A Compromised Somali National Reconciliation Conference
By Dr. Michael A. Weinstein
(PINR) – On July 15, the long awaited, thrice delayed and seriously compromised National Reconciliation Conference (N.R.C.) — aimed at beginning to resolve Somalia’s multiple conflicts — was kicked off, only to be abruptly adjourned, as eight mortar rounds were fired at the meeting’s venue, a refurbished former police garage in the country’s official capital Mogadishu. The chair of the commission that organized the conference, Ali Mahdi Mohamed, said the adjournment was due to the fact that only half of the 1,325 anticipated delegates had arrived; local and international media, however, traced it to the mortar attacks. The conference is scheduled to reopen on July 19.
The N.R.C. is the brainchild of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, the president of Somalia’s weak Transitional Federal Government (T.F.G.), which was pressured by international donor powers — the United States, Western European states, the European Union and the United Nations — to initiate an inclusive reconciliation process in the wake of the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia in December 2006 that ousted the Islamic Courts Council (I.C.C.) from its control over most of the country south of the semi-autonomous sub-state of Puntland. Addis Ababa had acted in the belief that its intervention would establish the T.F.G. as a pliant authority and eliminate a perceived Islamist threat, but its result was the emergence of a multi-faceted political and armed resistance against the Ethiopian occupiers and the T.F.G.
Although the donor powers, particularly Washington, were pleased to see the Courts movement, which sought to create an Islamic state in Somalia based on Shari’a law, defeated, they were appalled by the resulting instability, which threatened to drive Somalia back into the chaotic statelessness that had prevailed there before the rise of the Courts movement. Their preferred solution was an inclusive reconciliation process, held under their supervision, that would bring together the T.F.G. and its non-violent political oppositions in a dialogue that would isolate the Islamist insurgency and pave the way for a national accord.
The T.F.G. executive saw the donors’ plan, which would eventuate in its sharing power with the oppositions, as a threat to its interests in preserving its control of formal institutions and the perquisites that went along with it. Yusuf responded to international pressure by devising an alternative plan: a conference that would be organized by a T.F.G.-appointed committee and would be based on clan membership and representation rather than on political divisions, would not be mediated by external actors, and would exclude bargaining over the structure of the T.F.G. or its personnel.
The donor powers reacted coolly to Yusuf’s version of reconciliation, but they were unwilling to impose their plan on him and confined themselves to repeated appeals for “inclusiveness,” which were not heeded. Trapped by their decision to support the T.F.G. as Somalia’s legitimate authority despite its weakness, unpopularity and dependence for its existence on the Ethiopian occupation, the donor powers acquiesced in the N.R.C. Yusuf had scored a decisive tactical victory, having finessed the external actors.
During the month since PINR released its last report on Somalia, the country’s politics has been dominated by the run-up to the N.R.C. On the ground, violent attacks on Ethiopian forces and T.F.G. militias, including mortar fire, targeted assassinations of officials, roadside bombings, shoot-outs and grenade assaults, have been a daily occurrence. In response, the Ethiopian and T.F.G. forces have engaged in indiscriminate return fire, imposition of a curfew, intensive weapons searches, arrests of suspected insurgents and their supporters, and raids on media houses, civil society organizations, mosques, businesses and schools — all in an attempt to secure Mogadishu ahead of the N.R.C. On the political front, the T.F.G.’s opponents have continued their process of coalescing into a bloc and have refused to participate in the N.R.C. through their clans.
The run-up to the N.R.C. and its truncated opening confirm PINR’s consistent assessment since the Ethiopian intervention that Somalia has entered a devolutionary cycle marked by regional, local and clan fragmentation, with the addition of political and ideological divisions, and a revolutionary Islamist insurgency. The T.F.G., which admits that it needs external financial, military and diplomatic support to survive, might have scored a tactical success in evading serious negotiations on power-sharing, but in the long run it has only bought some time in a deteriorating situation.
The Basic Situation
Even if the N.R.C. restarts and runs through its projected 45-day course, it will be compromised from the outset by Somalia’s devolutionary cycle. The most incisive analysis of the country’s political situation during the past month appeared in an interview published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) with the head of its delegation for Somalia, Pascal Hundt, who reported that the country is so insecure that “no really effective [humanitarian] action is possible, whether with regard to protection or detention.”
Hundt observed that the “new phenomenon of insurrection” had rendered a military solution to Somalia’s conflicts impossible, leaving only the possibility of a political accord, and concluded that “the solution has to come from the Somalis themselves with massive and unified support from the international community.” He was unwilling to predict any outcomes.
In his most telling comment, Hundt said that he had trouble “understanding the complex, varied and ever-changing chains of command” among the contending groups in Somalia — a precise characterization of the volatility that characterizes devolution and fragmentation.
The I.C.R.C.’s judgments are in line with those of PINR. When there is a power vacuum, as there would be in Somalia were Ethiopian forces not filling it temporarily, uneasily and imperfectly, there is a retreat to more primary solidarities. The absence of regularized relations among the sub-groups leads to incipient conflicts that break out sporadically or chronically. In the general condition of instability, the balance of power continually shifts, prompting leaders of sub-groups to switch allegiances in response to short-term calculations of advantage. Even when the conflicts become aggregated and polarized, the contending sides are divided internally, rendering long-term stability problematic and compromises tenuous.
As the devolutionary cycle in Somalia deepens, the conditions for successful reconciliation become far more difficult to meet. In the absence of “massive and unified support” from external actors, which has not been forthcoming and is unlikely to be provided, fragmentation proliferates and polarized opponents become more unwilling to compromise.
As a tactic contrived in response to the pressure of donor powers that is aimed at avoiding a political solution, the N.R.C. does as much or more to exacerbate devolution as it might conceivably do to arrest and reverse it.
