Donald Payne Was a Drum Major for Democracy and Human Rights
Grassroots Ethiopian human rights groups and activists have been stunned by the death last week of Donald Payne, our strongest ally and advocate in the U.S. Congress. His passing marks a major setback to the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia and Africa. But Don Payne has left us a rich legacy of human rights advocacy and legislative action spanning over two decades. It is now our burden — indeed our moral duty — to build, to expand and to deliver on that legacy.
Over the past week, many Ethiopians who have worked with Don Payne and followed his labor of love in Ethiopia and Africa over the years have been asking what Diaspora Ethiopians could do individually or as a community to honor his memory and legacy. They all have great ideas: We should set up a scholarship fund in his name at his alma mater. We should sponsor a human rights conference in his name. We should contribute money in his name to his favorite charity. We should have a special occasion named in his honor. We should have a special memorial church service for him and so on.
These are commendable things to do in his memory; but I believe the greatest honor we can bestow upon our friend Donald Payne is to deliver on his rich legacy with steely resolve. Don Payne’s legacy is the active promotion of democracy and human rights in Africa. His singular legacy in Ethiopia is his unrelenting effort to link human rights to such core American values as the rule of law, accountability and transparency.
Donald Payne lived a life of public service both in his congressional district in New Jersey and in his larger “continental district” of Africa. He crisscrossed the continent to stand up and speak up for Africa’s voiceless, faceless and namelesswho continue to suffer in quiet desperation under ruthless dictatorships. He never sought public recognition or accolade for what he did for Africans and in Africa. He never compalined about the hardships and risks he faced, and patiently deflected the slings and arrows of African dictators who never missed an opportunity to vilify and denounce him for his unwavering stand on democracy and human rights.
Don Payne was a person Dr. Martin Luther King would have described as a drum major for justice, for peace and for righteousness. We know him to be a drum major (leader) for democracy, human rights and freedom in Africa. He was a drum major for free and fair elections in Ethiopia. He was a drum major for an independent judiciary and for press freedom. He was a drum major for the unconditional release of all Ethiopian political prisoners from secret and regular prisons. He was a drum major for stability, democracy, and economic development in the Horn of Africa. He was a drum major for humanitarian assistance and economic development of Africa. He was a drum major for strengthening Ethio-American relations and collaboration in the war on terror. Donald Payne was a drum major for democracy and accountability in Ethiopia.
Delivering on Don Payne’s Legacy
Delivering on Don Payne’s legacy is delivering on America’s human rights promises in Africa, and particularly in Ethiopia. In December 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton clearly set out the foundations of American human rights policy. She said “the idea of human rights and freedoms” is not a “slogan mocked by half the world” and “it must not be mere froth floating on the subsiding waters of faith.” Human rights are universal values. There are no Ethiopian, African, European, American or other national forms of human rights. “Democracy, freedom, human rights have come to have a definite meaning to the people of the world which we must not allow any nation to so change that they are made synonymous with suppression and dictatorship.” Secretary Clinton urged that the “basis of the new world order must be universal respects for human rights.” Those rights “are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.” These rights are the bedrock principles of human existence anywhere. “Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom of assembly–these are not just abstract ideals to us; they are tools with which we create a way of life, a way of life in which we can enjoy freedom.”
The key to democracy is the opportunity for people to make a free choice about their system of governance. Secretary Clinton said, “ The final expression of the opinion of the people with us is through free and honest elections, with valid choices on basic issues and candidates.” These principles are not mere platitudes; they are principles to be preserved, promoted and defended. In countries whose “governments are able but unwilling to make the changes their citizens deserve”, Secretary Clinton said, America “must vigorously press leaders to end repression, while supporting those within societies who are working for change… and support those courageous individuals and organizations who try to protect people and who battle against the odds to plant the seeds for a more hopeful future.” She proclaimed that there are four pillars that support the Obama Administration’s human rights policy:
First, a commitment to human rights starts with universal standards and with holding everyone accountable to those standards, including ourselves…. Second, we must be pragmatic and agile in pursuit of our human rights agenda, not compromising on our principles, but doing what is most likely to make them real…. When we run up against a wall we will not retreat with resignation but respond with strategic resolve to find another way to effect change and improve people’s lives…. Third, we support change driven by citizens and their communities. The project of making human rights a human reality cannot be just a project for governments. It requires cooperation among individuals and organizations—within communities and across borders—who are committed to securing lives of dignity for all who share the bonds of humanity…. Fourth, we will not forget that positive change must be reinforced and strengthened where hope is on the rise and… where human lives hang in the balance we must do what we can to tilt that balance toward a better future.
Holding the Obama Administration Accountable for Human Rights
Secretary Clinton said that human rights accountability begins at home with “ourselves”. What has the Obama Administration done to preserve, protect and promote human rights in Africa in general and particularly Ethiopia? What did the U.S. do when Meles Zenawi claimed electoral victory of 99.6 percent in May 2010? Has the U.S. “vigorously pressed” Zenawi to hold free and fair elections? HAs the U.S. sought the release the thousands of political prisoners languishing in Zenawi’s secret and regular prisons? What did the U.S. do when Zenawi decimated the independent press in Ethiopia one by one and electronically jammed the Amharic broadcasts of the Voice of America to Ethiopia?
Responding With Strategic Resolve
Secretary Clinton said that “when we run up against a wall” of repression and see human rights trashed, “we will not retreat with resignation but respond with strategic resolve” to help victims of abuse. In his Statement celebrating World Press Freedom Day (May 2010), President Obama said, “Last year was a bad one for the freedom of the press worldwide. While people gained greater access than ever before to information through the Internet, cell phones and other forms of connective technologies, governments like Ethiopia… curtailed freedom of expression by limiting full access to and use of these technologies.” Today, Zenawi’s regime has gone beyond limiting access to “connective technologies” to shuttering newspapers and disconnecting broadcasts of the Voice of America from the people of Ethiopia. Has the U.S. responded with “strategic resolve” when it ran smack against Zenawi’s stonewall of press repression and free expression in Ethiopia?
Supporting Change Driven by Citizens and Their Communities
Secretary Clinton said that “human rights” cannot become “a human reality” unless it is possible for “individuals and organizations within communities and across borders” to work cooperatively in the cause of human rights. In February 2010, U.S. Undersecretary of State Maria Otero raised concerns with Zenawi over the so-called civil society organization law which Otero asserted “threatened the role of civil society” in Ethiopia. According to one report, as a result of this “law”, the “the number of CSOs [civil society organizations] has been reduced from about 4600 to about 1400 in a period of three months in early 2010. Staff members have been reduced by 90% or more among many of those organizations that survive according to my informants.” What has the U.S. done to “support citizen driven change” in Ethiopia as CSOs are wiped out?What has the U.S. done to support “courageous individuals and organizations” in Ethiopia, including civic society and human rights organizations, “who try to protect people”?
Tilting the Balance Toward a Better Future
Secretary Clinton said the U.S. will weigh in and work towards a better future “where hope is on the rise and human lives hang in the balance”. In the May 2010 election, the U.S. had an opportunity to help steer Ethiopia towards a better future. Immediately after the election, the U.S. issued a strong statement:
We have a broad and comprehensive relationship with Ethiopia, but we have expressed our concerns on democracy and governance directly to the government… Measures the Ethiopian government take following these elections will influence the future direction of US-Ethiopian relations… To the extent that Ethiopia values the relationship with the United States, then we think they should heed this very direct and strong message… We will continue to engage this government, but we will make clear that there are steps that it needs to take to improve democratic institutions.
Nearly two years after that election, countless numbers of individuals have been detained under a so-called anti-terrorism law, the independent press has been stamped out and a full-fledged police state established. Is the U.S. tilting the balance in Ethiopia toward a better future or bending it backwards to perpetuate a vicious cycle of the past into the present?
H.R. 2003- Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act Redux
Long before Secretary Clinton eloquently articulated America’s human rights policy, Donald Payne, and before him another New Jersey Congressman, Christopher Smith, were toiling away to make it a reality. In fact, H.R. 2003 (passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in October 2007) neatly and effortlessly combined all four pillars of the Obama Administration’s human rights policy. It is precisely the type of legislative action that could give real teeth to the lofty words of Secretary Clinton.
We can best honor Don Payne’s life and his legacy of human rights by re-committing ourselves to the re-introduction and passage of a bill that incorporates all of the elements of H.R. 2003. What was in H.R. 2003? The Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, summarized that the bill is intended to
(1) support human rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; (2) collaborate with Ethiopia in the Global War on Terror; (3) seek the release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia; (4) foster stability, democracy, and economic development in the region; (5) support humanitarian assistance efforts, especially in the Ogaden region; and (6) strengthen U.S.-Ethiopian relations.
Human rights accountability legislation for Ethiopia began in earnest in the U.S. Congress following the officially documented massacre of at least 193 victims and wounding of 763 others in the afteramth of the May 2005 elections. In November 2005, Congressman Christopher Smith of New Jersey, then-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, introduced H.R. 4423 (“Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005”). That bill focused on, among other things, the use of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and provision of resources to Ethiopia to support civil society institutions, independent human rights monitoring and democratic capacity building for political parties, police and security personnel, development assistance for the construction of dams and irrigation systems and suspension of joint security activities until certification is made that Ethiopia is observing international human rights standards. H.R. 4423 morphed into H.R. 5680 (“Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006”). In 2007 when Congressman Payne chaired the Africa Subcommittee, the bill was renumbered to H.R. 2003 (“Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007”) and passed the House in October. It is manifest that the legislative language and provisions in H.R. 2003 offer the perfect vehicle for effective implementation of all four pillars of U.S. human rights policy in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa.
