It is gratifying to know that Ethiopian Americans are carrying their fair share of the load in helping the economy of their homeland. It was an eye-opening revelation to learn that Ethiopian Americans contributed a cool $1.2 billion to the Ethiopian economy this past year. That is “only second to the amount generated by Ethiopia’s exports.” Last week Elias Loha, Manager of Reserve Management and Foreign Exchange Market of Ethiopian National Bank, fretting over “a cut in vital remittances from Ethiopians in the United States” told Reuters: “We are concerned and worried that as a result of the financial crisis… some of the Ethiopians may loose their jobs and as a result they may stop sending money to help their families back home.” Could that be a backhanded way of giving us teeny-weeny credit for the much vaunted stratospheric “10 percent a year economic growth” Zenawi gasbags about? Regardless, there seems to be manifest alarm in Zenawi’s officialdom that the Ethiopian-American goose may not be laying as many golden eggs as it has been previously because of the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
The $1.2 billion figure came as a pleasant and unexpected surprise for many Ethiopians who regularly send money to their families or make remittances for other purposes. The official figure most likely underestimates the actual figure since the National Bank does not have the data collection mechanisms to accurately gauge the remittance flow in the informal channels or in the underground economy. For instance, a 2006 World Bank study suggested that if remittances sent through informal channels are included, total remittances in recipient countries could be as much as 50 per cent higher than the official record. What surprised most Ethiopian Americans aware of the staggering contribution was the fact that remittances substantially exceed the total amount of U.S. aid given to Ethiopia. Evidently, such massive infusion of money could have significant and decisive implications for Ethiopian society, but there are few systematic studies on the impact of remittances on the Ethiopian economy. We do not know if the $1.2 billion dollars we sent alleviated poverty or deepened the inequality in Ethiopia between remittance recipients and the vast majority of people who do not receive them. Did our remittances help reduce the poverty rate in Ethiopia or place an added burden on the poor by grossly distorting the local economy? Is the $1.2 billion we sent last year or the hundreds of millions in prior years in some part responsible for the current high inflation, high food and fuel costs and stratospheric housing prices? Is there evidence to show that the billion plus dollars we sent contributed to economic development in Ethiopia? Would a significant decline in remittances by Ethiopians in the U.S. have positive effects on the economy by alleviating inflationary and other pressures? What is the relationship between increased levels of remittances and the “brain drain” of highly skilled workers from Ethiopia? Do our remittances provide economic buoyancy to help keep afloat the doomed ship of a ruthless dictatorship? We just don’t have the empirical data to answer these questions.
The Evidence on Remittances, Growth and Poverty
Although there are few studies on the impact of remittances on the Ethiopian economy, there is an emerging body of empirical literature on the subject in the Asian and Latin America contexts. The top recipient countries of recorded remittances include India ($21.7 billion), China ($21.2 billion) and Mexico ($18 billion). Africa receives only 4 percent of total remittances made to developing countries. The International Monetary Fund Yearbook (2006) reports that 5 African countries enjoy the highest remittance flows relative to their size (based on both ratio of remittances to GDP and export earnings); these include Lesotho, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Senegal and Togo.
The available data on the impact of international migration and remittances on economic growth and poverty is not definitive, but there seems to be general consensus that remittances have a positive impact on the reduction of the employment and poverty rates in recipient countries. For instance, a study of 74 low and middle income developing countries done by the United Nations Population Fund in 2006 concluded that there is statistically significant correlation between remittances and decline in poverty. The study suggested that a 1.2 percent reduction in the poverty rate could be achieved by a 10 percent increase in the share of remittance in a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Other studies in the Asian context suggest that remittance inflows could accelerate entrepreneurial activity in households by obviating credit restrictions. According to the World Bank, the more remittances a country receives, the higher its creditworthiness and the easier access it has to international capital markets. Remittance inflows are also said to have multiplier effects (money used to create more money) making a significant contribution to savings and investments in recipient countries. One study of Tunisian workers, for instance, showed that workers who had limited access to bank credit or the financial market used remittances for investment purposes. Other reported benefits of remittances include improved financing in health care and education and reduction in child labor in recipient countries.
There is also a body of literature that casts doubt on the relationship between remittances and economic growth in recipient societies. There is some evidence to suggest that remittances in Latin America have had only short term positive impact on poverty by increasing the income of recipients, but no appreciable effect on economic growth. A number of other studies have suggested that the primary use of remittances in recipient countries is to raise the recipients’ level of consumption with the balance going into home building, debt repayment and the financing of future migration by other members of recipients’ households. Some scholars have argued that remittances indirectly but negatively affect labor supply in recipient countries by encouraging some recipient households to work less, creating a “moral hazard” in which remittances spawn an informal “welfare” system. Concern has also been expressed by some economists that large and sustained remittance inflows could result in the so-called “Dutch Disease” problem, whereby remittances cause an increase in the real exchange rate (how much one currency is worth relative to another) and make the production of tradable goods sector (e.g. exports) less profitable. For instance, a study of 13 Latin American and Caribbean countries showed that remittance inflows into these countries caused an increase in the exchange rate which reduced the value of exports and the competitiveness of the recipient countries’ export sectors.
Do our Dollars Help or Hurt Our People?
There are few studies that have examined the relationship between remittances and economic consequences in Ethiopia. One of the few systematic and enlightening studies on the subject was done by Dejene Aredo of Addis Ababa University in 20051. Aredo’s study lends some interesting insights on the role of remittances and their impact on the economy, particularly in the urban areas. Aredo examined the effect of remittances (both domestic and foreign) on urban households who are “more vulnerable than rural households to different sorts of urban shocks” (e.g. effect of structural adjustment programs [i.e. to get World Bank or IMF loans, a country must do what it is told] on urban workers, higher rates of HIV/AIDS, withdrawal of government subsidies for targeted programs, higher rate of poverty among female-headed urban households, higher incidence of homelessness and unemployment, disproportionate impact of global financial crises, etc.). Aredo found that a “considerable proportion of sampled households (16.63%) received remittance from abroad.” International remittances (77 percent) exceeded domestic ones (23 percent) “both in terms of volume and per capita flows.” Urban households received remittances at a higher frequency during the month suggesting that remittances were used “largely to cover day to day consumption expenditures.” Only 1.1 percent of remittances in the sample were used for investment purposes, 1.7 for savings and 2.8 percent for asset purchases. Aredo also found that women got more remittances than men from both international and domestic sources, suggesting that “remittances are a means by which poverty among the most vulnerable groups of society, i.e. female-headed households, is partially addressed.” Based on his findings, Aredo suggests that “with increased remittances, it is possible to cover a substantial portion of the resource gap and reduce poverty by half by the year 2015.” He also suggests implementation of a more comprehensive policy to tap into available Diaspora funds beyond the regime’s policies (e.g. removal of import tariffs on certain goods, land grants for home building, bank deposit in foreign exchange, etc.).
The jury is still out on the impact of remittances on the Ethiopian economy. The available data is insufficient to determine whether remittances from Ethiopians in the United States alleviate poverty, accentuate existing inequalities or contribute significantly to economic development, job creation and investments. The preliminary evidence suggests that remittances can cushion the “ever-deepening poverty and vulnerability to recurrent shocks” of urban households, particularly female-headed ones. Aredo’s study appears to suggest that “in the absence of credit and insurance market (even in urban areas), vulnerable households attempt to smooth their consumption by partially relying on both sources of remittances (i.e. domestics and international), while households with stable and high incomes rely heavily on international remittance transfers for investment or other purposes (other than for consumption smoothing purposes).”
What Can We Do As Ethiopian American “Remittance Donors”?
Remittances are essentially private transfers of wealth with potentially significant economic and political consequences in recipient countries. In Ethiopia, $1.2 billion in remittances in one year appear to represent the largest source of foreign exchange earnings, rivaling and/or exceeding export revenues, foreign aid, foreign direct investment or other private capital flows. If we as Ethiopian Americans collectively remit (“donate”) well over a billion dollars a year, that effectively makes us a major stakeholder in the economic well being of our country. Obviously, the regime’s “concern” with declining remittances has to do with the potential evaporation of foreign exchange reserves caused by job losses of Ethiopians in the U.S. World Bank data does not support their concern. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there tend to be more remittances in an economic downturn, political crisis, natural disaster, famine or war than in normal circumstances. But as “remittance stakeholders” our issues transcend the regime’s insatiable appetite for foreign exchange reserves. Our issues are different: Do we have an obligation to carefully analyze the economic impact of our financial transfers on economic growth and poverty in Ethiopia? Do we have any political or moral responsibility in the way our remittances are used in the country? Could we be spreading the “Dutch Disease” to Ethiopia by massive remittance infusions? Do our remittances provide a mechanism to those in power to substitute remittances as anti-poverty programs and avoid long-term development efforts? If our remittances tend to increase income inequality between recipients and others, do we have an obligation to rectify that imbalance through remittances to charitable organizations? How can we help build institutional capacity without building and fortifying the current repressive dictatorship? Do our remittances indirectly support, prolong and entrench the one-party, one-man dictatorship in Ethiopia? These are questions properly put to Ethiopian economists.
