to as “land grabbing”. His call comes at a time when Governments are preparing to negotiate on responsible investment in agriculture at the forthcoming G8 Summit.

Mr. De Schutter identified large-scale transnational land investments as one of new trends that emerged out of the 2008 global food crisis which have not been properly addressed by the international community.

Large-scale land investments can be opportunities for development, given their potential for creating infrastructures and employment, increasing public revenues and improving farmers’ access to technologies and credit. Yet they could have negative effects on the right to food as well as other human rights. Potential impacts include: the eviction of land users which have no formal security of tenure over the land they have been cultivating for decades; the loss of access to land for indigenous peoples and pastoral populations, competition for water resources and decreased food security if local populations are deprived of access to productive resources.

“These principles and measures are intended to assist both investors and host governments in the negotiation and implementation of large-scale land leases and acquisitions, in order to ensure that such investments work for the benefit of the population including the most vulnerable groups in the host country, and are conducive to sustainable development, with the progressive realization of the human right to food as the ultimate horizon”, Mr. De Schutter said. The measures are grounded in principles of international human rights law, including the right to food, the right to self-determination of peoples and the right to development; as well as in international labour legislation.

The Special Rapporteur highlighted several of the human rights principles at a press conference in Brussels on Thursday: “From a human rights perspective, the negotiations leading to investment agreements should be conducted in full transparency and with the participation of the local communities whose access to land and other productive resources may be affected as a result of the arrival of an investor. Any shifts in land use should in principle be made with the free, prior and informed consent of the local communities concerned.”

Another crucial issue is the use of investment revenues. “Investment contracts should prioritize the development needs of the local population. Arrangements under which the foreign investor provides access to credit and to improved technologies for contract farming, or obtains the possibility to buy at predefined prices a portion of the crops, produced may be preferable to long-term leases of land or land purchases,” said Mr. De Schutter.

“From a right-to-food perspective, host States and investors should also establish and promote farming systems that are labour intensive – instead of highly-mechanized operations – in order to ensure that investment agreements contribute to reinforcing local livelihood options and provide living wages for the local population, which is a key component of the human right to food. Sustainable agriculture, in particular agro-ecological approaches and low external input farming practices should also be privileged in contract agreements. A safe and productive environment is indeed an element in the realization of the right to food for local communities”.

The Special Rapporteur recommended conducting impact assessments prior to the finalization of the contract and later at pre-defined intervals, in order to highlight the consequences of the investment on local employment and incomes; on access to productive resources of the local communities and on the environment. Investment agreements should also include a clause providing that a certain minimum percentage of the crops produced shall be sold on local markets, with specific conditions set if prices of food commodities on international markets reach certain levels.

The Special Rapporteur said he expects these human-rights-based measures will help bring about a consensus on the establishment of a multilateral approach. “A multilateral approach could avoid beggar-thy-neighbour policies, with countries competing against each other for the arrival of foreign direct investment and thus lowering the requirements imposed on foreign investors. It could provide increased legal certainty for the investors and shield them from the risk of reputational losses if they comply with the principles”.

According to Mr. De Schutter, the human rights framework is thus not only an obligation for states, but an opportunity: ‘While these measures may give the impression of representing additional constraints, they should be seen as true success factors in the short and long term. Land represents not only the main means to access and procure food for millions of smallholders and their families, but it is also an essential element for the identity of certain peoples and communities. If investment agreements work against these aspects, they may backfire. Human rights principles and standards can, once more, guide this emerging trend.”
Press contacts: Olivier De Schutter Tel. +32.488.482004 - Federica Donati Tel. +41.22.9179496

For the full text of the Special Rapporteur’s statement, please visit: www.srfood.org

A Country That God Forgot

By Yohannes Y
Thick darkness covered the land of Jerusalem while Jesus hung on the cross. And at about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ''Eli, Eli, lama sabchtani?'' That is to say, ''My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'' (Matthew 27:46) Why did Jesus feel that his God, His Father, had forsaken him? These days some of us repeat this statement. Why God seems to have forgotten our homeland Ethiopia?

