“Bondage” is the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control. When people are bound by debt, they are in “debt bondage”. When they are held in involuntary servitude, they are in “bondage slavery”. Before much of Africa became “independent” in the 1960s, Africans were held under the yoke of “colonial bondage”. “International aid” addiction has transformed Africa’s colonial bondage into neo-colonial bondaid. Could it be reasonably argued that Africans are sinking deeper and deeper into a quicksand of “bondaid” (to coin a new word) in the second decade of 21st Century?
In 1989, Graham Hancock wrote the “Lords of Poverty” scrutinizing the international aid “industry” including U.N. agencies, USAID, the World Bank and the IMF. His withering criticism infuriated many in the “international aid bureaucracies”. But his incisive analysis could not be easily dismissed. His basic argument is that international aid “has financed the creation of monstrous projects that, at vast expense, have devastated the environment and ruined lives; it has supported and legitimised brutal tyrannies; it has facilitated the emergence of fantastical and Byzantine bureaucracies staffed by legions of self-serving hypocrites…” It is a “a waste of time and money” and harmful to poor recipient countries ($60 billion in 1989). “Aid is not bad because it is sometimes misused, corrupt, or crass; rather, it is inherently bad, bad to the bone, and utterly beyond reform…. It is possibly the most formidable obstacle to the productive endeavors of the poor. It is also a denial of their potential, and a patronising insult to their unique, unrecognised abilities.”
Hancock views “international aid” as an elaborate “game” in which “public money levied in taxes from the poor of the rich countries is transferred in the form of ‘foreign aid’ to the rich in the poor countries; the rich in the poor countries then hand it back for safe-keeping to the rich in the rich countries.” He debunks the myth that “international aid works” and “must not be stopped because the poor could not survive without it.” He argues that “if the statement that ‘aid works’ is true, then presumably the poor should be in a much better shape than they were before they first began to receive it half a century ago. If so, then aid’s job should by now be nearly over and it ought to be possible to begin a gradual withdrawal without hurting anyone.”
The message of Hancok’s analysis is that the lords of poverty make up an invisible army of faceless, nameless, heartless, thoughtless, merciless, gutless, clueless, conscienceless and feckless “international civil servants, development experts, consultants and assorted freeloaders” unleashed on Africa to perpetuate and sustain a culture of poverty and beggary. Hancock points out
… the ugly reality is that most poor people in most poor countries most of the time never receive or even make contact with aid in any tangible shape or form: whether is it present or absent, increased or decreased, are thus issues that are simply irrelevant to the ways in which they conduct their daily lives. After the multi-billion-dollar ‘financial flows’ involved have been shaken through the sieve of over-priced and irrelevant goods that must be bought in the donor countries, filtered again in the deep pockets of hundreds of thousands of foreign experts and aid agency staff, skimmed off by dishonest commission agents, and stolen by corrupt Ministers and Presidents, there is really very little left to go around. This little, furthermore, is then used thoughtlessly, or maliciously, or irresponsibly by those in power — who have no mandate from the poor, who do not consult with them and who are utterly indifferent to their fate. Small wonder, then, that the effects of aid are so often vicious and destructive for the most vulnerable members of human society.
A decade later in 2009, Dambissa Moyo, echoed similar views: “Aid is an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster…. Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population — over 350 million people — live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades…”
Hancock indicts the international aid industry as unaccountable, smug, detached, self-aggrandizing and paternalistic:
… At every level in the structure of almost all our most important aid-giving organisations, we have installed a tribe of highly paid men and women who are irredeemably out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the … underdevelopment which they are supposed to be working to alleviate. The over-compensated aid bureaucrats demand — and get — a standard of living often far better than that which they could aspire to if they were working, for example, in industry or commerce in the home countries. At the same time, however, their achievements and performance are in no way subjected to the same exacting and competitive processes of evaluation that are considered normal in business. Precisely because their professional field is ‘humanitarianism’ rather than, say, ‘sales’, or ‘production’ or ‘engineering’, they are rarely required to demonstrate and validate their worth in quantitative, measurable ways. Surrounding themselves with the mystifying jargon of their trade, these lords of poverty are the druids of the modern era wielding enormous power that is accountable to no one…
BondAid: “Legitimizing Brutal Tyranny in Ethiopia”?
My reference to Hancock’s book above is not merely academic. I have been following reports on therecently announced $1.54 billion USAID assistance program in Ethiopia and studying other USAID reports on Ethiopia in light of Hancock’s arguments or hypotheses on the role of “international aid” in “legitimizing brutal tyrannies in Africa”. Is there an unhealthy bonding between dictators and donors?
Thomas Staal, the USAID Mission Director in Ethiopia, said the $1.5 billion assistance program “will transform our relationship with Ethiopia from one of assistance to one of economic and social cooperation, trade and investment.” In 2011-2012, “USAID assistance grants to Ethiopia will total USD 675 million” and support four specific priority objectives, including “education, health, agriculture and good governance”.
The fourth objective of “strengthen[ing] good governance practices for improved social accountability and conflict mitigation in programs in every sector” is the focal issue here. Could the $1.54 billion in USAID assistance serve to legitimize the brutal tyranny of Meles Zenawi and undermine the establishment of “good governance” in Ethiopia?
In an interview Stall gave before his reassignment to Bagdad, Iraq last week, he made the stunning admission that “with respect to political participation, we have not done a good job. Specifically, with respect to the election that took place two years ago, we have not done much to promote democracy. Customarily, USAID in various countries engages in election education with non-governmental organizations. It works to empower all political parties without preference. We support the local media to analyze elections and give information to the voters. But all these things are prohibited in [Ethiopia]. This is a hard situation that causes us to despair. We will try to talk to the government authorities…” (Frankly, one could get the “government authorities” to listen good and hard by practicing the old saying, “money talks and… walks.”)
In March 2012, USAID Ethiopia published a 72-page Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) (2011-2015) report entitled“Accelerating the Transformation Toward Prosperity”. The following excerpts from the CDCS report are offered below to the reader to undertake a preliminary evaluation of Hancock’s hypothesis on the relationship between “international aid” and the legitimization of tyranny, particularly in Ethiopia.
… After the shock of the relatively free elections in 2005, in which the EPRDF drastically overestimated its popularity, much democratic ground has been lost. Subsequently, the opposition groups were divided and crushed, and the size and control of the ruling party was increased immensely. Legislation was introduced to limit and control the space for civil society and media, and wide powers of arrest were included in the “anti-terrorist” legislation. In 2010 the ruling party “won” 99.6% of the Parliamentary seats… (p. 8.) Limited political space, crushed opposition, 99.6 per cent win of parliamentary seats in 2010, wide powers of arrest and still pouring in $1.5 billion in aid? $3.8 billion in total development assistance in 2009?
… In the areas of democracy, governance, and conflict resolution, USAID is already working well with the Ministry of Federal Affairs (MoFA) on conflict management, mitigation and reconciliation issues,… Now that the May 2010 elections are over, there is an apparent relaxation of political harassment, and a major opposition detainee has been released… (pp. 11-12.) Apparent relaxation of political harassment? A major opposition detainee released? Forgot the thousands of political prisoners, hundreds of journalists, dissidents and opposition leaders rotting in Zenawi’s dungeons? …
The strong donor consultation and coordination on the critical issues of democracy and governance has not always resulted in a willingness to take a strong, united stance against clear abuses of constitutional commitments, legislation, or democratic processes. The DAG [Development Assistance Group] includes the World Bank, UNDP, DFID, CIDA, UNICEF, EU, SIDA, Ireland and Germany among others… (p. 13.) No willingness to take strong, united stance against clear abuses of constitutional commitments because…?? Say what!?!
(In October 2010, I wrote a weekly commentary entitled, “Feed Them and Bleed Them” and observed, “Huddled together in DAG-istan, the poverty pimps have collectively resolved to continue to do their usual aid business in Ethiopia because “broad economic progress outweighs individual political freedoms”.)
… Largely as a result of USAID support, first state and local governments and finally national level institutions (particularly the Ministry of Federal Affairs) are abandoning inclinations to respond to local conflict primarily through security forces, and are increasingly developing and applying capacities to assist conflicted communities with local government support to negotiate and consolidate local peace agreements and ensure that their own administrative actions at a minimum “do no harm.” …On the practical side, the GOE is making progress through the gradual rolling out of its “good governance” trainings around the country…” (p. 55.) Excuse me, but is “good governance training” for brutish dictators the same as obedience training for vicious dogs?
… The donor community is torn between the competing objectives of engaging with and assisting Ethiopia as a high profile example of poverty and vulnerability to famine, and addressing the major challenges and constraints to democratic space, human rights abuses, and severe restrictions on civil society and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech, association and access to information. The GOE does not make this any easier, waveringbetween seductive and sophisticated rhetoric on development and economic topics on the one hand, and political repression, state dominance over the economy, and outright downplaying of humanitarian emergencies on the other hand. Added to this double-edged sword is the GOE‟s extreme sensitivity to any direct or even implied criticism, and its willingness to actively punish the criticizer, including members of the international community… (p. 53.) Ah! Beware the seductive and sophisticated rhetoric of the silver- tongued devil with an angelic voice, as Shakespeare might have cautioned.
… In the absence of competitive elections and other democratic processes, governance that is responsive to the aspirations and needs of its citizens and the knowledge and perspectives of stakeholders provides an important alternative release mechanism for political frustrations that have no other constructive outlet… Ethiopia’s new five year GTP [Growth and Transformation Plan] contains explicit commitments and targets to improve governance. However, traditions, capacities and resources to conceptualize and implement bottom-up accountability are lacking in a country where good governance was not a high priority during the imperial and communist periods and is only becoming a priority but constrained within the ideology of Revolutionary Democracy… (p. 58.) After 21 years of Zenawi’s iron-fisted rule, still blaming H.I.M. Haile Selassie and the Derg for the withering of democracy in Ethiopia? Give me a break!
…Understanding that faith in the efficiency and impartiality of the justice system is a key factor in the risk calculations that govern investment decisions by the private sector, individuals and donors,… Another concern is that politically favored businesses or sectors are able to leapfrog over methodical and inclusive planning processes and legally required contracting procedures. Expectations are more modest here, recognizing that the system itself is thoroughly under the control of the ruling party. The Mission will develop programs that promote the rule of law for sustainable development practices… (p. 59.) Modest expectations for justice and democracy because the system itself is thoroughly under the control of the ruling party! Heard that!
… USAID/Ethiopia recognizes that there is no policy space to conduct programs focused on competitive elections. Instead, the Mission will focus primarily on tackling the deeper issues of governance by aligning its focus with the achievement of the OE’s GTP sustainable development goals and commitments to improve accountable governance and conflict reduction… (p. 61.) So reward dictatorship with more money, mo’ money and mo’ money?
…With the increasing ‘land giveaways’ to private, foreign agricultural investors, policy efforts will be undertaken… to support land use planning and natural resource management thatavoids displacement of existing communities and helps ensure balanced development… (p. 19.) Increasing ‘land giveaways’ to private, foreign agricultural investors! Heard that!