In terms of prescriptive remittance policies, various scholars have proposed initiatives in three categories: 1) policies that maximize remittance savings in national financial institutions in recipient countries, 2) policies that promote investment among recipient households while minimizing consumption, and 3) policies that are aimed at promoting infrastructure development funded totally or partially by “collective” remittances. One area of exploration for Ethiopian Americans should be “community development” totally or partially funded by “collective” remittances. For instance, some Mexican migrants in the U.S. have formed hometown associations that raise funds for their communities of origin and spend those funds on community development projects such as improving water supply and quality, health and educational services, etc. In some cases, their contributions have been matched by the Mexican federal and state governments. The Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, a non-profit organization with headquarters in Islamabad provides investment advisory and facilitative services to returning Pakistanis who seek to establish businesses. At the institutional level, India and Pakistan have offered specialized incentives for their “Diasporic” citizens to set up or expand businesses, particularly in economically backward or depressed areas. Commercial banks in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala have remittance policies that offer higher interest rates on term deposits and foreign currency denominated banking accounts. Undoubtedly, Ethiopian economists could develop a whole list of creative uses of remittances for maximum local benefits. Beyond the need for substantive policies, better data collection and analysis on the multifaceted aspects of remittances is needed. Without such data, much of the analysis and policy prescriptions are likely to be speculative and not particularly useful in maximizing the positive impact of remittances on the Ethiopian political economy. Needless to say, it is awfully nice to know that there are some in Ethiopia who are concerned about the economic health of the Ethiopian American goose that lays the golden eggs. But does the golden goose have to be a cash cow too?
—
1 http://www.gdnet.org/pdf2/gdn_library/global_research_projects/macro_low_income/Aredo.pdf
The situation in Somalia has turned Code Red. Things are deteriorating very fast for Zenawi’s troops. The Al-Shabaab “jihadists” have taken over southern Somalia, and are ravenously eyeing Mogadishu. It is no longer “hit-and-run” guerrilla warfare. It is capture-and-stay. They have captured Kisimayo, a southern port town. They are staying. They are being “flooded with money” from supporters and backers throughout the Middle East. They have shut down the Mogadishu airport. Now they are vowing to do the same with the sea ports. The 2500 or so African Union peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi are holed up in their garrisons in Mogadishu as the insurgents rain rocket-propelled grenades on them at will. Bombings, assassinations, piracy, kidnappings and hostage-taking are a daily fact of life in Somalia. There are no viable political solutions. The cost of the war both in terms of human lives and resources has become unbearable for Ethiopia, and Somalia. Zenawi’s forces are in full “strategic retreat” to Mogadishu. After nearly two years of intervention and occupation of Somalia, there are no signs of success; and an anniversary of total failure in the quicksand of Somalia awaits Zenawi this coming December. Could this be the end of Pax Zenawi in Somalia?
Zenawi realizes the jig is up in Somalia. For the past several weeks, he and his officials have been consistently dropping hints and insinuations of withdrawal. In his Ethiopian “new year” video interview last month, Zenawi declared triumphantly that he had fully achieved his primary objective of destroying and neutralizing the “jihadist” threat to Ethiopia. Success in stabilizing the Somali transitional government and bringing some measure of peace and reconciliation was “not 100 percent”. But Somalia is ready to host international peacekeepers, and he is ready to take out his troops. For Zenawi, the question is not whether to withdraw from Somalia, but “whether keeping Ethiopian forces in Somalia in the longer term would make a difference”? In other words, Zenawi wants out ASAP, but he needs to save face. He wants the U.N., the African Union or some other peacekeeping body to take over so that he can say he stabilized and brought peace to Somalia and is now withdrawing victoriously and honorably. That is unlikely to happen because there is no one out there willing to help him cover up the folly of his quixotic, imperial and hubristic misadventures in Somalia. Zenawi has no place to run but face the music.
The Way It Was…
Back in mid-December 2006, Zenawi denied any direct military involvement in Somalia. In an interview with the Washington Post, Zenawi explained that he had sent a few hundred soldiers into Somalia to provide training. “It is true we have troops in Baidoa, the capital, who are there to train forces of the transitional federal government, who are an internationally recognized government and who have officially asked for support from Ethiopia. . . . Now, if the transitional government does not want our trainers, we’d be happy to withdraw them. . .” He warned that “There is a group in the Islamic Movement in Mogadishu that is not interested in democratic secular government in Somalia, that is hell-bent on establishing a Taliban regime in Somalia. Now, you can facilitate the Talibanization of Somalia through dialogue. If that is the intention, it perhaps makes sense….” In early January, 2007, a triumphant Zenawi declared that his forces would remain in Somalia “for a few weeks” while the transitional government stabilizes the situation. “It is up to the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force in Somalia without delay to avoid a vacuum and a resurgence of extremists and terrorists.”
In May, 2007, Zenawi told Al Jazeera that he was not only providing training in Somalia, he had been invited by the transitional government to assist in fighting terrorists. “I think we should get the facts straight first. We did not invade Somalia. We were invited by the duly constituted government of Somalia, internationally recognized government of Somalia to assist them in averting the threat of terrorism. We did so.” Even though he had argued at the outset of the invasion that Somalia was the central front in the battle against Al Queida and international terrorism in the Horn of Africa, he denied any U.S. role in the invasion: “We did not fight a proxy war on behalf of the United States. Indeed, the United States was very ambivalent about our intervention, once we intervened of course the United States and much of the international community was supportive but in the initial phase before we intervened, everybody, including the United States was warning us that we might walk into a trap and a quagmire and that we should think twice before taking steps.” In October, 2007, he told his parliament: “So, rushing to pull out the army immediately would have entailed a situation for the already dismantled forces of terror in Somalia to regroup, and thereby to render void the sacrifices already made by the Ethiopian army.”
The Way it Is Now….
Today, things are going downhill in Somalia, and getting worse by the day. The Somali jihadist-talibanist-terrorists refuse to be vanquished. They have launched an Iraq-style insurgency. The civilian war casualty continues to increase by the day. An estimated 20,000 Somalis have died, mostly civilians, since the invasion. Over 1 million Somalis have been displaced. Upwards of 5 thousand of Zenawi’s troops are estimated to have been killed or severely injured in the Somali war. Amnesty International has documented massive human rights violations by Zenawi’s troops in Somalia including extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, beatings, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances and collective punishments. Zenawi says it is all a “total fabrication”. There is no accountability for what Zenawi does in Somalia. As one opposition leader recently complained, “The government has irresponsibly refused to account on these two pertinent issues relating to the Ethiopian army’s deployment to Somalia. Every country’s parliament, even the public at large, has a right to know what its involvement is costing in terms of life and resources. We have been kept in the dark.” Under Zenawi’s watch, the “jhihadists” and “terrorists” in Somalia have not only grown stronger militarily, they have also expanded into new fields of terroristic operations. The Somali coast has become Piracy Central. Carrying cell phones, RPGs, speedboats and assorted small arms, the high tech Somali pirates are making it hazardous for commercial navigation on the Indian Ocean. Last week Zenawi complained: “We are very concerned about the level of piracy on the seas. It is related to the instability in Somalia. They could be used to destabilize the region and the whole situation on the high seas is a matter of great concern for all of us. We very much hope the international community will respond.” His foreign minister last week called upon the U.N. to deploy peacekeepers in Somalia “as soon as possible” or provide resources to strengthen the current African Union mission.
The Somali war has never been popular in Ethiopia. Unlike the war in Iraq, there was no one in Ethiopia who was for the Somali war before they were against it. Everybody was against it. Now there is even talk that “Ethiopia’s fractious political opposition is planning a unified parliamentary campaign to demand a complete withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from Somalia.” VOA reported recently that “opposition parties” have sent a letter to Zenawi “saying the sacrifice of lives and scarce financial resources had become unbearable.” Bulcha Demeksa stated matter-of-factly that the Somalis “resolved to fight against us, and they are fighting, and in my opinion they are winning.” But Zenawi’s official policy remains: “We can get out any time. We will not. We are not in a quagmire. But we cannot abandon the transitional government and Somali people. We have to see progress in reconciliation so we do not want to abandon them in middle of crisis in Somalia.”
Pax Zenawi (Zenawi’s Peace)
Zenawi’s invasion of Somalia was reckless and irresponsible. He glibly assured the world at the beginning of the invasion, “we will be out in a few weeks.” Now he realizes that the business of war is unpredictable, expensive and uncertain. After nearly two years, he has found that the Somali war has sapped the strength of his troops and depleted the limited resources of the country; and he has no diplomatic leverage over the various warring Somali elements to impose his quixotic vision of a Pax Zenawi on the Somali people which he can manipulate through a puppet client regime.
It is really hard to imagine what Zenawi had in mind where he decided to invade Somalia. From his public statements, one can infer that he must have had visions of a mini-empire in the Horn. He certainly had megalomaniacal visions of bringing peace, freedom and stability to Somalia (something he has been unable to bring to his own country over the past 17 years). He seems to have envisioned himself as a “Supercop” with the self-appointed responsibility of keeping law and order in the Horn. In December, 2006, he asserted a unilateral right to act as a Horn policeman and contain terrorism, and casually invited the world to join him after he kicked the rear ends of the “jihadists” in “a few weeks”. The potential implications of a Pax Zenawi in Somalia are as dangerous as they are laughable. Today Zenawi finds himself in Somalia like the frontier marshal portrayed by Gary Cooper in “High Noon” facing some nasty and wicked outlaws without help from the townsfolk. He stands alone against a vicious phantom “jihadist” enemy; and none of the Somali townsfolk, the Ethiopian people or the international community wants to help him fight them.
The fact of the matter is that Somalis are not interested in any peace imposed upon them by Zenawi. The gift of secular government Zenawi wants to offer the Somalis has few takers. For the last 17 years, the Somalis have been unable to come to terms with the basic facts of their national life. Maybe they prefer tribal and clan associations over an elected democratic national government. Maybe they’d rather have a theocratic state than a secular transitional government whose authority is more widely denied and held in contempt than recognized. They regard the members of the transitional government as collaborators. It’s up to them what they want. It is not up to Zenawi to impose upon them. Yet in his recent statements, Zenawi is implicitly threatening the international community that if they don’t send troops and/or provide resources, he may just quit and walk out. That would presumably embolden the Al-Shabaab and the local and foreign Islamist extremists; and Somalia would be swiftly consumed in a civil war and become an incubator for terrorists. That was the same plea he made back in December 2006. It is falling on deaf ears now. For nearly two years, he has been begging for more African Union for troops, and with the exception of Uganda and Burundi, none of the estimated 6,000 AU troops are likely to show up. The lame duck Bush Administration is bogged down with its own problems. Nobody seems to care much about the anticipated consequences Zenawi’s withdrawal from Somalia.