A year after years, month after month and week after week, and everyday seems to deliver one bad news after another and any hope that things will get better soon, is not realistic. The more well-established Meles regime has become, the government institutions of governance getting worse, and human right abuses become rampant. The relationship among our people is ruined, and human right and freedom become only a lip service for the government diplomacy endeavors.

This year Amnesty International Reported

At least 13 newspapers shut down by the government in 2005 were still closed. Independent journalists were reportedly denied licences to operate, although others did receive licences. Serkalem Fasil, Eskinder Nega and Sisay Agena, former publishers of Ethiopia’s largest circulation independent newspapers, who had been detained with CUD members, were denied licences to open two new newspapers.
In February the Supreme Court upheld a decision to dissolve the Ethiopian Teachers Association (ETA) and hand over its assets to a rival union formed by the government, also known as the Ethiopian Teachers Association. This action followed years of harassment and detention of union members. In December the union, under its new name, the National Teachers’ Association, had its application for registration as a professional organization rejected.

On World Press Freedom Day (3 May) Alemayehu Mahtemework, publisher of the monthly Enku, was detained and 10,000 copies of his publication impounded. He was released after five days without charge and copies of the magazine were later returned to him.

In November a Federal High Court judge convicted editor-in chief of the weekly Enbilta, Tsion Girma, of “inciting the public through false rumours” after a reporting mistake. She reportedly paid a fine and was released.

Human right watch Reported

Ethiopia's already-dire human rights record has worsened in recent years. Ethiopian military forces have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in two conflicts in Ethiopia and in neighboring Somalia, with no meaningful effort to hold those responsible to account.

Federal, regional and local officials have regularly harassed, arbitrarily detained, and subjected to torture critics of the government, and have denounced human rights groups that expose these problems. As a result, there is little independent criticism and political opposition in most of the country. In local elections in April 2008, the ruling party and its allies won more than 99 percent of more than 4 million elected positions, most in uncontested races.

State department reported

Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in outlying regions. Although the law requires detainees to be informed of the charges against them within 48 hours, this generally was not respected in practice. While there was a functioning bail system, it was not available in murder, treason, and corruption cases. In most cases authorities set bail between $55 and $1,100 (500 to 10,000 birr), which was too costly for most citizens. Police officials did not always respect court orders to release suspects on bail. With court approval persons suspected of serious offenses can be detained for 14 days while police investigate and for additional 14 day periods while the investigation continues. The law prohibits detention in any facilities other than an official detention center; however, there were dozens of unofficial local detention centers used by local government militia and other formal and informal law enforcement entities. The government provided public defenders for detainees unable to afford private legal counsel, but only when their cases went to court. While in pretrial detention, authorities allowed such detainees little or no contact with legal counsel.

So it may take years to Ethiopia to have a real elected government and rebuild people’s sense of freedom, democracy and trust on Ethiopian government. So the question is what can we do?

Once, former American first lady Eleanor Roosevelt said:
“You gain Strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face; you must do the thing which you think you cannot do”

If we Ethiopians are united we can do a miracle.

We must do whatever it takes to stop this brutal dictator, they are not strong but an empty shell, the suffering of Ethiopians are reached to the highest level and peoples who are fighting the narrow nationalist Tigerian golden race expand like wild fire.

How do we support our people’s struggles and suffering?

Endgame!

Alemayehu G. Mariam ǀ June 1, 2009



Human Rights and Fairy Tales



For the past several weeks, the noise machine of the dictatorship in Ethiopia has been in overdrive reacting to human rights findings made against it in the February 29, 2009 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report. The official spokesmen of the dictatorship angrily denounced the alleged inaccuracies in that report, carped about its groundless charges of criminal wrongdoing, whined about the hidden agendas of shadowy manipulators of U.S. foreign policy, groused about the fictitious and fanciful claims of human rights abuses and blasted the American government for lying outright to undermine their credibility and portray them as international pariahs. Even the leader of the dictatorship took a jab at the report. With simulated dramatic flair, he described the report as a “fairy tale” (te-ret) and “false propaganda” to his parliament. As usual, he categorically denied the occurrence of any systematic human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, mass detentions without charges and the commission of crimes against humanity by himself, his official minions or security and military forces.

