In the first American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson declared to a “candid world” that “when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” That revolution was against King George III.
In the Second American Revolution, Barack Obama surveyed the devastation wreaked upon American society and America’s role in the world in the last eight years and declared that in the course of global human events it becomes necessary for America to reunite with the “opinions of mankind”, re-establish its position of global leadership and remain the “best hope of Earth.” Of course, that was not Barack’s original idea; it was an idea put to him by people around the world:
On a trip to the Middle East, I met Israelis and Palestinians who told me that peace remains a distant hope without the promise of American leadership. At a camp along the border of Chad and Darfur, refugees begged for America to step in and help stop the genocide that has taken their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. And along the crowded streets of Kenya, I met throngs of children who asked if they’d ever get the chance to visit that magical place called America. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.
The Second American Revolution is against the calamitous legacy of President George W.
The Second American Revolution: Saving the Best Hope of Earth
It is the Second American Revolution, and it’s being televised. It is a Movement of the American People (The MAP). But Barack calls it “change”. He talked about “changing America” at every campaign stop. After his Iowa primary victory, he told South Carolinians that “our time for change has come.” In his final victory speech he said, “It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America… But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to – it belongs to you. This is your victory.”
For the faint of heart, perhaps the word “change” would do. But if one carefully considers the totality of Barack’s message and campaign strategy, it is plain to discern that he is really talking about a Second American Revolution in the form of a new MAP. As Barack said, in charge of the new MAP are ordinary Americans who had long felt marginalized, disenfranchised and victimized by years of deception, corruption and the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration. Bush and his arrogant “neoconservative” con men plunged America into a disastrous war in Iraq on bogus justifications. Bush made sure the proverbial image of the “ugly American” was seared into the consciences of people around the world with the ghastly photographs of torture victims in Abu Ghraib prison, and zombied terrorism suspects caged in Gitmo detention camp for years without due process of law. Bush made it possible for Wall Street sharks to squander billions of dollars in investments of the American people, and swiftly rewarded these brazen crooks with a taxpayer bailout. (They were not unlike the defendant who killed his parents and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan.)
Bush and his cronies stoked up the “culture wars” polarizing American society on the “hot-button” issues of abortion, gun politics, separation of church and state, affirmative action, the death penalty, privacy, sexual orientation, censorship and so on. When these issues waned, they toiled to create an Amerika that was divided by race, ethnicity, social class and political affiliation under the wicked GOP (Republican Party) political tactician and Ubermeister Karl Rove. When all failed, they scrambled to invent a Palin-esque “real America” where Americans who hold “patriotic values” can hide in the “pro-America areas of this great nation”. For eight years under George Bush, America struggled to be a polity without policy, and Americans put up with an administration bereft of governance. America sleepwalked for eight years without a national policy on health care, energy, immigration, the environment, the economy or foreign policy. To add insult to injury, George Bush thought he had gotten away with it all. This past May, he sighed contentedly: “I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.”
Healing these and other virtual atrocities committed on the American body politics could not be achieved by mere “change” or “reform”. “Change” suggests making alterations, modifications and substitutions. The damage done to America over the past eight years is so total and devastating, only a Second American Revolution with a MAP can repair America from within and without and make her whole once again. Much to the surprise of George W., there will soon be a really “smart person in the Oval office to figure it out.” The Man with the Plan, with the MAP to lead the Revolution from the Oval Office is Barack Obama. Like any revolution, it is not going to be easy. Barack understands the revolution will be long and hard fought, and formidable challenges lie ahead. That is why he said, “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.”
America is Back, on Track, with Barack Who is Sharp as a Tack!
But what is Barack promising the American people in the Second Revolution, in the MAP? His promise is that it will take some time to repair the damage done by Bush’s unrestrained unilateralism and militarism, but in time America can regain its global leadership acting in concert with its allies in the spirit of multilateralism and collective action. He is saying that the damage done to the American body politics by racial, ethnic and class divisions will take time to heal, but they will be healed as Americans of all backgrounds come together in the spirit of E Pluribus Unum (out of many one) and deal with the enormous challenges facing them. He is promising the American people that the damage done to the American psyche by those who use religion as a weapon of mass spiritual warfare and deception in the culture wars; the violence done to party politics by creating red and blue states; the ideological cleavage that separates liberals and conservatives; the sexism and racism that puts asunder Americans by gender, race and ethnicity will be overcome, but it will take time. He is saying that millions of Americans have now opened their minds, their eyes, and hearts, and keenly understand that they share the same destiny; and though they may have come to America in different ships from all corners of the world, they are now in the same boat. Barack is promising that the American people united can never be defeated. That’s right. America is back, on track, with Barack who is sharp as a tack!
America Will No Longer Be a Welfare Department for Dictators
There is an important postscript to the Second American Revolution. It is no longer going to be business as usual in Washington, D.C. Barack did not mince his words when he slammed the creepy lobbyists and influence peddlers who shuffle stealthily in the halls of government. He said lobbyists, “will not run my White House. You [the people] will help me run my White House, when I’m president. I don’t take money from lobbyists. I don’t take money from PACs. They have not funded my campaign. I don’t take money from federal registered lobbyists, because I want to answer to you when I’m in the White House. I don’t want to answer to all these fat-cat lobbyists!” Such sublime words, beauteous poetry to our ears as we continue our grassroots advocacy to get H.R. 2003 before President Obama for his signature. (Oh! Pity for those poor “fat-cat lobbyists” at D.L. A. Piper! Excommunicated from the White House, the U.S. Congress and the State Department! How the tables have turned!) Now is the time for the people — for us — to help Barack “run the white House”, and the Democrats run Congress; and give a helping hand to whomever Barack appoints to lead the State Department.
Months ago, we cautioned the panhandling tin-pot dictators of the world begging alms from the American taxpayer:
Watch out, petty dictators! A fierce wind of change is blowing across America. A new sheriff is coming to town. His name is Barack Obama. He does not carry a six-shooter. But he carries a law book. And he’s laying down the law for all the tin-pot dictators of the world: Y’all better shape up, or Barack’s Posse will be right on your tail. That goes for the outlaw Meles Zenawi and his gang of murderers and bank robbers, too… Tin-pot dictators and thugs, listen carefully. Read the writing on the wall. Barack will stand against you as long as you keep slaughtering your people, jail your innocent citizens by the hundreds of thousands and starve the rest by the millions. Barack will turn you back when you come to America’s doorsteps panhandling for military aid so that you can declare war on your people, and destroy your neighbors. Barack will not listen to your BS about democracy while you mercilessly crush legitimate democratic opposition, destroy press freedoms, disregard the rule of law and flout international law. Barack will not be scammed by your foolish threats of imaginary terrorists just so you can trap America in a regional war. No brownie points for offering to fight a needless destructive war in the name of America.
Well, there ain’t no doubt about it. Barack is in the saddle now, law book and lasso in hand. Right-wing haters and tin-pot dictators: GAME OVER!
For the survivor who chooses to testify, it is clear: his duty is to bear witness for the dead and the living. He has no right to deprive future generations of a past that belongs to our collective memory. To forget would be not only dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time. The witness has forced himself to testify. For the youth of today, for the children who will be born tomorrow. He does not want his past to become their future. (Elie Wiesel, a Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor)
It is Still Winter
I remember November. And June, too. I remember 2005. It was our season of hope and redemption. As Shakespeare might have put it, 2005 was “the winter of our discontent/ Made glorious summer by the victory of Kinijit. And all the clouds that low’r’d upon our country/ In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.” Today, it is still winter in Ethiopia. Our discontent festers like a cankerous sore under the dark and oppressive clouds of a monstrous dictatorship. But I remember the Angels of November — the 193 innocent men, women and children who were massacred in cold blood in 2005 because they stood up for freedom and democracy in Ethiopia. I remember the thousands who were sprayed with bullets but miraculously survived. I remember the tens of thousands swept off the streets indiscriminately and caged in beastly jails. I remember the countless who disappeared without a trace. I remember the untold numbers of refugees from a reign of terror. In November, I remember the 80 million who are inmates in a virtual Prison Nation.
November is to Remember
In November, I remember Krystallnacht (Night of Broken Glass). That was 1938 when the Nazis burned thousands of Jewish synagogues and businesses throughout Germany, killing nearly 100 and arresting and deporting over 30,000 to concentration camps. It foretold the Holocaust. I also remember March in November. That was March, 1960 when apartheid policemen in the township of Sharpeville, South Africa sprayed 705 bullets in two minutes in the backs of unarmed protesters and murdered 69 Africans; and severely wounded hundreds. And I remember June and November, 2005. I more than remember. I hear the faint voices of the 193 unarmed men, women and children massacred — shot in the head, in the chest and in the back — as they protested peacefully.[1] I hear their swan song: “Give us justice! Don’t let them get away with murder? Bear witness for us!”