The Players Take Their Positions
Put in the bluntest terms — and they are justified — the N.R.C. is a nuanced yet simple power play by the T.F.G. executive to maintain its position by keeping international financial, military and diplomatic support; keeping the Ethiopian occupation in place barring the deployment of an adequate African Union (A.U.) or preferably U.N. peacekeeping force; and controlling the electoral process that is supposed to result in a permanent government and is mandated to take place in 2009. It is in the T.F.G.’s interest to ride out the remainder of the transition period and to prolong itself into any permanent arrangement. Part of staying in the saddle is to frame the reconciliation process to accord with its interests, which it has done for the time being, and to drag it out, attempting to use clan negotiations to build support and, if necessary, to divide and rule.
Given the T.F.G.’s weakness and dependence on an unpopular occupation, and the cool reaction of donors to its reconciliation plan, it was an achievement simply to mount the N.R.C. In its last report on Somalia, PINR was doubtful that the conference would be held. The insurgency had become chronic and rooted in Mogadishu, there was no indication that delegates were being selected and the conference had no agenda. The Hawiye clan family, which is dominant in Mogadishu, had rejected participation in the N.R.C. unless a long list of demands was addressed, and the political oppositions were flatly rejectionist.
What changed the picture was the judgment of the donor powers that a severely flawed reconciliation process was better than none at all, given the severe strains placed on Addis Ababa by the occupation, the failure of force to crush the insurgency, the reluctance of African states to contribute troops to a peacekeeping mission without a peace to keep, the growing danger that Islamist terrorist cells would form in Somalia, a mounting humanitarian crisis and a slide into the instability that accompanies devolution.
Increasingly desperate to halt the devolutionary cycle, the donor powers, which control the purse strings of the impoverished T.F.G., were divided on how to approach the transitional executive, with Washington adopting a qualified favorable line toward the N.R.C. and Brussels deepening its skepticism about it.
On June 15, Washington released US$1.5 million to fund the conference — well short of the $32 million requested by the T.F.G. and the $8 million that it had been reported that donors had decided to provide. On the same day, the U.N. Security Council issued a presidential statement carrying no binding authority that expressed “grave concern” over attacks by “extremists” and “all attempts to undermine” the N.R.C., and called on all U.N. member states to cease support of “extremists and spoilers.” The statement went on to emphasize the “urgent need” for the United Nations to plan for a possible peacekeeping mission and urged African states to contribute to the A.U. peacekeeping mission (AMISOM), which has only 1,600 Ugandan troops on the ground out of a projected 8,000 multi-nation force.
The presidential statement accorded with Washington’s position that armed resistance to the T.F.G. is the work of “extremist” jihadists supported by Eritrea, which has a simmering border dispute with Ethiopia and has provided safe haven and a base for the political oppositions to the transitional authority, and by Arab states, which have interests in limiting Addis Ababa’s influence in the Horn of Africa.
Although Washington got the presidential statement that it wanted, other external actors expressed reservations. The U.N.’s undersecretary-general for political affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, said that he would be “concerned” if the N.R.C. were delayed yet again. The E.U.’s commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, Louis Michel, was more emphatic, stating that the N.R.C. was “not working satisfactorily” and that there was no excuse for postponing the conference.
On June 16, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold criticized the failure of the Bush administration and the international community to pressure the N.R.C. to undertake genuine reconciliation, saying that the concerned external powers should stop sending mixed messages to the T.F.G. and should specify “clear expectations” for the N.R.C., including the requirement that the conference produce “an outcome document laying out a roadmap for a sustained and pervasive [reconciliation] process” that would include “all stakeholders” and incorporate international organizations as observers. On June 18, the European Union enhanced its diplomatic presence by appointing Georges-Marc Andre as its special envoy to Somalia.
In the last week of June, the U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that violence in Mogadishu had spiked since the June 15 opening of the N.R.C. was delayed, hindering delivery of aid. Washington shifted its position to bring it more into line with the E.U.’s, with the U.S. State Department issuing a statement warning the T.F.G.’s prime minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, that efforts to undermine dialogue were “unacceptable” and that arrests and detentions of “prominent citizens” and harassment of “respected NGOs” undermine efforts “for a national dialogue and political reconciliation.” Washington’s growing skepticism peaked in a BBC interview with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, who said that it was “difficult to frankly say” that Somalia was currently better off than it had been before the Ethiopian intervention.
The picture changed abruptly on July 3, when Andre praised the T.F.G. for “reaching out” to the oppositions by including “political issues” on the N.R.C.’s unspecified agenda. On July 11, Andre led a delegation of the Contact Group (C.G.), which brings together Somalia’s Western donor powers, to Mogadishu to meet with T.F.G. officials and leaders of the Hawiye clan. He commented after the discussions that “we received good news and are going back happy.”
Taking the lead on the diplomatic front, the E.U. held a joint meeting with the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (I.G.A.D.) — the regional cooperation organization of Horn of Africa states, in which Eritrea has suspended participation — on July 13, firming up the consensus of external actors that there is only a “political solution” to Somalia’s conflicts and that an “inclusive” N.R.C. that only leaves out those who do not renounce violence is the means to achieve it.
Although the intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy that led to the consensus of donor powers to support the N.R.C. has not been reported, it is clear that Washington had joined Brussels in demanding concessions from the T.F.G. and that Brussels was satisfied with what the T.F.G. offered. On July 16, the N.R.C.’s organizing commission reported that it had received $4.5 million for the conference and pledges of $8.2 million that would be given in staggered allotments dependent on the conference’s “progress” in achieving reconciliation. Still, on July 18, a day before the conference was to reopen, Gedi criticized the donor powers for failing to provide adequate funds even to transport delegates to the venue, warning that unless more aid was made available, the N.R.C. “might fail.”
In PINR’s judgment, the concessions made by the T.F.G., which will be discussed below, do not ensure that the N.R.C. will result in political reconciliation and inclusive dialogue. The T.F.G. can be expected to fight to keep control of the conference, and the political opposition has thus far refused to participate in it.