Of course, one man’s fairy tale is another man’s tale of fear. Dr. Merera Gudina, chairman of the Oromo People’s Congress and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces was quick to disagree, as quoted by the gazette Addis Negger:

I see it as one of the government’s attempts to conceal its human rights abuses. For example, the government claims that ‘there are no secret prisons in Ethiopia,’ but about 15 kilometers away from Ambo, where I have enough information about, there are three unofficial secret prisons: the old Emperor Haile Selassie’s Palace in Ambo, Senkele Police Training Center and Holeta Military Camp. Dedesa, where many thousands had been locked up after the 2005 elections, is not an official prison. We can provide as much evidence as needed. It is well known that people have been jailed in Maekelawi [the notorious high-security torture prison in Ethiopia] from one month to up-to several years without court warrants. I do not understand who the government is trying to deceive.



Others offered similar assessments about the dictatorship’s brazen and audacious denials of documented and established facts of notorious human rights abuses. The funny thing about the dictatorship’s spasmodic eruption of belated moral outrage against an imaginary cabal of evil international human rights organizations is that they had been ignoring those “fairy tale” reports impassively and scornfully for well over a decade. In their recent counteroffensives, they even stressed the fact that it is not their policy to dignify the “false and propagandistic fairy tales” of the human rights organizations with a response. But now, out of the blue, the dictatorship is squealing like a stuck pig and flailing every which way to respond to the 2009 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report. Why? What has changed so dramatically to cause the dictatorship to sweat it out?



We Know Why They Are Squealing!

The dictators are squealing because the U.S. has quietly and matter-of-factly cut off assistance for military training and equipment to them. That is right! No more American taxpayer dollars to train human rights abusers and criminals; no more American taxpayer dollars for guns, tanks and Humvees to kill innocent Ethiopians. No military partnership with thugs! Many people will no doubt be surprised by this fact, but the law is explicit and its provisions plain and unmistakable.

On March 11, 2009, President Barack Obama signed H.R. 1125, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009”[1] for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. H.R. 1105 (Title IV, International Security Assistance, p. 332, fn. 1) prohibits military assistance and training to rogue regimes that engage in gross human rights violations. The relevant legislative language of H.R. 1125 (see fn. 1 below, p. 332) provides,



“ INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING - For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,… Provided further, That funds made available under this heading for assistance for Haiti, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Libya, and Angola may only be provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations and any such notification shall include a detailed description of proposed activities…”



Further, under Title IV of H.R. 1105, “FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM”, the following prohibition is indicated:



“Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for assistance for Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haiti, Guatemala, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo except pursuant to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:



H.R. 1105 also forbids reprogramming of any funds made available in prior appropriations (previous years) to provide assistance to these rogue regimes in the current fiscal year. (See fn. 1, pp. 342, 344):

REPROGRAMMING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS SEC. 7015. (f) None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended for assistance for Serbia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Iran, Haiti, Libya, Ethiopia, Nepal, Mexico, or Cambodia and countries listed in section 7045(f)(4) of this Act except as provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

H.R. 1105 allows training assistance to non-military personnel “who are not members of a government [and] whose participation would contribute to improved civil-military relations, civilian control of the military, or respect for human rights…”

The foregoing change in U.S. military assistance policy in Ethiopia is an extraordinary transformation in U.S. foreign policy. For the first time in decades, the U.S. government has decided to explicitly link human rights abuses in Ethiopia to its military aid program. Congress, by requiring extraordinary presidential reporting “through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations” has expressly denied military assistance to the dictators and limited the discretion of the U.S. President to furnish such assistance under the authority of section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

In plain language, H.R. 1105 cuts off military assistance to the identified rogue regimes, but allows the President to waive the prohibition on a case by case basis in the national interest, provided that he notifies the Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate (committees responsible for funding the U.S. government) 15 days in advance of his intention to do so, and supplies a “detailed description of proposed activities” justifying the waiver. Even in emergency cases, the President must notify the Appropriations Committees that he has provided military assistance to the rogue regimes “no later than 3 days after taking the action to which such notification requirement was applicable.” In short, H.R. 1105 prohibits funds for military training or equipment to dictatorial regimes that engage in gross and consistent human rights abuses. That is why the dictators in Ethiopia were squealing like a stuck pig over the past few weeks!