Back to 2004: The Good Old Days of Telling It Like It Is!
… Ethiopia does not stand at this precipice of food insecurity and instability alone. And, it did not get there by itself. Ethiopia, its neighbors and its development partners have collectively failed to break the downward spiral of hunger, poverty and recurring food crises, which is a critical first step in improving the health and economic conditions of present and future generations of Ethiopians…. [S]uccessfully addressing this challenge will require Ethiopian leadership, commitment and the will to change.Evidence on Ethiopia’s performance is compelling and clear. The country has performed badly over the years, even relative to most other African countries, and to East Africa specifically. Gross per capita incomes are a fifth of the African average, declining about 40% between 1990 and 2000 ($160–$100), relative to a smaller decline of 13% for sub Saharan Africa. The poor performance of the economy is not due to drought, but results from the weak economic policies of the country over a sustained period—characterized by low rates of investment in economic growth and agriculture by both government and the commercial private sector, low levels of capacity, and low rates of agricultural and nonagricultural growth. In turn poor economic performance has led to worsening social standards, and created an increasingly fragile state that lacks the resiliency to manage through shocks (environmental, economic, political) that induce crises… (p. 5.)
In May 2012, Rajiv Shah, the current USAID Administrator moderated the G8 Food Security Summit in Washington, D.C. In his ingratiating introductory remarks to Zenawi, (grandiosely stroking Zenawi’s ego) and using the usual “mystifying jargon” of the international aid industry, Shah inquired:
… So many people have associated a mental image of hunger with Ethiopia and at the same time because of actions in the public sector maintaining strong public investment in agriculture you were able to protect millions of Ethiopians during the recent drought from needing food aid and food assistance. Could you speak to, even as we are launching a new food alliance, to engage the private sector, could you speak to some of the comments you have shared with us privately how important it is we live to our commitments to invest in public investment, in public institutions?
Ethiopia has been the recipient of all kinds of aid from the U.S. over the decades. She has received “economic aid”, “development aid”, “military aid”, “technical aid”, “emergency aid”, “relief aid”, “humanitarian aid” and aid against AIDS. She has also received “BandAid” and “LiveAid” from others. Today, Ethiopians are afraid. They ask, “Is Ethiopia permanently trapped in “bondaid!?!” They pray for deliverance from the twin Lords of Tyranny and Poverty!
Postscript
In all of Africa, USAID arguably has the largest aid program in Ethiopia. There are some who are skeptical about USAID’s claims of program effectiveness in Ethiopia. One can fairly judge the efficacy of USAID programs and the credibility of its asserted achievements in Ethiopia when the facts and data are made available for critical analysis and evaluation by intra-institutional authorities and other concerned communities. Unfortunately, facts and data appear to be the Achilles Heel of USAID/Ethiopia. This issue was made clear to USAID mission director Staal in 2010 by the Regional Inspector of the U.S. State Department Office of the Inspector General in his “Audit of USAID/Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Productivity Activities (Audit Report No. 4-6663-10-003-P (March 30, 2010)”. In that Report, the regional inspector informed Staal:
…The audit found the program is contributing to the achievement of market-led economic growth and the improved resilience of farmers, pastoralists, and other beneficiaries in Ethiopia. However, it is not possible to determine the extent of that contribution because of weaknesses in the mission’s performance management and reporting system. Specifically, while the mission used performance indicators and targets to track progress in several areas…, the results reported for the majority of those indicators were not comparable with the targets. Moreover, the audit was unable to determine whether the results reported in USAID/Ethiopia’s Performance Plan and Report were valid because mission staff could neither explain how the results were derived nor provide support for those reported results. In fact,when the audit team attempted to validate the reported results, it was unable to do so at either the mission or its implementing partners (pages 6-12)…
While some may rely on intuitive analysis and inferences from anecdotes to draw conclusions about USAID/Ethiopia, I much prefer evidence-based policy analysis. Hopefully, that body of evidence will be made readily available not only to dispel doubts, discredit rumors and enlighten critics of USAID/Ethiopia, but most importantly, to enhance and reinforce “the growing emphasis within USAID on transparency, accountability, and results.”
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
Over the past six years, I have written numerous columns defending press freedom in Ethiopia. In a 2009 commentary entitled, “The Art of War on Ethiopia’s Independent Press”, I expressed astonishment over the heavy handed treatment of the free press: “Use a sledgehammer to smash a butterfly! That is the exquisite art of war unleashed on Ethiopia’s independent press by the dictatorship of Meles Zenawi today.”
In a 2007 column entitled “Monkey Trial in Kangaroo Kourt“, I wrote about the Kafkaesque use of the courts by the dictatorship in Ethiopia to crush dissent and suppress criticism. Franz Kafka’s famous novel, The Trial, begins with the sentence, “Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.” K., is ordered to stand trial before know-nothing judges who do the bidding of their invisible puppet masters. K’s guilt is a foregone conclusion. Everything about the trial is a secret — the charges, the court procedures and the judges. K cannot defend himself because he is never told what crimes he has committed. He is denied access to the evidence against him. K’s trial is delayed time and again. His lawyer is unable to help him in a system where there is neither law nor procedure.
Such is the stark portrait of Zenawi’s prosecution and conviction of journalists, dissidents and opposition political leaders in his Kafkaesque Kangaroo Kourts in Ethiopia (KKK) today. He uses lies, damned lies and loathsome lies as evidence to convict opponents and those who disagree with him under his cut-and-paste anti-terrorism law. To add political drama and add insult to injury, “sentencing” is scheduled for mid-July.
Human Rights Watch documented that the “convictions” last week, together with others over the past six months, “bring the total known number of individuals convicted of terrorism-related charges to 34, including 11 journalists, at least 4 opposition supporters and 19 others.” Zenawi can now beat his chest in triumph and do a few victory laps for “convicting” Eskinder Nega, Reeyot Alemu, Woubshet Taye, Swedish journalists Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson, and opposition party leaders and dissdents Andualem Arage, Nathnael Mekonnen, Mitiku Damte, Yeshiwas Yehunalem, Kinfemichael Debebe, Andualem Ayalew, Nathnael Mekonnen, Yohannes Terefe, Zerihun Gebre-Egziabher and many others.
None of this is new even to the casual observer. Over the years, Zenawi has been using his KKK to railroad into prison independent journalists, opposition leaders and dissidents. So say the U.S. Government and various international human rights organizations using diplomatic language. The 2010 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Ethiopia concluded: “The law provides for an independent judiciary. Although the civil courts operated with a large degree of independence, the criminal courts remained weak, overburdened, and subject to significant political intervention and influence.” Human Rights Watch concluded in its 2007 report: “In high-profile cases, [Ethiopian] courts show little independence or concern for defendants’ procedural rights… The judiciary often acts only after unreasonably long delays, sometimes because of the courts’ workloads, more often because of excessive judicial deference to bad faith prosecution requests for time to search for evidence of a crime.”
Condemnation of the KKK Verdicts
There has been an outpuring of condemnation against the KKK verdicts and demands for the immediate release of the “convicted” journalists and others from various soruces. The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement asserting that “The Ethiopian government has once again succeeded in misusing the law to silence critical and independent reporting. Ethiopia will not hesitate to punish a probing press by imprisoning journalists or pushing them into exile.” Human Rights Watch expressed dismay: “This case shows that Ethiopia’s government will not tolerate even the mildest criticism. The use of draconian laws and trumped-up charges to crack down on free speech and peaceful dissent makes a mockery of the rule of law.” Amnesty International condemned the “trumped up” charges and declared: “This is a dark day for justice in Ethiopia, where freedom of expression is being systematically destroyed by a government targeting any dissenting voice. The verdict seemed to be a foregone conclusion.”
U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia, Donald Booth said, “I find the convictions of predominantly journalists and politicians raises questions about the compatibility of the anti-terrorism law with constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression.” According to the Embassy’s posted statement: “The arrest of journalists has a chilling effect on the media and on the right to freedom of expression. We have made clear in our ongoing human rights dialogue with the Ethiopian government that freedom of expression and freedom of the media are fundamental elements of a democratic society. A U.S. State Department spokesman explained that even though the U.S. works with the regime in Ethiopia “on certain things, you can be straight with them when you disagree with their policies in other areas, as we always are with Ethiopia with regard to press freedom.”
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, who two weeks ago in his statement in the Congressional Record, noted that the ruling regime in Ethiopia has made it impossible for “journalists like Eskinder Nega to do their work of reporting and peaceful political participation”, issued a strongly worded press release condemning the travesty of justice:
The Ethiopian Government’s use of vague anti-terrorism laws to silence the press has been widely and rightly condemned. The conviction of Eskinder Nega and other journalists, who are accused of nothing more than the peaceful exercise of rights clearly recognized under international law, is the work of a regime that fears the democratic aspirations of its own people. Over the years, United States administrations have provided Prime Minister Meles a veneer of legitimacy due to our shared interest in countering real terrorist threats, but he has exploited the relationship for his own political ends. It is time to put the values and principles that distinguish us from terrorists, above aid to a government that misuses its institutions to silence its critics.
Eskinder and Andualem, Invictius!
Unlike Kafka’s Joseph K. who met his end helplessly bleating out the words, “like a dog”, Eskinder and Andualem returned to their prison cells like two roaring lions sauntering to their cages. (I say, one caged lion commands more respect than a thousand free hyenas.) They knew long ago that their “conviction” was inevitable and a foregone conclusion. No journalist, dissident or opposition party leaders has ever been found not guilty by Zenawi’s KKK. Eskinder Nega, a man whose name is synonymous with the word dignity and the irrepressible symbol of press freedom not only in Ethiopia but throughout the world, had a few words of wisdom to share with the unprincipled hacks in robes: “I have struggled for peaceful democracy, and I have never disrespected any individual and I didn’t commit a crime. My conscience is clear.” The hacks tried to silence him, but as always Eskinder spoke truth to power: “You have to stand for justice, you have to allow us to say what we want… you have no right to limit our freedom of speech.”
Eskinder is a hero of a special kind. He is a hero who fights with nothing more than ideas and the truth. He slays falsehoods with the sword of truth. He chases bad ideas with good ones. Armed only with a pen, Eskinder fights despair with hope; fear with courage; anger with reason; arrogance with humility; ignorance with knowledge; intolerance with forbearance; oppression with perseverance; doubt with trust and cruelty with compassion.
It is a crying shame that Eskinder, who is a hero to so many heroes of press freedom throughout the world, should be judged by an unholy trinity of benighted, scheming and pusillanimous judicial puppets.