Zenawi’s dilemma in getting out of Somalia revolves around several issues: First, he believes that if he withdraws “precipitously” there will be civil war in Somalia. That is not convincing as Somalis have been in a state of clan wars, virtual civil wars, since the fall of the Barre regime in 1991. Second, an immediate or even a phased withdrawal will encourage and embolden the “jihadists” terrorist. The “jihadists” are already emboldened by the fact that they now virtually control most of southern Somalia. The only thing the continued occupation will do is increase their determination to get rid of the occupation forces. Third, the security and military capability of the transitional government must be strengthened or it will be overrun by Islamist forces. The problem with that argument is that it will take years to enhance the military capability and combat readiness of the transitional government forces. There are issues of clan loyalty, shifting clan alliances and resources that make such a thing nearly impossible. Fourth, an unscheduled withdrawal will undermine “Ethiopia’s credibility” and expose “our supporters in Somalia” to extreme danger, and damage the morale of Zenawi’s troops. Those supporters are in extreme danger now as attempts are being made almost daily to assassinate and attack them. The war has no popular support and morale has been down from the beginning. If Zenawi’s troops were given a choice between staying in Somalia and fighting a losing war or risking damage to their morale, they would take the latter, as would the Ethiopian people.
The painful fact is that invasion of Somalia was not in the national interest of Ethiopia. The invasion was illegal under international law and a colossal political mistake. It was morally wrong to invade a country and cause so much civilian death and displacement. At the time of the invasion, Somalia was in no position to militarily threaten Ethiopia. Today, the counterinsurgency is getting tougher by the day and is recruiting more fighters. It seems increasingly clear that it is well-funded and well-equipped to inflict maximum damage and sustain the insurgency for a very long time. The only real option is getting out of Somalia immediately and without preconditions.
No Exit Strategy
There are no good options left for Zenawi. His dream of creating a stable, pluralist, democratic, unitary state with strong constitutional protections in Somalia is as real as the mirages in the Somali desert. He has not been able to create a pluralist democratic society in Ethiopia in 17 years; it is unlikely he could do so in Somalia in 2 years. He also seems to have overplayed his hand in Somalia in trying to use the same old divide-and-rule strategy that has worked for him so well in Ethiopia. He found out that Somali history and the history of Ethiopian-Somali relationship can not be undone by a wave of the magic wand of divide-and-rule.
At this late stage in the game, Zenawi’s choices are limited. First, he can withdraw immediately, a strategy less affectionately known as “cut and run”. That would be the most rational thing to do. In other words, cut your losses in a lost war and run for the border. Zenawi says that would plunge Somalia into civil war and expose the transitional government to certain doom. But what he needs to realize is that much of the violence, insecurity and instability in Somalia today is a direct reaction to his occupation forces and his support for the transitional regime. Somalia has also been in a state of anarchy since 1991. Immediate withdrawal will more likely result in a decline in violence than a spike in it. The way things are shaping now, Zenawi will be forced to cut and run from Somalia. Analysis of his recent public statements seem to suggest that he is slowly building up courage to do just that. A phased withdrawal may also be an option. Perhaps a reassurance that occupying forces will leave Somalia might bring the warring factions together to hammer out a working arrangement.
His second option is to continue the occupation, that is an open-ended anti-jihadist counter-terrorism mission that will prove to be increasingly bloody, costly, and counterproductive. But even that is becoming more difficult as the “jhihadists” retake and control more territory and tighten the noose on Mogadishu. There are few occupied areas in Somalia where Zenawi’s forces or the transitional government can enforce their political rule, exercise civil authority and/or maintain law and order. If there exists any “government” in Somalia at all, it seems to exist in the form of non-political traditional social institutions such as clan elders, tribal militias, religious clerics, etc. Generally, the anecdotal data from composite news and published intelligence sources shows that Zenawi’s troops can no longer operate as an effective occupation force. They have been forced to abandon towns and strategic locations and go into virtual “force protection mode”. They remain in their fortified bases and are making little effort to go out and aggressively pursue the “jihadist terrorists”. They have been effectively neutralized by the “jihadists”.
Third, Zenawi can work to intensify regional/international diplomatic offensives. The problem is that no one seems to be interested. The AU has been unable to deliver on the promised peacekeepers and the U.N. has not been able to provide much more than moral support. So far he has only been able to engage in a diplomatic parlor game accusing opponents, “jihadists” and others of distorting his intentions and aims. He has not been able to get real commitment for a power sharing arrangement among the various factions. For whatever reasons, the Somalis do not appear interested in diplomatic solutions engineered by Zenawi.
Fourth, dump the transitional government and work with the “jihadists”. The fact of the matter is that the transitional government exists in name only. It can not provide the most basic functions and services. It has few units with any capability for sustained combat operations. It is unlikely that the government’s troops can be trained and equipped in such large numbers to become an effective fighting force in their own right in the foreseeable future. There is not much evidence to suggest that the forces of the transitional government are contributing significantly to the fight against the insurgents. It is also unlikely that Somali clan and militia leaders will make difficult compromises so long as there are foreign troops on their soil. Religious and nationalist opposition is on the rise and there is no support for the occupation forces and very little for the transitional government. After nearly two years of fighting in Somalia, it is clear that the insurgents are at least as strong now as they ever have been, and most likely much stronger as they now control large swaths of the country. Maybe it’s time to talk to them and cut a deal; perhaps cobble together a basis for a very loose “national” government and carve out territories for the various clan leaders to administer on their own. Then leave Somalia!
Fifth, Zenawi can maintain a prolonged strategic stalemate with the “jihadists”. Obviously, this is a very risky strategy. The presence of foreign troops in Somalia will always provoke resistance; and at best Zenawi can expect a bloody stalemate that will result in more civilian deaths, military casualties and incur huge costs. But it may be possible to continue to mount selective operations to keep pressure on the insurgents.
End Game: Time to Get the Hell Out of Dodge
The questions Zenawi needs to face are clear: Is Ethiopia or the international community safer from the threats of terrorism today than in December 2006? If he disengages, will Somalia be plunged into its former state of clan warfare (civil war) and politics? In as much as Zenawi has tried to fan the flames of terrorism in the Horn to get international support for his interventionary actions, support for his dictatorship in Ethiopia and avert sanctions for his massive human rights violations, his strategy for war and peace in Somalia has failed completely. As the old saying goes, “You can start a war whenever you want, but you can not stop it whenever you want.” That is Zenawi’s problem: How can he stop the war and get out of Somalia? The ultimate question is how to help Zenawi withdraw from Somalia without losing face, not how many Ethiopians or Somalis are dying or displaced. It is unlikely that he will admit defeat and error and pull the troops out. That is just not going to happen. The invasion of Somalia was a colossal misadventure. There will be no peace with honor to exit out of Somalia. Zenawi will leave Somalia in disgrace in six months, one year or however long it takes. That is the price of arrogance and hubris. As Scriptures teach: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace.” And “pride goes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall.” (Proverbs 11:2, 16:18.)
What is the difference between South Africa and Ethiopia? Simple. South Africa is a democracy (government of the people, by the people, and for the people). Ethiopia is a pluto-kleptocracy (a government of rich thieves, by rich thieves and for rich thieves). Two weeks ago in Hawassa, Ethiopia democracy was mocked. This past week democracy was vindicated in South Africa. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, did something that is rarely done, seen or heard of on the African continent. He relinquished power voluntarily, peacefully and gracefully. The African National Congress asked Thabo to step down.
He was willing to oblige. No arguments. No fuss. No hassles. In a simple but dignified presidential statement, Thabo accepted his fate: “Following the decision of the National Executive Committee of the African National Congress to recall President Thabo Mbeki, the president has obliged and will step down after all constitutional requirements have been met.” In his farewell speech, Thabo expressed gratitude to the South African people: “I thank you most sincerely for giving me the opportunity to serve you.” ANC Secretary-General Gwede Mantashe commented matter-of-factly, “He didn’t display shock or any depression. He welcomed the news and agreed that he is going to participate in the parliamentary process.” What is even more fascinating is the fact that 11 members of his cabinet followed suit and submitted their resignations.
It is hard to imagine the anguish and humiliation Thabo might have felt as a result of his unceremonial “recall” from the presidency. After all, he came to office trying to fill Mandella’s gigantic shoes. Sadly, he left with muddy footprints after nine and one-half years in office. May be the ANC leadership could have been more patient and generous. Thabo had only 6 months left to complete his term. He had paid his dues in the anti-apartheid struggle. The ANC had been home and family for the Mbeki clan for well over five decades. Thabo’s father, Govan, was a co-defendant of Nelson Mandella in the 1960 Rivonia trial, and served a quarter of a century behind bars on Robben Island. For the past nine years, Thabo was a positive influence on the continent. He brokered peace deals in Rwanda, Burundi, Ivory coast and the Republic of Congo. He weathered intense criticism for his mediation efforts in Zimbabwe, but in the end he secured a power sharing agreement there. Under his leadership the South African economy expanded along with the African middle class. He had major failures too. Millions of poor black South Africans felt left behind by Thabo’s free-market economic policies. His policy orientation on HIV/AIDS was bizarre and indefensible: “A virus cannot cause a syndrome. A virus can cause a disease, and Aids is not a disease, it is a syndrome.”