Angels I Remember in November
The Angels of November I remember: ShiBire Desalegn, a beautiful young high school graduate shot in the neck and killed as she and her friends tried desperately to block passage to a torture camp in Sendafa. Then there was Tensae Zegeye, age 14, shot in the head with a high caliber bullet. And Debela Guta, age 15. And Habtamu Tola, age 16. And Binyam Degefa, age 18. Behailu Tesfaye, age 20. Kasim Ali Rashid, age 21. Teodros Giday Hailu, age 23. Adissu Belachew, age 25; Milion Kebede Robi, age 32; Desta Umma Birru, age 37; Tiruwork G. Tsadik, age 41. Admasu Abebe, age 45. Elfnesh Tekle, age 45. Abebeth Huletu, age 50. Etenesh Yimam, age 50; Regassa Feyessa, age 55. Teshome Addis Kidane, age 65; Victim No. 21762, age 75, female. And there was Victim No.21760, male, age unknown. I remember them all — those with names, and the nameless ones who are just numbers — permanently registered in my Directory of Angeles of November.[1]
Profiles in Courage: The Unsung Ethiopian Heroes
I also remember the unsung heroes who heard the voices of the angels, whose consciences seared with righteous indignation, refused to remain silent and stood up to tell the truth. I remember the two courageous judges, Frehiwot Samuel and Woldemichael Meshesha, the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the regime-established Inquiry Commission into the so-called post-election “disturbances”. I remember the daring lawyer Teshome Mitiku, a member of that Commission. These exemplary citizens refused to whitewash the regime-sponsored crimes and atrocities. Exactly two years ago to the day, they briefed the United States Congress on their findings in the massacres of June and November, 2005.[2] Their investigative work was as thorough as their findings were horrifying. They examined 16,990 documents, and received testimony form 1,300 witnesses. They visited prisons and hospitals, and interviewed members of the regime’s officialdom.
After months of intense investigation, the Commission concluded1 on an 8-2 vote that 1) none of the protesters possessed used or attempted to use firearms against the regime paramilitary forces; 2) none of the protesters possessed, used or attempted to use any type of explosives; 3) no protester was observed carrying a stick or a club to use as a weapon; 4) no protester set or attempted to set fire to public or private property; and 5) no protester robbed or attempted to rob a bank. The Commission established the paramilitary government forces used live ammunition, batons and tear gas. Almost all of the 193 victims were shot deliberately in the head or upper torso indicating that the shooters’ sole intent was to kill the protesters. The number of persons who suffered severe gunshot wounds was 763. Over 30,000 civilians were arrested without warrant, and held in detention without legal cause. The commission documented that on November 3, 2005, during an alleged disturbance in Kality prison that lasted 15 minutes, prison guards fired more than 1500 bullets into inmate living quarters. The body count from that shooting spree was 17 dead, and 53 severely wounded. The Commission laid to rest regime claims that its security officers were killed by protesters. No evidence was found to substantiate that claim. The Commission concluded, “Security forces which are alleged to be killed by demonstrators were not taken to autopsy, even there is no evidence of either photograph or death certificate showing the reason of death couldn’t be produced for police as opposed to that of civilians.”
These three individuals did something that has rarely been done in Ethiopian or African history. They risked their lives, the lives and welfare of their families, their professions and economic well being – EVERYTHING — to bring out the truth about the massacres of 2005. Perhaps some may not appreciate the steely nerve of these Ethiopians in standing up to a thuggish dictatorship, but there is no doubt that when the modern history of Ethiopia is written, their names will be listed at the top for courage under fire, audacity in the face of despair, bravery in the face of personal danger, and unflinching fortitude in the face of extreme adversity. We can only thank them. Let them know that “Never have so many owed so much to so few!” They will always be our heroes!
The Forensics of Atrocity: “Riot Reconstruction”
There is one question that begs an answer: What was the justification for massacaring 193 unarmed civilians and grievously wounding 763 others? Forensic techniques and policy analysis may yield some insights into this question. First, the fundamental premise in all police riot control countermeasures is not to massacre or maim rioters but to safely manage crowds with the aim of preventing unnecessary injuries and confrontation. This premise is based on a more fundamental principle of riot control which holds that almost all riots are incited and led by a few individuals who manifest intense interest in particular issues or seek to gain some advantage or outcome from a violent confrontation with police. Longitudinal studies (over a long period of time) of riots and “mob disturbances” have repeatedly demonstrated that most people show up at riot “events” because they are attracted by something exciting, or are bystanders who are sucked into a situation governed by “mob mentality”. The data show that most participants would opt to escape in riot events when faced with the possibility of violent confrontation with police or possible arrest. Most countries (and localities) have designed their riot control policies and procedures along such premises. As a result, riot police routinely use a variety of non-lethal means of riot control including chemical agents (tear gas), blunt force rounds (rubber pellet-type impact munitions that do not penetrate the skin) and combine them with effective psychological tactics that disperse rioters and crowds without the use of excessive force. Deadly force is used against rioters by police in a narrow set of circumstances, e.g. police acting in self-defense where there is reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, against looters observed causing major property damage (not breaking store windows) with risk to life, looters brandishing or using firearms in riot events, against snipers firing into the crowd or at police, rioters engaged in arson, or in propelling Molotov cocktails or homemade explosives in clashes with riot police and others engaged in serious or violent crimes.
Forensic analysis in the form of “riot reconstruction” (similar to crime scene or accident reconstruction) can be illuminating in discrete riot events. Using various data sources (concededly incomplete and fragmentary under the circumstances), preliminary forensic analysis provided insights into the question whether the use of deadly force was justified against the post-election “rioters”. Using enhanced high resolution forensic images of deceased victims, photogrammetry of video clips, anecdotal eyewitness testimony, and documentary evidence relied upon by the Inquiry Commission, one can generate a sketch of a riot scene in Addis Ababa and address the question of the necessity of the use of deadly force against unarmed protesters. While it is extremely difficult to generate an accurate reproduction of a riot scene for all the dates specified in the Inquiry Commission investigation, it is possible to make inferences (using contextual images) on the general layout of a “riot” confrontation scene and establish a probable sequence of events.
A preliminary analysis of one “riot scene” suggests that 1) the riot police (clad in riot gear, shields, helmets, etc.) fired from a distance where their safety was not in any way at risk from stone-throwing protesters, 2) image analysis of entry and exit wounds on victims’ photographs show that the victims were running away from the police (and not rushing to confront them), 3) the shooting of the rioters was not accidental by one or a few policemen from eyewitness testimony in the fall pattern of the bodies at the “riot” scene, 4) inferences from terminal ballistics (image analysis of a round impacting the body) suggest that at one “riot scene”, protesters who were shot in the upper torso intentionally with the purpose of killing them. Others who were wounded more likely remained at a substantially greater distance from the trigger happy policemen and were in a state of panicked flight from the scene when struck by rounds. Alternate forensic conclusions are further suggested in the preliminary analysis.
The official explanation of untrained riot policemen who panicked and fired at the crowd is unsupported by eyewitness or forensic evidence. In fact, it is possible to show from forensic analysis that the riot police were trained well enough to expertly use not only live ammunition for riot suppression but also were proficient in use of other methods of deadly force. The official claim is also unconvincing at least in the incidents in Addis Ababa given recent revelations in a study by Col. Michael Dewar, commissioned by the regime to upgrade the capabilities of the riot police.[3] As of 2005, there were 2000 special riot police with basic gear. Riot control policies and practices have been in place in Ethiopia since the days of Emperor Haile Selassie. It is standard practice even during the era of Emperor Haile Selassie not to use live ammunition to control unarmed protesters. Two questions remain: Who gave the order to the riot police to shoot-to-kill? When was that order given?
The Survivor Who Chooses to Testify
ShiBire, Tensae, Debela, Habtamu, Kasim, Tiruwork, Etenesh, Victim No. 21760 and all the others died testifying for democracy and freedom in Ethiopia. Now it is our turn to testify on their behalf. Elie Weisel said, “For the survivor who chooses to testify, it is clear: his duty is to bear witness for the dead and the living.” It is our moral duty to speak up — to “force ourselves to testify” — on behalf of innocent victims of state terror, and to keep the flame of justice bright for the next generation. By honoring their memories and testifying for them, we declare to the world — and to their killers who sneer at justice — that they did not die in vain; and we have not forgotten them. Never! Never! Never again shall we stand idle in the face of such barbarous crimes against humanity.
Justice for the Victims, NOW!