Andualem Aragie, the dynamic and courageous young opposition leader was defiant and unbowed:
The last six months that we have spent are days when the people of Ethiopia have struggled for their human dignity and human rights. But the people have not been fortunate enough to enjoy their democratic rights. In my generation, I have tried to struggle to the best of my ability for my children and for all the people of Ethiopia. In doing so, I did not start with malice [or ill will]. In doing so, I did not commit a crime. In doing so, I did not aim to undermine the interests of my poor country. In what I have done, I do not believe I have offended my Creator, the people of Ethiopia or my own conscience. I am in total peace. Why I am standing here is because of my yearning for freedom. This is not the first time that I have sought justice in Ethiopian courts and been denied jusitce. I will not ask for mercy [from this court] for I have committed no crime. I will graciously drink from the cup of oppression my persecutors have prepared for me for my conscience will not allow me to do anything else.
Why Does Zenawi Persecute and Prosecute the Free Press and Dissidents?
Why does Zenawi go through hell and high water to crush the few struggling independent newspapers, dissidents and opposition leaders in the country? Why does he shutter newspapers that have a circulation of just a few thousand copies when he owns ALL of the printing presses and radio and television media in the country? What is he afraid of?
The answer is simple: The Truth! Zenawi can’t handle the truth. He hates the independent press because it reflects the corruption, repression and oppression of his regime. He fears criticism and genuine expression of public opinion because he does not want to see his reflection in the true mirror of the peoples’ eyes. He much prefers to wallow in his own delusional, imaginary and virtual image of the “Great Leader of the Renaissance” reflected in the glazed and bulging eyes of his Yes-men. But as the recent history of the “Arab Spring” has shown, dictatorships are like castles built of sand which dissolve and are washed away when struck by a single sweep of the ocean’s wave. Regardless of how long dictators keep cracking down on the free press and terrorize the people, in the end they are always swept and vacuumed into the dustbin of history by the tornadic force of the people’s fury. Think of it, always!
It has to be remembered that AlShebab has assigned me secretly to make propagation activities in Ethiopia, Somaliland, Kenya and Uganda. To accomplish the task we have agreed with you through your representative Ato Mamush Sentie in Eritrea to publish propaganda articles against the Ethiopian government, against the interest of the Ethiopian people and the American government…”
Give us a break!
But we have seen it all before. Zenawi’s MO goes through three stages. First, he demonizes his adversaries. Then he criminalizes them. In the third stage, he dehumanizes them.That is how he did it to Eskinder Nega, Andualem Aragie, Dawit Kebede and so many others.
Temesgen and Feteh are now undergoing the demonization stage. In a few weeks or less, a full scale campaign will be waged against them in the regime owned media. They will be called “terrorists”, “insurrectionists”, “agitators”, “foreign agents” “spies” and whatever else the dirty tricks department can manage to fabricate. There will be frenzied “calls” to the regime from “ordinary citizens” to take action against them.
The criminalization stage will begin in a couple of months or less with a videotaped arrest of Temesgen and possibly other Feteh members in the street in much the same way as they did Eskinder Nega and Andualem Aragie. (Someone must really enjoy watching the videotape of those arrests.Eskinder’s official captors videotaped the whole arrest and laughed boisterously as Eskinder’s traumatized six year old child cried his eyes out for his daddy.)
Then, the dehumanization stage takes place in jail as they await “trial” in the KKK — torture and beatings, denial of medical care, denial of family visits, daily insults, humiliation and degradation, solitary confinement and on and on. In the end, there will be a show KKK trial for Temesgen Desalegn et al with ambassadors, representatives of international organizations and family members sitting in the gallery. The verdict and sentnece will be the same as always: Guilty, guilty, guilty… 15 years at hard labor… 20 years at hard labor… life in prison…
It is all so pathetically predictable.
Losing the Battle, Winning the War
This is the unfinished story of the war on the independent free press in Ethiopia, and the victors and the victims in that war. The final struggle between the dictators who wield swords and the journalists who wield pens, pencils and computer keyboards will be decided in a war for the hearts and minds of the Ethiopian people. I have no doubts whatsoever that the outcome of that war is foreordained. In fact, I believe that war has already been won. For as Edward Bulwer-Lytton penned in his verse, in the war between swordholders and penholders, final victory always goes to the penholders:
‘True, This! –
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! – itself a nothing! –
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyze the Caesars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! – Take away the sword –
States can be saved without it!’
But if the paramount question is to save the Ethiopian state or to save Ethiopia’s free press, I would, as Thomas Jefferson said, save the latter: “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
The Actions of Our Enemies, the Silence of Our Friends
Dr. Martin Luther King said, “We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” I would add that we will remember and forgive the words and actions of our enemies for they know not what they say and do; but the cowardice, indifference, apathy, disinterest and cold neutrality of our friends who know or should know better but stand in the face of evil with their heads bowed, eyes closed, ears plugged and lips muted, we can neither forgive nor forget!!!
I believe nothing is more important and uplifting to political prisoners than knowledge of the fact that they are not forgotten, abandoned and forsaken by their compatriots. We must stand with Eskinder Nega, Andualem Aragie, Reeyot Alemu, Woubshet Taye and the countless political prisoners in Ethiopia. Every day, they are beaten down and brought to their knees. We cannot hear their whimpers of pain and the silence of their desperation. Because they have no voice, we must be their voices and speak on their behalf. Because they are walled behind filthy prisons, we must unfailingly remind the world of their subhuman existence.
We must all labor for the cause of Ethiopian political prisoners not because it is easy or fashionable, but because it is ethical, honorable, right and just. In the end, what will make the difference for the future of Ethiopia is not the brutality, barbarity, bestiality and inhumanity of its corrupt dictators, but the humanity, dignity, adaptability, audacity, empathy and compassion of ordinary Ethiopians for their wrongfully imprisoned and long-suffering compatriots. That is why we must join hands and work tirelessly to free all political prisoners in Ethiopia.
FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA!
FREE THE FREE PRESS IN ETHIOPIA!
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic and
http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
Most of my readers know how much I enjoy “bedtime stories”. Recently, I wrote about my favortie bedtime story of Pinocchio in Africa. Ever heard of the story of Chicken Little? One day Chicken Little was scratching around the yard when something fell on her head. “Oh,” screeched Chicken Little, “The sky is falling. I must go tell the king.” Chicken Little ran and ran until she met Henny Penny. “Why are you running so fast, Chicken Little?” asked Henny Penny. “Ah, Henny Penny,” said Chicken Little, “the sky is falling, and I must go and tell the king.” Chicken Little and Henny Penny told the same story to Ducky Daddles, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy along the way to the king’s house. “I know a shortcut to the palace,” said Foxy Woxy. “Come and follow me.” But the wicked Foxy Woxy led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole where he planned to dine on the fine feathered friends. Just as they were to enter the hole, they heard the king’s hunting dogs growling and howling. Foxy Woxy ran across the meadows and through the forests with the hounds on his tail. He ran until he was far, far away and never returned.
The story of Chicken Little illustrates the angst, hysteria and paranoia of the ruling regime in Ethiopia. The sky is always falling whenever dictator Meles Zenawi wants to tighten the screws on news and information reaching the people. In 2010, Zenawi justified electronically jamming Voice of America Amharic broadcasts by making the preposterously outrageous claim that the Voice of America was promoting genocide in Ethiopia: “We have been convinced for many years that in many respects, the VOA Amharic Service has copied the worst practices of radio stations such as Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda in its wanton disregard of minimum ethics of journalism and engaging in destabilizing propaganda.” In other words, the Voice of America is the Voice of Genocide, Rwanda. In February 2012, Lebanon’s Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui served a formal complaint on the ruling regime in Ethiopia and demanded an immediate end to the illegal practice of jamming Arabsat transmission of ESAT (Ethiopian Satellite Television) programming.
In the past year, Zenawi has been telling the world that he has caught and jailed some of the most dangerous and wild-eyed terrorists in Ethiopia today, including the incomparable Eskinder Nega, the 2012 winner of the prestigious Pen’s Freedom to Write Award, the indomitable Reeyot Alemu, a young woman journalist who won the 2012 International Women’s Media Foundation Courage in Journalism Award and the intrepid Woubshet Taye, managing editor of the now shuttered Awramba Times. Last week, in his statement in the Congressional Record, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy noted that the ruling regime in Ethiopia has made it impossible for “journalists like Eskinder Nega to do their work of reporting and peaceful political participation.”
Zenawi has been running in overdrive trying to plug every nook and cranny by which Ethiopians could get news and information from independent sources. According to recent statements of Reporters Without Borders Africa (RWB), “The Ethiopian government is trying to attack every means of information exchange.” Ethiopia’s Chicken Littles are so paranoid that they are now requiring the printing presses over which they have total monopoly to censor newspapers printed in the country. Last month, Berhanena Selam, the largest regime-owned printer and other smaller printers were “trying to impose political censorship on media content before publication.” In a proposed “standard contract for printing”, these printers claimed they have the right to refuse to print any text if they determine they have “adequate reason” it breaks the law. RWB noted, “This [contract] openly contravenes article 29 of the 1994 federal constitution, which guarantees press freedom and bans censorship in any form…. Only an independent and impartial judge should have the power to impose any kind of sanction or prohibition affecting media freedom.” Nice try by RWB, but talking constitutional law to Zenawi and Co., is like preaching Scripture to a gathering of Heathen.
RWB further reported that the regime-owned internet service provider “Ethio-Telecom” had installed a system for blocking access to the Tor network, which allows users to browse and access blocked websites anonymously. According to data published by Tor, the highest number of Tor users in Ethiopia between March and June 2012 peaked at a little over 350 individuals! All of the trouble and expense to block fewer than 400 individuals out of 85 million from anonymously browsing the internet.
The Skype is Falling!
Skype and other internet-based phone call services and social media are popular among a microscopic segment of the younger set who have access to the internet cafes in the urban areas and affluent types who could afford a personal computer and internet service. But the number of users of Skype-type services is infinitesimally small and the available internet service in the country is limited, unreliable and retrograde. A 2010 Manchester University’s School of Education study cited in Freedomhouse’s Freedom on the Internet 2011 report (FFI 2011) found that “accessing an online e-mail account and opening one message took six minutes in a typical Addis Ababa cybercafe with a broadband connection.” Anyone who has made or received Skype calls to or from Ethiopia knows that it is like pulling teeth, an exercise in self-aggravation. Ethiopia is only second to Sierra Leone Internet for having the least internet penetration at 0.5 percent of that country’s 85 million population. Internet service is “almost entirely absent from rural areas” where 85 percent of the population lives, according to FFI 2011. Similarly, Ethiopia is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa to impose nationwide, politically motivated internet filtering:
Although Ethiopia is one of Africa’s most populous countries, poor infrastructure and a government monopoly on telecommunications have significantly hindered the expansion of digital media. As a result, Ethiopia has one of the lowest rates of internet and mobile telephone penetration on the continent… The government has responded by instituting one of the few nationwide filtering systems in Africa, passing laws to restrict free expression, and attempting to manipulate online media. These efforts have coincided with a broader increase in repression against independent print and broadcast media since the 2005 parliamentary elections, in which opposition parties mustered a relatively strong showing.