In concluding her human rights policy speech, Secretary Clinton described the work that is required to protect human rights with special poingancy:
In the end, this isn’t just about what we do; it’s about who we are. And we cannot be the people we are — people who believe in human rights—if we opt out of this fight. Believing in human rights means committing ourselves to action. When we sign up for the promise of rights that apply everywhere, to everyone, the promise of rights that protect and enable human dignity, we also sign up for the hard work of making that promise a reality.
Upon the death of Congressman Payne, we can rekindle life in H.R. 2003 and finally transform lofty words into practical and concrete actions that will advance American human rights policy in Ethiopia and Africa. We can certainly “opt out of the fight” for human rights in Ethiopia, but then we cannot pretend to believe in human rights. Or we can “sign up” to continue the fight for human rights and human dignity in Ethiopia.
Fighting for a bill patterend after H.R. 2003 will not be an easy task or a fair fight. It will be a steep uphill battle for us as the commanding heights are controlled by some of the mightiest lobbyists in the world who will defend any tinpot dictator for $50,000 a month. Fighting against a formidable invisible army of highly paid lobbyists from “K” Street who lurk and silently creep on the granite floors of Congress to peddle their influence will be very hard. But we faced off with that Army last time on Capitol Hill; and against all odds, we managed to win approval of H.R. 2003 in the House.But fighting in the cause of justice and righteousness has never been easy. It is always hard, very hard. So now Ethiopians, particularly those in the U.S., face a simple choice: sign up for the hard work — to do the heavy lifting — to make Donald Payne’s dream of an Ethiopia democracy and accountability act a reality; or “opt out of the fight” by cutting and running.
Keep Don Payne’s promise of an Ethiopia democracy and accountability act alive!
How does one say farewell to a great friend of Ethiopia and Africa? Representative Donald Payne, the dean of New Jersey’s House delegation and the first black congressman elected to represent New Jersey, died at age 77 from colon cancer on Tuesday. He was elected to 12 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and served on various committees including Education and Workforce and Foreign Affairs committees. He chaired the Subcommittee on Africa for a number of years. His passing marks a great loss for the cause of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia and Africa.
Rep. Payne’s commitment to Africa was legendary. In 2008 he played a central role in the Congressional authorization of up to $48 billion over 5 years to fight HIV/AIDS, a substantial portion of it going to Africa. In 2005, he successfully led the effort to enact the Darfur Genocide Accountability Act aimed at imposing sanctions against perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, Sudan. In 2002, he played a key role in the passage of the Sudan Peace Act, which helped to end the war in Sudan and peacefully transition South Sudan into nationhood. Rep. Payne was one of champions of the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (2000) which promotes African economic development and trade with the US. He has sponsored or co-sponsored dozens of bills to help African countries get debt relief, increased peacekeeping support, expanded agriculture programs and better access to safe drinking water and educational opportunities for millions of children.
Rep. Payne travelled to the most conflict–ridden parts of Africa to visit refugees, victims of genocide and terrorism at some risk to his personal safety. In April 2009, Rep. Payne’s plane was attacked at Mogadishu airport as he prepared to leave the country. The extremist group al-Shabaab took responsibility. Republican and democratic presidents have tapped his expertise in international affairs. President George W. Bush appointed Rep. Payne as one of two congressional delegates to the United Nations in 2003 and 2005. Rep. Payne led a delegation to Rwanda to help resolve some of the critical political and humanitarian crises facing that country. President Bill Clinton invited Rep. Payne as one of five members of Congress to accompany him on his historic six-nation tour of Africa.
Rep. Payne was a pain in the neck of many of Africa’s dictators. According to Wikileaks, in June 2009, at a meeting in Harare, Rep. Payne challenged Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe on a variety of human rights issues and pointedly charged that Mugabe’s “government now allows police to beat black women who dare protest.” According to the report, “As Payne confronted him, Mugabe sank into the couch and appeared expressionless and somewhat stunned.” But Rep. Payne did not relent: “Payne continued by commenting that citizens have a right to agitate and governments have a duty to protect them. He noted that Mugabe started as a civil agitator and spent 11 years in prison for it. ‘I was a civil agitator, too. I wouldn’t be in congress if I hadn’t been a civil agitator.’”
In December 2011, Payne expressed outrage over a decision by the U.S. Treasury Department to issue a license to a DC lobbyist to represent the Republic of Sudan in legal matters. He fumed:
It is absolutely unacceptable that the U.S. has allowed a murderer like Omar Hassan Bashir to hire a Washington emissary to do his bidding. Bashir is an internationally indicted war criminal for the atrocities he perpetrated in Darfur. In the months following South Sudan’s independence this July, Bashir and his thugs have attacked the border regions of Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile and Abyei… Bashir has blocked humanitarian organizations from accessing the region to provide lifesaving food and health services to his victims… The $20,000 per month that Bashir is spending on a Washington lobbyist could be better spent on providing humanitarian support to the people of Darfur, Abyei, Southern Kordofan, and Blue Nile, and on promoting democracy and human rights throughout Sudan.
When Laurent Gbagbo plunged his country into anarchy last year following his loss in the elections, and the African Union twiddled its thumbs, Rep. Payne demanded action:
Gbagbo and his regime and its supporters are waging a continuing campaign of terror against large numbers of Ivoirians… Gbagbo is clearly willing to push his country and its neighbors into a state of political anarchy and economic disarray in order to maintain his grasp on political power… Ivoirians are fighting—and dying, just as citizens in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya—to protect these rights. The world must not turn a blind eye to their struggles or wait until the country plunges into civil war to respond to this crisis.
Donald Payne and Ethiopia
Rep. Payne was a very special friend of Ethiopia. He strove for years to help improve the human rights situation in that poor country. He was the chief architect of H.R. 2003: Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007. The Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan research arm of the U.S. Congress summarized H.R. 2003’s five policy objectives in Ethiopia as follows: (1) support the advancement of human rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development; (2) the unconditional release of all political prisoners in Ethiopia; foster stability, democracy, and economic development in the Horn region; (4) support humanitarian assistance efforts, especially in the Ogaden region; (5) promote U.S.-Ethiopia collaboration in the Global War on Terror; and (6) generally strengthen Ethio-America relations.
In October 2007, days following the passage of H.R. 2003 in the House, former Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia Vicki Huddleston, in an article title, “Ethiopia: Voting for HR 2003 was Wrong”, backhandedly lambasted Rep. Payne for his leadership on HR 2003 while ferociously defending Zenawi’s regime:
The Ethiopian government will reject H.R. 2003 as a naive and unhelpful interference in its internal affairs. They will rightly complain that it fails to recognize the considerable progress they have made in growing political space and opening the economy. They will correctly point out that H.R. 2003 is not evenhanded because it sides with leaders of Ethiopia’s opposition, whom the government recently pardoned and released from prison at the behest of the international community. Worse, H.R. 2003 will be used by Ethiopia’s enemies to fan intolerance in this nation of 77 million Christians and Muslims who until recently lived together peacefully.
But two weeks prior to House passage of the that bill, Rep. Payne had offered an olive branch to Zenawi’s regime and demonstrated his good will to work with them in improving human rights:
We are urging the [Ethiopian] government to release political prisoners… We are hoping that this legislation [HR 2003] will assist in as many things as are positive for Ethiopia in health care, democracy building, judicial reform… and we would like for them [Zenawi’s regime] to be our allies but we can’t have people who disregard human rights… So I think it is a good day for America and a good day for Ethiopia [to get the bill enacted].
In September 2008, Zenawi’s regime accused Rep. Payne of “tarnish[ing] Ethiopia’s image and damag[ing] the good relations between Ethiopia and the United States.” The regime claimed that by focusing on Ethiopia and ignoring other neighboring countries with poor human rights record, Rep. Payne showed that he is driven less by “any concern for human rights than by his own personal anti-Ethiopian agenda.” Rep. Payne avoided personal attacks and always focused on the critical issues of human rights and democracy and finding a middle ground. In 2009, Rep. Payne struck a conciliatory tone with Zenawi’s regime while insisting on basic principles:
Ethiopia is a very important country. We should attempt to have good relations with them. However, I would hope the current administration would tell Prime Minister Meles [Zenawi] that for good relations [with the United States] you have to stop the dictatorial policies. You can’t arrest people without cause. You can’t have the corruption that goes on… You can’t have courts that are unjust, and Meles Zenawi should stop military attacks on the unarmed civilians of the Ogaden region.”
Rep. Payne was able to impact African policy so effectively because he had the support of many knowledgeable staffers and experts. One Africa expert who has been at Rep. Payne’s side over the years providing valuable technical assistance is Teodros “Ted” Dagne, an Ethiopian. Ted played a critical role in the formulation and ultimate passage of HR 2003 in the House.