The ANC could have let him be, but party politics won the day. The judge who dismissed the corruption case against Jacob Zuma, formerly Thabo’s deputy, strongly intimated that Thabo’s office had interfered in the prosecution. That was the last straw for the ANC. Thabo had to go. But in his peaceful departure, Thabo became an African superhero. While his counterparts all over the continent cling to power like barnacles on a wrecked ship, Thabo simply accepted the judgment of his party, bowed to the will of the people and left office. In doing so, he became a point of light in a continent darkened by dictatorship, corruption and widespread human rights violations. Thabo Mbeki in the end proved that he was a class act!
Why did Thabo accept the judgment of the people and the party and resign?
Statecraft in South Africa
The hallmarks of any democratic system of governance include citizen participation, representation, consensus-building, accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and institutionalization of the rule of law. The success of democratic statecraft in South Africa boil down to at least four factors: 1) visionary leaders whose singular purpose was to form a more perfect union of the diverse people of South Africa, 2) a dynamic and self-correcting majority party functioning in a multiparty system, 3) an independent judiciary and broad acceptance of the rule of law in society, and 4) a vigorous free press that ensures public accountability.
Despite the long oppression of the apartheid system, South Africa has been blessed by the presence of visionary leaders throughout its modern history. Nelson Mandela is one of the few statesmen in as many decades who commands universal respect and admiration. But the list of visionary and patriotic South African leaders includes Chief Albert Lutuli, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Albertina Sisulu, Oliver Tambo, Winnie Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Steve Biko and many others. These men and women of principle, conviction and extraordinary intelligence guided the struggle for equality and democracy in South Africa for decades. As anti-apartheid revolutionary leaders, these leaders sought to build one nation from the many Bantustans forcibly created by the minority white regime. Geographic integration was only one part of the equation. The other part was truth and reconciliation.
The ANC leaders successfully transitioned South Africa to democracy averting a racial bloodbath. Desmond Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was instrumental in getting out the truth about apartheid-era crimes and human rights abuses committed between 1960-1994. Those who accepted responsibility were granted amnesty and surviving victims of abuses were compensated. Visionary leadership in large part explains the electoral success of the ANC and the 70 percent of the vote it garnered in the 2004 general elections, a supermajority sufficient to single-handedly change the constitution. But South Africa’s leaders envisioned a post-apartheid society that would function on the basis of a competitive multiparty system. Today, there are some 20 plus political parties in South Africa. In 2004, the Democratic Alliance received 12% and Inkatha Freedom party (7%), accounting for nearly one-fifth of the total votes cast. In future elections, the diverse political parties are likely to give the ANC a run for its money.
Fair and equitable resolution of disputes in society is one of the central objects of any democracy. Interpreting and applying the law fairly and defending the constitution of a given society is the traditional function and role of the judiciary. In South Africa, the courts (judiciary) have both decisional independence (broad societal acceptance of the decision of courts) and structural independence (insulated from political or other interference in the performance of judicial duties). Neither the president, the parliament nor other private interests can manipulate the South African judiciary to serve as a tool of political persecution or economic, social, ethnic, religious or regional advantage. Zuma’s alleged corruption prosecution is a case in point. When Judge Chris Nicholson granted Zuma’s motion to dismiss the charges, he said it was clear that there had been political interference in the case. Nicholson commented that he was “not convinced that the applicant (Zuma) was incorrect when he averred political meddling in his prosecution.” The judge further explained that a “titanic political struggle” had been taking place between Zuma and Mbeki and that two successive justice ministers had meddled in the prosecution. He ordered the state to pay Zuma’s legal costs. Zuma’s comment: “This is a lesson that we should never keep quiet when those in power break the law. I think the judgment is a serious reflection to those who are given authority and do not use it appropriately.” This is what it means to have an independent judiciary. Sorry, no kangaroo courts in South Africa!
StateGraft and the Culture of Corruption in Ethiopia
The aim of a pluto-kleptocracy is not governance or administration. It is the privatization of the state for personal, social and/or political ends. A pluto-kleptocracy is a system of government quintessentially based on graft and systemic corruption. The leadership is driven by a vision of self-aggrandizement and domination. They will do anything to remain in power and continue to plunder the state for personal or partisan gain.
Transparency International, the compilers of the Corruption Index, define corruption simply as “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Others define corruption as “an act in which the power of public office is used for personal gain in a manner that contravenes the rules of the game.” A.K. Jain, a noted authority on the economics of corruption, has argued that there are three preconditions for the existence of corruption: discretionary power (the power to arbitrarily make and administer regulations), economic rents (an economics term which refers to an extra amount paid such as a bribe to someone for something useful, in short supply or to perform a pre-existing duty) and a weak judicial system (a legal system where there is low probability of detection of corruption and certainty of prosecution and sanctions). Jain’s theory accurately describes why Ethiopia is tied with seven other countries at 126/180 on the Corruption Index.
In 2001, then-President of the ruling EPRDF government Dr Negasso Gidada said that “corruption has riddled state enterprises to the core”. He warned that the government would show “an iron fist against corruption and graft as the illicit practices had now become endemic”. Today the culture of corruption and crimes of greed have metastasized from the core of state enterprises to the entire Ethiopian body politics. Corruption takes many forms in Ethiopia ranging from the shakedown of traffic cops on the street to institutionalized bribery and systematic kleptocracy. A high level official of the regime is recorded on tape asking for millions of dollars for himself and the upper chain of command in kickbacks (commission) under the table from Chinese officials awarded public contracts. That is institutionalized bribery. Food, medicines and other foreign aid items given to help the poor in Ethiopia disappear into private hands. That is systematic kleptocracy. Public officials are given bribes to perform their public duties. That is systemic corruption. Greasing the palms of the local police and judges to not pay a traffic ticket or to obtain a favorable judgment is corruption accepted as a fact of ordinary life.
The examples of corruption in Ethiopia are limitless: Obtaining loans from state banks with the purpose of money laundering in foreign banks; buying millions of dollars of gold painted iron bars and claiming that the buyers of the gold were innocent victims of a gold scam; siphoning off money from public projects and directing public works projects to friends while maintaining secret ownership interests, selling licenses and jobs, exchanging fertilizer for votes; officially requiring an investor to disclose his business plans and then passing it on to friends to use it and freeze out the proposing investor; prosecuting political opponents on trumped up charges and misuse the judicial process; politically directing judges to decide legal disputes in a prescribed manner; delaying the administration of justice and needlessly keeping those accused of crimes in prolonged detention; overlooking violations of law or unequal application of the laws when legal disputes involve friends, relatives, party members and others; appointing friends, relatives and party members to high government positions or jobs on the basis of loyalty and not skills or knowledge; and demanding and accepting money from the public for doing public work for which one is paid a salary are just a few examples of the culture of corruption in Ethiopia. In short, the iron fisted dictatorship in Ethiopia provides an object lesson in Lord Acton’s maxim: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
This past week, the release of the 2008 Corruption Index was accompanied by a warning to donor countries to increase the level of accountability of corrupt regimes. Transparency International chair Huguette Labelle has described the corruption situation in countries like Ethiopia as a “humanitarian disaster”. Transparency International urged donor countries to be “more focused” in their aid programs to “ensure assistance strengthens institutions of governance and oversight in recipient countries.” In other words, for Ethiopia PASS H.R. 2003 AND S.B. 3457!
Some Comparative Notes
It is useful to clearly delineate the distinctions between the South African democrats and Ethiopian pluto-kleptocrats. While the South Africans eliminated ethnic homelands and Bantustans to forge one nation, the Ethiopian pluto-kleptocrats were committed to creating a system of ethnic homelands (Bantustans) in the name of “ethnic federalism” to keep the people divided so that they can exploit and dominate them perpetually. To keep their crimes and robbery of the nation’s treasury from public view, the Ethiopian pluto-kleptocrats have banned and suppressed the independent media. The free press in South Africa enjoys freedom on par with Western countries. To give a veneer of legitimacy to their actions and hoodwink the international community, the pluto-kleptocrats have converted the judicial process into a kangaroo court system where political opponents are detained arbitrarily and without justification for prolonged periods. In South Africa one trial court judge effectively forced the resignation of the state president. In Ethiopia one kangaroo judge ensures the miscarriage of justice. While Thabo has succeeded as a messenger of peace and reconciliation in Rwanda, Burundi, the Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe, Zenawi has become the Lord of War in Somalia.
Lipstick on a Pig
Ethiopia’s dictators today claim that they are nurturing a “young democracy”. They claim to have instituted good governance. They want to be showered with credits and accolades for creating unprecedented economic progress in the rural areas. They have deluded themselves into believing that they have created a competitive, pluralistic system of government and a more open civil society. Blah, blah, blah. Of course, all of it is fictional nonsense. The truth of the matter is, to paraphrase Senator Obama, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it ‘democracy’ but it is still going to stink after 17 years.” You can call a ruthless and bloodthirsty dictatorship a “young democracy” and make silly claims of economic progress while half of your population is starving. That dictatorship, like the pig with lipstick, is ultimately a dictatorship. There is no question that Ethiopia today is in the hands of iron-fisted dictators who could not spell the word democracy, let alone understand and practice it.
Clientelism or How to Build a Political Machine for a One Man Dictatorship
In mid-September, some 800 delegates of the so-called EPDRF party met for three days in the town of Hawassa. The outcome was predictable. According to reports, the “delegates” rubberstamped the “reform agenda of 2001” which supposedly had produced significant results through “structural transformation of the economy”. They also decided to “maintain the status quo both in policies and leadership.” Zenawi was re-elected as “party leader” for the seventh time, and is quoted as saying, “There is nothing new we are seeking to implement.” He said that his preferred policies are already under implementation and have put the country “in the process of democratic and development changes.” Along with Zenawi, the whole lot of bandidos was “reelected” including Addisu Legesse as “deputy chairperson” for the fifth time; and 36 others were elected to the “Executive Council of the EPRDF.” No new faces, it appears. One report stated, “There was hardly any policy debate among the delegates during the three days last week, whether on political or economic issues.”