Why would Zenawi want to send a citizen to the slammer for 15 years just for making a phone call using a computer phone? Informed commentators suggest that the “telecom fraud law” is motivated by the bottomless greed and consuming paranoia of those who cling to power in Ethiopia like engorged ticks on an African milk cow. Elizabeth Blunt, a former BBC correspondent in Ethiopia, explains that the telecom fraud law is intended to suppress competition by “Internet cafes [which] may be allowing people to make calls for far less than the cost of Ethiopia telecom, the state’s telecommunications provider that has the monopoly and charges very high prices – and doesn’t want to have its service undermined. But there is also the issue that Skype can’t be listened to so easily and can’t be controlled.” RWB is concerned that the latest paranoia which has caused the regime to “block access to Tor might be the first step towards creating a system that would allow the regime to intercept any email, social network post or VoIP call made in the country.”
The 2012 “Proclamation on Telecom Fraud Offences”
The now widely publicized “Proclamation on Telecom Fraud Offences” (PTFO) 2012 appears to be in draft form, despite reports to the contrary. The PFTO purportedly repeals provisions in Art. 25 of the Telecommunications Proclamation No. 49/1996 as amended by Proclamation No. 281/2002. But none of that amounts to a hill of beans because there has never been a draft “law” presented to Ethiopia’s rubber stamp parliament that has ever been rejected. Draft or no draft, for the rubber stamp parliament, Zenawi’s word is law. The rubber stamp parliament will blindly adopt the most nonsensical, illogical, ineffectual and immoral “laws” presented to it by Zenawi. Without a shadow of a doubt, the rubber stamp parliament will unanimously (at least by a margin of 99.6 percent) approve the PTFO . But what the hell is the PTFO?
It appears that the PTFO is another one of those haphazard and slipshod cut-and-paste jobs (similar to the so-called “Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No 652/2009) scarfed from the laws of other countries, arguably the U.S. The patches of vacuous phrases and empty clauses interspersed in the PTFO uncannily mimic certain U.S. anti-wire fraud statutes such as 18 U.S.C §§ 1343 (wire fraud), 1029 (fraud and related activity in connection with access devices) and 1030 (fraud and related activity in connection with computers). The U.S. laws, consistent with the presumption of innocence, require the government to prove knowledge, intent and willful participation of the accused in the fraudulent act or scheme using wires or electronic access devices.
The PTFO is completely oblivious of the most elementary requirements of any criminal law: the concurrence of intent (mens rea) and the commission of the criminal act (actus reus). For instance, under Part Two (2) of the PTFO, “whosoever uses or holds any telecommunications equipment without obtaining prior permit… shall… be punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 1 to 4 years…” Accordingly, “‘telecommunications equipment’ means any apparatus used or intended to be used for telecommunications services, and includes its accessory and software.” Under these tandem provisions, any person who “holds” a mobile phone, a child “holding” a toy Walki-Talkie, or any person who “holds” a laptop bundled by the manufacturer with communications sofware or encoded in the operating system or hardware without license from the Ministry of Communications would be looking at “1-4 years” in the slammer. (Obviously, those who drafted the “law” are clueless about the evidentiary distinction between “holding” and “possession”.) Arguably, anyone who uses a tin can phone (which is within the PTFO’s definition of “telecommunications equipment” since “electromagnetic” waves vibrate through the string connecting the cans) would be exposed to the same penalty. The PTFO is the kind of law Charles Dickens would have called “an ass, an idiot”.
On its face, the PTFO is a “law” made necessary by the alleged fact that “the legal provisions in the country are not sufficient to prevent and control telecom fraud.” Telecom services includes “cellular mobile service, internet data communication” and other “transmissions or receptions through the agency of electricity or electromagnetism (sic)…” Anyone who “manufactures, assembles, imports any communications equipment without permit” will be sitting in the penitentiary between 10-15 years in prison. Anyone who “uses or holds” such equipment is looking at 1-4 years. Anyone who provides “telecom service without license” will be locked up between 7-15 years. Anyone who “uses telecom network or apparatus to disseminate any terrorizing message connected with a crime with the anti-terrorism proclamation….” faces 3 to 8 years (Art. 6). Anyone who “obtains any telecom service without payment of lawful charge or by means of fraudulent payment” will be punished by “rigorous imprisonment from 5-10 years.” (Art. 7). Anyone who “establishes any telecom infrastructure” or “bypasses the telecommunication infrastructure other than the telecommunication infrastructure established by the telecommunication service provider (sic)” is subject to 10-20 years imprisonment (Art. 9). Anyone who “duplicates SIM cards, credit cards, subscriber identification numbers…” faces 10-15 years imprisonment. “Whoever provides telephone call or fax services through the internet commits an offense punishable by 3-8 years.” The person using the service will cool his heels in the clink for up to 2 years. (Art. 10, 10(3)).
Law Making in a Rubber Stamp Parliament
No one should see how sausages, or laws are made in Ethiopia’s rubber stamp parliament. Perhaps that is an overstatement. The fact is that “laws” are not made in Ethiopia’s parliament. They are rubber stamped. That parliament approves “laws” faster than a Chinese factory can crank out a T-shirt. But rubber stamping the will of one man does not a law make. As Shakespeare said, “Lawless are they that make their wills their law.”
The PTFO is a pitiful exercise in lawmaking. In substance and form, it is no different than the dozens of “proclamations” that have been approved by the rubber stamp parliament over the past decade. It is arbitrary, capricious, thoughtless, reckless and, and most of all, pointless. Having studied so many of these “proclamations” over the years, I am amazed and dismayed by what passes as lawmaking in Ethiopia’s parliament. In one of my recent commentaries on the cut-and paste anti-terrorism law proudly pirated from the laws of other countries, I stated: “I cringe in total embarrassment at such a stunningly shallow understanding of jurisprudence, glib talk about the law and inattention to a glaring logical fallacy in one’s argument.”
The deficiencies of the PTFO are not limited to lack of legislative purpose, policy substance or logical structure; they also extend to the cavalier, crude and clumsy approach to legislative draftsmanship. On its face, the PFTO is bereft of any elementary sense of proportionality, the simple idea that the punishment should fit the crime. How can any sensible legislator or executive propose to punish a citizen with 15 years hard labor for talking into a computer phone? This is not just inane, it is insane!
Equally important, the PFTO is unsupported by any discernible legislative need or justification. In its preamble, it states that “the legal provisions in the country are not sufficient to prevent and control telecom fraud.” But that claim is completely speculative and unsupported by any factual findings. There are no studies referenced – independent or regime-sponsored – which show the magnitude of the “internet fraud” problem or the alleged threat to “national security” posed by the improper or illegal use of the internet. There is no research or analysis supporting the proclamation. There is no expert testimony to support it and no opportunity has been made available for public comment or input. It is a “law” based purely on fear and smear.
Catching the Real Con Artists, Scammers, Swindlers and Fraudsters
There is plenty of evidence of massive fraud elsewhere that requires immediate and decisive action. Remember the 2008 cat burglars who heisted “USD$16 million dollars” worth of gold bars and simply walked out of the bank in broad daylight? Although the heist was widely believed to be an inside job and a number of suspects were fingered, no one was ever prosecuted. In 2007 when Ethiopia’s auditor general, Lema Aregaw, reported that Birr 600 million of state funds were missing from the regional coffers, Zenawi fired Lema and publicly defended the regional administrations’ ‘right to burn money.’” The ashes of that “burned money” were never found. In February 2011, Zenawi publicly stated that 10,000 tons of coffee earmarked for exports had simply vanished from the warehouses. He called a meeting of commodities traders and in a videotaped statement told them he will forgive them because “we all have our hands in the disappearance of the coffee”. They drank coffee, sang Kumbaya and went on their merry ways.
Last December, Global Financial Integrity reported, “Ethiopia, which has a per-capita GDP of just US$365, lost US$11.7 billion to illicit financial outflows between 2000 and 2009. In 2009, illicit money leaving the economy totaled US$3.26 billion, which is double the amount in each of the two previous years…” Now, there is a gigantic fraud problem crying out for a law and aggressive prosecution. Last month Zenawi mused philosophically, “What is the poison that leaders face when you go to national palaces, and transforms people with vision sometimes into ordinary thieves? Let’s start with the total amount of loot in Africa, and what our role as leaders in that looting is…” Great question! The man with the “vision of an Ethiopian Renaissance” should have a ready answer. But for the rest of us, a more mundane question is : Why not start the anti-fraud campaign by going after the looters who are looting millions from the national treasury and the army of looters illicitly laundering billions of looted dollars in foreign banks before hounding nickel and dime internet cafés which survive by peddling feckless Skype service for pennies?
The PFTO is wrong-headed and mean-spirited. Its sole aim is to suppress all communication technology the regime believes could be used to provide the people access to indepednent sources of information and news. The infinitesimally small number of Skypers use the service to talk to family members and friends abroad. They pose no threat to anyone. The threat of arrest and harassment against perceived opponents is so pervasive that few would hazard to use Skype or similar technology as a means of political agitation.
The PTFO is vague and overbroad, and cannot pass constitutional muster as RWB has suggested. Many of its provisions are ambiguous, nonsensical, unintelligible and just plain legal gobbledygook. What is a “terrorizing message” under art. 6? Could a ringtone on a mobile phone which rings by announcing, “Meles Zenawi is a dictator!” (as it appears to be a common ringtone among a segment of mobile phone users in Ethiopia), result in a 15 year sentence for the hapless user? (On second thought, I may have to concede that legal point in light of the sheer “terror” Zenawi displayed at the G-8 Summit in Washington, D.C. last month when he faced the young lionhearted Ethiopian journalist Abebe Gellaw.)
For me, the principal purpose of the law is to protect liberty and establish a just society. But on that point, I shall defer to Shakespeare:
We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it
Their perch and not their terror.
….
For pity is the virtue of the law,
And none but tyrants use it cruelly.
As to the criminalization of Skype, my practical suggestion to Ethiopians wishing to communicate with their families and friends abroad is to quickly learn the arts of using smoke signals, drum beating, pictogram drawing, pigeon flying, ram’s horn blowing and to drill down on the science of tin can phones and Morse Code. (Oops! Forget Morse Code, it uses “the agency of electricity or electromagnetism”, whatever that is!)
-… . -.- .- !
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
For the past two decades, Ethiopia has been the scene of crimes against humanity and crimes against nature. Now Ethiopian religious leaders say Ethiopia is the scene of crimes against divinity. Christian and Muslim leaders and followers today are standing together and locking arms to defend religious freedom and each other’s rights to freely exercise their consciences. But they face a formidable and treacherous foe who thrives on division and discord. Not long ago, a wicked but lame attempt was made in broad daylight to spark strife and friction between Christians and Muslims. The head honcho of the ruling party in Ethiopia told his rubber stamp parliament:
At the recent Timket (baptism of Jesus, epiphany) celebrations, there was a slogan which declared, “One country, one religion.” Those who carried this slogan were few. We don’t have a constitution that says one country, one religion. The constituion says one country, diverse religions. It is evident that there are some, few as they may be, who want to have a Christian government [in Ethiopia]. These are mostly people who lack critical thinking but we believe they can be straightened out through re-education.