Rep. Payne was a reasonable man. He was dignified man with steely resolve about human rights and helping Africa’s poor. He was quiet force of accountability, reconciliation and progress in Africa. He promoted open dialogue and peaceful change. He communicated a clear message to Africa’s dictators that the U.S. is looking for engagement and cooperation to help Africa become more democratic, respectful of human rights and achieve sustained economic development. He hoped for a “new day and for more dialogue” in Africa to resolve the range of challenging issues facing the continent.
Let Us Celebrate Donald Payne!
The passing of Donald Payne marks a bad day for America, a bad day for Ethiopia and a bad day for Africa! To lose a champion of Africa’s poor and starving masses is unbearable. We mourn a great loss to the cause of democracy and human rights in Africa, but we shall seek to overcome that loss with a celebration of a great life of accomplishment, compassion and caring. In celebrating Donald Payne’s accomplishments, President Obama said, “He made it his mission to fight for working families, increase the minimum wage, ensure worker safety, guarantee affordable health care and improve the educational system. He was a leader in U.S.-Africa policy, making enormous contributions towards helping restore democracy and human rights across the continent. Don will be missed, and our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends during this difficult time.” All Ethiopians and Africans who have been inspired by Donald Payne shall miss him dearly. We shall keep his memory alive by defending and spreading his legacy of human rights and democracy in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa.
Mahatma Gandhi first formulated the iron law of history for dictators: “There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall – think of it, always.” Just in the past year we have seen Gandhi’s words come to pass as dictators fell like dominoes in the Arab Spring: Ben Ali in Tunisia got the boot after 24 years. Hosni Mubarak was thrown out and hauled into court after 32 years. Moamar Gadhafi in Libya was literally dragged out of the sewers, paraded in the streets and and executed with his own golden pistol. Ali Saleh ruled Yemen for 33 years and went into exile after suffering disfiguring burns and shrapnel injuries. Bashir al-Assad is running a slaughter house in Syria, and he will surely face the same fate as his brother dictators.
Sub-Sahara Africa has also seen its share of fallen dictators. Laurent Gbagbo of Cote d’Ivoire was collared holed up in his palace and turned over to the International Criminal Court to face charges of crimes against humanity. Mamadou Tandja of Niger tried to cling to power by ignoring constitutional term limits, but Niger’s military ousted him. Tandja’s principal opponent was subsequently elected president. Recently, the 85 year-old Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal tried to steal a third term in office and faced a firestorm of public protest. He ran but failed to win a majority, and now faces a runoff with the certainty of civil strife to follow should he “win”.
In January 2011, I wrote a weekly column entitled, “After the Fall of African Dictatorships” and posed three questions: “What happens to Africa after the mud walls of dictatorship come tumbling down and the palaces of illusion behind those walls vanish? Will Africa be like Humpty Dumpty (a proverbial egg) who “had a great fall” and could not be put back together by “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men”? What happens to the dictators?” I thought I had a ready an answer to the last question, though not for the first two:
When the people begin to beat their drums and circle the mud walls, Africa’s dictators will pack their bags and fly off like bats out of hell…[Some of the dictators] will hide out in the backyards of their brother dictators… [or] remain fugitives from justice … The rest will fade away into the sunset to quietly enjoy their stolen millions… The fact is that the morning after the fall of Africa’s dictators, the people will be stuck with a ransacked economy, emptied national banks, empty store shelves, torture chambers full of political prisoners and dithering and power-hungry opposition leaders jockeying for position in the middle of political chaos.
Who Could Put Ethiopia Together After the Fall?
What could happen to Ethiopia after the mud walls of dictatorship come tumbling down? Will Ethiopia have a great fall and shatter into pieces? Will Ethiopia face Libya’s fate? Egypt’s? Tunisia’s? Or will she face Syria’s fate? No one can predict with certainty, but one can be sure that Ethiopia’s destiny is not as preordained as her current rulers would like to remind us: “If Ethiopia disintegrates, so be it. It was not meant to be.”
What can be said with absolute certainty is that there is a decisive role to be played by all Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia in shaping a post-dictatorship Ethiopia. Individual Ethiopians, groups, civic society and independent press institutions, pro-democracy activists, human rights advocates, political parties and grassroots organizations can come together to discuss and spearhead dialogue and debate on Ethiopia’s transition from one man, one party dictatorship to genuine multiparty democracy grounded in the rule of law. If Ethiopians are to have hope of a better future and a fair chance at fulfilling their destiny and secure the blessing of liberty for themselves and for posterity, they will have to come together, work collaboratively, discuss differences civilly, think creatively, deal with each other honestly, respectfully and forthrightly, negotiate unconditionally, bargain considerately, speak candidly, communicate openly, defend the truth fearlessly, approach their differences open-mindedly and accept the judgment of the people unquestioningly and respectfully.
The Ethiopian National Transition Council (ENTC)
Recently, a group of grassroots advocates has taken the challenge of thinking through and charting possible transitional courses for a democratic Ethiopia after the inevitable collapse of the mud walls of dictatorship in that country. The Ethiopian National Transition Council (ENTC) seeks to mobilize and engage Ethiopians from all walks of life in the dialogue and debate over how to transition Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy. Its declared aim is to “facilitate the process of collaboration, consensus building, networking and information dissemination” to diverse stakeholders in Ethiopian society. ENTC is not affiliated with any political party nor does it have any political ambitions beyond grassroots advocacy for democratic governance and respect for basic human rights. Its ambition is to become an independent and all-inclusive collaborative forum for pro-democracy civic advocacy and activism with the agenda of helping to establish a free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous Ethiopia.
One of the individuals in the forefront of this effort is Dr. Fiseha Eshetu. Fiseha is an extraordinary young Ethiopian with a peerless record of achievement in Ethiopian higher and technical education. In 1991, he planted the seeds for what was later to become Unity University, the first and largest privately owned and fully accredited institution of higher learning in Ethiopia to be given full accreditation. In 2008, after years of fighting government regulation and fending off official efforts calculated to undermine private higher education, Fiseha sold his beloved university and went into exile. (I have extensively commented on the subject previously in my commentaries “Ethiopia: Indoctri-Nation” and “Ethiopia: Education Unbanned!”.)
Fiseha is an unlikely person to lead such an effort, or even to be so civically engaged. He openly admits that he was one of those Ethiopians who stayed away from politics because he believed business and politics do not mix well. Though he witnessed corruption, maladministration and abuse of power in Zenawi’s regime, he would hear, see or speak no evil. He says he reached a point where he “just did not care” and even “hated being Ethiopian”. But in time he was gripped with a “guilty conscience” witnessing the suffering of the people every day. He could no longer watch from the sidelines and hide behind a veil of self-serving neutrality. In the depth of despair, apathy and bitterness, he says he found strength in the “truth and his faith in God.” He says he has taken on this task of helping to transition Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy because he believes he has a moral duty to stand up and speak up and help his countrymen and women to his “last penny”. But he readily confesses: “I would rather be in higher education training hundreds of thousands of young Ethiopians for Ethiopia’s future.”
Listening to Fiseha, one is disarmed by his gentle and obliging candor and openness. His words are plain and unguarded; and he totally lacks the calculated ambiguity of professional politicians and knavish obscurity of pundits. He speaks his mind without mincing words. His public statements echo and resonate Gandhi’s ideas about “Satyagraha” (truth force). He says, “The reason we are one hundred percent we will succeed in our efforts is based on two things. First, everything we do is based on truth. Second, we believe in God.” There is also something “Mandelan” about his outlook. He keeps repeating: “For my country, I will work with anyone to bring about democratic change in Ethiopia.” The great Nelson Mandela taught, “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” Fiseha says ENTC will reach out to anyone without preconditions or stipulations as long as they are willing to work and help transition Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy. He has the faith of men on a mission: “If every Ethiopian sacrificed 1 per cent, we can bring about massive change in 6 months. We need to develop a mentality of public service.” In the end, he has begun this odyssey out of love of country, honor, duty and public service, not the morbid and joyless love of power: “We have no interest or aspirations for political power. Our wish is to help finish this transition to democracy as quickly as possible and return to our chosen professions.”
Transition From Dictatorship
The road from dictatorship to democracy in Ethiopia will be challenging but not impossible. What will the transition to democracy look like? When the mud walls of dictatorship crumble in Ethiopia and the veil of secrecy and hype is lifted, two facts will stand stark naked. First, the people will find out that their national treasury is empty and the country is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and crushing international debt. Second, they will find out that in the absence of durable democratic institutions and procedures, they could face a period of significant political instability, tension and conflict. But to better understand the challenges of that transition — that moment in time between the end of dictatorship and the onset of democracy — one must begin with an analysis of the objective conditions in Ethiopia today.