The names of those who pulled the trigger in the 2005 massacres are well known to the regime. The Director General of the Ethiopian Federal Police, Workneh Gebeyehu, told Col. Michael Dewars that “As a direct result of the 2005 riots, [Gebeyehu had] sacked 237 policemen.”[http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/5335] Gebeyehu’s statement nullifies prior regime claims that the regime has no specific knowledge of any criminal conduct by riot policemen in the killings of the protesters. Gebeyehu’s admission to Dewars conclusively establishes the existence of a list of at least 237 policemen who are now prime suspects in the massacres of peaceful protesters in June and November of 2005. THESE CRIMINAL POLICE SUSPECTS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE IMMEDIATELY! Recently, the Waki Commission in Kenya recommended that a sealed list of suspects in the post-election disturbances in that country be turned over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for possible prosecution for crimes against humanity. Ethiopians deserve no less. A sealed list of the names of the 237 police officers mentioned by Gebeyehu should be turned over immediately to the International Criminal Court for prosecution on suspicion of crimes against humanity!
Light A Candle for an Angel
Let’s say a prayer for all of the innocent victims of state terror in Ethiopia. Let’s light a few candles in their honor. Let’s honor their memories by becoming members of Amnesty International, U.S.A., Human Rights Watch or any of the other international human rights organizations. Let’s create awareness about Ethiopian human rights with our neighbors and co-workers and others in our local communities. How about installing a computer screensaver of 193 candles with the background images of the martyrs of June and November for you to remember.[3] “Justice is like a train that is nearly always late” but for the fiendishly wicked, justice always arrives in the nick of time. “If trouble hearing Angels song with thine ears, try listening with thy heart.”
—–
Notes:
* These victims were documented by the Inquiry Commission in its investigation of shootings of unarmed protesters in Addis Ababa on June 8, and November 1-10 and 14-16, 2005 in Oromia, SNNPR and Amhara regional states. Full list at:
http://www.abbaymedia.com/pdf/list_of_people_shot.pdf
http://www.mdhe.org/doc/personskilled%20.pdf
http://www.abbaymedia.com/Remembering_Victims_of_November_2005.htm
2 For full report, see http://www.qalitiqalkidan.org/commission/Testimony_Frehiywot_Samuel.pdf
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world…: Tonight, we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. – Barack Obama victory speech.
Long Road From the Slave Cabins to the White House
In 1776, the American Declaration of Independence announced to the world “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” African slaves were left out of the category of “all men”. In 1787, the U.S. Constitution declared “We the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The African slaves were not part of the “We the People”. They were just “three-fifths of other persons”. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln deeply agonized over slavery: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” Between 1861-65, Lincoln presided over a nation torn by a civil war over the issue of slavery. In 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation and freed “all persons held as slaves within the rebellious areas.” Between 1865-70, the American Constitution was amended three times to abolish slavery, extend basic liberties and equality to the freed African slaves and to grant them the most precious of all political rights, voting. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 declaring all persons born in the United States to be American citizens with full legal and economic rights. A century later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing all discrimination in public accommodations and employment. A year later the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed prohibiting discriminatory practices that had prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote. On July 21, 1861, the first major military conflict in the American civil war occurred in Virginia at the Battle of Bull Run (Manassas). On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was elected president when Virginia cast its 27 electoral votes putting him over the required 270 to become president of the United States. Such was the long journey of African Americans — from the slave cabins and plantations to the Rose Garden and the Oval Office of the White House. Only in America is such a journey possible!
Questions for the Power of American Democracy
The Barack Obama story can be told only in America. Nowhere else. He said it himself, “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” But the struggle for equality, justice and freedom for African Americans spans centuries. In 1822, Denmark Vesey, a slave, organized a massive revolt of over 9000 slaves toiling on the plantations. He was betrayed. William Lloyd Garrison, a white man, campaigned relentlessly for the abolition of slavery. He condemned the slave masters, “We are living under an awful despotism–that of a brutal slave oligarchy.” In protest, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the U.S. Constitution in 1854 causing a huge brouhaha. John Brown, a white man, was so impassioned against the immorality of the institution of slavery that in 1859 he led a party of 21 men in a successful attack on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Maryland. Brown believed only armed insurrection could end slavery and bring about racial equality in America. But equality, justice and freedom remained elusive for African Americans. Frederick Douglas, (a former slave and the first African-American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket in 1872), wondered what made a nation secure. He concluded that “The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.”
Just a few decades ago, Dr. Marin Luther King was turned back from the Bank of Justice: “It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.'” On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama finally presented that check to the American people and cashed it at the ballot box and became the 44th President of the United States with 364 electoral votes. Malcom X guided African Americans who had lost their way on the long road to equality. He urged, “Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today.” Barack Obama got his passport with top honors from Columbia and Harvard Universities. Rosa Parks, the mother of the American civil rights movement, struggled to answer the question of how a free person should live. “Each person must live their life as a model for others,” she instructed. Three young Americans, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, became model freedom riders of their generation, and gave up their lives fighting for civil rights during the Freedom Summer of 1964.
There was always hope and faith in the power of American democracy. In 1968, in a prophetic speech to the Voice of America heard all over the world, Bobby Kennedy said that things are “moving so fast in race relations [in the U.S] a Negro could be president in 40 years. There’s no question about it. In the next 40 years a Negro can achieve the same position that my brother has. But we have tried to make progress and we are making progress. We are not going to accept the status quo.” Barack Obama became President of the United States exactly forty years later. Barack now stands on the shoulders of these American giants and many others like them as a beacon of hope and change not only for Americans, but for all people around the world. Barack is right, “America is a place where all things are possible.” Possible beyond a reasonable doubt!
How Did Team Obama Manage to Pull it Off?
A thousand reasons could be given to explain why Barack won. It was the dismal economy; the eight years of a rudderless Republican administration; the war in Iraq ($600 billion and thousands of lives lost); the ballooning budget deficit (total U.S. federal debt passed the $10 trillion mark in September 2008); republican leaders getting entangled in all sorts of scandals, corruption and ethical lapses (Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, a 40 year veteran of the Senate was convicted of 7 felony corruption charges a week before the election); a republican opponent who campaigned with the “gang who couldn’t shoot straight”, and so on. But there are two reasons that explain Barack’s victory more convincingly than any others: 1) a message of change based on the unity of the American people, and 2) massive grassroots organization and mobilization. Barack understood the key to America’s international leadership and domestic tranquility depends upon its people coming together and harnessing their energies to face the great challenges of the day. Like Lincoln, he understood “a house divided can not stand.” That is why he made unity of the American people the foundation — the mantra — of his campaign: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America. We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States — We are the United States of America.” This message of unity touched a deep chord in the American psyche and “can do” spirit. By accentuating the unity of the American people, Barack recaptured for this generation of Americans the spirit of the Founders: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one! (If one might add: Out of many colors, one America.)
Second, Barack won because he understood the power of grassroots organization and mobilization. He was inspired deeply by the civil rights movement and its methods of mass mobilization and action. In Dreams From My Father, he wrote: “Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.” He created a grassroots campaign organization and recruited a massive cyber-army of energetic volunteer activists committed to him as a person and his ideals. They worked gangbusters to get him elected. In his victory speech, he did not commend the party leaders and operatives; he shared his victory with his triumphant army of volunteers. He said his campaign “was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars… It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generations apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.”
Questions for Ethiopians: Can we….?
Barack Obama got a resounding “Yes, we can!” from the American people to his questions. As Ethiopians we have many questions to answer: Can we produce leaders who inspire us with hope and faith in the future? Leaders who are able to put our humanity before our ethnicity, our Ethiopianity, our Africanity? Can we get leaders who can unite us as one people in an Ethiopian nation instead of keep us corralled in a nation of shredded nationalities? Can we get leaders who embrace the politics of unity and shun the politics of ethnic identity? Can we replace benighted demagogues with enlightened visionary leaders? Engage leaders with the courage of their convictions and hold accountable criminals who convict the innocents? Can we cultivate leaders who persuade by the power of their logic and substance of their arguments instead of dictators who measure their power by the diameter of the barrel of their guns and the caliber of their bullets? Can we develop leaders who speak truth to dictators living in gilded castles of lies? Can we replace brutes who rule by the law of the jungle with leaders who understand, believe in and practice the rule of law? Can we assemble leaders who respect the human rights and dignity of the least of their citizens and are committed to bringing to justice murderers and thugs who have built a memorial to their power on the gravesite of their innocent victims? I say, YES, WE CAN! Oh! Yes, we can. But first we must believe in the creed of our inner strength as a people: The unity of the Ethiopian people. The territorial integrity of the Ethiopian nation. The inalienable right of all Ethiopians to human rights and their entitlement to freedom and democracy.
To paraphrase Barack Obama, if there any despots out there who still doubt the volcanic power of democracy and Ethiopia’s destiny that she will soon overcome ethnic division with national unity, conquer 17 years of fear with eternal hope and faith, redress government wrongs with human rights and forge a common and glorious destiny, you have your answer: Ethiopia is not a collection of nationalities, ethnicities, kilils and kebeles. There is no Ethiopia that is the exclusive possession of the Oromo, the Amhara, the Tigray, the Guragie, the Sidama, the Anuak, the Welayita or any of the other groups. There is one and ONLY one Ethiopia and it belongs equally to all of its peoples. We are, and always will be, the children of one mother: Ethiopia!