One cannot say all Salafis are Al Qaeda. That’s a mistake, a crime. But all Al Qaeda are Salafis. For the first time, an Al Qaeda cell has been found in Ethiopia. Most of them in Bale and Arsi. All of the members of this cell are Salafis. This is not to say all Salafis in Ethiopia are Al Qaeda members. Most of them are not. But these Salafis have been observed distorting the real teachings [of Islam]. They [Salafis] say most people in Ethiopia are Muslims. They say the official statistical reports are false. They say since most Ethiopians are Muslims, there must be an Islamic government. Such agitation is currently underway on a mass scale by these fundamentalist agitators…
Hmmm!!?? Now, who could possibly benefit from stoking the fires of fundamentalism and sectarianism and fanning the flames of religious conflict and rivalry in Ethiopia? Who could possibly be behind the alleged group barking for “one country, one religion”? Who could have possibly set up “Al Qaeda cells” in Ethiopia “for the first time” eleven years after 9/11? Is the core problem of Ethiopia today a dispute between those who clamor for an “Islamic government” and those jabbering for a “Christian government”? Is the real question facing Ethiopia democracy vs. dictatorship or “Islamic fundamentalism” vs. “Christian fundamentalism?” Are “Al Qaeda cells” the malignant virus threatening Ethiopia’s existence? Or is the metastasizing cancer in the Ethiopian body politic one-man, one-party dictatorship?
The whole attempt to spark religious antagonism and conflict between Muslims and Christians could be overlooked as the bizarre machinations of a warped and depraved mind but for the fact that it is the manifest strategy of the leaders of the ruling party in Ethiopia to prolong their grapple hold on power. Inflammatory and incendiary claims are made against alleged religious extremists and presented in such a way as to panic ordinary Muslims and Christians into fearing and loathing each other. “We don’t have a constitution that says one country, one religion.” The constitution says one country, diverse religions (sic!).” Why talk about what the Constitution does not say? Why not talk about what the Constitution exactly says?
Article 11 of the Ethiopian Constitution makes it crystal clear: “There shall be no state religion. The state shall not interfere in religious matters and religion shall not interfere in state affairs.”
Article 27 emphatically declares: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. No one shall be subject to coercion by force or any other means, which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”
Does it make sense to talk about what the Constitution does not say? Only if there is an ulterior motive!
“Religion is a Personal Choice; Country is a Collective Responsibility”
There are no credible Ethiopian Christian or Muslim leaders who subscribe to, endorse or in any way promote religious or political extremism of any sort. There is no evidence that any credible religious leader of any faith in Ethiopia has ever proposed a theocratic state of one religion or another. Yet, the lunatic fringe is paraded out in public as representatives of mainstream members of the Islamic and Christian faiths. But no reasonable Ethiopian would buy the “bedtime story” about some unidentified Christian or Islamic groups establishing a theocratic state of one kind or another or Al Qaeda cells poised to take over Ethiopia. The problem in Ethiopia is dictatorship, not dogma.
At the press conference, Le’ke Kahenat Mesale Engeda, a prominent exiled prelate of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Toronto, reaffirmed Christian Muslim unity and described Ethiopia’s current condition:
… Our brothers and sisters who are followers of Islam have always served to protect our country. Recorded history shows many Muslim fathers fought for and suffered in defense of our country. Muslims and Christians have lived in Ethiopia peacefully [throughout history]. When trouble rises to face the [Orthodox] Church, Muslims have risen up with us to face them. Today a Muslim leader from Toronto is standing with us. As you know, at this time in Ethiopia our Muslim brothers and sisters are facing extreme hardship… But we are all standing together…
… Our brothers and sisters who are followers of Islam have always served to protect our country. Recorded history shows many Muslim fathers fought for and suffered in defense of our country. Muslims and Christians have lived in Ethiopia peacefully [throughout history]. When trouble rises to face the [Orthodox] Church, Muslims have risen up with us to face them. Today a Muslim leader from Toronto is standing with us. As you know, at this time in Ethiopia our Muslim brothers and sisters are facing extreme hardship… But we are all standing together…
… To all members of Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church members: Do not join with the forces of darkness and whose work will not bear fruit. The great and ancient country of Ethiopia, the beacon of freedom for all Black people in the 21st Century is [facing great danger]. It is now clear to all that the woyanes [the ruling regime] environmental program [land giveaway to foreign investors] is destroying our Church and faith and reaching its ultimate stage. The woyanes’ terror and chaos has brought great shame to Ethiopia. Previously, the Church administration of Wedi Zenawi and Aba Gebremedhin [ruling party appointed head of the Ethiopian church] allied with the ruling regime has been the cause of church burnings, imprisonment, torture and killing of religious leaders. They have also caused the burning of Ziqulla monastery.
Now using the excuse of building a sugar factory, they are planning to destroy Waldeba monastery, which has been one of the major holy sites of faith and religion for our Church for over a thousand years. Waldeba is a historic and holy place. It is a place where learned church leaders have come. It is a place for which our forefathers have given up their lives in its defense. So to uproot the people in Waldeba, to create commercial farms on this holy ground and to dig up the remains of the holy fathers is a great shame… People of Ethiopia! What do you think? What do you see? What is the role of Ethiopia’s religious leaders as we stand and watch Ethiopia’s churches burning and our Faith destroyed?
Hajj Mohamed Seid, a prominent Ethiopian Muslim leader in exile in Toronto, urged strong commitment to Ethiopian unity:
… As you know Ethiopia is a country that has different religions. Ethiopia is a country where Muslims and followers of the Orthodox faith have lived and loved each other throughout recorded history. Even in our lifetimes — 50 to 60 years — we have not seen Ethiopia in so much suffering and tribulation. Religion is a private choice, but country is a collective responsibility. If there is no country, there is no religion. It is only when we have a country that we find everything. Today, Ethiopia, which has been strong in its religious faiths, has been broken up into pieces. They are trying to get Muslims and Christians to fight. They campaigned for that for a long time. But it did not work. They tried to get the Oromo to fight with the Amhara. But that did not work…. We know of only one type of Muslim in hsitory — one who honors his word. [The saying is that] when a Muslim does not stand by his word and the rain does not fall, that spells doom for the country. They have brought a new religion and are creating chaos in Ethiopia…
…As you know today is Friday. On Firday, I should be at the Mosque for prayers and not attend to secular matters. But I am here because of the situation in our country. If there is no country, it makes for a difficult time to pray and uphold religion. Churches and monasteries are respected by Muslims and Christians but Ethiopia’s foundation is religion. The [Waldeba] monastery is in a land where the pious have lived a monastic life eating the berries and leaves in the wilderness. It is not a land to be sold to China and India. Today starving people are forced to dig and shovel day and night [so that Chinese and Indian investors can profit]. This is a great shame for Ethiopians. They [the rulers in Ethiopia] have sold the land [to foreigners] and have kept the most arable land to themselves. The money from the sale is not in our country. It is in their pockets.
…. Is there an Ethiopian generation left now? The students who enrolled in the universities are demoralized; their minds are afflicted chewing khat (a mild drug) and smoking cigarettes. They [the ruling regime] have destroyed a generation. Truly, I have never read of the history of a government or administration that commits such atrocities on its people [as the one currently in Ethiopia]. If each one of us is given a full day to tell about the suffering and tribulation of the people, it would not be enough.
What greater tyranny is there than destroying religion? Is there a greater tyranny? If religion is destroyed in Ethiopia, that means Ethiopia does not exist. The only thing that is left is the name on a map. They have divided us into 9 pieces, but our land has already been sold to foreigners. They have moved their money out of the country. They are enjoying it. Their plan for us is to fly 9 flags, remain divided into 9 pieces and shoot and kill each other. That is what they have prepared for us in their program. We must not be divided by religion or ethnicity. We have the responsibility of history to keep Ethiopia united. Our children and children’s children must not remain exiled yearning for their country.
Let’s stop and think for a moment. Have you ever read in history or seen with your own eyes a regime such as the one in Ethiopia today? Therefore, Muslims and followers of other religions must submit our supplication to the Almighty our Creator. In my days in Ethiopia, there were locusts and other parasites that invaded the land. At that time, religious leaders prayed; the Muslims to Allah; the Christians prayed in the churches and monasteries. That was a time of judgment. Therefore, we have to be strong in our faiths. We have to work with greater strength to protect and defend our country. This is our obligation. Those of us living outside Ethiopia, knowing that effort is being made to destroy the younger generation, must rise up and help to the best of our abilities. It is not only financial help. You must also give moral support. We have to confer and consult with each other. We must have our cries heard. I ask all of us to pray so that Ethiopia can survive in peace and this government will be changed.
Plural Religions, One Country!
Hajj Mohammed Seid resonated a long held sentiment among Ethiopians that “religion is a private choice, but country is a collective responsibility.” Le’ke Kahenat Mesale Engeda makes an incontrovertible statement when he said, “Muslims and Christians have lived in Ethiopia peacefully [throughout history]. When trouble rises to face the [Orthodox] Church, Muslims have risen up with us to face them.” Now trouble has risen to face both Christians and Muslims. It is trouble borne of dictatorship, despotism and tyranny. It is a mortal threat to religion and country. It can only be overcome only through unity of Ethiopians across religious, ethnic, regional and linguistic lines. The example of these two religious leaders goes a long way to show us the need and importance of continuing the religious harmony between Christians and Muslims that has persisted over centuries. It also underscores the need for greater mutual understanding, reaffirmation of peaceful coexistence and the vital importance of resolute cooperation across religious lines to create a new Ethiopia where religious freedom is secure and every individual is free to exercise his/her conscience according to one’s faith.
The Price of Sectarian Strife
Recent events in Nigeria are instructive of the harmful consequences of religious strife. For decades, in many parts of Nigeria Christians and Muslims have lived together peacefully sharing customs and working cooperatively in different facets of social life. Though tensions and episodic conflicts have occurred from time to time, generally there has been peaceful coexistence between adherents of the two religions in Nigeria. Over the past decade, this peaceful coexistence has been tested severely by religious fringe groups who have launched violent attacks on houses of worship, public places and government offices. There has been much loss of innocent lives and wanton destruction of property. But Muslims and Christians often point out the fact that what appears to be sectarian strife is actually rooted in disputes over land and rights. Unscrupulous politicians have fanned the flames of sectarian hatred and exacerbated differences for their own narrow ends. The press has been blamed for sensationalizing incidents by publishing stories that breed fear and distrust in the society. But Christian and Muslim leaders have risen up to condemn the spiraling violence perpetrated by fringe groups. Last week, in an open letter to the federal government, Jama’atu Nasril Islam, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations in Nigeria, condemned the recent church bombings in Jos and Biu that killed three people and wounded 41. President Goodluck Jonathan, who happens to be a Christian, says sectarianism is destructive of the Nigerian nation. His Administration’s position is that there is no “major conflict between the Christian community and Muslim community. Retaliation is not the answer, because if you retaliate, at what point will it end? Nigeria must survive as a nation.” Ethiopia must survive as a nation!