Sea Change in American Foreign Policy in Ethiopia

In his inauguration speech, President Obama sent a clear message to the tin pot dictators of the world:

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.”

By denying funds for military training and equipment, the President and the new Congress are standing tall with the “starving people of the poor nations” of the world and against the filthy-rich kleptocratic dictators who oppress them and “cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.” The message from the Obama administration to the dictators in Ethiopia is crystal clear: “America will not give you a penny to train your soldiers to terrorize your civilian population, nor will it provide your military establishments a single gun, plane, tank or Humvee to kill them.” George Bush’s unholy “alliance with atrocity” is over. No more unconditional and blind support to dictators who abuse and mistreat their people in the name of “promoting U.S. interests.” Bush’s war on terror under Obama will be transformed into a struggle for global peace under the rule of law and respect for human rights.



Admittedly, U.S. military assistance to the dictatorship in Ethiopia has not been very large, although the dictatorship has received the lion’s share of such aid in the past. What is important about the termination of military assistance in H.R. 1105 is not the dollar amount but rather the implicit moral and political condemnation of the dictatorship for its use of American military aid to violate the human rights of innocent Ethiopians and oppress the population. This simple and straightforward legislative action by the Appropriations Committees represents a sea change, a re-direction, of U.S. foreign policy. It is the first shot across the bow warning all tin pot dictators that the U.S. will no longer form or maintain partnerships with thugs and criminals.



The Obama administration obviously understands that future U.S. military operations with rogue regimes could be adversely affected by such a policy, particularly in terms of potential anti-terror or peacekeeping missions. But the Congress and President Obama are making it clear that they are no longer willing to sustain the culture of impunity of these regimes or subordinate fundamental human rights to political expediency by providing dictators with military training and equipment which will inevitably be used to crackdown on internal opposition and wage war against neighboring countries.



The Moral Challenge in Obama’s Foreign Policy



Last week, President Obama gave a stirring speech on the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and how he plans to keep America safe from its sworn enemies:



… I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.



In that speech, the President raised American foreign policy from the murky morass of Bush’s cowboy unilaterialsm to the sublime heights of moral clarity grounded in America’s founding principles and values. The President stressed the urgency of restoring a moral perspective in the debates over the challenges of American foreign policy, and the need to return to fundamental American principles and values for guidance. President Obama has witnessed the enormous damage inflicted upon America’s role in the world, and the corruption of American values and principles under the Bush-Cheney administration. The contrived war in Iraq, the unspeakable abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and the albatross hanging around America’s neck, the grotesque detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are merely examples of the moral decay America had to endure over the past eight years. That is why the President had to emphatically declare to the world that he believes “with every fiber of his being” in the “rule of law, liberty, justice, equality fairness and the dignity of the individual”. No more of a foreign policy based on a twisted philosophy of the “end justifies the means”.



We anticipate the hollow and deceitful sovereignty arguments raised so often by the dictators in Ethiopia. They say, “no one can tell them how to run their ‘country’ by giving or denying them aid.” But they need to understand that linking military aid, or for that matter economic aid, to explicit human rights criteria is not to violate anyone’s sovereignty. Sovereign American law (Leahy Amendment) requires denial of military aid to any regime whose military units engage in gross abuses of human rights. By denying military aid, the U.S. is merely dissociating itself from the crimes, corruption and atrocities of the dictators in Ethiopia. The U.S. no longer wants to support and foster their culture of impunity that tolerates the burning of villages in the Ogaden to accomplish the ends of “counter-terrorism”, or the massacre of innocent protesters in the streets to help them “cling to power”. Most importantly, the termination of military assistance to rogue regimes is essentially about America itself and its role in the world. Tin pot dictators have the choice of “clinging to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent”; and America has the choice of clinging fiercely and tenaciously to its fundamental principles and values of “liberty, justice, freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.” H.R. 1105 makes that choice for America.