Determined to remain in the saddle during the remainder of the transition period and under pressure to include all “stakeholders” in a political discussion, the T.F.G. responded to the donor powers by making mainly symbolic moves to placate them.
On June 17, the transitional parliament, based in the town of Baidoa, discussed a proposal to pardon members of Islamist militias and to release former fighters and opposition politicians from jail. On June 19, Yusuf signed an amnesty decree, making clear that it did not apply to “those with direct links with the internationally wanted terrorists and those who continue to pursue violence.” Since then, the U.N. has reported that the amnesty has had no effect on the level of the insurgency, and the I.C.C.’s political wing, led by Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has rejected it, with Ahmed claiming that it is the T.F.G. that needs to beg for pardon due to its “grave crimes against Somalia’s people, God and the country.”
On June 24, the transitional parliament’s speaker, Sheikh Adan Madobe, said that the N.R.C. organizers were “reaching out” to the Islamists and dissident members of parliament based in Eritrea, who could attend the conference if they were chosen by their clan elders, and reaffirmed the clan-representational formula of the N.R.C., which he claimed was “inclusive.”
On June 27, the commission chair Mahdi announced that he had invited “some members” of the I.C.C., mentioning its former foreign affairs chief, Ibrahim Hassan Adow, specifically, to attend the N.R.C. On June 28, Adow said that Mahdi had contacted him and other I.C.C. leaders in Sudan, Eritrea and Qatar, and insisted that it was “impossible for even one Courts official” to participate in the N.R.C. as long as it was held under the Ethiopian occupation.
On July 5, in an interview with Ghana’s Accra Daily Mail, Gedi clarified the nature and purpose of the N.R.C., saying that the conference “will start with the wider social reconciliation,” taking the “first step” of “sorting out the internal differences of the clans and sub-clans of the Somali people.” He insisted that the T.F.G. was not ignoring the political dimension of reconciliation, which would be dealt with at the end of the transitional period when political parties would be formed. On July 9, Mahdi echoed Gedi, saying that the purpose of the N.R.C. would be to “settle all grievances and grudges that each and every Somali tribe harbors against one another.”
At the truncated opening of the N.R.C. on July 15, Yusuf announced his intention to remain in his post until the end of the transition period. Press reports claimed that the conference agenda would include disarmament, a T.F.G. priority; clan reconciliation; compensation for past abuses stemming from inter-clan conflicts; and resource sharing, none of which address political issues directly.
On July 17, Awad Ashara, chairman of the transitional parliament’s Committee for Information, Guidance and Culture, said that the N.R.C. would produce a “binding document” based on a “declaration of commitment to a future of peace and tranquility” embodying justice, democracy, fairness and equality — the T.F.G.’s conception of a roadmap.
It appears that the T.F.G. has come out with the edge in its sparring match with the donor powers. Its refusal to make the conference “political” rendered the T.F.G.’s amnesty and its overtures to the I.C.C. and parliamentary dissidents symbolic. The one success of the T.F.G. in reaching out to the oppositions was to engineer a split between the Ayr and Abgal sub-clans of the Hawiye, persuading the Abgal to send representatives to the N.R.C., which left the Ayr, from which the I.C.C. gained its strongest support, in a more deeply rejectionist position.
The oppositions to the T.F.G. represent a diverse array of groups and positions that are incipiently strained and have coalesced around resistance to the Ethiopian occupation and the transitional institutions, which they consider to be Addis Ababa’s illegitimate pawns.
The military opposition to the T.F.G. is centered in the militant wing of the Courts movement — primarily the al-Shabaab militia, which now calls itself the Youth Mujahideen Movement (Y.M.M.) — that is committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Somalia through armed revolution. The Y.M.M. has claimed responsibility for many attacks in Mogadishu, most recently the shelling of the N.R.C.’s venue during the conference’s opening day, and has vowed to continue to disrupt the proceedings. The Y.M.M. rejects not only the N.R.C., but the political process itself, and is the most important trigger for international pressures to hold the N.R.C. and get a political process underway that might isolate the militant jihadists.
The Y.M.M.’s most prominent supporter is Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader of the militant wing of the Courts movement who is in hiding from the T.F.G. and Ethiopians. In an interview with al-Jazeera on June 23, Aweys vowed that the resistance would overthrow the T.F.G. and set up an Islamic state. On June 26, Aweys presented his analysis of the situation in Somalia to al-Jazeera, stating that the U.S. and European states are propping up the T.F.G. through their Ethiopian proxy because they fear “the destruction of their system.” According to Aweys, Muslims face “a world war against the possible establishment of an Islamic government in the world.”
The political oppositions to the T.F.G. include the political wing of the I.C.C., dissident members of the transitional parliament led by former speaker Sharif Hassan Sheikh Adan, nationalists opposed to a clan-based formula for Somalia, sectors of the Somali diaspora concentrated in the Somali Diaspora Network (S.D.N.) and the Ayr sub-clan of the Hawiye family, which has not joined the coalescing political bloc that includes the other opposition groups.
All of the opposition groups fault the N.R.C. for its clan formula, its nontransparent selection process and its siting in Mogadishu, which is occupied by Ethiopian troops. They argue that the clan formula allows the T.F.G. to evade serious power-sharing negotiations, that the selection process has been controlled by the T.F.G. to its advantage, and that the presence of the Ethiopian forces in Mogadishu would subject opposition figures who might attend to arrest and intimidation, and renders free expression and discussion impossible. Some of the opposition groups also argue that the insecurity in Mogadishu will not allow the N.R.C. to function effectively. They say that if a reconciliation conference is held, it must be sited at a neutral venue and be based on political rather than clan divisions.
Beyond their points of agreement, the political oppositions diverge on their aims and strategies, with the I.C.C. remaining committed to an Islamist formula, the nationalists to an ethnic-Somali state and the S.D.N. to a reconciliation process in which the T.F.G. has no control over the selection process and does not host the conference, and which would lead to a “legitimate unity government that would prepare the way for democratic elections in 2009.”
