By Workie Briye

Over the last several weeks, the news on many Ethiopian Web sites has been dominated by the defection of Ethiopian diplomats and other professionals, including army generals. A significant number of diplomats, including several Ambassadors and high-level diplomats, left their jobs protesting against the appalling human rights abuse taking place in the country. While the news of this occurrence has received a wide coverage, analysis providing deeper insight into the political dimension of this trend has not been adequate in view of the huge importance of this development. Considering the imminent fact that defection of diplomats and army officials is a phenomenon bound to continue in earnest, the democratic movement must be able to provide further impetus for such patriotic action to be taken by all professionals who work with in the security, military, and diplomatic apparatus of the regime.

First of all we must pay tribute to those diplomats and other professionals, who left their positions by sending an unambiguous message to the regime that the loyalty of the professionals lies to their country and they could not be a party to the crime committed against their people. Considering the dire political situation most of the diplomats were in, and their contribution while under the regime, the recent measure they have taken is commendable. Although the recent defection constitutes just a latest episode in a long-running saga of defection, there has never been a departure of such huge number of qualified and experienced diplomats with in a short time span. The regime’s Foreign Service is currently left with very few professional diplomats. The regime has replaced all career diplomats with substitutes drawn from the ranks of the ruling party.

Professional and Political Life Under the Regime-the Diplomas’ Perspective
While some compatriots consider massive defection as having huge political significance, others tend to emphasize on what they consider the “loyal service” the diplomats and military officials have been rendering to the regime. Although, a mix of reactions to this development is expected, the context under which diplomats served the regime need to be placed in its proper perspective. Indeed, many of these diplomats served between five and fifteen years as career diplomats; not a short period of time in the professional or personal life of any individual. For the majority of these diplomats, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is their first as well as their last institution to serve as civil servants. For these professionals, what they left behind is not a mere place of work or employer but an important chapter in their life where the best part of their companionships and social networks have been established. Such a social network takes a long time to knit, and cannot be easily cloned in a foreign country. The departing diplomats also represent the most experienced, hard-working and capable members in the country’s Foreign Service.

For many Ethiopians who do not possess proximate knowledge about the Foreign Service structure of the regime, the current exodus of diplomats might appear as a result of a recent change of heart from the diplomats, merely related to the post-election saga. Although the chain of events that followed the election and the crimes being committed by the government have been more than what they could endure as diplomats, this protest nonetheless is not a sudden shift in the political position of diplomats.
In the first place, many diplomats, like millions of civil servants in the country, have been serving in that particular institution not because they were happy with the policies and day to day operations of the regime, but in spite of it. Even though diplomats formally “represent” and receive directions from the government in power, many Ethiopian diplomats have tried to carry out their formal duties without loosing sight of the fact that their proper responsibility lies to the millions of Ethiopians who suffer from poverty, backwardness, bad-governance, and human rights abuse. Although maintaining a perfect equilibrium between formal duty and personal conviction is not an easy task, many diplomats have tried to make their daily activities to be of some significance to their country and its people.

Needless to say, a diplomat’s formal duty may well have to be obeyed and executed under all circumstances, arguably including under those circumstances where it appears clear that the long term interest of the country is trampled by the ruling group in exchange for some myopic political and personal advantages of those in power. Diplomats are, therefore, expected to compartmentalize their formal functions to their personal views on the agenda and policies of the government in power, where it is not uncommon for personal convictions coming into conflict with formal duties. The resulting struggle with in the individual diplomat in his/her best attempt to maintain balance between formal duty and personal faith is not evident to third party observers, who tend to think that all diplomats lend a blind support to the regime. The reality on the ground, however, is different from that and displays a much more complex picture. This holds true with most of non-TPLF diplomats who are still with in the Foreign Service.

A question may then follow, as to why these diplomats had to spend this whole time serving the regime prior to the measure they are taking in recent times? Although such a question cannot lend itself to one simple answer, the situation prevailing within the institution can be explained without difficulty. Many diplomats stayed with in the diplomatic structure of the regime mainly hoping against hopes that the leadership might one day come to a temperate level; that the anger and hatred that drive the TPLF upper echelon would some how subside through time; that the group could gradually build up confidence and adopt inclusive kind of political process as they institutionalize whatever ideology they believe the country must be guided by, etc., etc.