The one striking thing about this party convention is the “promise” to build a political machine for a one man dictatorship. The priorities for Zenawi and his EPDRF for the next two years are revealing and stunning. He intends to build a patronage-based mass political party which incorporates several things: political training for its 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.
Political scientists describe a party system that is based on patronage (a form of corruption based on distribution of rewards for supporting a party) as “clientelism”. It is one of the old tricks in the handbook of dictators and single-party states that seek to exploit regional, ethnic and linguistic differences for their own political ends. The party organization Zenawi aims to build is based on the creation of a grassroots organizations which thrive on “patron-clients” relationships. In such a patronage system, rich and powerful kleptocratic “patrons” (officials) promise to provide relatively powerless and poor “clients” with jobs, protection, infrastructure, agricultural tools and resources, infrastructure and services and other benefits in exchange for votes and other forms of loyalty to the party. They aim to exploit the vulnerabilities of the poor by creating perpetual social and economic indebtedness for their clients. The patrons use coercion, corruption, intimidation, threats and violence to maintain control. The plan announced at Hawassa is aimed at creating a political machine based on patronage, the spoils system and “behind-the-scenes” control for the pluto-kleptocrats to expand and maintain their power perpetually. Youth training, organization of women, etc., are about creating a corps of dedicated party workers who depend on the patronage generated by rewards, government jobs and other incentives to deliver the votes.
Needless to say, the party leaders do not intend to give their 4.5 million members meaningful participation in the party. An analysis of the declarations and public statements of the party leaders at Hawassa shows that the millions of members will be merely at the beck and call of the party leaders. Party members will have very little independence from the prescribed party line and there are no structures within the party for members to use to aggregate and articulate special interest within the party. It is also clear that the broader membership will have little opportunity for direct participation or decision-making; and just like the 800 members who “participated” at Hawassa convention, the role of the broader membership will be to rubberstamp the decisions of the party bosses. By using a combination of downward communication with coercion, threats and distribution of favors to clients and supporters, the political machine to be built in the next two years is expected to deliver the votes on time, every time.
One can not escape the fact that the planned party build-up is eerily Stalinesque. Party membership is a privilege reserved for 4.5 million members (approximately 5% of the general population; “an unprecedented ratio of one ruling party member in every 20 Ethiopians” according to one report; the old Soviet communist party had approximately 10% of the adult population as members). The ultimate aim is to create a “nomenklatura” (elite ruling class) who rule Ethiopian society by divine right of party dominance and enjoy special privileges and are given access and resources by virtue of their party membership, e.g. obtain important, prestigious and powerful positions and jobs, housing and educational privileges and preferences, business opportunities, agricultural commodities and so on. Every segment of society will be tapped for the new “nomenklatura”. One can imagine that the youth will be organized in the style of “Youth Pioneers” and women would be “collectivized” to turn out the votes. The recruitment strategy is clearly explained: Focus attention on the primary and secondary schools (considered “convenient political environments”) across the country with special attention on teachers, deploy thousands of agricultural extension workers, provide targeted health and education services and improve infrastructure to areas where there is support for the ruling party, improve the civil service program (referred to as “improved governance”) by recruiting party hacks, and so on. In short, if one wants to become an elite — part of the “happenin’ group” — one must join the EPDRF.
Hijacking Democracy in Ethiopia
The yearning for a government based on the rule of law and one that guarantees the right of all citizens produces a genuine democracy. It is clear that a grand plan is now underway to permanently thwart popular democracy in Ethiopia. To paraphrase Mayor John Hylan of New York City from the early part of the last century, we now re-confirm our knowledge that the real threat to democracy in Ethiopia is a one-man-one-party dictatorship “which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of pluto-kleptocrats. This little coterie… run government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen…seizes…our executive officers… legislative bodies…schools… courts…newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”
Back in 1920, H.L. Mencken, “the sage of Baltimore,” made a chillingly nightmarish observation about the future of the American presidency:
“The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
While pundits may argue the truth of Mencken’s prophesy, it is self-evident that over the last 8 years, the White House has been a “virtual vacuum.” Sure the lights were on, but it did not seem like there was anybody there. At least in the Oval office. Somebody was asleep at the switch; and America has been sleepwalking. In Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East and Latin America. John McCain says it is possible for America to remain in Iraq “may be for 100 years.” In the meantime, mean ole Osama and his crew of suicide bombers are enjoying life (no pun intended) somewhere in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan. Americans are not. They are having a hard time. With massive foreclosures, high gas and food prices and creeping unemployment. The pillars of the American economy are crumbling. Freddiemac, Fanniemae, Lehman Brothers, Merril Lynch, AIG have bitten the dust. Many others are expected to follow suit. John McCain says, “The economy is fundamentally sound.” He wants Americans to give him four more years of the past eight years, as Hilary Clinton aptly put it. What to do?
The Fight for the “Inner Soul” of America
Do we want four more years of the past eight? That is, more wars, more conflict and instability in the world. More radicalization and desperation among the world’s poor, less respect and security for America and a more hostile global environment? Do we want more economic turmoil at home and a rapidly deteriorating standard of living?
There is a lot at stake in the 2008 presidential election. It is the most important presidential election in several generations. It is an election about the “inner soul” of America. That inner hard core, I believe, is Liberty. Its soft outer covering is compassion and generosity. Most Ethiopians in America should know all about it. Liberty was the first thing we tasted when we walked through the Golden Door. It was inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore… Send these, the homeless, the tempest tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.” We were welcomed in America when our homeland became an open prison for our people and a playground for bloodthirsty thugs. America embraced us. When our people suffered through man-made famines for decades, Americans were the first to extend a mighty helping hand.
But that American passion for Liberty writ large for the world was expressed concisely by President Franklin Roosevelt in the Atlantic Charter: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. There was a time when America was regarded as the beacon and lighthouse for humanity. Nation after nation adopted significant elements of the American Constitution by copying the very words of the American Founders. Those ideals of liberty were expressed by John Kennedy in 1963 when he stood at the Berlin wall and declared, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Ronald Reagan returned in 1987 and shouted: “Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. The spirit of liberty had triumphed. George Bush has been asking, “What ideals? Bring’em on!” We’ll knock their teeth out!
Why Elect Barack President?
For the past eight years, the Bush Administration has squandered golden opportunities by insisting on a series of unilateral actions. Today, America’s reputation is in tatters throughout the world. The world is hurting and blaming America. Barack said, “the war in Iraq has not just cost lost lives and treasure but also influence and respect.” America needs to regain influence and respect in the world. Barack can fix it. He has a realistic vision and a real understanding of the world. He understands we live in a global village, not a fortress or a garrison. He knows village life must be handled carefully and thoughtfully. You can’t go around bullying everybody particularly when you depend on the villagers so much. The Chinese, Japanese, Brazilians, the Middle Eastern oil producers and others hold 25 percent of U.S. debt. Like it or not, those villagers own quite a bit of us. We need them as much as they need us.
But Barack represents a paradigm shift, a complete change in approach. He will work his damnest to bring peace to the village. Villagers and village elders will be talking to each other once again, not lectured or threatened. Imagine Mahmood Ahmedinejad fretting over what he will say to Barack when it’s time to meet and talk. Imagine the shock on Kim Jong-Il’s face when Barack tells him America will honor its obligations to provide aid but he has got to permanently abandon his futile effort to become a destabilizing nuclear power in the region. The masters of terror will finally have to deal with someone who uses the power of American ideals to neutralize the power of hate. They don’t stand a chance. They know Barack will chase them to the ends of the earth, even if that is the craggy caves of Waziristan. Barack will make the White House a symbol of hope and peace throughout the world once again, and not arrogant and heedless militarism.
Why Support and Vote for Barack
We should support Barack not because he is African American or black. To do so would be wrong, very wrong because it diminishes him and us. As Dr. King has taught us, we do not judge a person by the color of his skin but the content of his character. Barack is much more than his skin color. He is an extraordinary American. He is the very personification of core American values that others merely parrot. He is honest, hardworking, thoughtful, civic-minded, intelligent, tough, humble and compassionate. He is also ambitious, not for personal ego or gain, but to serve his country. There is no question Barack has got the character thing down pat. But he also has a vision for America. It is certainly not a vision of Fortress America. It is not a vision of reach out and crush someone in the world today. It is not a vision of America where sleaze is elevated to a civic virtue. His vision is to lead America and the world by persuasion and principle, by bringing Americans together at home and working for peace, understanding and justice abroad. That is the CHANGE he is talking about.
Obama’s Audacity of Hope for America
Obama believes in America. He knows America’s best days are yet to come with the right leadership. That’s why he said:
“I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries. There is no doubt that the mistakes of the past six years have made our current task more difficult. World opinion has turned against us. And after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs… We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission – we must lead the world, by deed and example…
And America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world’s forgotten corners… This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.”
Barack’s Message for Ethiopians
Barack understands the problems of Ethiopians and all oppressed peoples in the world. He understands that American security in the world is directly proportional to America’s role in ensuring freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the world. His understanding is not mere repetition of platitudes about democracy and freedom. It is much deeper than that:
“We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom – that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair. I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice.
Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. (Isn’t that what H.R. 2003 and S.B. 3457 are all about?) It requires building the capacity of the world’s weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. And it requires states that have the capacity to fight terrorism, halt the proliferation of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat such deadly diseases as HIV/AIDS and malaria… The corruption I heard about while visiting parts of Africa has been around for decades, but the hunger to eliminate such corruption is a growing and powerful force among people there. And so in these places where fear and want still thrive, we must couple our aid with an insistent call for reform.” (Isn’t that what H.R. 2003 and S.B. 3457 call for?)