Although the nationalists would prefer a unified opposition movement, the I.C.C. is insistent on maintaining its organizational independence, rendering the oppositions a coalition rather than an incipient party. Nevertheless, on July 12, the oppositions made their decisive break with the N.R.C. by announcing that they would hold their own “constituent congress” on September 1 with the aim of “liberating Somalia from the yoke of the Ethiopian occupation.” On the same day, the spokesman for the Ayr sub-clan, Ahmed Diriye, announced that the Ayr would not attend the N.R.C., summarizing the general opposition objections to it: “The conference would make sense if it was bringing rival politicians and armed groups to the same table. But if the idea is to talk about non-existent tribal conflict, it’s a waste of money and energy.”
The announcement of the oppositions’ constituent congress marks the failure of the T.F.G. to mount an inclusive reconciliation process aimed at a “political solution.” Like the T.F.G. executive, the oppositions are likely to attempt to ride out the transition period, attempting to marshal resources, build support and “undermine” the T.F.G. If that scenario plays out, the devolutionary cycle in Somalia will deepen. The only thing that would change the picture would be the highly unlikely success of the N.R.C. in drawing broad public support based on “progress” in reconciliation; were that to happen, some of the opposition factions might join the process.
The prospects for reconciliation through the N.R.C. became even more dim on July 18, when Somalia’s civil society organizations, whose participation in the conference is essential according to the donor powers, announced that they would not attend. The coordinator of the civil-society groups’ council, Abdikafi Hilowle Usman, stressed that Somalia’s conflicts are political disputes, not clan rivalries, concluding that “there will be no outcome” from the N.R.C. and that “it is important to postpone it.”
Conclusion
On July 14, McClatchy Newspapers published parts of a recent U.S. intelligence briefing on Somalia, to which it had gained access. The report stated that the T.F.G. is perceived by Somalis as “little more than a pawn of Ethiopia, yet its continued survival, certainly in Mogadishu, remains dependent on the support of the Ethiopian military.” Under those conditions, the report goes on, extremists are able to “regain their footing and heighten inter-state tensions.”
On July 13, in an interview with Agence France-Presse, Roland Marchal of the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris, commented that Somalia’s conflicts are not rooted in clans, but in political and military divisions. For Marchal, the N.R.C. is a product of international pressure on the T.F.G., yet “the international community has been deficient on the political issue.” He continued that there would be no cease-fire in the absence of “politically inclusive talks,” offering that “alternatively you can pretend to have won, like it was done in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
PINR has reached the same conclusions as Marchal and the U.S. intelligence report, based on data from its own monitoring project. The N.R.C. is a tactical victory for the T.F.G. executive, yet it represents not a “first step” up in the reconciliation process, but another step down in Somalia’s devolutionary cycle.
Report Drafted By: Dr. Michael A. Weinstein
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of [email protected]. PINR reprints do not qualify under Fair-Use Statute Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All comments should be directed to [email protected].
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225
___________________________________________
“Like our Statue of Liberty, she reminds us that the flame for freedom burns in every human heart, and that it is a light that cannot be extinguished by the brutality of terrorists or tyrants. And she reminds us that when an ideology kills tens of millions of people, and still ends up being vanquished, it is contending with a power greater than death. She reminds us that freedom is the gift of our Creator, freedom is the birthright of all humanity, and in the end, freedom will prevail.” – (From President George W. Bush’s recent speech at the dedication of the memorial to victims of communism in Albania)
________________________________________________-
Dear Chairman Joseph R. Biden and other members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:
I am writing this letter to you, not only on behalf of concerned citizens of the United States and Canada of Ethiopian heritage, but as concerned citizens of the world who are standing for justice. We call the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations on Africa to call a hearing to review foreign policy related to Ethiopia.
I am the Director of the Anuak Justice Council—not part of any political party—but heading up a human rights organization that has been working for nearly four years, initially on behalf of the Anuak ethnic group of Gambella, Ethiopia and later broadening the scope of our work to include all the people of Ethiopia due to the widespread human rights violations throughout the country which are being perpetrated by our United States ally in the War on Terror, the EPRDF government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.
We have reached a critical point where we are questioning the world we live in and asking—do the poor people in isolated parts of the world, like in developing nations such as Ethiopia, have a future and is democracy in that future? We say no as we are seeing the future hopes and dreams of Ethiopians for a free and productive society being sacrificed by the current US administration’s policy in this country and their strong allegiance to a tyrannical government that is repressing its own people.
We are hoping those of you in the Senate will stand up for the values and principles upon which America is founded and take action to cease from any recognizable means that the U.S is taking to actively hinder the cause of democracy in Ethiopia, including any suppression of information regarding the gross human rights violations, the political manipulation of the judicial system, corruption, repression of the press, repression of other freedoms, the countless number of political prisoners and other related governance issues.
The United States, the superpower of this world—has not only been turning a blind eye and a deaf ear, but indirectly—whether some know it or not—is actually contributing to sustaining that injustice through our current U.S foreign policy. Instead of using our strength and wealth to support and protect the vulnerable and the weak, we have demonstrated a pattern of stifling the cries of the people in favor of our own interests. We have aided and abetted in advancing a culture of death and destruction in one of the poorest and most repressive countries of the world instead of helping create a culture of peace, justice and equality that we ourselves enjoy in the US. Have we, the richest and mightiest of all countries in the world, lost our soul?
This is why we are coming to you at this time. In the past, you have already demonstrated your willingness to stand up for the Anuak during their most critical time of need in 2004 following the December 13-15, 2003 mass killing of the Anuak in Gambella town, in the southwestern region of Ethiopia. In their subsequent investigation, Human Rights Watch later documented possible crimes against humanity, perpetrated by Ethiopian National Defense forces against civilians. Because I was close to many of those targeted, I became and have remained involved to make sure they did not die in vain and so such killing does not take place again to the Anuak, the Ethiopian or to others. Until today, no one in has been brought to justice and the Ethiopian government has never publicly acknowledged what they did wrong.