Yet, inspite of forbearance and moderation by diplomats and millions of Ethiopian professionals for a long time, the course of behavior followed by the leadership through time has been quiet the contrary. While several high profile cases of human rights violation, including the mass killing in Gambella, has been committed by the regime at various times, what took place in our country following the 2005 election turned out to represent the worst crime yet committed by the regime against the civilian population. In the aftermath of the rigged election and the violent suppression of democracy, the regime opened a huge diplomatic campaign of lie aimed at confusing the international community and some Ethiopians in the Diaspora. The regime, quiet naturally, has made every effort to employ diplomats as tools for this campaign. Many diplomats, however, displayed courage and patriotism by rejecting the regime’s campaign and reaffirming their dedication to their people. Many diplomats openly refused to be part of the regime’s effort to implement several heinous plans outlined by TPLF.

Nevertheless, while the opposing political views of many diplomats towards the regime is by no means new, the pain and trauma resulted from the post election terror reigned over the country has indeed had its own impact in triggering the mass exodus of diplomats we are currently witnessing. On the other hand, throughout their tenure as diplomats under the regime, for most of the diplomats, although they had to execute formal duties that had the effect of advancing narrow interests of the ruling group, their country and its people have always remained the ones nearest to their heart. Moreover, in addition to the human rights abuse against their people, almost all non-TPLF and some diplomats who were members of the TPLF, had endured evils against themselves long and patiently before they ever thought of migrating to a foreign country.

Significance of the Defections to the Democratic Movement
Many Ethiopians who follow the news of this massive defection of diplomats are expressing hopes that the trend could bolster the democratic struggle. In deed diplomats possess a set of skills and power stemming from their education and extensive international experience. They had also been exposed to a situation where they could have observed the day to day operation of the regime and conduct of its officials at a close range. Moreover, many diplomats are not new to the democratic struggle. They have been fighting their own battles by opposing the regime not only inwardly but also openly confronting the cadres and other party officials. Due to the nature of the work environment in the Foreign Service, diplomats had repeatedly been led to oppose corruption, nepotism, the kinship style of management, and other forms of unrestrained behavior on the part of TPLF officials. After the May 2005 election, as indicated earlier, this struggle from within did not remain concealed. Diplomats openly opposed and refused to take part in the execution of directives, action plans and orders handed down by the regime. Accordingly, diplomats are currently rejecting the regime not merely as a matter of salving their conscious, as presented by some individuals, in the crimes being committed by the regime. Diplomats took this patriotic measure as part of their long-running fight and political difference with the government. All diplomats went to exile at the time when their safety, and even their life was at stake as a result of the massive Government crack down within the foreign service structure, targeting all those considered members and supporters of opposition parties. Consequently, it is only natural to expect these diplomats to add valuable input to the democratic struggle.

On an other note, diplomats have gained some measure of personal freedom by distancing themselves from the regime. Except at times of some abrupt and usually risky confrontations with the cadres in the Foreign Service, total asphyxiation prevails in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in terms of freedom to express individual opinion without reprisal from the officials. Those ornamental types of rights the regime had tried to display in some other areas are totally unknown with in the Foreign Service. Accordingly, although a life of exile has its own combats, the relative freedom from a ruthless regime and abusive and despotic bosses, however, afford diplomats with the most sublime moments of relationship with their ideals that have been suppressed during their time in the grip of the regime. Given the wide experience and diverse educational resource, contribution from diplomats can take various forms. Former diplomats have the potential to contribute to the whole spectrum of the democratic struggle ranging from the utilization of their diplomatic skill to providing additional insight into the underworld operation taking place with in the regime in general and the foreign service structure, in particular.