Writing on the Wall: Endgame!



It is reasonable to suppose that the dictators in Ethiopia see the relevant provisions of H.R.1105 as the proverbial writing on the wall, the beginning of the endgame. They never thought in their wildest imaginations that Barack Obama would be elected President. They thought they had it sewed up by donating millions to a certain foundation. They thought they could throw around their millions on K Street lobbyists and stonewall any change in American foreign policy towards them. They thought they were invincible because they could wine and dine witless American politicians to do their dirty deeds. They thought Bush’s “war on terror” will go on forever. They thought they could exploit to their advantage America’s global dilemma over national security and the protection of human rights. They thought American power came from the shrapnel of its bombs, the deadly accuracy of its missiles and the formidable capabilities of its armed forces. But they could never imagine or understand that America’s awesome power lies in the principles and values declared to a “candid world” over two centuries ago in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is impossible for them to even begin to understand what President Obama means when he says he believes “with every fiber of his being” in the “power of our most fundamental values”. But it is with the aid of these values and principles that President Obama shall seek to restore America’s leadership in the world, and win the hearts and minds of friends and foes alike.



The dictators in Ethiopia have a big problem on their hands. They don’t know what to do with President Obama. They are confused. Most likely, they feel vulnerable and unsure of what will happen next. So, they will try to entice him to support them by re-deploying troops to Somalia to prove once more that the U.S. needs them to fight against al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda and whoever else is hiding behind a rock there. They will try to scare him by threatening to dump America and go to China for their military needs. They will try to sweet-talk him into believing that they will be nice and take steps to be more democratic and stop violating human rights. They will pile lies upon lies in a desperate attempt not to lose American material and moral support.



But all of that will be in vain. President Obama is not George Bush. He can not be schmoozed by silly talk of the birth pangs of a “nascent democracy” and that sort of hogwash. President Obama knows African politics and history well; and he has spoken eloquently of Africa’s tragic predicament: Dictators that “cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent,” human rights abuses, the absence of the rule of law, corruption and repression. One can not overcome these problems by having more guns and tanks or by training soldiers to use them skillfully against innocent citizens. That is why President Obama reached out to all tin pot dictators and promised “that we will extend a hand if [they] are willing to unclench [their] fist”, and offered “to the people of poor nations [that] we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” America will not give military aid to dictators to kill and oppress their people; but if the dictators “unclench their fists”, it will gladly help them build institutions and civil society organizations committed to deepening democracy, accountability and human rights, and establish “the vital trust between a people and their government.”



Let there be no mistake: President Obama is not naïve. He knows the terrorists and tin pot dictators of the world will not be influenced by pleas for observance of the rule of law, or moral appeals to do what is right. He knows there is no magic formula to transform dictators into democrats. That does not happen even in fairy tales, though it has been said that once in fairyland a frog was transformed into a prince. But there is no fairyland that exists in the imagination where it is possible to change thugs into statesmen. For in the end, U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration will not be about what is wrong with self-delusional tin pot dictators that “cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.” Rather, it will be about using America’s democratic values and principles to win the hearts and minds of a hostile and skeptical world that has witnessed a great nation degenerate to its lowest level over the past eight years. It will be about how America can get it right, after getting it wrong for so long, in a world that looks anxiously for its moral leadership. It will be a long and hard road ahead, but ultimately America will regain its moral leadership and credibility among the poor people of the world with President Obama at the helm.



America is lucky to have a President who has a moral vision for his nation, openly celebrates “with every fiber of his being” the values and principles upon which his nation is founded, and proudly and cheerfully toils day and night to serve the American people. America is truly blessed to have a leader who knows right from wrong, and swiftly disinherits those “on the wrong side of history”!

The despotical doctrine of Meles Zenwaye

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Website: Genocidewatch.org)

The Culture of Impunity

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

The Culture of Impunity

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

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

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

The Legacy of Impunity

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

Practicing the Culture of Impunity

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

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

Ending the Culture of Impunity

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Zero Tolerance for a Culture of Impunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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