The Obama Karma: Proud to be an Ethio-Amer-I-Can
We should be proud as Americans and Ethio-Amer-I-cans. When dictators and thugs of all stripes ravaged our homeland, America embraced us and gave us shelter. When the voices of our people were silenced in broad daylight, America gave the right to vote in a secret ballot. When our people live in a land that has become a virtual prison, we live in freedom and dignity, our rights secure in the American Constitution. When our people live in the sweltering heat of a ruthless dictatorship, we breathe the fresh air of freedom and democracy. Barack is right, “America is a place where all things are possible.” Yes, it is the one place where free speech, a free press, the free exercise of religion, freedom of association and freedom to petition for grievances are all possible. It is the one place where our privacy is respected from government intrusion and we are guaranteed the due process of law. It is the one place where the high and mighty kneel down before the supreme law of the land and are held accountable for their actions and omissions. Just a few of the thousands of reasons we can be proud to be Ethio-Amer-I-cans.
The True Genius of America
Barack said, “For that is the true genius of America — that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.” He put out a call for a new spirit of patriotism: “Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation — as one people.” Barack was optimistic but not naïve: “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even one term, but America — I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you: We as a people will get there.” Could he be talking to Ethiopians? Are we listening? Well, if change is good enough for Barack Obama and America, it is good enough for Ethiopians and Ethiopia! “We will rise or fall as one nation — as one Ethiopian people.” Look over the horizon. A furious wind of change is blowing eastward. That wind to our back, the sun shining warmly on our faces, let’s saddle up, human rights riders! Yes, we can ride out the long odyssey to freedom, and make history!
In mid-July 2006, Zenawi sent his troops to Somalia to prop up the so-called transitional government in Baidoa. By late December, 2006 his tanks rolled into Mogadishu to dislodge the “government” of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and crush the “Talibanic” Al Shabaab. Zenawi justified his invasion as an act of pre-emptive self-defense: “Ethiopian defense forces were forced to enter into war to protect the sovereignty of the nation. We are not trying to set up a government for Somalia, nor do we have an intention to meddle in Somalia’s internal affairs. We have only been forced by the circumstances.” But everyone knows the invasion was about empowering one faction of the warlords against the rest. By mid-October, 2008, Zenawi said he has had enough. It is time to cut and run! He told his parliament: “If the Somali political scenario improves and its stakeholders assure us of their commitment, we will remain to help them out. Otherwise we will leave as no other option will be available.” Last week, it was announced that following a ceasefire agreement that takes effect on November 5, Zenawi will begin a “phased withdrawal” of his troops from Somalia. Accordingly, by November 21, Zenawi’s soldiers will be withdrawn from the capital Mogadishu and Beledweyne, near the Ethiopian border. The second phase is expected to take place in 120 days. By then African Union peacekeepers, militiamen loyal to the transitional Somali government and certain elements of the opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation (ARS) will form a 10,000-man police force to maintain law and order.
A humbled Zenawi struck a conciliatory tone with his erstwhile jihadists enemies as he prepared to pull out: “If the people of Somalia have a government, even one not positively inclined to Ethiopia, it would be better than the current situation. Having a stable government in place in Somalia is in our national interests.” (In December, 2006, Somalia had a “stable” government which enjoyed popular support after securing Mogadishu from competing warlords and thugs). On October 28, Zenawi’s foreign minister Seyoum Mesfin blamed everybody but his own regime for everything that went wrong in Somalia after the invasion: “Somalia’s problems are not security, but political [and the transitional government] failed to crate any institutions of governance to speak of. The continuing feud within the leadership had contributed to the paralysis of the TFG. Of course no one could assume that, speaking now on behalf of my country, Ethiopia will continue to keep its troops in Somalia. In all honesty, the international community can hardly be proud of its record in Somalia. But this is no excuse for the kind of egregious lack of responsible behaviour that we continue to witness on the part of all those in positions of authority in Somalia.”
But the ceasefire was flatly rejected by the “hardliners” including Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, Al Shabaab leaders and other insurgent and clan leaders. Mukhtar Robow, an Al Shabaab spokesman defiantly declared: “We have already rejected the (peace) conference and its agreements. We are now saying again that we will not accept them. We will continue fighting against the enemies of Allah. I say Meles Zenawi must admit defeat, because he found people who hide his defeat after his power was severely weakened. We will continue attacks on Ethiopian and African Union forces.” On October 29, a coordinated attack by unidentified suicide bombers struck a United Nations compound and other targets in northern Somalia killing at least 22 people. Despite the announced ceasefire, there are continued reports of daily mortar attacks and gun battles with insurgent elements in the streets. According to one report, Zenawi now has less than 2500 soldiers left inside Somalia, down from an estimated 15,000-18,000 in the first year of the invasion. Secret plans are said to be in place to evacuate officials of the transitional government to Kenya once the troops are withdrwan.
The Logic of the Somali Invasion
Somalia has been without any central government since the downfall of President Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. Clan warfare, warlords, armed thugs and bandits have made Somalia the archetypal “failed state”. The marauding and murderous warlords have left tens of thousands of innocent victims in their wake. Zenawi’s casus belli (justification for invasion and war) was framed against this backdrop of clan anarchy and the overshadowing specter of a Somali Talibanic-Islamist-Jihadist “bogeyman” rampaging throughout the Horn of Africa. The invasion was anchored in an unarticulated doctrine of containment of terrorism in the Horn where Zenawi expected to play a pivotal role in eliminating or severely restrict the sphere of influence of Al Queida and other homegrown terrorists in Somalia and the region. To ensure the unflinching support of the terrorism-obsessed Bush administration, Zenawi wanted to be seen as a star player in the “second front” on the war on global terrorism.
Based on a content analysis of Zenawi’s public statements, one can discern a pretty slick set of fabricated arguments for the invasion of Somalia and regional hegemonism based on systematic demonization of Somali Islamists as die-hard terrorists and jihadists. Here are the elements of the casus belli: 1) Under the rule of the ICU and influence of the Al Shabaab, Somalia is in imminent danger of being transformed into a Taliban-style Islamic fundamentalist state. 2) The Taliban-style Islamic state in Somalia is sworn to provide a haven and training grounds for Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists and militants globally, and militarily threaten Ethiopia and other countries in the region. 3) The Somali Islamic state, unless opposed, will be in a strong position to support and expand Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism among Ethiopian Muslims and other Muslims in the region; and for this purpose the Islamic state will support other internal armed opposition anti-regime groups as proxies to destabilize Ethiopia and the region. 4) The Islamic Somali state is revanchist (expansionist) in its ideology and will aggressively try to combine the Islamic populations in the Ogaden, Djbouti and Eritrea in an effort to create a greater Islamic state or sphere of influence. 5) Unless militarily challenged by Ethiopia, the Islamists in Somalia will take control of the southern flank of the Red Sea (Gulf of Aden) and the coastal areas of the Indian Ocean providing a beachhead for Islamic terrorists (may be pirates). 6) Without the active support and participation of the Zenawi regime, U.S. anti- terrorism strategy in the Horn, and possibly even in the southwestern Arabian Peninsula, is doomed to failure. 7) Ergo, only Zenawi can save the Horn from the plague of global terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and regional instability.
Winners and Losers: A Ceasefire is Not a Substitute for Victory!
Governments who believe in war as an instrument of foreign policy understand that war is about victory over the enemy and winning. Invading a country and waging war on it is not a picnic. Fighting a war to victory requires great sacrifices in human lives and resources. This holds true even in a limited war (where the objects of the war are well defined and military confrontation does not require maximum military efforts). It has been said that the invasion of Somalia is not about “trying to set up a government for Somalia” or “to meddle in Somalia’s internal affairs.” The limited objective of the war, we were told, is to neutralize and eliminate the “jihadists”. Thus, war against “jihadists” means vanquishing them and bringing them to their knees. Offering them a ceasefire is not victory. Settling with anyone willing to sign the instrument of a ceasefire to save face while cutting and running is not victory. Retreating under the sustained onslaught of the “enemy” is not victory. As General Douglas MacArthur said, “In war, there is no substitute for victory. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.”