As part of that initial work, I worked closely with United States Senators like Senator Norm Coleman, Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator John McCain and many more which led to non-partisan action. For instance, thirteen Senators sponsored a letter to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia in 2004. Senator Leahy followed this action by proposing to the Appropriation’s Committee, which he chaired, a resolution that urged the Ethiopian government of the EPRDF to respect the human rights of the Anuak in Gambella, Ethiopia or the Appropriation Committee would reconsider the present funding allocations for military assistance and military training to Ethiopia.
As a representative of the Anuak Justice Council, I come to you now because of this crisis unfolding in Ethiopia. Only yesterday, July 17, 2007, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on African, chaired by Senator Feingold, brought up the topic: Democratic Developments in Sub-Saharan Africa: Moving Forwards or Backwards? To answer the question addressed in the title of the hearing, in the case of Ethiopia, without any question, we will say it is moving backwards with alarming speed!
We trust that as you review the current U.S administration policy concerning Ethiopia and the ample evidence of the ill-state of democracy in the country, the may be incumbent on the part of the US Senate to change our policies to better address the gross human rights abuses and the repression of the democratic process in the country. Many victims of such injustice are ready to tell their stories. Some of the most extreme cases of human rights crimes that are going on right now, are coming out of the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, ironically, just where the U.S and the Ethiopian government is working together to “fight terrorism,” yet Ethiopian National Defense forces are being accused of committing such terrorist acts against their own civilian population. Imagine if this kind of killing took place in the United States by its own military? What is our moral obligation when U.S help may be actually promoting injustice and terrorism?
In May of 2005, twenty-six million Ethiopians voted to change their government to one where they could gain greater freedom, justice and peace like was found in the United States. Just like the American founding fathers envisioned, they chose the ballot box, not the bullet. When the Opposition Party (CUDP) won the election, their victory was denied and the current ruling government declared themselves the winners, all of which can be verified by the evidence of international election observers who reported that the election did not meet international standards.
As Ethiopians went out on the streets in peaceful protest, according to their rights in the Ethiopian Constitution, not picking up arms, but peacefully standing up for justice with their feet as they marched in Meskel Square and with their voices as they protested the rigged election, they were instead shot and killed by Ethiopian National Defense troops and security forces. Approximately 46 protestors were killed, most them by shots to the head. Conditions continued to deteriorate as the EPRDF took greater measures to suppress the Opposition leaders.
When some civilians again protested in November of 2005, more killing resulted at the hands of Ethiopian military and security forces, now totaling 193 civilians, including those killed in the previous protest in June of 2005. Thousands—some report over 30,000 in number—were rounded up and sent to detention camps where they detained, some for months and others are still there. These were mostly young student protestors who were then forced to have their heads shaved, using the same razor for countless many, despite the high incidence of HIV in the country—a shocking violation of human rights! Then the Opposition leaders, human rights activists, journalists and other civic leaders were arrested and put in prison, accused of trumped up charges of attempted genocide, inciting violence and treason even though they stood for non-violence in their pursuit of freedom and justice. Most of these leaders are American educated citizens, professors who wanted to bring the same freedom and liberty to Ethiopia that they were enjoying in America. These are people who know and value the rule of law and appreciate the value of human life.
Ethiopians hoped for a reaction of outrage from the U.S and other freedom loving countries, but instead there was silence. In President Bush’s inaugural speech in 2004, he spoke about the US standing up against tyranny and by those struggling for freedom and democracy in other countries, but when it came to Ethiopia’s time of need, where was the U.S?
This is when we saw the failure of America to live out the principles lifted up in their everyday rhetoric and instead, Meles proceeded, not only with impunity, but instead with increases of financial aid for military weapons and military training. The U.S budget to Ethiopia in 2007 is almost double that of 2006 despite the gross violation of democratic principles closely accompanied by gross human rights abuses going on daily throughout the country.
This all has sent a disillusioning message to the people of Ethiopia who have interpreted this as meaning that the ideals in that lofty speech and espoused by the American founding fathers, were not to be applied to Ethiopians. Instead, Ethiopians saw that the principles were applied “politically” in compartmentalized fashion, rather than integrated into the mind and soul of what used to be a great moral nation. Now, “tyranny” only was acknowledged when convenient—as a weapon against so called “enemy countries,” like Venezuela and Iran, but never to allies in the War on Terror, such as Ethiopia. Even our U.S State Department’s negative findings on the dismal state of human rights in Ethiopia, was ignored. Furthermore, our mainstream U.S media seems to be following this same path—making one wonder about collusion with the press in a mass cover-up regarding the state of affairs in Ethiopia—making it look like their was an coordinated effort to keep the American public in the dark about these double standards in US foreign policy. Just check back records of major news sources regarding their press releases related to Ethiopia and you will see asymmetrical reporting on the evil of Hugo Chavez related to Meles Zenawi. Meles is usually only mentioned in relationship to fighting terrorists in Somalia and ironically, is almost never criticized despite the countless reports of human rights abuses and the active repression of most every freedom in Ethiopia. Despite the similarity between the repressive tactics of Chavez and Zenawi, Zenawi has gotten a free pass—Chavez has not.
In Ethiopia, where Meles Zenawi rules the citizens with terror, injustice and uses razors with possible HIV to punish innocent civilians who broke no laws, we fail to even notice as we send more aid for HIV/AIDS and as we turn a silent ear when North Korea violates its UN regulations by sending arms to Ethiopia, some of which undoubtedly were used to commit human rights violations against the civilian population in the regions of Ogaden and Afar. The Ethiopian regime recently detained a New York Times reporter, Jeffrey Gettleman, who was reporting on the government’s terrorization of the civilian population in the Ogaden and the story was supposedly intentionally suppressed in the U.S mainstream media to prevent the exposure of what Human Rights Watch has called possible crimes against humanity. What kind of a one-sided War on Terror is this?