To facilitate their grand strategy of divide and rule, Ethiopia’s current dictators have carved out the country into ethnic enclaves reminiscent of South Africa’s Bantustans. That is likely to be a source of contention. Political parties are suppressed and neutralized through arbitrary regulations or direct repression and prevented from organizing and campaigning. There will likely be jockeying for power by some. Opposition leaders are jailed, intimidated and/or bankrupted. Dissidents are persecuted as “terrorists” and their exercise of their constitutional and human rights criminalized. A sudden opening up of political space could add a layer of confusion. The rule of law is trampled as citizens are arbitrarily arrested, detained and brought before kangaroo courts for summary judgment. Torture is commonplace in the secret and regular prisons as has been documented. The call for justice will likely take precedence. There are no personal freedoms– no freedom of expression, press or association. Alternative sources of information are electronically jammed; independent newspapers are shuttered and editors and journalists jailed or exiled. Political institutions are degraded. There is a rubber stamp parliament, and a judicial system populated by obtuse party hacks lording over kangaroo courts. Executive power is vested in one man who exercises power without any constitutional constraints or institutional checks and balances. Transition from such a state of political affairs will require not only a tectonic shift in the structure and process of governance but also a fundamental transformation in citizens’ attitudes and the civic and political culture of the country.
Transition from Dictatorship to Democracy: It is All About the Transitional Period!
Dissolution of the dictatorship in Ethiopia does not guarantee the birth of democracy. There is no phoenix of democracy that will rise gloriously from the trash heap of dictatorship. Birthing democracy will require a lot of collaborative hard work, massive amounts of creative problem-solving and plenty of good luck and good will. A lot of heavy lifting needs to be done to propel Ethiopia from the abyss of dictatorship to the heights of democracy. It will be necessary to undertake a collective effort now to chart a clear course on how that long suffering country will emerge from decades of dictatorship, without the benefit of any viable democratic political institutions, a functional political party system, a system of civil society institutions and an independent press to kindle a democratic renaissance.
The recent history of societies that have transitioned from dictatorship to democracy demonstrates that the most important part of the transition is the transitional process itself. There is a narrow window of opportunity between the demise of the dictatorship and the emergence of the new order that has the effect of historical determinism. What happens in that window of opportunity determines whether democracy will rise from the ashes of dictatorship, or another equally virulent dictatorship rises from the ashes of the dictatorship that just ended. Simply stated, the transitional window between dictatorship to democracy is the most important element in the entire democratic process. If the transition turns out to be destructively competitive and conflict ridden because stakeholders distrust each other and are rigidly wedded to their positions, the “democracy” that will result from that will be weak, unsteady and ineffectual, if one emerges at all. If the transition is marked by genuine negotiations, bargaining and compromises, a strong and durable democracy will very likely emerge.
Ethiopia’s history offers the most compelling lessons and evidence in support of this proposition. During the U.S. brokered “transition” in 1991, Zenawi was able to masterfully short-circuit the transition process by outsmarting and outplaying the U.S. and all of the other stakeholders. Herman Cohen, the U.S. official who played the mediator role, recently gave an interview and explained, “The TPLF was at the gates of Addis. We wanted to make sure that the war ended with what we called a soft landing in Addis and there should be no destruction….We didn’t say takeover the government. We said take over Addis. We needed to have somebody takeover in Addis and then start transition toward a new governmental system.” But there was not much of a transition. Cohen added:
I opened the meeting with a statement urging the parties to work out a transition to a democratic form of government and to maintain a single economy of Ethiopia and Eritrea…After my statement, the three parties decided to continue on their own without a mediator…They repaired to a private room for their own discussions, which produced a short public statement. The statement said that a decision has been made to hold an all-parties conference in Addis Ababa no later than 1 July, at which time a transitional government would be debated and launched.
With one communique, Zenawi succeeded in hijacking the transitional process, and with lightning speed managed to consolidate his power and establish his dictatorship. That is why the transitional period is the most critical moment in the passage from dictatorship to democracy. It is vitally important to maintain unrelenting vigilance during this critical period to make sure that no one individual, group or party will have a tactical advantage to hijack the next transition to democracy.
The transitional process itself determines that type of “democracy” that will emerge. It is possible to have different types of transitions with different results, outcomes and reconfigurations in the balance of power among the stakeholders. For instance, if the transitional process is bogged down in ethnic politics, hostility and competition among the major ethnic groups, the chances for a successful democracy will likely diminish. If particular political or social groups seek to engineer another hijacking of the transitional process, the results will be catastrophic.
What does the transitional process to democracy mean? My view is simple. I begin with basic assumptions: Democracy in cannot emerge in Ethiopia by force, trickery or backroom intrigues. It cannot be dictated by one man, one party, one group, one ethnicity or one segment of society. It cannot not come through artificial and expediently formulated consensus and lip service to unity and collaboration. Democracy can be birthed in Ethiopia if and only if the transitional process from dictatorship provides all stakeholders a genuine opportunity to come together to discuss, negotiate, bargain and compromise about the future of Ethiopia. Counter-intuitive as it may sound, my view is that for the transition to democracy to be successful, what is supremely important is not the existence of broad consensus and unity among the stakeholders; rather, it is the existence of divergent interests and the ability to bring the stakeholders of these diverging interests to work through their stalemate at the negotiating table in an environment of awareness of a common destiny. In other words, when all the relevant stakeholders come together with the simple awareness and deep understanding that “we are all in the same boat. We are all rowing against a tidal wave on a sea of repression, corruption, exploitation and subjugation. In the end, we will swim or sink together.”
What is to be done before the window of transition opens and once it is opened? We have to start with the basics. What kind of “democracy” do we want? For two decades, we have been hoodwinked by a hollow but seductively phrased “revolutionary democracy”. Is a constitutional democracy desirable and timely for Ethiopia now? A constitutional democracy is based on the idea of limiting and defining the powers of government and those exercising political power. The constitution serves as the supreme law of the land and no individual or institution can breach it. Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with the constitution and and other laws consistent with it and enforced in accordance with established procedures and in conformity with international treaty obligations. As additional safeguards against the potential of arbitrary government actions, power could be vertically divided between the central and local governments in a system of federalism (“ethnic federalism” is to genuine federalism as dictatorship is to genuine multiparty democracy). Political institutions, particularly the judiciary, will have complete independence from those exercising executive authority and will be vested with full judicial review powers. In a constitutional democracy, political parties are always at risk of losing elections (in fact, they are doomed to lose elections if they fail to listen to the people); and it is impossible for any party to win an election by 99.6 percent in a constitutional democracy. Simply stated, in a constitutional democracy government always fears the people and the people never fear their government. Is it time for constitutional democracy in Ethiopia?
Waiting for a Dictatorship to Fall?
Some are overly concerned about fixing the time when the mud walls of dictatorship in Ethiopia will come tumbling down. Neither Gadhafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak nor Saleh knew or could predict the end of their dictatorship. Even the most sophsitcated intelligence gathering operations could predict the Arab Spring. But Gandhi’s iron law of history of dictators predicts with certainty that “tyrants and murderers for a time seem invincible but in the end, they always fall – think of it, always.”
The end of dictators comes when it comes, but the facts hastening the end are plain to see, and could be extrapolated from parallel historical events elsewhere. Dictatorships are internally weak, inherently fragile and unstable. The body politics of dictatorships is poisoned by corruption and abuse of power. Unable to win hearts and minds, dictatorships maintain support by purchasing the loyalty of those from whom they seek support and use force and intimidation against their opponents. Their operating principle is total distrust, including their own supporters.
The answer to the end game of the dictatorship in Ethiopia is written plainly in the faces of the millions who are starving, the toiling peasants and day laborers, those whose lands were taken and sold for pennies to international land grabbers, the masses of young men and women who have been deprived of educational and employment opportunities, the multitudes of the homeless, the diligent businessmen and women who are victimized by paralyzing taxes, the pensioners who have lost hope in the sunset of their lives and so on. But if one were pressed to provide an answer to the question, it would be simply this: Dictatorships are doomed when citizens value their dignity above all else and join hands and stand together to defend their collective humanity. That is the singular lesson and the ultimate truth about the Arab Spring.
Guarding Against the Great Fallacy of Electoralism in a Democratic Transition
There are some who believe that the transition from dictatorship to democracy can be achieved by waving a magical wand of elections at the critical point in the demise of a dictatorship. The impulse to put all of the political eggs in the election basket and hope for the best is irresistible. Herman Cohen said that during the transition in 1991 he had accepted Zenawi’s assurances that there would be elections to sort things. But commenting on the 2005 elections, Cohen said he became publicly critical of Zenawi because the 2005 “elections were stolen, clearly stolen.” After 2005, elections in Ethiopia were not just stolen, they became the stuff of political comedy as the ruling party proclaimed: “Behold our 99.6 percent electoral victory in May 2010!” “Marvel at our democracy in 2008 in local and by-elections in which we won all but four of 3.4 million contested seats!”
ENTC: Carpe Diem! (Seize the Day!)
The idea of having individuals and groups involved in grassroots democratization efforts is heartwarming and inspiring. The idea of engaging individuals and civic groups in activism and advocacy to alleviate human suffering and to defend the defenseless, the faceless and voiceless is priceless. The idea of grassroots organizations spearheading the transition from dictatorship to democracy in Ethiopia opens up boundless opportunities. When hope itself seems hopeless and our faith in the future is swallowed by our present despair, we must replace our outrage with courage and be prepared to give 1 percent of our time and energy to the cause of transitioning Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
The Plight of Andualem Aragie and Other Political Prisoners in Ethiopia
The “Gulag” prison system in the old Soviet Union was infamous for warehousing and persecuting dissidents and opponetns. The gulags were used effectively to weed out and neutralize opposition to the Soviet state. They were the quintessential tools of Soviet state terrorism. Some called them “meat-grinders” because of the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions. Torture, physical abuse by prison guards, solitary confinement, inadequate food rations and officially instigated inmate-on-inmate violence were the hallmarks of the gulags.