Why is there no “victory” in Somalia? There are military and political reasons why “victory” in Somalia is impossible. Militarily, there are three reasons why Zenawi could not win the Somali war. First, to defeat the Somali “jihadists” and “Islamists” it was necessary to apply overwhelming force. That was accomplished in the initial stages of the invasion when Zenawi’s troops swiftly routed the ICU and Al Shabaab in a blitzkrieg using heavy armor and air support from U.S. AC-130 gunships stationed in Djbouti. After the initial onslaught and “victory”, Zenawi fell into “prolonged indecision”. The nature of the conflict changed as the “jihadists” began to fight guerilla-style against the occupation forces. Zenawi was forced to change from an offensive action to waging a defensive war. But as General MacArthur cautioned, “You can’t win a war fighting it defensively.” The “jihadists” had scattered to the south and began regrouping to wage a war of liberation. Within months, Zenawi’s and the transitional government’s troops had lost the offensive and the insurgents were putting up effective resistance. Al Shabaab operatives were busy laying roadside bombs and attacking targets with small arms fire and mortars often hiding in neighborhoods and civilians areas. Zenawi’s troops would respond indiscriminately by bombarding residential areas killing hundreds and causing the flight of hundreds of thousands of people from Mogadishu and other areas. By the Fall of 2007, the “jihadist terrorists” had been transformed by the invasion. They had become insurgents dedicated to ridding Somalia from foreign invaders and occupiers. Defending Somali sovereignty had become far more important to them than their own internal squabbles or allegiance to a particular political orientation, ideology or system.
Second, from the tactical perspective it appears Zenawi completely underestimated the insurgents and the Somali people and overestimated the military prowess of his troops. He really did not know the Somalis as much as he thought he knew them. He underestimated their resolve to fight a force that had invaded and occupied their country. His public statements reveal that he completely underestimated the bravery, strength, resilience, resolve and military experience of the Somalis and the nationalist political dynamic the invasion was bound to foster in the creation of an unyielding insurgent fighting force. Zenawi and possibly some of his generals foolishly and arrogantly believed that defeating the jihadists would be a cakewalk. It is possibly this infantile optimism about their own military prowess that led them to declare in January, 2006 that “we’ll be out of Somalia in a few weeks”. They just did not know their “enemy” or have a healthy respect for him.
Third, the secret of the Somali insurgency and its obvious victory over the invading forces was foretold long ago by Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap in his book, How We Won the War, a narrative of how the North Vietnamese army and the Vietcong systematically countered the United States military and South Vietnamese troops until they swooped down from the north and captured Saigon in 1975. Giap said that “Any force that wishes to impose its will on other nations will certainly face failure.” Giap explained, “We had ingenuity and the determination to fight to the end. I appreciated the fact that they [U.S] had sophisticated weapon systems but I must say that it was the people who made the difference, not the weapons. And so they made mistakes. They did not know the limits of power. … No matter how powerful you are there are certain limits, and they did not understand it well. … We had the spirit that we would govern our own nation; we would rather sacrifice than be slaves.” The Somali insurgents could not be defeated because they had the “spirit” to govern themselves (even though they are having an extraordinarily difficult time doing it) and the “spirit” to resist aggression by any means necessary — hit and run attacks, ambushing unsuspecting patrols and convoys, using improvised explosive devices, mortar attacks and so on. In the end, the Somali insurgents understood Ho Chi Mihn’s famous statement, “You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds you will lose and I will win.” They won!
The problems involved in bringing about a political solution to Somalia’s problems were vastly complicated by the presence of foreign troops and the military situation on the ground. Bringing order (let alone peace) to a country that has been stateless and racked by violence for seventeen years is daunting. They tried numerous peace conferences to bring the warring parties to the peace table. None of them worked out. Against this backdrop, in 2006 Zenawi rode into Mogadishu like a knight on a white horse seeking to “stabilize the internationally recognized transitional government” and drive out the terrorist. For nearly two years, he tried to impose a Pax Zenawi on them in the form of a negotiated power-sharing program. There were no takers. When a comprehensive political solution could not be achieved, he offered them a ceasefire, and put the blame on the transitional government for its internal weaknesses and the international community for failing to provide military muscle to backup his vision of a political solution for Somalia.
The political problems are not limited to post-invasion Somalia. They also focus on the reasons for invasion. Why did Zenawi invade Somalia and how did he go about making that decision? Was the invasion absolutely necessary? The incontrovertible evidence is that there was no public discussion of the legitimacy or necessity of the invasion and war in Somalia. Neither the common Ethiopian folks nor the political elites openly discussed and debated the wisdom or utility of the invasion and the war. There was no real debate in the “parliament”. A few opposition leaders who dared to speak made it clear that they were not convinced of the justness or necessity of the invasion. Privately, many influential opinion leaders acknowledged that they felt that the invasion was insane. They were afraid to speak out. It is also incontrovertible that Zenawi’s justifications for the invasion were fabricated. He exaggerated the threat of a jihadist aggression and the regional threat posed by Al Queida and intentionally demonized the Islamists as Al Quieda stooges. He played the Bush administration for its knee jerk reaction to the word “terrorism”. By invading Somalia, Zenawi also saw an opportunity to burnish his image internationally and put a damper on all of the congressional activity aimed at sanctioning him for dismal human rights record. He wanted to convince the Bush administration that even though the international human rights organizations were saying nasty things about him, he is actually a pretty nice guy. Most of all, he is really trustworthy and reliable. In the end, Zenawi painted himself into a corner. He could not win a war he started nor could he impose his vision of a peaceful Somali state. In his retreat he is unable to explain the enormous sacrifices in human lives and resources fighting an illegal war of aggression.
The Question of War Crimes
Now that there will be a “ceasefire” (effectively ending the occupation and the war), there are serous questions of war crimes against Zenawi’s troops, the forces loyal to the TFG and the insurgents. The tip of the war crimes iceberg is evident in a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) entitled, Shell Shocked: Civilians Under Siege in Mogadishu [1] HRW in its scathing report alleges that the insurgents would “launch mortar rounds within minutes, then melt back into the civilian population.” The “Ethiopian and TFG response to mortar attacks increasingly included the return firing of mortars and rockets in the direction of origin of insurgency fire.” Specific “neighborhoods like Casa Populare (KPP) in the south, Towfiq and Ali Kamin around the Stadium, all along Industrial Road, and the road from the Stadium to Villa Somalia were heavily shelled or repeatedly hit by Ethiopian BM-21 multiple-rocket launcher and mortar rounds.” The impact of the shelling on the civilian population was “devastating”. HRW concluded, “The appalling consequences of indiscriminate attacks, the deployment of forces in densely populated areas, and the failure of all warring parties generally to take steps to minimize civilian harm is reflected in the thousands of civilians who died or whose lives were shattered by the injuries they sustained or by the loss of family members. It is also reflected in the staggering numbers of people who fled Mogadishu and in the scale of the destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, mosques, and other infrastructure in Mogadishu.”
Somalia: Mission NOT Accomplished!
The time to get out of Somalia was in the Spring of 2007. It was much easier to declare victory after chasing the “jihadists” out of town. As military or legally enforceable agreements, ceasefires do not amount to much. Ceasefires are about stopping armed conflict or suspending hostile action until one side determines it could get an advantage by resuming military action. Ceasefires rarely lead to comprehensive settlements. All over Africa ceasefires are signed and broken before the ink on the paper is dry. In 1973 President Nixon used the Paris Accords ceasefire agreements as a graceful way to exit the war in Vietnam. That was his peace with honor strategy. Two years later, the North Vietnamese Army swooped down on Saigon and took over. The “jihadists”, “Islamists” or whatever you want to call them will now feel emboldened in their ability to drive out the invader. They have defiantly declared they will not honor the ceasefire. Ironically, thousands of Somalis have been killed and over 1 million have been displaced. Many Ethiopian lives have been lost and resources wasted. All for one grand prize: A Ceasefire!
Perhaps in a few months the tanks and the artillery pieces will fall silent. But that will not signal the arrival of peace in Somalia. As long as heavily-armed insurgent groups, clan leaders, warlords, militants, pirates and other warmongers run amok, peace will remain elusive in Somalia. Hopefully, the ceasefire will give pause to the opposing factions to look inward for a durable solution. Ultimately, whether there shall be war or peace in Somalia will be in the hands of the Somali people alone. Only they can choose their destiny. When the dust settles in Somalia, what will matter the most will not be the armies of the invaders and the defenders who signed or did not sign a ceasefire. To paraphrase the old saying, the only armies that matter will be the army of cripples, the army of mourners, the forgotten army of the innocent dead and the army of displaced persons and refugees. PEACE!
If you can’t feed your people, bite the hands that feed them. That seems to be the metaphysics (first principles that define reality) of the Zenawi regime. Oxfam, Save the Children, Food for the Hungry International, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, Medecins Sans Frontieres, the International Islamic Relief Organization, and hundreds of other non-governmental organizations will soon be out of business in Ethiopia or submit to one of the most repressive and anti-non-governmental (NGO) laws in the world.