Yes, we know that the U.S, like every government, has its own legitimate interests as a nation and that the interests of others are secondary, but when these self-interests begin to support the tyranny, death and destruction to another people, we have gone too far and God will hold us morally accountable. It goes against all our cherished American principles that we hold dear. Most every politically active Ethiopian believes that Meles Zenawi’s undemocratic regime would never last without the support of the U.S government. If we continue to follow this course, we may be making a dangerous choice—particularly because we are sacrificing our own ideals and values as we sacrifice the lives of Ethiopians, a country of 77 million human beings.
We are alienating the Ethiopian people who used to call us good friends. What kind of hostilities are we creating in this strategic country on one of the chief transportation and supply routes in the Middle East? In a geo-political landscape that is shifting, can we afford to discard the people and embrace the man responsible for their terror and tyranny, suppressing the peoples’ efforts to democratically change their leadership?
Ethiopia is boiling under the surface and for the U.S to choose to side against freedom, democracy, peace and justice, can only be a foolish decision in the long-run, particularly because the prospects for regime change, via armed violence, is increasing daily as the desperation and the anger of the people increases. Internal decisions of the EPRDF, such as the recent life sentences of the Opposition leaders, only further intensifies the outrage and despite the recent remarks from the U.S State Department against the sentencing, the U.S is perceived by many Ethiopians to be part of a staged drama that will culminate in pardons in exchange for the leaders giving up their rights for political involvement—further repression of democracy!
Ethiopian people are becoming increasingly cynical about U.S motives and it is only further tarnishing the image of the U.S amongst them. This is certainly not good for future U.S-Ethiopian relations once this regime comes to an end. Instead, our current U.S foreign policy in Ethiopia, accompanied by our funding of it, could breed more hatred and terrorism towards the U.S—something we are using Ethiopia to fight against in our War on Terror in Somalia. Let us re-examine our foreign policies towards Ethiopia and rethink what we are doing before we lose a more strategic ally than the Meles regime—the 77 million people of Ethiopia.
This is why we are coming to you in the U.S Senate. The founding fathers of America were wise when they separated the powers of government. Many in the Congress have been working hard on a bill, HR#2003, to exert pressure on the Ethiopian government to make progress towards halting the human rights crimes and building up democracy and the rule of law; however, the Senate also can make a difference—before it is too late to recover our threatened relationship with the people of Ethiopia.
We hope to find common ground between the interests of Americans and the interests of Ethiopians so that the children of Ethiopia can be in true partnership with the children of the United States, a partnership based on mutual respect, honesty and integrity rather than participating in the deception, repression and destruction of a society. Americans have the responsibility to not leave a legacy of damaged relations, hate and anger, but instead one of friendship and the appreciation of God-given universal values that should apply to all, not just to us in the U.S and a few other selected, privileged and powerful few! We urge the U.S Senate to hold up the values and principles of the American people by protecting human life and not being party to its wanton destruction in Ethiopian society.
A recent article that appeared in AllAfrica News gives credence to plans for a continued close relationship between the governments of the U.S and Ethiopia. With that, it brings into question whether our future U.S foreign policies will advance the repression of the people or their liberation. The article reports that plans are underway to build the largest U.S building in all of Africa on the current grounds of the American Embassy in Addis Ababa—a new 140 million dollar building, along with a 100 million dollar embassy in neighboring Djibouti. This is a huge investment in the Horn. Interestingly, the design will supposedly depict a ship, quite confusing since this might be flaunting a very sore point with the Ethiopian public who blame Meles for Ethiopia becoming landlocked when he allowed Eritrea to become a separate country from Ethiopia in 1994.
Why would such a design be chosen? Is this some symbol of promises made between government heads for something in the future that would even further cement the tight relationship the U.S has with this totalitarian government of Meles? Is some access to the gulf being planned? For instance, war is going on in Somalia now and there are rumors of war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, curiously, both of which have access to the gulf. Is some deal in the works?
In addition, no location has yet been made public for the proposed U.S plans for an African Command site on the continent, but the investment in this building, raises questions as to whether Ethiopia might be the planned country for its location. It is certainly in a strategic location, but I am concerned, that if that is the case, what positive or negative effect will it have on the current oppression of the Ethiopian public and the cause of freedom and democracy?
The Ethiopian people cannot tolerate such oppression forever and some reports coming out of the country indicate that the current political situation is a powder keg. What happens to this investment if the crumbling veneer of stability, held in place by brutal controls rather than by repair and restoration, breaks into pieces? Would it not be better to strengthen and reinforce the pillars of democracy, human rights and justice that could bear the weight needed to build a sustainable foundation of peace, harmony and stability in Ethiopia that could benefit not only Ethiopia, but also others in the Horn of Africa and even in greater Africa?
In light of all of this, we urge the U.S Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in particular Senator Joseph Biden and the Minority leaders, Senator Richard Lugar, to set up a hearing on Ethiopia to delve more deeply into these matters of utmost concern to Ethiopians and Americans. The Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and the Ambassador to Ethiopia, Donald Yamamoto could be invited to attend. There are many Ethiopian Americans, Ethiopians and other experts who could also come and testify, including the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry of the massacre of the protestors who, along with others on the commission, now have sought asylum in the U.S and in Europe. They refused to change the true findings in the case to please the Ethiopian ruling government and their lives were threatened as a result. There are many others like him. They are heroes of freedom who are standing up against tyranny and injustice.
At such a time as this, Americans are being put to the test as to whether we still stand by the principles established by our founding fathers. Are we people only of rhetoric or people of moral courage, willing to speak for truth, justice, equality and freedom of others, not only ourselves? Our actions today towards Ethiopia, in the Horn and in greater Africa, will affect the future children and grandchildren of America as well as of Africa. May you in the Senate take non-partisan action to prove that American values and ideals are still strong, being vigilant to turn them over intact to the next generation of Americans. As President George Bush said in his speech at the dedication of the memorial of victims of communism in Albania, “… freedom is the gift of our Creator, freedom is the birthright of all humanity, and in the end, freedom will prevail…by remaining steadfast in freedom’s cause, we will ensure that a future American president does not have to stand in a place like this and dedicate a memorial to the millions killed by radicals and extremists in the 21st Century. We need to hold ourselves accountable for our words. May God help us to be people of virtue, integrity, compassion and justice.
“Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and establishes a town by crime! Has not the LORD Almighty determined that the people’s labor is only fuel for the fire, that the nations exhaust themselves for nothing?” – Habakkuk 2:12-13
Respectfully yours,
Obang Metho
Director of International Advocacy for the Anuak Justice Council
For more information, please contact:
Phone: (306) 933-4346
E-Mail: [email protected]
Anuak Justice Council website: www.anuakjustice.org.
CC:
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Senator Norm Coleman
Senator Christopher J. Dodd
Senator Bob Corker
Senator John F. Kerry
Senator John E. Sununu
Senator Russell D. Feingold
Senator George V. Voinovich
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Jim DeMint
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Johnny Isakson
Senator Robert Menendez
Senator David Vitter
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Senator Chuck Hagel
Senator Robert P. Casey Jr.
Senator Jim Webb
At least six mortar shells on Thursday slammed near the area where the Somali national reconciliation conference reopened in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, as heavy fighting between security forces and insurgents occurred in and around the main Bakara Market hours before the talks resumed.
No casualties were reported from the latest attacks but residents said the sound of the blasts could be heard in the surrounding neighborhoods of Shibis and Abdel Aziz districts of Mogadishu.
Somali government officials have not issued any statement relating to the latest attacks.
The Somali Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, said this conference underscores the transitional government’s commitment to peace, security and reconciliation.
“Ours is a government of reconciliation and we will work towards realizing that goal,” Gedi told delegates at the conference.
He said the talks will pave the way for free and fair elections at the end of this government’s mandate in 2009.
An agenda letter circulated at the conference said the conference will discuss the reconciliation of Somali clans, religious extremism and national unity.
Most opposition group inside and outside Somalia boycotted the talks, saying the country is under Ethiopian [Woyanne] occupation and the conference is manipulated the transitional government.
The conference venue was under tight security after it was attacked by mortars at Sunday’s opening ceremony as the Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf was addressing the conference, which was immediately adjourned.
At least six mortar rounds also landed near the venue of the conference Tuesday.
Islamist insurgency threatened to kill anybody attending the government-organized peace talks which was boycotted by major opposition groups who argue the conference is aimed at giving legitimacy to Ethiopian occupation of Somalia.
Do you realize the intricate and varied history of coffee as you sip on a cup of coffee? There is a long and entertaining story of how coffee was invented, how it migrated to your particular cup and an unending effort to produce the many flavors of coffee that continue to make it such a popular beverage.
Each country has added its taste preference and its own way of brewing as coffee spread around the world. This has resulted in a plethora of coffee drinks for us all to savor and enjoy. The unique customs across cultures has also added to this ritual of drinking coffee.
Where is your favorite coffeehouse? Coffeehouses became very popular as news about the magical powers of coffee spread from Ethiopian shepherds and monks in Ethiopia to all corners of the world.
Despite the popularity of the coffeehouses, they were at times deemed immoral. They were accused of drawing men away from their obligations to their homes and religious beliefs. Coffee drinking was even forbidden periodically because of these evils. However, the bans on coffee drinking did not last long due to the strong appeal of the pleasurable drink. The suppression of coffee drinking based on religious and political grounds was only a moment in time and coffee became a universal drink in the Arab lands. Coffee was eventually considered a moral and sober alternative to wine and spirit drinks. Coffee became a household word and was adopted into social customs as a featured beverage.
In Arabia, coffee was thrown at the feet of the bride as a religious offering. In the country of Turkey, coffee became a staple in the home. Failure to keep a supply of coffee for one’s wife in the home was considered grounds for divorce in Turkey.
As travelers from Europe returned home they brought with them tales of the exotic coffee beverage. Coffee was regarded by some Westerners as the devil’s hellish brew. Despite this horrible reputation of coffee for some Westerners, it became a Christian drink with the blessing of Pope Clement VIII who loved the taste of coffee.
For centuries coffee distribution was controlled by the Arabs. They held a tight and zealous monopoly on the cultivation of the coffee plant until the 17th century. In the 17th century Dutch traders managed to steal some viable seeds and started commercial plantations in Indonesia.
It was not long until a French officer under the rule of King Louis XIV felt that the coffee plants should grow equally well in the French colonies of the West Indies. Gabriel Mathieu de Clieux and a gardener stole a cutting from a coffee plant in King Louis XIV’s botanical gardens. He planted the cutting in a glass trunk and sat sail for the West Indies. His journey was not easy. More than once Clieux placed his life on the line for his precious cargo. He fought off a Dutch spy who managed to tear off one of the plant’s limbs. He shared his ration of water with the plant when all the sailors were near to perishing of thirst. Clieux finally arrived at the island of Martinique and this one single plant started commercial coffee plantations that successfully rivaled the plantations of the Dutch. It is ironic to note that the initial cutting was taken from the coffee plant that was given to King Louis XIV as a gift from the Dutch!
King Louis XIV had a passion for coffee and enjoyed preparing it for guests in his golden coffeepot. After plantations started in Martinique a few years later a young Portuguese officer from Brazil charmed the French governor’s wife in French Guiana. She secretly saved some coffee cuttings to present to him as a token of her love for him. The Portuguese officer planted the cuttings in Brazil and began what are now the largest coffee plantations in the world.
An Ethiopian woman who said she was kept as an indentured servant in a Potomac home for four years won a $61,000 federal jury verdict against her employers on claims of unjust enrichment.
Fikre Wondimante’s lawyers consider this judgment a win even though they had hoped for something in the ballpark of $200,000 plus punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
However, the defendants are also claiming victory.