Ethiopia’s prison system today are reminiscent of the Soviet gulags in their abuse and mistreatment of political and other prisoners. Let the facts speak for themselves: In a recent column on two Swedish journalists arbitrarily held in one of the Ethiopian prisons near the capital, N.Y. Times’ columnist Nicholas Kristoff described the prsion conditions as
filthy and overridden with lice, fleas and huge rats… a violent, disease-ridden place, with inmates fighting and coughing blood… 250 or so Ethiopian prisoners jammed in the cell protect the two [Swedish] journalists, pray for them and jokingly call their bed ‘the Swedish embassy’.
The U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia (April 2011) documented:
…Human rights abuses reported during the year included unlawful killings, torture, beating, and abuse and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces, especially special police and local militias, which took aggressive or violent action with evident impunity in numerous instances; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of suspected sympathizers or members of opposition or insurgent groups; detention without charge and lengthy pretrial detention… Numerous reliable sources confirmed in April 2009 that in Maekelawi, the central police investigation headquarters in Addis Ababa, police investigators often used physical abuse to extract confessions.
… torture and ill-treatment have been used by Ethiopia’s police, military, and other members of the security forces to punish a spectrum of perceived dissenters, including university students, members of the political opposition, and alleged supporters of insurgent groups… Secret detention facilities and military barracks are most often used by Ethiopian security forces for such activities.
The regular and secret prisons maintained by the ruling regime in Ethiopia today are among the most inhumane, primitive, barbaric and sadistic in the world. In July 2008, the regime of dictator Meles Zenawi secretly commissioned retired British colonel Michael Dewars, an internationally recognized security expert, to undertake an assessment of the prison system and make recommendations. In his report, Col. Dewars expressed total horror and shock over what he witnessed in one of the prisons he visited in Addis Ababa. He recounted:
I asked to go into the compound where the prisoners are kept. This consisted of a long yard with a shed to one side which provided some sort of shelter. The compound had a wall around it and a watchtower for an armed sentry overlooking it. Inside must have been 70 – 80 inmates, all in a filthy state. There was insufficient room for all these people to lie down on a mat at once. There was no lighting. The place stank of faeces and urine. There appeared to be no water or sanitation facilities within the compound. There was a small hut in an adjacent compound for women prisoners but there had been no attempt by anybody to improve the circumstances of the place. The prisoners were mostly on remand for minor crimes, in particular theft. Some had been there for months….
Col. Dewars concluded:
Detention conditions of prisoners are a disgrace and make the Federal Police vulnerable to the Human Rights lobby…. The prison I saw was a disgrace. No one is recommending a Hilton Hotel, but, if any human rights organization were to get inside an Ethiopian jail, they would have enough ammunition to sink all our best efforts.
Col. Dewars
recommended that the Government should investigate this situation with the intention of improving the current appalling conditions inside Ethiopian prisons, which must brutalise prisoners and their goalers equally… and that senior Ethiopian Ministers and Police Officers visit the prison that I visited.
Over the past several years, I have written extensively on torture and mistreatment of political prisoners in Ethiopia. In my numerous columns on the incarceration of former judge Birtukan Midekssa, the first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history, and other political prisoners, I have pointed out the “soft torture” techniques used to crush her spirit and break her body. She was subjected to prolonged solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, visitation deprivation, daily humiliation and mindless interrogation. Birtukan faced untold suffering in prison. Zenawi could not bear the thought of Birtukan going free; and in a moment frustrated defiance declared: “There will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” In the end she prevailed and became free. Just last week in Washington, D.C., she presented her study on the challenges confronting the Ethiopian opposition and offered specific recommendations for strengthening multi-party democracy in Ethiopia as a Reagan-Fascell Fellow with the National Endowment for Democracy.
Andualem Aragie Inside the Belly of the Beast
Zenawi has replaced Birtukan by another young Ethiopian leader, to be sure several dozens of young opposition leaders, journalists, activists and others. Last week, the former Ethiopian President and current leader of the Unity and Democracy Party (UDJ) Dr. Negasso Gidada reported that Andualem Aragie was severely beaten by a death-row-inmate-turned-lifer while confined in his cell. The facts of Andualem’s abuse are shocking. According to Dr. Negasso, Andualem was held in a “windowless cell for 14 people with a number of other political prisoners including Bekele Gerba, Olbana Lelisa and Tilahun Fantahun.” About a month ago, a convicted murderer whose life sentence had been commuted to life in prison was allowed to join Andualem’s cell. This criminal savagely assaulted Andualem inflicting severe injuries to his head. He was reported to lost consciousness following the assault.The Voice of America reported that “Relatives who have seen Andualem say his head injury appears to have affected his ability to maintain his balance.”
This inmate is notorious for his assaultive behavior inside the prison. He has a long record of violence and abuse of inmates. He is known to receive special accommodations for being a prison enforcer for the authorities. Rumors are rife that prison authorities paid the criminal a substantial sum for beating Andiualem.
Prior to his arrest on bogus terrorism charges, Andualem was a rising leader in the UDJ and served as its spokesperson and external relations officer. Andualem is among a new breed of young Ethiopian political leaders, journalists and civil society advocates who are widely respected and accepted. In the months leading up to the May 2010 “election” in which Zenawi claimed a 99.6 percent victory, Andualem demonstrated his unflinching commitment to democracy and the rule of law. With breathtaking clarity of thought, razor-sharp intellect, incredible courage, mesmerizing eloquence, piercing logic, stinging wit, masterful command of the facts and steadfast adherence to the truth, Andualem made mincemeat out of Zenawi’s vacuous lackeys in several televised pre-“election” debates. It was a sight to behold.
In September 2011, Andualem and 23 other individuals were “accused under the anti-terrorism law of being members of a terrorist network and abetting, aiding and supporting a terrorist group.” Earlier this month, a group of independent United Nations human rights experts (U.N. Special Rapporteurs) condemned the so-called anti-terrorism law and diplomatically cautioned that “the anti-terrorism provisions should not be abused and need to be clearly defined in Ethiopian criminal law to ensure that they do not go counter to internationally guaranteed human rights.” Andualem and the others are expected to have their day in kangaroo court on March 5.
Torture, Abuse and Plausible Deniability
Plausible deniability is the ability to deny a fact or allegation, or previous knowledge of a fact by shifting blame on someone else. In Andualem’s case, plausible deniability allows Zenawi’s regime to deny any awareness or knowledge of a criminal or criminally negligent act by its officials or unofficial agents in the prison. By allowing a notoriously violent criminal to assault Andualem, they aim to plausibly avoid responsibility. In other words, they have sought to remove their fingerprints, handprints, palmprints and footprints from the cowardly criminal act perpetrated on Andualem. But their MO (modus operandi) is well known. Whether they acted through their goons uniformed as prison guards or their deputized convicted thugs, they are exclusively responsible for the safety of all pretrial detainees like Andualem. Regardless of how one looks at it, what happened to Andualem, and has happened to other political prisoners countless times, represents a clear case of extrajudicial punishment (torture) in violation of Ethiopia’s Constitution and international human rights conventions.
Speaking of Constitutional and International Law…
The Ethiopian Constitution provides specific safeguards for the safety and protection of pre-trial detainees awaiting trial. Article 16 guarantees that “Everyone has the right to protection against bodily harm..” Andualem has the constitutional right to be secure from violence while awaiting trial. Article 110 of the Ethiopian Criminal Code (Proclamation No.414/2004) specifically requires that “prisoners who are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment or special confinement shall be kept separate from prisoners who are serving a sentence of simple imprisonment or awaiting judgment.” The criminal thug who assaulted Andualem should have never been allowed in the area reserved for pre-trial detanees. Article 18 provides, “Everyone has the right to protection against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The savage beating of Andualem in plain sight of prison guards constitutes “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Article 20 provides that, “During proceedings accused persons have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law…” Since Andualem has not been found guilty “according to law”, he is innocent of the charges and should have been accorded his rights consistent with that presumption. Article 21 guarantees that “All persons held in custody and persons imprisoned upon conviction and sentencing have the right to treatments respecting their human dignity.”
International law protects all prisoners, and particularly political prisoners, from inhumane and barbaric treatment. Under Article 13 of the Ethiopian Constitution, the “fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated… shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” Article 5 of the UDHR (incorporated by express reference in Art. 13 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia) prescribes that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ratified by Ethiopia on June 11, 1993 and similarly incorporated) provides that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
The U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) (Principle 8) specifically provides: “Persons in detention shall be subject to treatment appropriate to their unconvicted status. Accordingly, they shall, whenever possible, be kept separate from imprisoned persons.” Article 1 of the Declaration Against Torture (1975) defines torture as “… any act by which severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by, or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as …punishing him for an act he has committed; or intimidating him or other persons…” Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (acceded to by Ethiopia on April 13, 1994) mandates that signatories “shall undertake to prevent… acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…” Article 5 of the African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ratified by Ethiopia on June 15, 1998) prohibits, “all forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly… torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment.” The U.N. Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (1990) provide that “all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other Covenants. Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court include torture as a crime against humanity and a war crime.