The American Moment
We need to turn around the American ship of state that is now adrift on an ocean of confusion and self-doubt. We need someone who will substitute the drumbeats of war with the rhythm of international peace and harmony. We need someone who can show us how to beat the swords into ploughshares and restore America to its rightful place of leadership in the world. We need someone who will hold accountable those who have played fast and loose with the economy. Barack is absolutely right: “The American moment has not passed. The American moment is here. And like generations before us, we will seize that moment, and begin the world anew.” Let’s take our first step into the brave new world by electing Barack Obama, President of the United States!
CARPE DIEM!
P.S. Every vote counts. Register to vote, NOW! Every dollar counts. Contribute online today to support Barack Obama for President!
Oh, the twists and turns on the road to an Ethiopia human rights legislation in the U.S. Congress. The first leg of that journey began in the House of Representatives with H.R. 4423 (“Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005”). Then came H.R. 5680 (“Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006”) Then there was H.R. 2003 (“Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007”) which passed in the House last October with a unanimous vote and sent to the Senate. At each stage, they crowed “Ethiopia human rights legislation is D.O.A. (dead on arrival) in Congress!” And each time they had to eat crow and wash it down with French cognac andchampagne. They just could not shake it loose. Ethiopia human rights legislation in the U.S. Congress has more lives than a herd of cats. It gets “resurrected” again and again, and marches on forward.
They Just Don’t Get It!
Those guys just don’t get it! First, they said all this human rights stuff in Congress is the work of the “extreme Diaspora” and “misguided supporters of Eritrea”. When that claptrap did not work, they tried to pin it on a couple of members of Congress and their staffers. “The whole thing is the handiwork of Donald Payne and his aides. And Chris Smith too. They are out to get us! There is no support for Ethiopia human rights in the House,” they bellowed. When H.R. 2003 passed unanimously, they said, “Oh! It’s just the House. There is no support for a human rights bill in the Senate.” Now that Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy, two of the most distinguished members of the U.S. Senate, have introduced Senate Bill 3457, what are they going to say? “Oh, it is not as tough as H.R. 2003! Anyway, the president won’t sign it!” The simple point is that those guys just don’t get it: Not everyone in the U.S. Congress is up for sale. You can spend your $50,000 a month, or millions a year to pay your lobbyists and buy influence in Congress. You can wine and dine ’em. And they can make inane and fatuous speeches for you to an empty Senate gallery. But there is real and genuine interest and concern for human rights in Ethiopia in the U.S. Congress. There are American lawmakers who believe that the ideals of American freedom and liberty can more effectively advance the cause of democracy and help secure American national interests in the world than military muscle or collusion with ruthless dictators. They just don’t get it. It ain’t about Don Payne, Chris Smith, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy or anybody else. It is about freedom, democracy, human rights and accountability taking center stage in Ethiopian-American relations! It is just that simple!
The Feingold-Leahy Ethiopia Human Rights Bill
Feingold-Leahy’s Senate Bill 3457 (“Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008’’), shares the same legislative justification and evidence as H.R. 2003. S.B. 3457 documents serious, widespread and extensive human rights violations by the “Government of Ethiopia” in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. It notes the murder of 193 innocent demonstrators and injury of 763 others, detention of “thousands more opposition party leaders and their followers”, “violations of human rights and international law by the Ethiopian military in Mogadishu and other areas of Somalia, as well as in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia.” The bill describes the use of “unjustifiably brutal tactics [by the ‘government’ of Ethiopia] against its own citizens in Oromiya, Amhara and Gambella regions.” The bill asserts that the recent so-called civil society law has the effect of “creat[ing] a complex web of onerous bureaucratic hurdles, draconian criminal penalties and intrusive powers of surveillance that would further decrease the political space available for civil society institutions.” Section 5 of the bill requires the President to take “additional steps to support the implementation of democracy and governance institutions and organizations in Ethiopia,” including support for civil society organizations, fundamental freedoms, bolstering the independence of the judiciary and full international access to the Ogaden, among other things. The bill provides $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to carry out its purposes.
In contrast to the Feingold-Leahy bill, H.R. 2003 imposes stricter limitations on security assistance and travel restrictions on any official of the government of Ethiopia involved in human rights violations. To avoid triggering the sanctions provisions, H.R. 2003 requires the President to report to Congress that the “government” of Ethiopia is making “quantifiable” progress in specific areas such as the release of political prisoners, independent operation of the judiciary, free operation of the print and broadcast media and restructuring of the national elections board to reflect the political diversity in the country, among others. H.R. 2003 also provides support for economic development.
Getting to Know Our Senate Sponsors: Feingold of Wisconsin and Leahy of Vermont
The sponsors of S.B. 3457 are not some Johnny-come-lately senators who bumped into human rights while on a safari to Africa or on an infant rescue mission from the mouths of hungry canines. Feingold and Leahy are two of the most distinguished and highly respected members in the U.S. Senate. Senator Feingold is Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa and a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Leahy is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with full jurisdiction over the federal justice administration system. Both Feingold and Leahy have stellar records in international human rights. Both are co-sponsors of the bipartisan “Genocide Accountability Act” that was signed into law by the President in December, 2007; and the “Child Soldiers Accountability Act Of 2007”, which a few days ago passed in the House and is now awaiting presidential signature.
Both Senators Feingold and Leahy have been long time supporters of human rights in Ethiopia.
Both have made numerous public statements criticizing the regime’s human right’s record. In his introductory remarks to S.B. 3457, Senator Feingold said, “The purpose of this bill is to reaffirm policy objectives towardsEthiopia and encourage greater commitment to the underpinnings of a true democracy — an independent judiciary and the rule of law, respect for human and political rights, and an end to restrictions on the media and non-governmental organizations. As many in this body know, I have spoken numerous times in recent months about the situation in Ethiopia and I continue to believe that the U.S.-Ethiopian partnership is very important — one of the more critical ones given not only our historic relationship but also Ethiopia’s location in an increasingly strategic region…. Genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. It is also essential if we are going to successfully combat extremism, thereby bolstering our own national security here at home.”
Senator Leahy has also issued numerous public statements urging the regime to immediately and unconditionally release political prisoners in Ethiopia and undertake reconciliation talks with opposition leaders in an environment of fairness and transparency. Citing the New York Times, Senator Leahy has called for accountability of the Zenawi regime in the diversion of millions of dollars meant for food aid and a vaccination program. He has criticized the expulsion of the Red Cross from the Ogaden region and the clampdown on civil society organizations. He has rejected the Bush Administration’s policy which has made it possible for dictators to hide behind the skirt of an anti-terrorism alliance while perpetrating terrorism on their own citizens: “The White House seems to support just about anyone who says they are against terrorism, no matter how undemocratic or corrupt. It is short sighted, it tarnishes our image, and it will cost us dearly in the long term.” Last August, Leahy warned, “We will not ignore the unlawful imprisonment of political opponents or the mistreatment of journalists. We will not ignore reports of abuses of civilians by Ethiopian security forces.” Anyone who knows Pat Leahy knows that he is a man of his word. But Senator Leahy’s peerless contribution to international human rights is immortalized in the “Leahy Law,” an amendment aimed at increasing the accountability of foreign military aid recipients that violate the human rights of their citizens with impunity. It prohibits funds to “any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights,… and the government of such country is not taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.” This amendment has “become the most important legal tool used to promote respect for human rights through U.S. security assistance programs.”
Lessons Learned
After the House passed H.R. 2003 last October, there has been a palpable mood of resignation and frustration over the pace of legislative progress on the bill. Things seemed to have stalled in the Senate and the horizon seemed somewhat bleak. Many seemed to show signs of impatience, “Why don’t they just pass the bill and be done with it?” (Most Americans feel the same way about the traditional way Congress considers legislation.) In some ways, that is a natural reaction to a process that seems to make progress at a snail’s pace. But for some of us who have a bit more familiarity with the congressional legislative process, the view could not have been different. What many saw as slow legislative motion, we saw as quantum leaps and runaway progress. It often takes years to get a new bill through Congress. The bicameral legislative process is designed to be completely independent not only from the executive branch, but also from each other. Each chamber has its own exclusive rules, procedures and traditions; and final legislative action takes time. That is a function of the constitutional architecture of the American republic based on the principle of separation of powers. The American Founders designed a legislative system to ensure that all proposals receive careful scrutiny, and that all voices are heard.
We must understand that Congress is not some rubber-stamp parliament that is at the beck and call of some political overlord. But there is great wisdom in this “slow” process. A lot of things happen: A great deal of fact-finding is made by lawmakers about the subject matter of a bill, constituents get a chance to have input in the lawmaking process often and at many levels, government agencies are consulted on the potential impact and consequences of the legislation, consensus and support for the legislation is built, lawmakers get to debate, argue and offer amendments, and institutional bargaining and compromising must take place between the two chambers before a bill is ready for the president’s signature. It takes many years to go through this unwieldy process. As the noted congressional scholar Norman Ornstein observed, “The system of checks and balances and the legislative process as it evolved in the House and the Senate were built around deliberation… If there is one word at the core of Congress’ essence, it is deliberation.” That has been the “deliberative” history of the various versions of an Ethiopia human rights bill in Congress beginning with Chris Smith’s H.R. 4423. There fact that there was not a single dissenting voice in the passage of H.R. 2003 in the House (despite millions of lobbying dollars spent to defeat it) is testimony to the outstanding legislative skills and extraordinary hard work of Don Payne (who got 85 House members to co-sponsor the bill). It took a lot of time and legwork by Don Payne to get a unanimous vote for H.R. 2003. We are hopeful that the Senate will act swiftly under its expedited procedures to approve the bill.
So what are some lessons to be learned from our struggle over the past three years?
Lesson 1. Never give up. Never Give In.
Churchill was right: “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” We must continue to work for this legislation regardless of how long it takes to pass and become law.
Lesson 2. Act, Don’t React.