“With $60,000, we won,” said David C. Simmons, lawyer for Fana and Meherete Assefa, two sisters named as defendants in the lawsuit. “We won big time. We offered to settle the case for much more than that.”
Wondimante filed suit against the Assefas under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, but the sisters prevailed on those claims. The jury in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt found in the plaintiff’s favor only on the unjust enrichment claim.
Wondimante’s August 2004 complaint alleged that the Assefas, both naturalized U.S. citizens, brought her over from their home country to work for a salary of $200 a month.
The plaintiff said she worked from 8 a.m. until 11 p.m. each day, cooking, cleaning and caring for the Assefas’ mother. Over the four years she lived in the home, she claims to have worked 22,000 hours for just $2,000 in pay. She says she left after seeking help from a distant relative living in Washington, D.C.
“There was a lot of mud slung, and it’s hard to say what affect that had on the jury and if that was a significant factor in the verdict,” said Wondimante’s pro bono lawyer, Donald Salzman. “Obviously the verdict vindicates our client, but we were hoping the jury would find she worked the hours that she did.”
Simmons, the defendants’ lawyer, guessed that Wondimante sought to position herself as a “human trafficking” victim in order to get on the fast track for U.S. residency. Wondimante lived as a family member with the Assefa sisters and her work around the house constituted chores, he said.
“It’s sad, because the attorneys who worked on her behalf and the group that was supporting her are good, well-meaning, talented folks, and I think they got duped on this,” Simmons said.
Wondimante was represented by CASA of Maryland Inc. along with Salzman and other lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Ruling
Fikre Wondimante v. Fana Assefa et al.
Court: U.S. District Court in Greenbelt
Case Number: Civil No. JKS 04-3718
Proceedings: Jury trial
Judge:Jillyn K. Schulze
Outcome: Plaintiff’s verdict
Dates: Incident: June 2000 – June 2004; Suit filed: August 2004; Disposition: June 5, 2007
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Andrew Sandler, Donald Salzman and Bradley Klein of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Keys of CASA of Maryland Inc.
Defense Attorney: Donald C. Simmons of Washington, D.C.
Damages sought: $700,000
Award: $61,000
Incident location: Potomac, Md.
In several papers published in the current issue of the British Journal of Health Psychology, scholars from the US and the UK refuted the controversial study of Satoshi Kanazawa that attempted to link health to intelligence.
It may be recalled that Kanazawa’s paper, which was published in the November 2006 issue of the same journal, had trigged a universal uproar, especially for its use of questionable and dubious data about national IQs, including those of Ethiopia and many other African countries, to draw far-reaching conclusions concerning the relationship between intelligence and health.
Among the papers that appeared in the May 2007 issue of the journal is an article by Professors Demissie Alemayehu of Columbia University and Tilahun Sineshaw of Ramapo College of New Jersey, who argued, using extensive citations from evolutionary psychology and inferential statistics, that Kanazawa’s research was “bereft of the rigour” required to address the problem under consideration.
Maintaining that “… critical elements of his [Kanazawa’s] study violate fundamental principles of research methodology…,” Alemayehu and Sineshaw wrote:
“… the validity and robustness of the conclusions of the paper are compromised by fundamental problems, including failure to present competing views with fair balance, use of samples of convenience to draw conclusions about populations, performing tests of significance when there is no theoretical basis to do so and confusing association with causation.” [British Journal of Health Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, May 2007, pp. 185-190(6)]
With reference to the dubious nature of Kanazawa’s data, the two scholars pointed out:
[T]he source of most of Kanazawa’s “macro-level” data is questionable at the best, and misleading at the worst. … A case in point is the national IQ figure used for Ethiopia which was based on a group of 14-15 year-olds who took the Progressive Matrices Standard (PMS) test one year after they had emigrated to Israel (Kaniel and Fisherman, 1991). Even if one accepts the idea that the PMS test measures what has been dubbed general intelligence, the Ethiopian data set, which Kanazawa claimed had been ‘directly measured,’ cannot be taken as a direct measure of the IQ of Ethiopians. The group of adolescents used in the study came from an isolated and desolate region of the country that had experienced a devastating war and famine at the time, not to mention the trauma of moving to a completely new urban environment and the experience of blatant racism once in Israel (Wagaw, 1993). As Kaniel and Fisherman (1991, p. 26) also acknowledged in their original article, ‘[I]n Ethiopia, Jews generally lived in small villages of 50-60 families, remote from urban centers. …prior to their exodus [to Israel], most had never seen electricity, a telephone, or any technological instruments… In Israel, they must adjust to climatic differences, life in urban centers, a new language…’ By any measure, data from a disadvantaged group of people, who had emigrated from a specific region of a country with the attendant social and physical deprivations, cannot be considered representative of a country of over 70 million people with complex historical, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-economic diversity.”
They further noted:
“…. Kanazawa’s knowledge of the socio-historical circumstances under which the Ethiopian data were produced leaves much to be desired. The historical and sociological situatedness of empirical data and how much this contributes to or limits the accuracy of analyses and interpretations that follow have been well established (Cole, 1996). The fallacy of how the Ethiopian national IQ score was constructed certainly casts doubt on the credibility of the entire data and analysis and, by extension, the conclusions of the paper. Ironically, the data obtained from the Bete Israel, as the Ethiopian Jews like to call themselves, should have yielded, according to Kanazawa’s hereditarian view, an average IQ score closer to the Israel national score, since they are believed to be descendants of one of the lost tribes!”
Understandably, Kanazawa’s paper had generated a lot of discussion, both in the print media and in popular online forums. Among the media that gave the discredited theory much publicity was the UK-based paper, “The Observer,” which in its November 5, 2006 issue headlined, “Low IQs are Africa’s curse, says lecturer.” It would be interesting to see if those same news outlets would now give their readers the benefit of exposure to the opposing views expressed in the current issue of the journal.
Interested readers may get copies of the papers, including the aforementioned study by Demissie Alemayehu and Tilahun Sineshaw, directly from the journal publishers: [email protected]