I write about the law on the protection of the rights of political prisoners to set the record; for I know that preaching the law to outlaws is like pouring water over granite.
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends,” said Dr. Martin Luther King… Nothing is more important and uplifting to political prisoners than knowledge of the fact that they are not forgotten, abandoned and forsaken by the outside world. Remembrance gatherings at town hall meetings such as this one serve to remind all of us who live in freedom the divine blessings of liberty and the unimaginable suffering of those trapped in the darkness of dictatorship.
Andualem Aragie and countless political prisoners in Ethiopia reamin trapped in the darkness of dictatorship. They have been beaten down and brought to their knees. We cannot hear their whimpers of pain and desperation. Few, other than their tormentors, will be able to see their mangled bodies. Because they have no voice, we must be their voices and speak on their behalf. Because they are walled in behind filthy and subhuman prison institutions, we must unflaggingly remind the world of their suffering. 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 decent Ethiopians for their wrongfully imprisoned compatriots. That is why we must join hands and work tirelessly to free all political prisoners held in Ethiopia’s public and secret gulags. “Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people.”
Uncage Andualem Aragie and All Political Prisoners in Ethiopia!
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
In a memorandum sent to Deutsche Welle’s (DW) [Germany’s international broadcaster] “correspondents outside Ethiopia” in late 2010, Ludger Schadomsky, editor-in-chief of DW’s Amharic program, blasted “ethiomedia and similar sites by extension” as a “disgrace” to press freedom. “The amount of hatred splashed across [ethiomedia] is a disgrace to any politically sober mind,” declared Shadomsky self-righteously. To shelter his staff from the crazed haters (not of sober mind), Schadomsky issued a strict gag order: “Let me make it very plain that I will not have DW correspondents contribute ‘Letters-to-the editor’ or articles to ethiomedia and similar sites.”
Why is Schadomsky bent out of shape over “ethiomedia and similar sites by extension”? Apparently, he had been chewed out, tongue-lashed, dressed down, squeezed, badgered, blackmailed and “monitored” by none other than dictator Meles Zenawi’s {www:doppelganger} in charge of information. Schadomsky explained to his staff:
You will be aware of the close monitoring of the Ethiopian government of any activities by our staff members perceived to be ‘opposition activities’. I have a number of names thrown at me by Bereket Simon every time I am in Addis… We will be embarking on another attempt to secure additional licenses in Ethiopia. You will appreciate that any activity outside the realm of objective news reporting will harm those efforts, and is generally not in line with our editorial policy.”
In an “Open letter to ethiomedia.com” in January 2012, intended to refute “a number of articles on Ethiomedia alleging self-censorship at DW Amharic,” Schadomsky triumphantly depicted himself as a fearless defender of press freedom and a {www:paragon} of journalistic integrity. He declared unabashedly:
I would like to go on record as saying that we at DW Amharic neither bow to pressure from the government of Ethiopia, nor give in to the increasingly outrageous demands made by radicalized opposition figures and organizations. Our editorial policy is guided by one principle only, namely: to provide millions of Ethiopians with access to free and fair information in a country where media freedom is heavily curtailed.
Schadomsky claimed to be “flabbergasted” by allegations made in an “open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel that DW Amharic deliberately shuns voices critical of the [Ethiopian] government in its programmes.” He carped, “One expects a certain degree of harassment from an authoritarian government… (but) I did not expect the same, and worse, harassment from people who claim to champion democracy and freedom of speech.” He pontificated: “You don’t have to be a citizen of a country still struggling with its Nazi past to find the phrase ‘the fascist Woyanne regime in Addis Ababa’ horribly inappropriate, no matter how much one may disagree with the present government.”
Who is a Disgrace to Press Freedom?
As Schadomsky furiously wags an accusatory finger at “ethiomedia and similar sites by extension” and vilifies them as a “disgrace”, he fails to notice that three fingers are silently and squarely pointing at him. But closer scrutiny of Shadomsky’s claims reveal some unsettling facts:
Editorial Policy: Shadomsky vaguely alludes to DW’s “editorial policy”, which he claims is “guided by one principle only, namely: to provide millions of Ethiopians with access to free and fair information in a country where media freedom is heavily curtailed.” How does he reasonably expect to provide “free and fair information” to the Ethiopian people when is on his hands and knees groveling for “additional broadcasting licenses”? When did freedom (in any from including expression and the press) become a licensable activity or commodity in Germany?
Editorial policy uninformed by ethical and professional standards and principles of press freedom is pointless and delusional. The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (which has been in operation since 1909 and universally adopted by professional journalists) urges journalists to “give voice to the voiceless” and to “tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so”. It instructs professional journalists to “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and to “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” Schadomsky does not seem to be aware of these obligations.
Curiously, Schadomsky seems to have a very narrow understanding of journalism as he commands his staff to stay away from “any activity outside the realm of objective news reporting”. In pursuit of political correctness and “additional broadcasting licenses”, he has resolved to sacrifice news analysis, editorials and presentation of divergent viewpoints to his audience. Following Schadomsky’s “objective news theory”, DV Amharic could report that a major Ethiopian opposition political figure has been jailed, but related news or discussions of the legality of the imprisonment and the pattern and practice of official political persecution and human rights violations which nurture such arbitrary arrests and detentions in the country would be off limits. “Objective news” is meaningless without context, frame of reference. If “objective news” reporting is about fairness, accuracy and minimization of bias, the best way to achieve that is to allow expression of divergent views and opinions, and not underestimate the intelligence of Ethiopian listeners to separate fact from opinion.
The claim of pursuit of “objective news” is contradicted by other facts. For instance, coverage of certain opposition figures including Birtukan Midekssa while she was in prison was off limits. There is evidence showing that members of Zenawi’s embassy in Germany have met with DW’s Amharic staff at least twice and dictated terms and conditions to Schadomsky for their cooperation and granting of additional licenses. Among these conditions include DV’s avoidance of human rights related issues, banning of certain individuals from DV microphones (a fact Shadomsky admits when he stated in his memo, “I have a number of names thrown at me by Bereket Simon every time I am in Addis…”) and glorification of the economic and political progress made under Zenawi’s leadership.
Schadomsky also appears to believe that his editorial policy of tokenism by inviting a handful of Ethiopian opposition representatives from time to time proves journalistic neutrality and inclusiveness. He seems to believe that an occasional interview with Thilo Hoppe, German lawmaker and critic of Zenawi’s regime, opposition leader Berhanu Nega and “sole opposition MP, Ato Girma Seifu” in Ethiopia adequately represents the diversity of Ethiopian opposition views, or affords opponents of Zenawi’s regime a fair opportunity to be heard. But this policy of tokenism belies Schadomsky’s systematic and relentless browbeaitng and badgering of the Amharic staff to avoid certain subjects and ban certain critics of Zenawi’s regime from DW’s microphones, including Eskinder Nega, the present author and others.
But Schadomsky’s issues appear to go beyond lack of basic familiarity with professional journalistic ethics, conflict of interest principles, difficulties with truth-telling and imperious and cavalier treatment of his staff. Schadomsky can be challenged in three specific areas: 1) He simply cannot back up his accusatory claims which buttress his conclusion that “ethiomedia and similar sites by extension” are a disgrace to press freedom and the politically sober mind. 2) He manifests extreme sensitivity to criticism of his editorial policy or allegations of “self-censorship” and being a regime “mouthpice”. 3) There are significant questions which raise doubt about his professional competence to discharge his duties as editor-in chief of the Amharic program.
Hate Speech: In his January 2012 “Open Letter” Schadomisky alleges: “It is our view that some of the content splashed across certain news sites constitutes hate speech, and DW will not allow opinion pieces by its journalists to be posted alongside hate speech.” This conclusion is unsupported in Art. 5 (1) or other provisions of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (BL). Under the BL, there is a world of difference between offering an opinion and engaging in hate speech. Art. 5(1) guarantees that “Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing…”
On the other hand, hate speech refers to “utterances which tend to insult, intimidate or harass a person or groups or utterances capable of instigating violence, hatred or discrimination.” The German Federal Constitutional Court has held that “opinions are characterized by an element of taking a position and of appraising” and “demonstration of their truth or untruth is impossible.” Consequently, opinions “enjoy the basic right’s (BL) protection regardless of whether their expression is judged to be well-founded or unfounded, emotional or rational, valuable or worthless, dangerous or harmless… and do not lose this protection by being sharply or hurtfully worded.”
Schadomsky’s offers only one concrete example of alleged hate speech by “ethiomedia and similar sites by extension” in his hyperbolic allegations of “splashed hate”. He claims: “You don’t have to be a citizen of a country still struggling with its Nazi past to find the phrase the ‘fascist Woyane regime in Addis Ababa’ horribly inappropriate, no matter how much one may disagree with the present government.”
This alleged example of “hate speech” is nothing more than an opinion — a value judgment, a statement of belief or impression — and is fully protected by Art. 5(1) of BL. Fascism is a discredited, though historically a dominant, political ideology. It extolls a party and state led by one supreme leader who exercises dictatorial powers over the party, the government and other state institutions. Fascist regimes reject liberal (“neoliberal”) forms of democracy based on majority rule and egalitarianism in favor of centralized power in the hands of a few.