Last week, David Kramer, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights, visited Ethiopia to ask Zenawi “to reconsider provisions in a draft law that would criminalize many activities of foreign non-governmental organizations.” Commenting after the meeting, Kramer said, “I did convey to him concerns that we have and have heard from others about some trends that would point to a closing of political space.” Kramer was particularly disturbed by a string of repressive actions taken by the regime in recent months including the “April election earlier this year” and “the media law that was passed”. Kramer candidly stated that the “legislation could force the closure of several aid projects funded by the U.S. government. My bureau for example funds programs that deal with issues of women’s empowerment, with media, with conflict resolution, and based on my understanding of the latest version of the proclamation that I’ve seen so far, those programs could be adversely affected.” According to a VOA report, there are an estimated 3,000 NGOs currently operating in Ethiopia with annual expenditures in excess of $1 billion a year.
Bereket Simon, Zenawi’s shadowy advisor, rejected the criticism arguing that the “law” would enhance democracy by empowering the people: “This is simply a ridiculous assertion. Since we’re promoting democracy, I don’t think any genuinely democratic NGO shall be afraid of empowering our people. We are empowering our people. Nothing has been taken from the right of the people, and that’s what concerns us most, and if these NGO critics are really interested in what is taking place in Ethiopia, in empowering the public, I think there should be no concern or fear.” Simon’s argument, if it could be deconstructed, is pure ignoratio elenchi (a red herring, a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument). Kramer’s concern is not that Simon’s regime is promoting democracy and empowering people; rather it is that the “proclamation” will effectively destroy NGOs in Ethiopia as independent non-governmental civil society institutions. Simply stated, the concern is that the “proclamation” treats foreign NGO as shadow opposition political groups and seeks to systematically neutralize and dismantle them.
What are NGOs Anyway?
NGOs are part of what are commonly referred to as civil society organizations. Such organizations include charities, community associations and groups, women’s and youth organizations, religious organizations, professional associations, trade unions, business associations and a variety of other self-help and advocacy groups. The NGO movement began to expand in the mid-1980s in response to social injustice and inequality issues in repressive states, including the former communist societies. NGO activists were committed to promoting ideas and practices of local empowerment, political participation and increased democratization in society. In the developing societies, they focused their efforts to help the poor and dispossessed materially and in terms of organization to have influence in the policy process. As Secretary Kramer indicated, many Western donor countries, the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and other organizations use NGOs to support projects ranging from environmental conservation, AIDS prevention and treatment, anti-poverty programs in the rural areas, micro-credit programs, and information systems development.
The So-called Charities and Societies Proclamation
“A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig,” goes the old saying. The diktat (unchallengeable command or decree) of a dictator by any other name (“charities and societies proclamation”) is still a diktat. The fact that a diktat is presented to a rubberstamp parliament does not change that fact that the diktat is the will of the dictator and not the “peoples’ representatives”. That is what makes this whole discussion of the “charities law” rather silly and absurd. Many of us seem to miss entirely the simple fact that “The Law” in a dictatorship is merely a tool of repression and social and political control, and the means for legitimizing political power. It is not about limiting the arbitrary powers of government, imposing accountability on public officials, good governance or any of the principles associated with constitutionalism and popular sovereignty. “The Law” in a dictatorship is certainly not about the rule of law (the idea that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed fair laws and established procedures). Simply stated: “The Law” in a dictatorship is the equivalent of the lipstick on the proverbial pig.
So, what is the “charities and societies proclamation”? In its purest form, it is a legal tool in an official campaign to intimidate and ultimately silence human rights and civil society organizations that are perceived as critical and unfriendly to the ruling regime in Ethiopia. At root of the “proclamation” is anger, fear and loathing by the Ethiopian dictatorship against that international NGOs for exposing the regime’s massive human rights violations. A recent study commissioned by the regime and completed by Col. Michael Dewars, an internationally renowned expert on “urban warfare”, shows that the regime feels deeply stung and embarrassed by the activities of international human rights organizations in the aftermath of the 2005 parliamentary elections.[2]
According to Amnesty International, the “proposed new legislation would criminalize human rights activities undertaken by both international and Ethiopian organizations who receive more 10 percent of their funding from abroad”. It would also make “illegal campaigning for gender equality, children’s rights, disabled persons’ rights, conflict resolution and judicial and law enforcement capacity-building.” The law further creates a “Charities and Societies Agency with broad discretionary power over civil society organizations, which would allow strict government control and interference in the operation and management of civil society organizations.” AI concluded: “Ethiopia’s draft law cannot be edited or further amended to make it acceptable; it is inherently abusive of basic human rights in that it seeks primarily to intimidate and dismantle the country’s already-beleaguered civil society actors and criminalize human rights-related work carried out by international organizations. The draft should be scrapped and either replaced with a bill that does not have the infringement of basic human rights as its primary aim, or else the idea of an Ethiopian NGO law should be abandoned altogether.”
Monkey See, Monkey Do
The assault on NGOs and civil society organizations is not limited to Ethiopia. For the past few years, it has been open season on NGOs in a number of countries that have faced criticism over their human rights records. The crackdown on NGOs began in earnest with the crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen square in 1989. After Tiananmen, the Chinese government saw a clear threat and challenge to its power from the operation of independent civic organizations. They devised strict registration requirements to effectively undermine the independence of the NGOs. Simultaneously, they implemented a strategy of co-optation of NGOs under a structured system of “government-organized non-governmental organizations”, called “Gongos”. These Gongos, often headed by retired party officials and bureaucrats operate under the supervision of the state agencies to engage in local charitable activities. As a result, there are virtually no civic groups in China today in the form of independent labor unions, student unions, religious groups or other civil society institutions. In 2006, Vladimir Putin issued executive orders which authorized broad control over NGOs in Russia including compulsory registration, activity reporting and fiscal scrutiny by oversight agencies.
In 2006, the Sudanese government adopted a law which required “non-interference by foreign and international organizations in the internal affairs of the Sudan, to the extent that these infringe upon the sovereignty of the country”. NGOs working to bring aid to civilian survivors of the Darfur genocide were effectively prevented from doing their relief work. In 2004, Mugabe enacted “The Non-governmental Organizations Act” in Zimbabwe specifically targeting organizations that “promote and protect human rights”. That law forces all non-governmental agencies to register with a state-appointed commission and makes it illegal for them to receive foreign funding. In Latin America, Brazil has been cracking down on foreign NGOs working in the Amazon rainforest. Heavy fines are imposed on NGOs working in the Amazon without official permission. President Alvaro Uribe has attacked NGOs as “spokesmen” and “politickers” of terrorism.” NGOs continue to experience serious problems in many of the world’s failed states.
Why Try to Hammer NGOs in Ethiopia Now?
Most people of strong democratic conviction appreciate and support NGOs for their efforts to promote democratic practices in repressive political environments. NGOs often serve and advocate on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged. Their role in societies without effective opposition political parties is greatly magnified. Because of their advocacy role, repressive regimes generally view NGOs as a threat to their power. But over time, a strange chemistry has evolved between the NGOs and dictatorships. Dictatorships need NGOs for various things: to maintain a façade of democracy, to provide services they can not themselves provide and as convenient excuses to evade public accountability. For a period of time, for instance, the regime in Ethiopia managed to hoodwink the West by playacting democracy. “We are a growing democracy. We have civil societies. NGOs operate freely.” Western donors would heap praise on them. They would call them “new breed of African leaders”. The World Bank, the IMF and the U.S. government, as indicated by Assistant Secretary Kramer, poured in large amounts of loans and aid because they felt confident the NGOs would be able to do relief and development work without the taint of corruption of the local government.
When the regime could no longer hide the famine by calling it “severe malnutrition”, they called upon the NGOs and donor governments to provide millions of tons of grain. Because the NGOs helped bridge the gap in the food deficit, the regime was able to avoid a much higher level of scrutiny and accountability for not planning ahead to avert a famine in the first place and for mismanaging the economy. That is the ironic duality in the functioning of the NGOs. They are like a double-edged sword. In as much as they serve to bridge the gap between the masses and the government and provide a veneer of legitimacy, they are also independent enough to stand up against the repressive acts of government, often by exposing human rights violations and corruption and abuse of power. That is the reason, for instance, the Ethiopian regime bitterly criticizes AI for its human rights work. The regime’s strategy in micromanaging the foreign NGOs comes out of this contradiction. To paraphrase an old humorous saying, the regime finds itself in a situation where it “can’t live with NGOs and it can’t live without them.”