Always act on the basis of the truth. Never lie or misrepresent the facts. But speak truth to power, to every man, woman and child. Never back down from telling the truth. The power of truth always overcomes the power of lies. Lies are like a mirage in the desert. They look real and convincing from a distance but they vanish when you scrutinize them closely. Truth on the other hand is like a mountain. The closer you get to it, the more you are able to experience its magnificence. Never react to lies. Liars want you to react to their lies thereby distracting you from telling the truth and getting you bogged down in their lies. React to lies not with the heat of emotion but with the cold hard facts.
Lesson 3. Act Together, Work Together and Think Together.
When people act, work and think together they always accomplish their objectives. In getting a human rights bill to this stage, we acted, worked and thought together in all sorts of forums. That is why we succeeded to the extent that we did. That is the power of collective action. Credit for whatever we have accomplished to date belongs equally to each and every person who did their best to help advance the cause of Ethiopia human rights in Congress. If we want to get an Ethiopia human rights bill enacted, each and every one of us who believes in the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights must put our shoulders to the grindstone and keep pushing until we get the job done.
Lesson 4. Speak Out, Speak Up and Often.
Speak out and make a difference. Every chance you get to talk about human rights in Ethiopia, just do it. Even if it is one sentence. Talk about it on the phone, in your email, online chat, in the restaurant, churches, conferences, on the radio and television, in the local newspaper or wherever you find anyone willing to listen. If you don’t speak about human rights in Ethiopia, who will?
Lesson 5. Knowledge is Power — Educate Yourself on the Legislative Process.
Much of our frustration about what is or is not happening in Congress on Ethiopia human rights legislation is related to our lack of knowledge and information about the legislative process. The U.S. Congress is truly one of the greatest lawmaking institutions in human history. No doubt, it has many flaws — excessive lobbyist influence, gridlock, partisanship, etc.– but as a law making institution it is accessible and responsive to its citizens. If we organize and persist — AND SPEAK IN ONE VOICE — we will find out that our members of Congress and the institution itself are all ears.
But when we talk to members of Congress, let’s be more professional: prepare our talking points, assemble our documentation and evidence, designate our presenters, make clear, concise and persuasive arguments, be sensitive to the time pressures of our members of Congress and their staffers, always be respectful and cooperative and always express appreciation for the opportunity to be heard, etc. We must avoid the past mistakes of making unkind remarks about each other’s advocacy efforts as supporters of the same cause and effort. Nothing is more embarrassing and painful than hearing members or their staffers asking point blank: “Why can’t you guys work together. It is ineffective and counterproductive for different groups who support the same cause to come in and make the same arguments while undercutting others working for the same purpose. It is a waste of our time and it shows you are not really organized.” Let’s be more organized.
Lesson 6. Make Use of the Media to Get Out Our Message.
The American media can be a great ally in our human rights advocacy efforts. We learned a great lesson from our efforts in 2006 when then-House speaker Hastert iced H.R. 5680. We were able to coordinate with the electronic and print media in Hastert’s congressional district outside Chicago to apply grassroots pressure on him to let the bill go to the floor for a vote. As most who are aware of that effort know, the impact of our media work on Hastert’s office was massive and immediate. It was described as “unprecedented” by Hastert’s staffers. But as luck would have it, the speaker and his party lost control of the House within weeks. Never have an event without adequate media coverage.
Lesson 7. Learn and Teach Others.
Human rights advocacy should not be looked at lightly. To do an effective job, we must have basic familiarity with the various international human rights conventions and instruments; we must read and understand the bills. To advocate on behalf of human rights without reading and understanding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or H.R. 2003, H.R. 5680, H.R. 4423 or S.B. 3457 could be embarrassing. We must make an effort to learn about human rights laws and conventions and share our knowledge with others.
Lesson 8. Be Creative. Think of New Ways to Act.
We need to think of new ideas and strategies to advance the cause of human rights in Ethiopia. For instance, we began pushing for resolutions in the state legislature and county and local governments on human rights in Ethiopia. Such resolutions were passed in various state legislatures including Massachusetts,Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma and other jurisdictions. We need to get similar legislation passed in every American state legislature. Musicians, artists, scholars, journalists, poets, athletes, cab drivers, food service workers, lawyers, doctors, engineers and all others can think and act creatively within the sphere of their knowledge and experience to promote human rights in Ethiopia. All of us have the power to inspire through ideas, thoughts, words and imagination. Let’s inspire each other creatively.
Lesson 9. Create Alliances With Other Groups and Support Human Rights Organizations.
A great deal of the evidence buttressing Ethiopia human rights legislation in Congress is based on the independent work of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the Ethiopian Human Rights Council and many other international human rights organizations. Without their work, we would not have the evidence to make our arguments. But why is that many of us are not members of one or more of these organizations? For less than the cost of an average restaurant meal, we can become members and support the great work of these organizations. These organizations need us as much as we need them. Let’s become members. We also need to build bridges to other grassroots human rights and civil rights groups. Our influence is magnified when we act in concert with others who share the same cause and concerns.
Lesson 10. Gandhi Was Right!
Gandhi was right: “First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
An Imaginary Conversation Between an Apparatchik and a U.S. Senator (Act I)
The following is an imaginary telephone conversation that took place between an Ethiopian apparatchik (a political hack, a flunky, a yes-man) and a U.S. Senator on the occasion of the introduction of Senate Bill 3457.
Apparatchik: “Senator, I can’t tell you how pissed off we are with this bill you just introduced. We have been telling our people — as a matter of fact — the whole world that an Ethiopia human rights bill in the U.S. Congress is dead and gone. You guys sat on H.R. 2003 for damn near a year without anything happening. Now you pull off a stunt with this Senate bill on the eve of our new year and embarrass the hell out of us. What’s up with that, Senator?”
Senator: “First, let me say happy new year to you. Sorry to rain on your parade (chuckle). I hope you will not misunderstand because the bill was not introduced at this time as some sort of new year present to you and yours. It is all a coincidence. You know, bills have a funny life in the U.S. Congress. Just as soon as someone writes their epitaph, they rise from the crypt and come alive. Just like in the movies, sometimes they become your worst nightmare.”
Apparatchik: “Senator, I don’t get. Just tell me. What is the big deal about human rights in Ethiopia. Why should you care? You know everything was fine and dandy until that Chris Smith in the House messed things up back in ’05 and started talking about human rights this and human rights that in Ethiopia. Then, Payne runs with his human rights bill and scores a touchdown in the House. Now, you are carrying the ball to the end zone for a second touchdown in the Senate. Why are you guys so much interested in Ethiopia?
Senator: “Surely, you must know that human rights is a cornerstone of American foreign policy. Our policy is to promote democracy with our partners around the world as a means of securing our national interest. We do what we can to assist emerging democracies in implementing democratic principles and in developing democratic institutions. We speak out against regimes that deny their citizens fundamental freedoms. Let’s be honest. What we are proposing here is nothing new. It is all in your constitution, if you care to check it out. In Article 13 of your constitution is stated: ‘The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.’ All we are doing is help you live up to the standards of your own constitution. Do you want to talk about it more?”
Apparatchik: “No, I don’t know what it says in the constitution. I have never read the thing. Anyway, Senator, I have to tell you how we really feel. Ethiopia is not some banana republic you can run from Capitol Hill. We are a proud and independent people. You can’t tell us what to do!”
Senator: “Well, ‘banana republic’ is a term used to describe a country that is politically unstable, dependent on one primary agricultural commodity — banana or coffee — with a large impoverished population, and adorned with the trapping of modernity (such as a whole bunch of empty office buildings) and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy and corrupt clique. Is that what you are not? Anyway, we are not telling you what to do. All we are saying is the American taxpayer does not have an obligation to support any regime that engages in widespread violations of human rights. If you don’t like it, all you have to say is ‘Stop all the aid!’ and you won’t hear a word from us.”
Apparatchik: “Senator, you guys picking on us. Aren’t there enough bad guys out there for you to beat up on like terrorists, or that country to our north or something?”
Senator: “Give me a break! ‘Beating on you!’. No, we leave that to you guys. You are the experts. You beat up and jail your ordinary citizens who don’t agree with you. You threaten, harass and intimidate your opposition leaders. You criminalize civil society organizations. You jail and drive out independent journalists. And you have the gall to talk about someone beating up on you!”
Apparatchik: “That’s not what I am talking about, Senator. Anyway, you must know this bill interferes with Ethiopia’s internal affairs. Yeah, you are meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation unfairly and with no account of the realities on the ground. You are treading on our sovereignty. It is like you are trying to colonize us. You are telling us that if we do not improve on human rights, you will cut off funding. What happened to the good old days when you gave us money and let us do whatever we want with it? What is all this accountability stuff now?
Senator: “Well, those good old days are gone. It’s a new day. The American people demand accountability for their tax dollars. We provide aid to the people of Ethiopia, not to a political party or faction that is determined to keep its chokehold on power. You say we are trying to ‘colonize’ you with this bill. At least you did not call us ‘imperialists’, like they used to in the old days. You have been telling us that you are our “reliable partners” in the war on terror. Now we have become your colonial masters? Let the facts speak for themselves. Over the past decade, we have given you billions in development assistance, disaster, famine and humanitarian relief, economic support, child survival and health programs, debt relief and much more. You never complained about being an American colony when you were grabbing the goodies for all these years. Now, suddenly we have become colonial ogres intruding on your sovereignty. Give us a break!
Apparatchik: “Let me try it a different way, Senator. You are not understanding me. We are a key partner in your war on terror. We went after Al Quieda in Somalia. We broomed that place squeaky-clean. Not a terrorist in sight. How do you like that?!”