It is not “hate speech” for one to call a regime a “fascist Woyane regime” (“Woyane” referring to a rebellion in Northern Ethiopia in 1943) if one holds such an opinion. Neither is it hate speech to lambaste Diaspora Ethiopian critics as “fundamentalist neo-liberals”, “extremist hardliners” or to bandy other silly but colorful descriptions.
Extreme Sensitivity to Criticism. For reasons that are not apparent, Schadomsky goes ballistic when faced with criticism. He seems to be particularly stung by criticism that his program practices “self-censorship” and has become a “mouthpiece” of Zenawi’s regime, something he claims has “dumfounded him” in light of the fact that the “Government of Ethiopia routinely jams our broadcasts for months at a time… and [has] refused us additional reporter licenses”. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Schadomsky doth protest too much, methinks.” By overreacting to such criticism, caustic and scathing as they may sound, Schadomsky risks validating them. The fact of the matter is that those in the media must tolerate criticism of their work and role because it comes with the territory. They just have to deal with it, not mope around moaning and groaning about it!
Competence to Serve as Editor-in-Chief: There is evidence to suggest that DW has a basic policy of appointing editors-in-chief in its radio programs who have facility in the particular programming language. For instance, the editors of the Africa programs — Hausa, Kiswahili, Portuguese — are said to be fluent in their respective languages. Schadomsky is said to have no fluency whatsoever in Amharic and largely depends on a single subordinate for advice and counsel in making editorial decisions. While this is an administrative matter, it does detract significantly from Schadomsky’s claim “to provide millions of Ethiopians with access to free and fair information in a country where media freedom is heavily curtailed.” His handicap in the Amharic language and reliance on the “heavily curtailed” information he receives from a single subordinate makes his claim of serving millions of Ethiopians rather hollow, if not laughable.
Schadomsky’s memo demonstrates that he is obsessed with political correctness, and fearful of unleashing the wrath of the powers that be in Ethiopia. This untenable situation has created a credibility gap for DV and a gullibility gap for Schadomsky. He can claim that there is no “self-censorship” at DV Amharic; but his memorandum is proof positive that there is not only self-censorship but also fear and loathing among his staff who wince at the very thought of expressing their views under his gag order. He can mount a campaign of fear and smear against “ethiomedia and similar websites by extension” and bombard them with verbal pyrotechnics in an attempt to deflect attention from his professional deficits and anemic ethical standards.
The fact of the matter is that the credibility of DV Amharic has been damaged beyond repair after the revelation of Schadomsky’s sanctimonious memorandum. As long as he remains at the helm, DV Amharic will be regarded by millions of Ethiopians as self-censoring, cowardly and trifling. Those who may listen to DV Amharic may do so not out of thirst for useful information but sheer habit. For most, DV Amharic will remain background static noise over the airwaves.
Apology is Due to Ethiomedia and Other Pro-Democracy Ethiopian Websites
Schadomsky owes “ethiomedia and similar sites by extension” an apology. He has unfairly characterized them as hateful and not having a “politically sober mind”. In other words, he has called them crazy hatemongers. They have their own viewpoints and perspectives as they are entitled to have; and they are passionate about their beliefs. Whatever faults they may have, one of them is not putting on a charade of being an independent news agency. I am confident that Ethiomedia and the other Ethiopian pro-democracy websites fully subscribe to the proposition that “A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press, must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the right of the people to know.”
There is no disgrace in standing up for one’s beliefs; but it is a disgrace to speak with forked tongue. My deepest gratitude and appreciation goes to all of the pro-democracy Ethiopian websites worldwide.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
The Chinese Dragon is dancing the Watusi shuffle with African Hyenas. Things could not be better for the Dragon in Africa. In the middle of what once used to be the African Pride Land now stands a brand-spanking new hyenas’ den called the African Union Hall (AU). Every penny of the USD$200 million stately pleasure dome was paid for by China. It is said to be “China’s gift to Africa.” It was all lovey-dovey two weeks ago when the hyenas assembled to pay homage to the mighty Dragon:
… This magnificent…building which will now house the headquarters of our continental organization is built on the ruins of a prison that represented desperation and hopelessness… The face of this great hall is meant to convey this message of optimism, a message that is out of the decades of hopelessness and imprisonment a new era of hope is dawning, and that Africa is being unshackled and freed… It is therefore very appropriate for China to decide to build this hall — the hall of the rise of Africa — this hall of African renaissance… I am sure I speak for all of you when I say to the people and government of China thank you so very much. May our partnership continue and prosper.
There was no end to the bootlicking and praise of the “generosity of the Chinese government”, and how the “gift” represents “a qualitative leap in the relations between China and Africa”. AU president Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea’s dictator since 1979, even saw “a reflection of the new Africa, and the future we want for Africa” in the glassed 20-storey tower.
…There exists profound traditional friendship between China and Africa… China has always been Africa’s good friend, good partner and good brother…. [S]trengthen[ing] unity and cooperation between China and Africa and promot[ing] common development is an important cornerstone of China’s foreign policy, and a long-term strategic choice…
… First, we must firmly uphold peace, stability and development of Africa…. Second, we must fully respect the efforts of African countries in resolving African issues independently…. Interference in Africa’s internal affairs by outside forces out of selfish motives can only complicate the efforts to resolve issues in Africa…. Third, we must vigorously support African countries in seeking strength through unity and the integration process…. Fourth, we must pay more attention to the issue of African development and make bigger input…
… Throughout the development of China-Africa relations, we have always respected the sovereignty and development path of African countries and refrained from interfering in their internal affairs… We…have never attached political strings to our assistance to Africa. … To further strengthen China-AU friendship and cooperation… China will provide a total of RMB 600 million free assistance to the AU in the next three years…
The “China Model” in Africa
It is fashionable among African dictators to pledge allegiance to the so-called China Model of economic development. Meles Zenawi, the dictator in Ethiopia, claimed that by following the “China Model”:
The African Renaissance that we all dreamed of is beginning to happen. There could be no better proof of this than the fact that the pundits and academics who were publicly advocating for the re-colonization of our continent have now refrained from doing so… The magnificent new head quarters (sic) of our continental organization—the AU which has been at the center of the struggle for the African renaissance (sic) is the symbol of the rise of Africa…
But what exactly is the China Model?
African dictators rarely explain the “China Model”, but the phrase rolls off their lips like the voodoo incantations of sorcerers. If the dictators are to be believed, the “China Model” is the magic carpet that will transport Africa from abysmal underdevelopment and poverty to stratospheric economic growth and industrialization. Supposedly, China became a global economic power in just a few decades by opening up its economy to foreign and domestic investment, cutting and reducing taxes, co-investing in infrastructure projects and vastly expanding the labor intensive services sector. It is said to be a “win-win” situation for China and Africa.
But there is one small catch: China did it all by maintaining a one-party system that has a chokehold on all state institutions including the civil service, the armed and security forces and by instituting a vast system of censorship that systenmatically filters or significantly obstructs the flow of information to the people.
What does China think of the “China Model” being exported to Africa? Not much! Liu Guijin, China’s special representative on African affairs assuredly says, “What we are doing is sharing our experiences. Believe me, China doesn’t want to export our ideology, our governance, our model. We don’t regard it as a mature model.”
So, why do African dictators insist on championing a half-baked “China Model” as the Holy Grail of African economic salvation when the Chinese themselves do not think it is a “mature model” worth exporting or imitating? Could it be that African dictators are using the “China Model” hype as smokescreen to justify their clinging to power and sucking their economies like ticks on an African milk cow?
Stripped off its hype, the “China Model” in Africa is the same old one-man, one-party pony that has been around since independence in the 1960s. Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Paul Kagame of Rwanda, and even the wily and sly eighty-six year-old Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, pull the “Chinese Model” stunt just to cling to power. In the good old days, Zenawi, Museveni and Kagame used their status as the “new breed of African leaders” (bestowed upon them by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair) to legitimize and perpetuate themselves in power. Now they heap contempt on the West for its “band-aid” approach to development, criticize the “gunboat diplomacy” of the U.S. (whose taxpayers have shelled out tens of billions in the last decade) and tongue-lash “extremist neo-liberals” (whoever they are) for slamming them on their atrocious human rights record and mindboggling corruption.
The one-man, one-party state recycled as the “China Model” is nothing new. Kwame Nkrumah was the first Sub-Saharan African leader to try it and fail. Just like the silver-tongued mouthpieces of the “China Model” today, Nkrumah back then condemned neocolonialism (a term he reputedly created) and imperialism for Africa’s exploitation and depridation. Nkrumah’s program of rapid industrialization – to reduce Ghana’s dependence on foreign capital and imports – had a devastating effect on its important cocoa export sector. Many of the socialist economic development projects that he launched also failed miserably. By the time he was overthrown in a military coup in 1966, Ghana had fallen from one of the richest African countries to one of the poorest. Similarly, Tanzania nose-dived from the largest exporter of agricultural products in Africa to the largest importer of agricultural products. The one-man, one-party state, touted as the solution to the problems of ethnic and tribal conflict, also failed as civil wars, genocides, and corruption spread throughout the continent like wildfire. For decades, African liberation leaders and founding fathers qua dictators and military junta leaders have tried all types of tricks to justify the one-man, one-party state and avoid a genuine multiparty democracy. Now Africa’s newest dictators want to rebottle the same old one-man, one-party wine in a new bottle labeled “Chateau China Model”.