It is incredible that the regime would want to take a sledge hammer to the NGOs heads now when it needs them so much to supplement its services and is facing so much international criticism over its shocking human rights record. The are several hypothesis that may help explain the regime’s hard line policy as manifested in the so-called “charities” law: 1) Arrogance. They feel so confident in their power that they believe they can kick around the NGOs with impunity. 2) Ignorance. They just don’t understand the power and influence the NGOs have with their home governments. 3) Angst. These guys are really scared and they will lash out at anything they think poses a possible thereat to their tenuous hold on power. They understand the grassroots appeals and power of the NGOs to win the hearts and minds of the masses in such places like Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgistan. 4) Despair. They strike at the NGOs out of desperation. 5) Diversion. By making a big deal about the “law”, they hope to divert attention from the famine that is consuming the population, the economic hardships devastating the people and the illegal war in Somalia. 6) Indifference. They don’t give a damn whether the NGOs help famine victims or the poor; and for all they care, the NGOs can pack up and leave town anytime. 7) Brinksmanship. They want to see how far they can push the NGOs and the donor countries before pulling back.
The Handwriting is on the Wall for NGOs
The handwriting is on the wall for foreign NGOs operating in Ethiopia: “Hear Ye! Hear Ye, NGOs! Under this proclamation, you have one of two choices: 1) pack up and leave the country, or 2) become ‘Gongos’ like the Chinese “non-governmental governmental organizations.” The transparent plan behind the “law” can be appreciated better if we put in the context of the declarations of the “EPDRF” party convention this past September in Hawassa. The party leaders concluded their convention by declaring their “promise” to build a mass political organization. This organization will function in the nature of a “political machine” (under the oversight and guidance of a hierarchical group that controls the party) based on a patronage system. The party organization will undertake not only traditional political activities but also overtake directly areas properly within the service scope of the NGOs. The party leaders promised to provide political training for their 4.5 million members, special training for youth and women, reform of the civil service and justice sectors and expansion of rural development, education and health and other infrastructure related projects to strengthen the party’s acceptance and dominance in society.
Ethiopian “Gongos”, Here They Come!
International NGOs in Ethiopia should clearly understand that the aim of the “law” is not to facilitate accountability or efficiency in their operation. The “law” is the first concrete step to ban all foreign independent forms of associational life and supplant them with their own civil society and mass organizations. That is the ringing message sent from Hawassa. They want to create their own civil society organizations that will serve as transmission belts from the Party to the masses and make those the only legitimate forms of civil associational life in the country. Since a significant part of international aid passes through the foreign NGOs, the regime aims is to transform these international NGOs into “Gongos” under the control and supervision of the regime’s bureaucratic apparatus. That blueprint comes straight from China. By a process of bureaucratic cooptation, the regime aims to make the foreign NGOs not only ineffective and frustrated; they also scheme to mold them in their own image and make them advocates on their behalf posing as representatives of citizen groups and civil society sectors.
The Bitten Hand Can Roll Up Into a Fist and Punch Back
Let’s be clear. No international NGO would object to reasonable regulations. In fact, the vast majority of NGOs want reasonable regulations that will enable them to work effectively with the regime and their service recipients. They all want to operate legitimately and within the laws of the host countries. They would welcome accountability. Truth be told, the whole clampdown on NGOs and civil society organizations in Ethiopia is one of the latent effects of the 2005 elections. The regime is still smarting from its miscalculations and defeat in that election. It blames civil society organizations and foreign NGOs for its continuing problems with donor countries and ruined international image. All the talk about closure of “political space” and missed democratic opportunities is misplaced. Political space in Ethiopia closed in May 2005 when the regime stole the elections. Since then NGOs have been struggling to do their work. They have been spinning their wheels and getting nowhere.
The NGOs can fight back as they did in Zaire in 1994. Back then dozens NGOs packed up and left because European and American government food aid was being diverted for military purposes by the genocidal Hutu militias. In Liberia, NGOs agreed to a unified strategy that included denying aid in order to end the periodic looting of relief agency food aid stocks and equipment. NGO representatives testify before the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament and other bodies in the Western countries. They can roll up their fists collectively and punch back. So, NGOs of the world, UNITE! Fight the Power!
—
[1] For an on line list see, http://www.ethiopiabook.com/particular-services/nongovernmental-organization-ngo/
This past week an official report on riot control entitled “Modernizing Internal Security in Ethiopia” was posted online.[1] The report, prepared for the ruling regime in Ethiopia in July 2008 by retired British colonel Michael Dewars, summarizes findings and recommendations of an “assessment” study completed under the auspices of an Anglo-Ethiopian “think tank”. According to Col. Dewars a “number of experts on Ethiopia, including HE the Ethiopian Ambassador in London and an ex-British Ambassador to Ethiopia” had been meeting on the subject at the Ethiopian embassy in London beginning in May, 2007. Regime official Tefera Waluwa, in a letter dated January 2, 2008, instructed Col. Dewars to “complete and initial assessment” and “make recommendations designed to create a modern security force that will function effectively by using strategies designed to pre-empt civil unrest which threatens the security of the State of Ethiopia and its People,… and on the equipping and training of such a Security force.”
Col. Dewars’ report is as revealing as it is curiously self-contradictory. Dewars writes that “it is impossible to consider any aspect of Security today without putting it in the context of Human Rights in Ethiopia.” But he found it “enormously challenging” to “teach human rights conventions and norms set against the background of a complex mosaic of age-old customs and patterns of coexistence among some eighty different geographically ethnically diverse national groups speaking some two hundred languages.” He is dismissive of the advocates at Amnesty International (AI) for their naïvete and for their lack of real understanding of the Somali situation. He claims AI “makes little or no effort to take account of the realities of the Somali situation or of the fact that Somalia is currently engaged in a counter-terrorist struggle.” He asserts that the humanitarian crisis in Somalia is not the result of human rights abuses or “largely the responsibility of Ethiopian troops.” He congratulates the ruling regime in Ethiopia for “much laudable effort put into Human Rights programmes.”
Col. Dewars offers recommendations at two levels: 1) launching a propaganda campaign to present a kinder and gentler international face for the regime, and 2) improvements in logistical and tactical support for the Riot Police. Col. Dewars recommends that since “the Western press tends unthinkingly to take AI at its word,” it is important that the “AI lobby…be countered with a PR campaign that emphasises progress in the Human Right area and underlines positive change.” Regarding the Riot Control Police, Col. Dewars documented that they “are currently three times the size they were in 2005” when “anti-government riots” took place, and currently remain in good condition. They have “perfectly acceptable set of personal equipment” which includes “helmet, including neck protection, and visor, boots, protective leggings, baton, and shield.” Col. Dewars believes “the basic equipment they now have is perfectly adequate and should remain so for some years.” But he is concerned that the Riot Police have very little to do with their time. He noted that the “Riot Police appeared to be trained as riot police only so that most of their time is spent waiting for riots to happen.” He recommended that the idle “elements of Riot Control Divisions/Battalions be ‘double-hatted’ by giving them other additional responsibilities.”
Col. Dewars visited the Police College which appeared to be “a well run and impressive facility”. He noted that during his visit “the Commandant was not available, no training was in progress, classrooms were empty and the gate was not manned.” During a three-hour conversation, the Director General of the Ethiopian Federal Police told Col. Dewars that he “ ‘regretted a lot’, the bad publicity generated [by the police killings of unarmed protesters] in 2005. He had wished very much for a better outcome. As a direct result of the 2005 riots, he sacked 237 policemen.”
Col. Dewars was totally horrified when he visited detention facilities in an Addis Ababa sector police station.” 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. There was one young boy among the prisoners, who appeared to me to be 12 or 13 years of age, who was weeping and pleading to speak to me so I asked him how old he was. He said 13. He certainly could not possibly have been older than 15. When I asked what the minimum age for holding prisoners in this facility was, one policeman said 18, another 15. In any event, he stayed there.
Col. Dewars concluded, “Detention conditions of prisoners are a disgrace and make the Federal Police vulnerable to the Human Rights lobby.” He “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. It is recommended that senior Ethiopian Ministers and Police Officers visit the prison that I visited.”
What is a Riot Anyway?
“A riot is the language of the unheard,” said Dr. Martin Luther King. But according to the 2004 “Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia” (Proclamation No.414/2004), Art. 488, “rioting” consists of an act in which a person “of his own free will, takes part in an unlawful assembly in the course of which violence is done collectively to person or property.” The punishment for “rioting” is “simple imprisonment not exceeding one month, or fine.” Inciting or conspiring to cause a riot will fetch “organizers, instigators or ringleaders” a “fine and simple imprisonment for not less than six months, or, in grave cases, with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years and fine.” The punishment of “rigorous imprisonment not exceeding three years” is prescribed for “all persons who have individually committed acts of violence against persons or property.” As a matter of law, “rioting” under Art. 488 is an offense against the public peace and good order; and proof of “unlawful assembly”, intent to provide mutual assistance in the use or threat of use of force or violence or other unlawful act against persons or property, and present ability to immediately act resulting in disturbance of the peace are required. Peaceful meetings, gatherings and assemblies do not fit the definition of “rioting” under Art. 488, and are perfectly legitimate forms of expression protected by the “Ethiopian” constitution. For instance, Article 30 (Freedom of Assembly, Public Demonstration and the Right to Petition) guarantees that “Everyone shall have the freedom, in association with others, to peaceably assemble without arms, engage in public demonstration and the right to petition. Article 31 (Right to Association) provides “Everyone shall have the right to form associations for whatever purpose.