The Unity Challenge
Christians and Muslims in Ethiopia have coexisted peacefully for centuries. No doubt, that will continue. But together they face numerous challenges imposed upon them by dictatorship. Where political leaders have failed, religious leaders could succeed. Christian and Muslim religious leaders can play a critical role in preventing conflict and in building bridges of understanding, mutual respect and collaborative working relations. They can plant the seeds of harmony, understanding, respect and love as others toil day and night to spread the seeds of hatred, discord, division, conflict and antagonism. The people need spiritual guidance to do good and act with moral probity as much as they need laws to ensure their political freedoms. When religious leaders show the way, the people will joyfully work together to build bridges of understanding and mutual respect.
In the U.S., and quite possibly in other countries, communities of faith organize “interfaith councils”. These councils bring diverse faith communities to work together to foster greater understanding and respect among people of different faiths and to address basic needs in the community. Many such councils go beyond dialogue and reflection to cooperative work in social services and implementing projects to meet community needs. They stand together to protect religious freedom by opposing discrimination and condemning debasement of religious institutions and faiths. There is no reason why Ethiopians could not establish interfaith councils of their own.
Ethiopia’s unity challenge can be effectively addressed if we practice the basic principle: “Religion is a private choice, country is a collective responsibility.” In fact, the centuries long peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians is based on this very principle. In practicing this principle today, it is our moral obligation to condemn and oppose religious and other forms of extremism by any group; but it is also the obligation of faith leaders, civic society organizations and human rights advocates to undertake public education and awareness programs on the mortal dangers of such extremism. Religious leaders in Ethiopia enjoy great trust and command the respect of the people. Where entrenched political interests promote religious antagonism, it is up to the religious leaders to preach and teach tolerance. Ethiopia’s problems do not originate from differences in theology. Ethiopia’s problems originate from those who want to use theology as Ethiopia’s eschatology (a theology of doom)!
“Religion is a private choice, but country is a collective responsibility.”
“People of Ethiopia! What do you think? What do you see? What is the role of Ethiopia’s religious leaders as we stand and watch Ethiopia’s churches burning and our Faith destroyed?”
Unity in humanity is unity in divinity!
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
Over the past few months, I have been penning occasional commentaries in a series I called “Ethiopia’s transition from dictatorship and democracy”. In my last such commentary, I argued that “on the bridge to democracy, there is often a collision between individuals and groups doggedly pursuing power, the common people tired of those who abuse and misuse power and the dictators who want to cling to power. The chaos that occurs on the transitional bridge from dictatorship to democracy creates the ideal conditions for the hijacking of political power, theft of democracy and the reinstitution of dictatorship in the name of democracy.” In this commentary, I focus on the need for constitutional “pre-dialogue” (preparatory conversations) in anticipation of some potential roadblocks on Ethiopia’s inexorable march to a constitutional democracy.
Roadblocks to Democracy
Most societies that have sought to make a transition from tyranny and dictatorship to democracy have faced challenging and complex roadblocks. After the Americans effectively ended Britain’s tyrannical rule in 1776, the 13 colonies experimented on their own until 1781 when they signed articles of confederation creating a loose political association and a national government. That effort failed because the states had reserved important powers over commerce, foreign trade and affairs to themselves and denied the national government the power to tax, raise an army or regulate trade. They overcame these and other major problems when they adopted their current constitution in 1787.
More recent history shows the extraordinary difficulties countries face in transitioning from dictatorship to democracy. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of communist regimes behind the Iron Curtain, the transition democracy has been difficult and incomplete. The wave of democratization in the Eastern Bloc countries and the former Soviet states in the 1990s lifted only a few of them into the ranks of liberal democracies with free elections, multiparty democracy, independent media and judiciary and so on. Various explanations have been offered for the stillbirth of democracy in these countries. One persuasive explanation suggests that in those countries where democracy succeeded, there were strong democratic forces with sufficient power to impose hegemony on supporters of the moribund communist dictatorships. Dictatorships reinvented themselves and reemerged in new configurations where supporters of the previous dictatorship maintained a decisive power advantage.
The “Arab Spring” that signaled the dawn of democracy in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other Middle Eastern countries today faces formidable challenges. In Egypt, the “interim” military government runs the transition to constitutional civilian rule. The sly military fox is guarding the henhouse of democracy in Egypt. Many Egyptians openly question whether the military is window dressing democracy to whisk Egypt back to the old Mubarak-style dictatorship with a democratic façade. The fact that Mubarak’s last prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, is a leading candidate (and widely perceived as shoo-in) in the presidential race in mid-June lends support to the cynical view that the more things change in Egypt, the more they remain the same. But more alarming is the fact that since the onset of the revolution in Tahrir Square in January 2011, there have been more than 12,000 Egyptians arrested and many brought to trial before military courts on a variety of questionable charges. Many respected human rights organizations have been subjected to harassment and investigation for “treason” by the state security prosecutor’s office. Is Egypt skating on the slippery slope of dictatorship?
In Tunisia, the Constitutional Assembly elected last October to draft a new Constitution within one year seems to show some hopeful signs. The most encouraging sign comes from the fact that the constitutional drafters do not seems preoccupied with time consuming divisive political issue but instead are focusing their efforts on establishing a robust constitutional structure that addresses potential abuses of power and prevent the future rise of a dictatorship. Using different “commissions”, the drafters are discussing the suitability of parliamentary or presidential systems, the structural controls needed to maintain the balance of power in the branches of government and institutionalizing legislative oversight of the executive branch, the need for a constitutional court, decentralization of power and other issues.
Libya’s progress on the road to democracy is not very encouraging. In August 2011, an anonymously published “Draft Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Stage” of Libya was circulated widely. It seemed to be a cut-and-paste job festooned with the buzzwords of Western liberal democracies about the rule of law, personal freedoms of speech and religion, multiparty democracy and so on. Other drafts are also in circulation. This past March a 60-person constitution drafting committee was appointed equally representing Libya’s three main regions. But it seems the Libyans have more urgent problems of stability and security. In the absence of an effective national army, the ragtag army of revolutionary fighters and militiamen who overthrew Gadhafi continue to clash with each other and operate in their respective areas with impunity. The silver lining in the dark constitutional cloud over Libya appears to be the existence of independent groups of Libyan lawyers, jurists, scholars, intellectuals and others hard at work preparing draft constitutions. Though such disparate efforts could contribute to the existing constitutional chaos and confusion, it could ultimately contribute to broader public awareness and participation in the constitution-making process in Libya.
Roadblocks to Constitutional Democracy in Ethiopia?
Not unlike the “Arab Spring” countries, Ethiopia will likely face the critical question of what to do with the current constitution after the fall of the ruling dictatorship. One could reasonably expect vociferous calls for the adoption of an interim constitution (assuming the military will not make a naked power grab) and establish a transitional government. The Ethiopian Constitution was originally engineered by one-man to divide, rule and control and for one party to exert total domination. Its general application has been minimal. Its provisions are systematically and routinely ignored, avoided and overlooked by the ruling dictatorship (see reference below to the recent U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Ethiopia). There is widespread dissatisfaction about its uses, misuses and abuses by the ruling party and its iron-fisted leader; and there are compelling reasons for dissatisfaction. In 2009,the International Crises Group, a highly respected non-partisan and independent organization which gives advice on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict to the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, pinpointed one of the most contentious issues that has caused wide dissatisfaction:
The EPRDF’s ethnic federalism has not dampened conflict, but rather increased competition among groups that vie over land and natural resources, as well as administrative boundaries and government budgets. Furthermore, ethnic federalism has failed to resolve the “national question”. The EPRDF’s ethnic policy has empowered some groups but has not been accompanied by dialogue and reconciliation. For Amhara and national elites, ethnic federalism impedes a strong, unitary nation-state. For ethno-national rebel groups like the ONLF (Ogaden National Liberation Front; Somalis in the Ogaden) and OLF (Oromo Liberation Front; the Oromo), ethnic federalism remains artificial.
Membership in the EPRDF [the ruling party] conferred advantages upon its members; the party directly owned many businesses and was broadly perceived to award jobs and business contracts to loyal supporters. The opposition reported that in many instances local authorities told its members to renounce their party membership and join the EPRDF if they wanted access to subsidized seeds and fertilizer; food relief; civil service job assignment, promotion, or retention; student university assignment and postgraduate employment; and other benefits controlled by the government… Some government officials appeared to manipulate the privatization process, and state- and party-owned businesses received preferential access to land leases and credit…
The law requires authorities to obtain judicial warrants to search private property; however, in practice police often ignored the law… The government reportedly used a widespread system of paid informants to report on the activities of particular individuals… Security forces continued to detain family members of persons sought for questioning by the government…The national government and regional governments continued to put in place “villagization” plans in the Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, and Somali regions… According to the [Human Rights Watch] report, security forces beat (sometimes leading to death), threatened, arrested without charge, and detained persons who were critical of planned villagization of their communities, and this caused persons to fear speaking out against the process… While the constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government did not respect these rights in practice… The government continued to arrest, harass, and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors… Students in schools and universities were indoctrinated in the core precepts of the ruling EPDRF party’s concept of ‘revolutionary democracy’…
Learning From the Mistakes and Successes of Others: Pre-Dialogue for a Constitution-Making Process in Ethiopia
If the recent history of upheavals in North Africa offers a lesson to Ethiopia, it is the fact that it will likely necessary to establish a “caretaker government” to lead in the transitional period. Such a government could facilitate governance during the transitional period, expedite the drafting of a permanent constitution and address critical political and security issues that may arise until a democratically elected government is installed. Although one could endlessly speculate on alternative scenarios in the aftermath of the fall of dictatorship in Ethiopia (including direct military intervention, installation of pre-arranged leaders by international interests, severe political strife, a “unity government”, etc.,), the important thing in my view is to start an informed constitutional conversation (a “pre-dialogue”) now, and not wait for some some dramatic event to happen to begin discussion.
One of the important lessons of the “Arab Spring” is that those who led the struggle against dictatorship had failed to seriously consider the question of who should lead the constitutional review and drafting process in the transitional period. Western nations were too eager to bridge the gap by sending their constitutional experts, specialists, scholars and tons of instructional materials on how to structure a robust democratic constitution. National stakeholders representing political parties and organizations were quickly organized as transitional governments and allowed to operate within the parameters set by the military backing them up. This approach to “democratization” has not been particularly conducive to giving voice and allowing meaningful participation by ordinary citizens, civic society and grassroots organizations. As a result, it appears the constitution-making efforts in those countries undergoing the proverbial “Spring” reflects the general desires and wishes of the elites much more than the ordinary citizens who do not have sufficient familiarity with the process or the substance of the draft constitutional provisions.