The Record of the “Chinese Model” in Africa
Are Zenawi and the other members of African Dictators, Inc., really following the “not mature” “China Model” in practice? Are foreign and domestic investors free to to do business in Africa without being bogged down in silly and mindless regulations and running the gauntlet of a buzzsaw of corruption? For instance, how much of Ethiopia’s business environment is really “negotiable” for investment? The 2011 World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index which ranks 183 countries (1=most business-friendly regulations) shows dismal figures for Ethiopia: Overall Ease of Doing Business Rank (111); starting a business (99); dealing with construction permits (56); getting electricity (93); registering property (113); getting credit (150); protecting investors (122); paying taxes (40); trading across borders (157); enforcing contracts (57) and resolving insolvency (89).
The “China Model” is obviously a smokescreen for Zenawi and African Dictators, Inc., to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Africa. It provides a plausible justification for avoiding transparent and accountable governance, competitive, free and fair elections, enforceable property rights and suppressing free speech, the press and independent judiciaries. It is a hoax perpetrated on the people to ensure absolute political obedience and control, maximize the ruling class’ monopoly over the economy and justify the brutal suppression of all dissent.
The “China Model” naturally appeals to Africa’s kleptocratic dictators because it enables them to project the illusion of economic development as they suppress the democratic aspirations of their people and suck their national economies dry. Global Financial Integrity recently wrote:“The people of Ethiopia are being bled dry. No matter how hard they try to fight their way out of absolute destitution and poverty, they will be swimming upstream against the current of illicit capital leakage.” That is what the China Model means in Ethiopia, and for that matter much of Africa.
Why the China Model? Why Not the “Ghanaian Model”?
The “China Model” may be just fine for China, but why can’t Africa have an “African Model”? Is there not a single country in Africa worthy of some imitation. Must Africans always worship before the altar of Western or Eastern political Deities?
In July, 2009, in one of my weekly commentaries I asked a simple question:What is it the Ghanaians got, we ain’t got?” I argued that present day Ghana can offer a reasonably good, certainly not perfect, template of governance for the rest of Africa. Ironically, it is to Ghana, the cradle of the one-man, one-party rule in Sub-Saharan Africa, that we must now turn to find a model of constitutional multiparty democracy.
Ghana today has a functioning, competitive, multiparty political system guided by its 1992 Constitution. Article 55 guarantees that “every citizen of Ghana of voting age has the right to join a political party”. Political parties are free to organize and ‘disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programs of a national character’. But tribal and ethnic parties are illegal in Ghana under Article 55 (4). That is the key to Ghana’s political success. The Ghanaians also have an independent electoral commission (Art. 46) which is “not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority” and has proven itself by ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. Ghanaians enjoy a panoply of political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. In 2010, Ghana (with a population of 24 million) ranked 26 out of 178 countries worldwide on the World Press Freedom Index (WPFI).
In contrast, Ethiopia (with a population of nearly 90 million) ranked 139 out of 178 on the WPFI. There are more than 133 private newspapers, 110 FM radio stations and two state-owned dailies in Ghana. Ghanaians express their opinions without fear of government retaliation. The rule of law is upheld and the government follows and respects the constitution. Ghana has a fierecely independent judiciary, which is vital to the observance of the rule of law and protection of civil liberties. Political leaders and public officials abide by the rulings and decisions of the courts and other fact-finding inquiry commissions. Ghana is certainly not a utopia, but she is positive proof that multiparty constitutional democracy can help overcome political and economic dystopia in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa. Why not adopt the “Ghanaian Model”?
Why is the Dragon Dancing With Hyenas?
China’s economic investment in Africa is said to exceed USD$150 billion; and hundreds of Chinese companies are doing business in all parts of the continent. The Chinese government through its banks has given billions of dollars in low interest loans and credit lines to undertake a variety of infrastructure projects and other high profile projects, including the new African Union building. It has provided a range of technical assistance programs and provided scholarships and training opportunities to African students.
But why is China so generous with Africa? The conventional explanation is that China is hungry for natural resources to feed its economy. It uses its loans, grants and development assistance to project “soft power” and access Africa’s vast natural resources in oil, timber and minerals while cultivating a market for its surplus production in industrial and consumer products. Others say, loans and assistance programs to Africa are velvety gloves that hide an iron fist of neocolonial and neo-imperialist ambition. Last Summer, in an interview concerning the growing role of China in Africa, Secretary Hilary Clinton plaintly stated: “We don’t want to see a new colonialism in Africa.”
China’s role in Ethiopia in particular raises some troubling questions. According to one study, “whenever Ethiopia sought Chinese aid, loan, investment and arms, the latter has responded positively by providing debt reduction and technical assistance to Ethiopia with no political strings attached.” Another study concluded: “In the construction and the energy sector, Chinese involvement in telecommunication, road and power plant construction projects through very low initial bid-prices (as well as offering credit to finance such projects) has been displacing both local and other foreign construction firms (Notwithstanding, for example in the case of power plants, the fact that the very low initial entry bid-prices are off-setted by high operational costs when the projects start operation; and the fact that Chinese big credits are almost at commercial terms).” Others have complained of trade deficits, dumping of low price textiles and clothing, industrial products and consumer electronics. Perhaps this should not come as a surprise to anyone. At the 1963 inaugural O.A.U. Summit, H.I.M. Haile Selassie said, “Africa was a physical resource to be exploited and Africans were chattels to be purchased bodily or, at best, peoples to be reduced to vassalage and lackeyhood. Africa was the market for the produce of other nations and the source of the raw materials with which their factories were fed.”
Blowback for China?
Sooner or later China has to come to terms with three simple questions: Can it afford to fasten its destiny to Africa’s dictators, genociders and despots? How long can China pretend to turn a blind eye to the misery of the African people suffering under ruthless dictatorships? Will there be a price to pay once the African dictators that China supported are forced out of power in a popular uprising?
Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from Zambia where just a few months ago the role of China became a hot political issue in the elections. Michael Sata, who became president of Zambia last Fall after four attempts, “made a sport of baiting China, calling its businesspeople in the country ‘profiteers,’ not investors”, and denouncing the Chinese for “bringing in their own people to push wheelbarrows instead of hiring local people.”
The Dragon is known for breathing fire. If China does not re-think its African policy carefully and continues its blind association and unquestioning support of corrupt African dictators and tyrants, in time it will likely suffer multiple “blowbacks” across the continent from the flames of popular upheavals and backlashes from revolts against dictatorship.
China’s policy of “noninterference” (a/k/a “hear no evil, see no evil and say no evil” about Africa’s dictators) is actually the most conspicuous and underappreciated from of interference there is. What can be more “interference” than providing the economic means to sustain and nurture repressive and dictatorial regimes? In time, “noninterference” will logically and inevitably evolve into tighter defense and military relationships with the dictatorial regimes; and significant military presence may be unavoidable to defend Chinese economic interests and investments in Africa.
In Chinese folklore, the dragon is known for his intelligence, strength, goodness, longevity and wisdom. In African folklore, the hyena is known for treachery, gluttony and stupidity. Jia Qinglin, chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), in his speech at the 18th summit of the African Union inaugurating “China’s gift to Africa” said, “As an African saying goes, to be without a friend is to be poor indeed.” But the Dragon should think twice before befriending hyenas because the African people, like African elephants, have long memories. They remember their friends and the friends of their enemies. But Chairman Quinglin should also heed a couple of wise Chinese sayings: “A man should choose a friend who is better than himself” (unless, of course, the man believes that “birds of a feather flock together”). But more importantly, “One should not lift a rock only to drop it on one’s own foot.”
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
Long before Secretary Clinton eloquently articulated America’s human rights policy, Donald Payne, and before him another New Jersey Congressman, Christopher Smith, were toiling away to make it a reality. In fact, H.R. 2003 (passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in October 2007) neatly and effortlessly combined all four pillars of the Obama Administration’s human rights policy. It is precisely the type of legislative action that could give real teeth to the lofty words of Secretary Clinton.
How does one say farewell to a great friend of Ethiopia and Africa? Representative Donald Payne, the dean of New Jersey’s House delegation and the first black congressman elected to represent New Jersey, died at age 77 from colon cancer on Tuesday. He was elected to 12 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and served on various committees including Education and Workforce and Foreign Affairs committees. He chaired the Subcommittee on Africa for a number of years. His passing marks a great loss for the cause of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia and Africa.
Rep. Payne was a very special friend of Ethiopia. He strove for years to help improve the human rights situation in that poor country. He was the chief architect of H.R. 2003: Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007. The Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan research arm of the U.S. Congress summarized H.R. 2003’s five policy objectives in Ethiopia as follows: (1) support the advancement of human rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development; (2) the unconditional release of all political prisoners in Ethiopia; foster stability, democracy, and economic development in the Horn region; (4) support humanitarian assistance efforts, especially in the Ogaden region; (5) promote U.S.-Ethiopia collaboration in the Global War on Terror; and (6) generally strengthen Ethio-America relations.
Zenawi has replaced Birtukan by another young Ethiopian leader, to be sure several dozens of young opposition leaders, journalists, activists and others. Last week, the 