The “Riots” of 2005
In June and November, 2005, troops loyal to the Zenawi regime opened fire on groups of unarmed “rioters” in various parts of the country. According to the official Inquiry Commission, the police shot and killed 193 persons (mostly young people) and wounded 763 others allegedly involved “riots.”[2] Seven riot police officers allegedly died during the “riot”. An additional 65 prisoners at Kality prison were shot and killed in “disturbances” (after “1500 bullets were fired”) on or about November 1, 2005. The Commission also documented the arrest and detention of 30,000 persons on suspicion of involvement in the 2005 “riots”. The Commission concluded that the persons killed and wounded during the “riots” were just unarmed protesters. The police systematically attacked protesters and used wrongful, disproportionate, unlawful and illegitimate deadly force. By an 8-2 vote, the Inquiry Commission determined: “a) There was no property destroyed. b) There was not a single protester who was armed with a gun or a hand grenade (as reported by the government-controlled media that some of the protesters were armed with guns and bombs). (See Article 30 above.) c) The Commission members agreed that the shots fired by government forces were not to disperse the crowd of protesters but to kill by targeting the head and chest of the protesters. For this reason, it was clear that the law was violated, and government forces had used excessive force.”
Commission Chairman Judge Frehiwot Samuel further commented, “Many people were killed arbitrarily. Old men were killed while in their homes, and children were also victims of the attack while playing in the garden.” History will also remember the heartless and bone-chilling remarks of Elias Redman, one of the Commission members, who said, “I consider the motive of the protesters was to overthrow the government. I therefore fully support the action taken by the police.”
The Significance of the Dewars Report
The Dewars report is remarkable for what it reveals and for its recommendations. It should not be taken lightly. The report lends extraordinary insight into the regime’s lack of basic understanding (or willful ignorance) of the meaning and exercise of the fundamental human rights to peaceful assembly and protest. These rights include peaceful marches, rallies, demonstrations and even picketing, among others. Most importantly, they include the right to engage in civil disobedience (active refusal to obey certain laws without resorting to physical violence). Gandhi used civil disobedience as a primary tactic of nonviolent resistance against the British. He taught that “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness.” Many African countries got their independence through mass acts of civil disobedience. Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Steve Biko passionately advocated and engaged in civil disobedience to oppose the policies of apartheid South Africa. Dr. Martin Luther King’s leadership of the American civil rights movement was based largely on Gandhian principles of civil disobedience.
What is disquieting about Col. Dewars’ report is that his approach to “riot control” is based on outmoded “police vs. rioters” mentality, which in the Ethiopian context could encourage the Riot Police to resort to beating or shooting “rioters” as an act of first resort than using more modern psychological methods of crowd control and management techniques. That may be understandable given Col. Dewars’ field experience in riot control. He served several tours of duty in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. No doubt, there are few places in the world that have experienced more sectarian violence and “rioting” than Northern Ireland; and it quite possible that his military approach to riot control may have been shaped by his experiences there. Col. Dewar’s book, War in the Streets: The Story of Urban Combat from Calais to Khafji, is all about “military operations on urban terrain”, “urban combat,” and “conventional warfare in an urban environment”. If the regime is indeed interested in preventing the recurrence of the “mistakes” of 2005, one would reasonably expect them to look for experts in more modern approaches to dealing with popular protests. As demonstrated in 2005, the Riot Police in Ethiopia are second to none in treating riots as “urban combat.”
To critique Col. Dewars’ approach and “epistemic” orientation to riot control is not to diminish the significance of his factual findings or impugn his integrity. His report is factual and untainted by intellectual dishonesty. He calls it as he sees it. His findings lend solid support to an already existing body of evidence documenting widespread human rights abuses by the regime. For instance, Col. Dewars’ factual findings on the “disgraceful” prison conditions have been reported previously by a variety of international human rights organizations. In its 2008 report, Amnesty International concluded, “Prison conditions for most political prisoners were harsh. Conditions in most parts of Kaliti prison in Addis Ababa, where the CUD trial defendants and several hundred untried OLF suspects were held, were overcrowded and unhygienic.” In its 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices the U.S. State Department found pretty much what Col. Dewars found in 2008, including imprisonment of juveniles with adults (which violates Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child): “Prison and pretrial detention center conditions remained very poor, and overcrowding continued to be a serious problem. Prisoners often were allocated fewer than 21.5 square feet of sleeping space each in a room that could contain up to 200 persons…. Prison conditions were unsanitary, and access to medical care was unreliable. There was no budget for prison maintenance. In detention centers police often physically abused detainees… Authorities sometimes incarcerated juveniles with adults if they could not be accommodated at the juvenile remand home. There was only one juvenile remand home for children under age 15, with the capacity to hold 150 children.”
Turn Over the Dirty Dozens to the International Criminal Court for Prosecution
Undoubtedly, the most surprising and welcome finding in Col. Dewars’ report is his revelation that the Director General of the Ethiopian Federal Police told him “As a direct result of the 2005 riots, he sacked 237 policemen.” The ruling regime had previously denied specific knowledge of any criminal conduct by riot policemen in the killings of the protesters. The Director General’s admission to Col. Dewars conclusively establishes the existence of a list of at least 275 police officers who are now prime suspects in the massacres of peaceful protesters in June and November of 2005.
THESE CRIMINAL POLICE SUSPECTS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE IMMEDIATELY!
Just a few days ago in Kenya, the Commission of Inquiry Into Post-Election Violence (The “Waki Commission” headed by Justice Philip Waki and established to investigate post-election violence in the aftermath of the Kenyan elections last December) called for a special tribunal to investigate and prosecute various civilians and police officials involved in criminal conduct during the political violence. The Commission recommended that a special tribunal be created to “seek accountability against personas bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes, particularly crimes against humanity, relating to the 2007 General Elections in Kenya.” Alternatively, the Waki Commission recommended that a sealed list of suspects be turned over to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. All Ethiopians committed to justice, human rights and the rule of law should demand that a sealed list of the names of these 275 police officers be turned over immediately to the International Criminal Court for prosecution on suspicion of crimes against humanity!
Quiet Riots Taking Place Every Day in Ethiopia
Barack Obama recently talked about a “quiet riot” among African Americans “that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago”. Barack captured the sense of despair and hopelessness among African Americans locked out of the American Dream when he said, “quiet riots happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better… That despair quietly simmers and makes it impossible to build strong communities and neighborhoods. And then one afternoon a jury says, ‘not guilty’ — or a hurricane hits New Orleans — and that despair is revealed for the world to see.” One could say a “quiet riot” has been building up in Ethiopia for the past 17 years. Today, one-third of the population is facing famine or remains on the brink of famine. According to a report a few days ago in the British paper, The Times, “Britain is to withhold future aid commitments to Ethiopia over concerns that its Government is obstructing efforts to help millions at risk of famine in the drought-stricken Somali region in the east of the country.” Inflation in Ethiopia has reached historic highs. It is not an exaggeration to say that international remittances by Diaspora Ethiopians keep the regime barely afloat. The war in Somalia drains the country’s limited resources and Ethiopian youth are sacrificed in a war of aggression that can never be won. There is a quiet riot going on in Ethiopia today!
The Fire Next Time
The massacre of hundreds of unarmed protesters in the aftermath of the 2005 elections in Ethiopia was a moral clarion call for some of us who had been observing a long train of human rights abuses and abuses of power from the sidelines, though with deep sadness and anguish. As Rome burned and Nero fiddled, some of us sat idly by from a distance watching the roaring fire consume our homeland. Everyday we worshipped at the altar of denial: “There is nothing we can do. It is a lost cause. It is hopeless.” Then we came face to face with the images of the hundreds of men, women and children who were slaughtered in the police riots of 2005. That massacre triggered in our consciences a volcanic eruption of moral outrage. The silence of the lambs slaughtered in June and November, 2005, and the thousands of other victims known only to God, became a deafening cry of help for the living, for those who riot quietly every day against dictatorship and oppression. Then we realized that Edmund Burke had been right all along: “All that is necessary for evil to persist is for enough good men (and women) to do nothing”. Never, never, never again will we find ourselves doing nothing! We know Col. Dewars was hired to do window dressing for a ruthless dictatorship that is trying to desperately avoid criticism and condemnation by Western donor governments and international human rights organizations. We understand that, but we are not fooled. We believe as Dr. King has taught us, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Those who choose to disregard this truth are well-advised to heed the words of the old Negro spiritual: “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. Said no more water, but the fire next time.”