This underscores the importance of inclusiveness of all segments of society in any constitutional pre-dialogue (and dialogue) in Ethiopia and in the Ethiopian Diaspora. An elite and expert-driven dialogue which excludes or underrepresents grassroots and civil society organizations is likely to be an exercise in constitutional window-dressing. While expert and elite participation is necessary because of the technical skills required in drafting and compromises that need to be made by the major stakeholders, the debates and conflicts between political parties, organizations and leaders should not and must not be allowed to dominate or overshadow the vital need for mass public participation in the constitutional dialogue. In the “Arab Spring”, civil society and grassroots organizations, women, the youth, and other underrepresented groups have not been adequately included in the formal dialogue and will likely not be involved in the final negotiations and drafting of a new constitution. Is it not ironic that the young Egyptians who sparked the revolution and sacrificed their lives in overthrowing Mubarak now have so little voice in the drafting of the new constitution?
There are other important lessons Ethiopians can learn from the general experience of the “Arab Spring”. Public civic education on a new constitution must be provided in the transitional period. Ethiopian political parties, organizations, leaders, scholars, human rights advocates and others should undertake a systematic program of public education and mobilization for democratization and transition to a genuine constitutional democracy. They must initiate and lead broad and ongoing dialogue on the current constitution, its advantages and disadvantages and present constitutional alternatives for a new and genuinely democratic Ethiopia.
Political polarization of society is a predictable outcome in a post-dictatorship period. To overcome conflict and effect a peaceful transition, competing factions must work together, which requires the development of consensus on core values. The “Arab Spring” experience shows the difficulty in developing consensus as they seem to be bogged down in all sorts of divisive issues rooted in religion, identity, ethnicity and so on. What should be the core values of a new democratic Ethiopia? How does one transform subnational fragmentation and disintegration into national cohesion and integration?
To have a successful transition from dictatorship to constitutional democracy, Ethiopians need to practice the arts of civil discourse and negotiations. As difficult and embarrassing as it is to admit, many Ethiopian elites on all sides seem to suffer from a culture of inflexibility and zero sum gamesmanship. In other words, one has to win always, and the rest must always lose. We have seen absurd zero sum games played over the past 21 years. In May 2010, the ruling party claimed it had won 99.6 percent of the legislative seats! In 2008, the same ruling party claimed that in the local and by-elections it had won all but four of 3.4 million contested seats! A clean break from such zero sum culture and zero sum mentality is needed. Such absurdity and rigidity is also the perfect breeding ground for the re-emergence of a new dictatorship. It must be replaced by a culture of tolerance, good will, civility and respect in national dialogue.
One of the criticism aimed at the interim and transitional governments in the “Arab Spring” countries is lack of transparency in the constitution-making process. In Egypt, it seems clear that regardless of any new constitution, the military is unlikely to give up its control to civilian supremacy and risk losing its massive economic holdings in real estate and the services sector. In a transitional period, the public is often left in the dark about the constitution drafting process process and transitional governments tend to be somewhat secretive about their activities. In Libya, political activists in major cities have held demonstrations demanding more transparency in the transitional council’s decision-making process.
The absence of transparency diminishes public confidence and increases popular cynicism. Broad citizen engagement is one of the most effective ways of maximizing transparency. Ethiopian political parties and organizations, civic and grassroots organizations, advocacy groups and the independent press could play a decisive role in promoting and maintaining transparency in the constitutional dialogue and constitution making process. They could play important roles in educating and informing the public and by monitoring official activities to safeguard against manipulation and underhandedness by those entrusted with drafting the constitution.
Kenya’s Constitutional Model for Ethiopia?
Kenya’s constitutional reform in the aftermath of the crises in the 2007-07 presidential elections has been praised by various international organizations and governments. The Kenyans formed a “national unity” government before embarking on a constitutional drafting process. Most independent commentators have noted the inclusiveness and transparency of the constitution drafting process, the extensive consultations among stakeholders, the wide availability of constitutional civic education and the high level of civic engagement. The new constitution adopted in 2010 makes significant changes by imposing constitutional limits on executive power, replacement of powerful provincial governments with smaller counties, a citizens’ Bill of Rights and a landcommission to return stolen property and review past abuses, among others. The Constitution was approved by 70 percent of the Kenyan electorate.
The Search of a Democratic Constitution and a Constitutional Democracy in Ethiopia
The search for a democratic constitution and the goal of a constitutional democracy in Ethiopia will be a circuitous, arduous and challenging task. But it can be done! My views on the subject are pretty straightforward: A constitution is the supreme law of the land, which simply means that it is the fountainhead of all laws and all other laws in the land are subordinate to it. A constitution is fundamentally a limitation on government (not an empowerment of government). I think of it as the people’s iron chain leash on the “government dog”. The shorter the leash, the better and safter it is for the dog’s masters. A constitution is also the sword that guarantees individual liberties and human rights against abuse by those exercising power. Only when those who are entrusted with the sacred duty of governance are put on a short leash and guarded by an independent judiciary wielding the sword of accountability will there be a true constitutional democracy in Ethiopia.
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
At the recent 2012 G8 Food Security Summit in Washington, D.C., Abebe Gellaw, a young Washington-based Ethiopian journalist, stood up in the gallery and thunderously proclaimed to dictator Meles Zenawi, “… Food is nothing without freedom…” Is he right?
When President Obama invited the leaders of Ghana, Tanzania, Benin and Zenawi to the Summit on May 18, few expected any meaningful outcomes. A White House statement on the Summit declared: “The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is a shared commitment to achieve sustained and inclusive agricultural growth and raise 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years by aligning the commitments of Africa’s leadership to drive effective country plans and policies for food security; the commitments of private sector partners to increase investments where the conditions are right; and the commitments of the G-8 to expand Africa’s potential for rapid and sustainable agricultural growth.” To implement the “New Alliance” and spark a Green Revolution in Africa, dozens of global food companies, including multinational giants Cargill, Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft, Unilever, Syngenta AG, have signed a “Private Sector Declaration of Support for African Agricultural Development”.
The vast majority of Ethiopians eke out a living as smallholder farmers. According to a 2010 USAID report, eight of every ten Ethiopians live in rural areas with average land holdings of 0.93 hectare. A 2011 report by the Oakland Institute(OI) stated that Zenawi’s regime has “transferred at least 3,619,509 ha of land to investors, although the actual number may be higher.” These “lease” transfers (for 99 years) are handed out to companies from India, China, Saudi Arabia and 36 other countries for pennies per hectare. The OI further reported that “displacement from farmland is widespread, and the vast majority of locals receive no compensation.” The displaced farmers who have lost their ancestral lands to “leases” are mostly indigenous minority peoples.
In 2011, Africa imported $50 billion worth of food from the U.S. and Europe. Food prices in Africa are 200-300 percent higher than global prices, which means higher profit margins for multinationals that produce and distribute food. With a steady growth in global population, the prospect of transforming Africa into vast commercialized farms is mouthwatering for global agribusinesses. The “New Alliance for Food Security” will accelerate at warp speed the “transfer” of hundreds of millions of hectares of arable African land to Cargill, Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft, Unilever, Syngenta AG and the dozens of other signatory multinationals. Working jointly with Africa’s corrupt dictators, these multinationals will “liberate” the land from Africans just like the 19th Century scramble for Africa; but will they liberate Africa from the scourge of hunger, famine, starvation and poverty?
A Brief Lesson in African History
In 1894, fourteen European and other countries including the U.S. (the “G-14” of the era) held a land grab conference in Berlin to “save” the Dark Continent. The publicity cover for the conference was the liberation of Africa from the slave trade and the need to undertake a civilizing mission. To that end, the Berlin Conference passed hollow resolutions. But the real agenda was to carve up Africa between the European powers peacefully and without the need for internecine imperialistic wars. The Scramble for Africa gave Britain a nice slice of Africa stretching from Cape-to-Cairo. France gobbled up much of western Africa. King Leopold II of Belgium took personal possession of the Congo. Portugal grabbed Mozambique and Angola. Italy snagged Somalia and laid claim to parts of Ethiopia.
Ironically, the G-8’s “New Alliance” smacks of the old Scramble for Africa. The G-8 wants to liberate Africa from hunger, famine and starvation by facilitating the handover of millions of hectares of Africa’s best land to global multinationals in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, Mali, Senegal, Tanzania, Sudan, Nigeria and Ghana, among others. Is history repeating itself in Africa? Only the people of Madagascar have been able to successfully fight back and rescue their country from the clutches of the international land grabbers by dumping their president.
Ethiopian Hunger Games
When it comes to famine and starvation in Ethiopia, the standard response by the ruling regime and its international donors is to deny, evade and sugarcoat the whole thing in clever euphemisms (calling it “severe malnutrition, “food insecurity”, etc.; see my commentary, African Hunger Games at Camp David ), blame droughts and natural forces and endlessly supply food handouts. Bad governance, dictatorships and corruption are rarely blamed for the predictable and recurrent famines and starvation in Ethiopia.
Last week, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) in Ethiopia announced that “3.2 million people are food insecure in Ethiopia” and that it needs an additional US$183 million to provide emergency assistance. At the same time, Mitiku Kassa, Zenawi’s official responsible for agriculture, blamed the “food insecurity” on drought: “Irregularity in rainfall seasons resulting in problems of such a kind is not a new thing to us. We faced it last year and a year before that and we are managing it so far… The country has enough resources and mechanisms in place to deal with it this time, though.” The mechanism in place is beggary proficiently practiced as a high art form by Zenawi’s regime over the past two decades. A little over a month ago, the U.S. pledged to provide nearly $200 million in additional humanitarian aid to Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. In 2011, the U.S. provided more than $1.1 billion in humanitarian aid. Ethiopia received more than US$3 billion in 2008, making that country the largest recipient of development aid in Africa.
To say that Ethiopia will continue to face chronic “food insecurity” is like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow. “Food insecurity” (a/k/a famine) in Ethiopia is expected to reach biblical proportions by 2050. In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau made the catastrophic prediction that Ethiopia’s population by 2050 will more than triple to 278 million. That did not stop Zenawi from declaring a crushing victory on famine in 2011: “We have devised a plan which will enable us to produce surplus and be able to feed ourselves by 2015 without the need for food aid.” Zenawi’s plan to “produce surplus” is to stretch out cupped palms for handouts of crumbs left over from exports by Karuturi Global, Saudi Star, Cargill, Monsanto… and the rest.
It is manifest that with the “New Alliance”, the U.S. and the other G8 countries have willfully blinded themselves to the moral hazard of endlessly aiding famine victims in Africa and unashamedly accepted the moral bankruptcy of endlessly aiding African dictators. It is axiomatic for them that providing endless handouts to impoverished and famished Africans is their divinely ordained “burden”, to borrow a word from the poet Rudyard Kipling who romanticized British colonialism. But they are now playing a far more sophisticated and deadly “hunger game” in Africa. They want to use multinational food conglomerates to “save” Africa from starvation by 1) subsidizing these giant agribusinesses to dump their agricultural surpluses in famine-stricken African countries, and 2) by greasing the hands of Africa’s corrupt dictators so that these multinationals could “lease” hundreds of millions of acres of Africa’s most arable land to cultivate export crops that command high prices on the global commodities markets, without contributing much to the domestic African market to alleviate endemic hunger. The “New Alliance” is a brilliant strategy that will sustain the decades long vicious cycle of dependence and food aid addiction in Africa while displacing and severely undercutting the productive capacity of the African smallholder farmers to deal with famine on their own.