Challenges Facing Diplomats In their Participation in the Democratic Movement
There are, however, challenges coming into the ways of former diplomats as they try to make meaningful contribution to their country. The challenges may come from two sources. On the one hand, the regime is trying to use its long hand tactic in the form of intimidation. Over the last several months, we have seen the ruling group actively and expensively engaged in operations aiming at silencing opposition and containing emergence of further insight into the truth within the government. Primarily, the authorities in the Foreign Ministry are often seen trying to impose their own self-serving version of ethical and behavioral standards regarding if and how to criticize government officials, especially of former bosses. According to their “ethical rules”, criticizing the management of a public institution and its officials is spiteful, treacherous and/or an unconstitutional conduct that constitute a crime of grave consequences. This assertion is mixed with a smear campaign and fabricated accusations backed by various forms treats. The highlight of their campaign is use of official government Web site to publish shocking lies, a conduct absolutely unbecoming of personalities one would call “Vice Minister” or a Minister, against individuals who criticize the regime. The intended goal of this smear and threat is that of scaring others, that criticizing former bosses has serious consequences.
Accordingly, diplomats may be targets of false accusations as they try to contribute to the democratic movement. Inspite of such threats, many diplomats and other professionals believe that this is not too much a sacrifice to be made considering those young children and mothers brutally murdered by the regime, the elected leaders who languish in prisons and concentration camps enduring torture and other inhuman treatment.

Many professionals, mainly diplomats, had served the regime under situations where, in any discussion on any subject, the worth of the employee was as a mere object of audience while, TPLF cadres do all the chatting and the preaching. The authorities in the Foreign Service especially are not only talking machines but also merciless gods who possess all the life and death matters concerning diplomats. Through a lawless and purely personal style of management, the bosses possess the power to grant what one doesn’t deserve and deny what legitimately deserves to an employee. Under such leadership, rules, regulations, and the rights that ought to be derived as such had no meaning at all, resulting in the prevalence of absolute fear, submission and dependence on the omnipotent bosses. Accordingly, a new freedom to express one’s views with out fear may prove to be not an easy exercise to come to terms with.

On an other dimention, the regime’s cadres and officials are exceptionally good at preaching what they don’t practice. Such personal qualities or virtues as “commitment”, ”integrity”, ”credibility”, ”honesty”, etc are familiar jargons in their discourse. Although many diplomats comprehend the purpose of such a ploy, some employees might, through time, have been led to believe that TPLF officials are the paragon of these virtues and measure of such values as” integrity”, commitment”, loyalty, etc. With some degree of success, these officials tried to brainwash the entire diplomatic staff that the highest one in the hierarchy of values is the value of remaining loyal even in exile.(Some cadres even have a term for this, i.e. ‘Tamagn Kedategna’ (Loyal Traitors). This is of course in keeping with a TPLF tradition of blackmail and assassination against dissidents who break the precondition to “go away and shut up” in return to having been spared from execution). However, if the authentic benchmark to possessing such virtues was considered to be tangible measures such as actual delivery, everyday behavior, or the management of public resources, many of the party officials who rant about integrity or commitment are the most commonplace and contemptible ones, taken as employees or managers, or even as ordinary citizens. The Devil reciting from the Scriptures is still a Devil.

In general, threat of false charges or publication of gross lies must not make us shy away from any input we could provide to the struggle for democracy. Not only for asserting our personal liberty, but also for achieving our aspirations for our people, the first enemy, (to use a well-trodden cliché), we must “conquer is our own fear”. As highlighted by Dr. Berhanu Nega in his recent book, Yenetsanet Goh Sike’d, the political system called “democracy” presupposes not merely a merciful government and fine laws, but mainly citizens who are courageous enough to have the audacity to aggressively assert what they deserve under the system. According to Dr. Berhanu Nega, the corollary of this truth is that Zombie-like subjects remain susceptible to the bully and terror unleashed every time by dictatorial regimes.

Finally, if the nature of TPLF and its style of governance is something to go by, what is currently happening to the departing diplomats will undoubtedly happen to the remaining “diplomats” and “Ambassadors”, including those recently recruited through their ideological and business ties with the ruling clique, as long as the group remain in full control.