Keeping Them Honest!
It is noteworthy that few in the mainstream U.S. or international media paid any attention to the proceedings of the “New Alliance” food Summit. Even the international humanitarian organizations thought it was a publicity stunt. Oxfam was dismissive: “The New Alliance is neither new nor a true alliance. The rhetoric invokes small-scale producers, particularly women, but the plan must do more to bring them to the table.” ActionAid was instructive: “While the New Alliance touts the role of the private sector, as President Obama said, this must include even the smallest African cooperatives. The real innovators in African agriculture are women smallholder farmers. Any private sector partnership to improve food security must place them and African civil society at the center.”
What needs special attention is the basic approach to “food security” that was discussed and not discussed at the summit. Rajiv SHAH, the USAID Administrator and moderator of the food security Summit directing his remarks to Zenawi said:
… So many people have associated a mental image of hunger with Ethiopia and at the same time because of actions in the public sector maintaining strong public investment in agriculture you were able to protect millions of Ethiopians during the recent drought from needing food aid and food assistance. Could you speak to, even as we are launching a new food alliance, to engage the private sector, could you speak to some of the comments you have shared with us privately how important it is we live to our commitments to invest in public investment, in public institutions?
Zenawi responded:
Ultimately, agricultural transformation in Africa is going to be a partnership between the smallholder farmer and the private sector. But the most important actor here is the smallholder farmer that 70 percent of [interruption by Abebe Gellaw calling Zenawi “a dictator…”] 70 percent of the population in Africa is smallholder farmers, so without transforming their livelihoods there is no future for agriculture in Africa. So at this stage the role of the private sector can only be to supplement the small scale farmer. There is the issue of rural roads, water supply systems, irrigation infrastructure. All of these require public investment; and yes, we need more of it. But we also need public investment. We in Africa are doing all we can, as I said, most of our countries are moving towards 10 percent of their budgets invested in agriculture; but we need partnerships. This morning the President [Obama] was talking about the L’Aquila Initiative with $22 billion of money promised. We want the money promised delivered as the President was saying. We need that for public investment in infrastructure. We also need the developed countries to do something about trade because when you subsidize your farmers, our farmers who cannot be subsidized by our poor governments cannot compete. In the European Union, for example, every cow earns about $2 per day. Now that is more than the average African farmer gets and so if the subsidies were to be dealt with, we could have a better way of trading out of poverty.
Khan’s assertion that Zenawi by “maintaining strong public investment in agriculture [was] able to protect millions of Ethiopians during the recent drought from needing food aid and food assistance” is simply a statement made in reckless disregard for the truth, and arguably borders on a patent falsehood. The fact of the matter is that USAID is clueless about its agricultural programs in Ethiopia, according to the audit report of the Office of the Inspector General of USAID (March 2010, at p. 1):
The audit was unable to determine whether the results reported in USAID/Ethiopia’s Performance Plan and Report were valid because agricultural program staff could neither explain how the results were derived nor provide support for those results. Indeed, when the audit team attempted to validate the reported results by tracing from the summary amounts to the supporting detail, it was unable to do so at either the mission or its implementing partners… In the absence of a complete and current performance management plan, USAID/Ethiopia is lacking an important tool for monitoring and managing the implementation of its agricultural program.
In cases where USAID has been served with credible allegations of misuse of humanitarian and development aid for political purposes, it has turned a blind eye, deaf ears and muted lips. In 2009, the U.S. State Department, under which the USAID operates as the agency primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid, promised to investigate allegations that “$850 million in food and anti-poverty aid from the U.S. is being distributed on the basis of political favoritism by the current prime minister’s party.” No report has been issued.
Khan and Zenawi can talk about “public investment” and the “smallholder farmer” until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that neither Ethiopia nor the rest of Africa can achieve food sufficiency by tethering predatory multinational corporations with corrupt African dictators in a new “alliance for food security” and and strapping them around the necks of Africa’s smallholder farmers. A joint venture between jackals and hyenas will never benefit the gazelles.
There are some simple questions that need to be asked about Ethiopia’s hunger games: Could Ethiopia reasonably expect to achieve food security when its citizens are prohibited by law from owning agricultural (for that matter all) land? Does it make sense to hand out the country’s most arable land to “foreign investors” to produce food for export and ensure food security in other countries when Ethiopians are dying from starvation? Could Ethiopia reasonably expect to be saved from famine, starvation or “chronic food insecurity” by Karuturi, Saudi Star, Cargill, Dupont and the rest of the vampiric leeches? Does the smallholder Ethiopian farmer scratching out a living on 0.93 hectare stand a snowball’s chance in hell against Karuturi, Saudi Star, Cargill, Dupont…? Is the ultimate destiny of the smallholder African farmer to be a consumer of food produced by global agricultural multinationals instead of being a local producer and harvester of his/her own food?
Zenawi has adamantly opposed private ownership of land, which by all expert accounts is the single most important factor in ensuring food security in any nation. In 2000, Zenawi said (and has repeatedly taken similar positions since):
I have not heard of any truly convincing reason as to why we should privatize land ownership at this stage. I have not heard of any economic rationale for doing so. If there were to be an overwhelming economic rationale to do it and ultimately that would be the best way of securing the interests of our peasant farmer and therefore politically that would be our agenda… But at the same time we do not have any illusions as to what land ownership can do to the peasant farmer over the long-term. We do not believe that the long-term future and destiny of our peasant farmers is to be stuck in the mud, so to speak. We feel that ultimately there has to be industrialization,ultimately these people have to find to get employment outside agriculture.
In 2012, Zenawi pontificates about the need to “transform the livelihoods Africa’s smallholder farmers” through “public investment” and predicts “there is no future for agriculture in Africa.” He just does not get it! There can be no smallholder farmer when there is no land to have and to hold. The smallholder Ethiopian farmer that Zenawi talks about is no better than the sharecropper or the tenant farmer. When the smallholder farmer is arbitrarily evicted from his land because he refuses to support Zenawi’s regime, denied fertilizer because he voted for the opposition or is put on the blacklist and watched day and night by hordes of informants because he wants to remain politically independent, he is no longer a smallholder farmer. He becomes a landless, hopeless, helpless, restless, hapless, rootless, voiceless and powerless panhandler of international food aid. Without the small holder farmer, not only is there not a future for agriculture in Africa, there is no future for Africa itself!
USAID, Ethiopia’s largest donor, in its 2010 report (perhaps unread by Khan), makes the simple point that effective agricultural development and long-term food security requires “100% ownership and buy-in by the Ethiopian people”. But instead of a “buy in”, Zenawi has pursued a relentless and ruthless policy of kick out, resulting in the displacement and confiscation of ancestral lands from countless small holder farmers. Now, Zenawi rubs his hands with glee to swipe his cut of the $22 billion promised in the L’Aquila Initiative. That is all he cares about!
Food is Nothing Without Freedom!
Ethiopia’s four-decade old dependence on humanitarian food aid will continue and worsen. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child provide that it is the natural right of all people to have access to food. But under Zenawi, Ethiopians face a double whammy: A insatiable hunger for food and an unquenchable thirst for freedom, democracy and human rights. Ethiopians suffer from hunger and thirst because they are victims of a ruthless dictatorship!
In 2007, speaking at the World Food Day, President Horst Köhler of Germany made the following extraordinarily insightful statement:
Hunger is not an inescapable destiny, but can be eliminated by wise policies. This requires first and foremost that the governments of the developing countries make food security for their populace a priority goal…. Democratic participation by the people is the best guarantee that governments will genuinely understand people’s basic needs and will take these into account. As the Indian Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has so aptly said, in countries where there are no elections and there is no opposition, governments do not need to worry about political fallout from their failure to eradicate poverty…. Good governance and a functioning executive are absolutely crucial for an economic policy that is geared to the needs of the people and will help to eradicate poverty…
Who can seriously expect a smallholder to invest his savings in his farm and machinery if he fears he may be thrown off the land at any time?… Excessive long-term help from outside can stifle the recipients’ initiative and frequently even results in aid-dependency. …Hunger is above all the result of political mistakes – in the developing countries as in the industrialized nations. To conquer hunger in our globalized world we need an honest, reliable and partnership-based development policy that spans the entire planet…
Perhaps President Obama could begin a new alliance for food security based on honesty and a genuine commitment to fundamental democratic principles that could help alter permanently Africa’s destiny as the beggar continent. The real solution to famine in Ethiopia lies in nourishing the emaciated Ethiopian body politic with clean elections, accountability, transparency, open political space and robust human rights protections. In 2009, he lamented, “There is no reason why Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food. I have family members who live in villages — they themselves are not going hungry — but live in villages where hunger is real.” President Obama should remind Zenawi and the rest of the African gang of dictators that though man does not live by bread alone, a hungry man in the village is an angry man!
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/amharic/?author=57
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
My reference to Hancock’s book above is not merely academic. I have been following reports on therecently announced $1.54 billion USAID assistance program in Ethiopia and studying other USAID reports on Ethiopia in light of Hancock’s arguments or hypotheses on the role of “international aid” in “legitimizing brutal tyrannies in Africa”. Is there an unhealthy bonding between dictators and donors?
The Triumph of Lies
The Sky is Falling!
Over the past few months, I have been penning occasional commentaries in a series I called “Ethiopia’s transition from dictatorship and democracy”. 
At the recent 2012 G8 Food Security Summit in Washington, D.C., Abebe Gellaw, a young Washington-based Ethiopian journalist, stood up in the gallery and thunderously proclaimed to dictator Meles Zenawi, “… Food is nothing without freedom…” Is he right?
In 1894, fourteen European and other countries including the U.S. (the “G-14” of the era) held a land grab conference in Berlin to “save” the Dark Continent. The publicity cover for the conference was the liberation of Africa from the slave trade and the need to undertake a civilizing mission. To that end, the Berlin Conference passed hollow resolutions. But the real agenda was to carve up Africa between the European powers peacefully and without the need for internecine imperialistic wars. The Scramble for Africa gave Britain a nice slice of Africa stretching from Cape-to-Cairo. France gobbled up much of western Africa. King Leopold II of Belgium took personal possession of the Congo. Portugal grabbed Mozambique and Angola. Italy snagged Somalia and laid claim to parts of Ethiopia.
It is noteworthy that few in the mainstream U.S. or international media paid any attention to the proceedings of the “New Alliance” food Summit. Even the international humanitarian organizations thought it was a publicity stunt. Oxfam was dismissive: “The New Alliance is neither new nor a true alliance. The rhetoric invokes small-scale producers, particularly women, but the plan must do more to bring them to the table.” ActionAid was instructive: “While the New Alliance touts the role of the private sector, as President Obama said, this must include even the smallest African cooperatives. The real innovators in African agriculture are women smallholder farmers. Any private sector partnership to improve food security must place them and African civil society at the center.”