Senator: “Right. Right. Yeah, we were wondering what had happened to those wild-eyed terrorists. Anyway, we really appreciate your efforts very much. But what does that have to do with jailing your opposition political leaders and journalists, not bringing to justice those who killed innocent demonstrators, election rigging, political prisoners, misuse of the justice system for political ends and the rest of it? Look here! We may be partners in fighting global terrorism, but we are not — and never will be — partners in your crimes against humanity, war crimes and violations of international human rights laws.”
Apparatchik: “Well, Senator, you want democracy, so do we. If you are really interested in promoting democracy and good governance in Ethiopia, the best way to do it by encouraging Western companies to invest in our country and help modernize the agricultural sector. You helped South Korea when it was under a military dictatorship and now you help all sorts of anti-democratic Arab countries. You know we have run three successful elections. Opposition groups are freely operating in the country and basic human rights of citizens are respected. Your bill will undermine the Ethiopia’s remarkable progress as a young democracy.”
Senator: “(Guffaw! Breaks out in boisterous laughter.) Forgive me, but how do you define democracy? Running 4 million candidates from one party? Jailing opposition political leaders and keeping thousands of political prisoners? Incapacitating civil society leaders and institutions? Jailing independent journalists? Using courts as political tools of persecution? If that is the accomplishment of your young democracy, I’d be scared to imagine what it will do when it gets into adulthood.”
Apparatchik: “Senator, we just have to tell our people that you are trying to starve them by cutting off aid and blame everything on you guys. How do you like that?”
Senator: “Doggone it! You will stoop that low, eh! What a low down dirty shame! Do and say what you will. But the U.S. Congress will never deny humanitarian aid to the people of Ethiopia. NEVER. But rest assured that we will do what we can to stop you from using our humvees and military aid to kill off your people.”
Apparatchik: “Check it out Senator. See, we are now going through a national healing after all of the mess in 2005, with the elections and all I mean. We pardoned the opposition leaders and let them come toAmerica and do whatever they wanted. Today, we have hope and optimism that has never happened in Ethiopia before. If you pass this law, it’s all going down the drain.”
Senator: “Sorry, I did not hear you clearly. Did you say national healing or stealing? Anyway, we are pleased to see that you have pardoned the leaders. But we all know that you still have thousands of political prisoners in detention. When will you be releasing those prisoners?
Apparatchik: “Well, umm! Well…
Apparatchik: “Senator, you can’t go through with this bill. Ethiopia faces a rebel movement. There is famine, I mean severe malnutrition. There is insurgency in the Ogaden. Muslim fundamentalists in neighboring Somalia and Eritrea are creating chaos. If this bill passes, we, your ally in the war on terror, will be weak. You will have no supporters in the most dangerous regions in the world.”
Senator: “Here you go again. You don’t really get, do you? Hello! If you respected the rights of your people, may be you won’t have any insurgency movements. If you take care of your people, may be they will give you their full support. Let me give you this guarantee: ‘There will not be a single insurgency movement or adverse reaction by any opposition group to your regime because of passage of this bill. And you can take this to the bank’.”
Apparatchik: “Senator, I am going to try one last argument to get through to you. If you pass this bill it will damage the economic progress we have made so far. It will interfere with our democratization process and the Ethiopian renaissance we have started. What do you think of that?”
Senator: “Not much. The last I read 80 percent of your people live on pennies a day, much, much less than a dollar. One-third of your population is directly in the path of an oncoming famine freight train. Who are you kidding? If there is economic progress, it is there for you and yours. Don’t preach this economic development drivel to me. I know what’s happening. But let me ask you a few questions of my own.”
Senator: “You have a great constitution. Why can’t you follow it?”
Apparatchik: “Duh! Did you say, constitution? Umm… yes. Can I get back to you on that question. I need clearance before I can answer that question.”
Senator: “Alright. You talk about democracy and economic development. Do you know of any country that has been able to have a successful democracy with economic development that did not also have a free press and freely functioning civic society institutions?”
Apparatchik: “Senator, very good question. Right! Umm… Can I get back to you on that. I need clearance before I can answer that question.”
Senator: “Let me put things in perspective for you. Kibaki and Odinga in Kenya were able to cut a power sharing agreement. Now Mugabe and Tsvangirai cut a similar power sharing deal in Zimbabwe. Why can’t you guys come up with a similar arrangement in Ethiopia?”
Apparatchik: “Senator, that is a radioactive question. I am not going there. Oh! No. No. No. I am going to have to take the Fifth on this one, as you guys say in America. I refuse to answer this question on the grounds that I might incriminate myself.”
Senator: “I like your humor there. By the way, when are you guys getting out of Somalia? Any plans?
Apparatchik: (Sweating it.) “Senator, I don’t know nothing about nothing. Why are you asking me all of these questions. Do you want to get me into trouble? I just want to talk about H.R. 2003 and S.B. 3457 and stuff like that. I am not authorized to talk about anything else.”
Senator: (Laughs!)
Apparatchik: “Senator, you know we don’t care about any law passed in Congress. It’s is not going to make one ounce of difference to us. We’ll just ignore it. We don’t need you measly $20 million. You can keep it. We’ll do something. I don’t know. Just something.”
Senator: “So why are you whining? If is not going to make a damn bit of difference to you, why are you so worked up? Let it go, man! Forget about it! Go with the flow. Roll with the punches, dude! Take it easy! Chill!”
Apparatchik: “Oh, man!”
—————————
P.S. Please send a thank you email to Senators Feingold and Leahy, or call up their offices and just say: “THANK YOU!”
What a difference a year makes in a Millennium! A year ago, almost to the day, we celebrated a moment of triumph. It was the 9th of September. A day I will always remember.
It was our day of jubilation. A day of pride. It was a day that embodied the strivings of the millions of Ethiopians who came out to vote in May 2005, hoping to build a free and democratic Ethiopia for the first time in history. It was also a solemn day of remembrance of the sacrifices of the innocent sons and daughters of Ethiopia who were cut down like blades of grass protesting stolen elections. It was a day unlike any other in the history of Ethiopians in America. On that glorious September day, we mustered a mighty force of humanity in a caravan of freedom riders that stretched from Dulles Airport in Virginia to Washington, D.C.
A year later, that auspicious beginning had withered on the vine of promises yet to be fulfilled. Shattered dreams of a democracy deferred lie scattered like sawdust on the floor our memories. Those jubilant voices of September 9 are but a faint echo now. That glorious day a distant and fading memory. The weeds of cynicism and disillusionment have strangled the seedlings of hope and optimism planted that glorious September day. It is pointless to even try and explain what happened over the past year. It does not matter. We managed to “rain on our own parade”. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. We blinded ourselves and lost sight of the Grand Prize. In the end, we found ourselves trapped in the Tower of Babel — unable to speak the same language of democracy, freedom and human rights, unable to engage in constructive political dialogue, unable to set aside differences for the greater cause and for ultimate victory over the demonic forces of dictatorship. We insisted on playing a zero-sum game where only one side can win and the other must necessarily lose. None of us won. Only Zenawi Inc. won, and mightily, courtesy of pro-democracy forces. They walked away with their greatest trophy: a fragmented democratic opposition, and the equivalent of a long-term employment guarantee. Their work done for them, now they just stir the opposition pot from time to time while feasting at the lavish table of dictatorship.
From Dictatorship to Freedom?
“When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom,” said Thomas Paine, one of the inspiring figures of the American revolution. No one can say in the first year of the New Millennium that the “government” in Ethiopia fears the people. Some of us even entertained the polyannish hope that the New Millennium will usher a teeny-weeny transition from dictatorship to freedom. We could not have been more wrong. We witnessed the “legalization, legitimization, judicialization, sanctification and beatification” of dictatorship in Ethiopia in the first year of the New Millennium. A snapshot of the current dictatorship in the first year shows a bogus “election” taking place, not as a democratic exercise of popular participation in self-government, but as strategic move to entrench the tentacles of the regime at the neighborhood level while tightening the noose on political life of the country. The regime ran 4 million candidates (out of some 76 million) for office. The opposition managed to register (not run) a mere 16 thousand.
A bogus “Charities and Societies Proclamation” was passed to stamp out the faintest trace of opposition, and thwart the possibility of a resurgence of democratic impulses in the country. After decimating opposition political parties and the press, the regime targeted civil society organizations in the name of “monitoring” them. Amnesty International described this “law” as “part of a broader effort to silence the few independent voices that have managed to make their criticisms of the government heard in an increasingly repressive climate.”
They also passed a press “law” billed by Zenawi as “on par with the best in the world”. Bulcha Demeksa, leader of the opposition Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement described its passage as “a dark day in the annals of Ethiopian history.” The “law” is so loony that it criminalizes criticism of politicians. It does not matter whether the criticized politician feels his reputation has been damaged by a press report. The “government” will prosecute “even if the person against whom they were committed chooses not to press charge.” Since we are talking about a law “on par with the best in the world”, it may be instructive to learn how the truly best in the world deal with the issue. In the United States (where there is real freedom of the press), there could be no defamation or libel of a public official by a journalist unless that official could prove “actual malice”, that is, proof that the reporter made the statement with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Obviously, the aim of the “law” is to instill fear and institutionalize self-censorship, and “dampen the vigor and limit the variety of public debate.” In the first year of the Ethiopian New Millennium, we find that there are no opposition political parties. No civil society organizations. No free press. No justice. No peace. No problems!!!
From Poverty to Prosperity?
We were also deafened by claims of economic growth and deluged by platitudes about economic prosperity in Ethiopia in the first year of the New Millennium. We were invited to join in euphoric celebrations of Ethiopia’s magnificent economic strides and achievements in an endless series of great emancipatory speeches, interviews and declarations. We were told the economy has been growing by 10 per cent over the past five years. Just a couple of weeks ago, we were told in a Financial Times interview that “agriculture has been growing at double-digit rates for five years now. Agriculture has been the key driver of growth as a whole and of export growth.” As the famine (which is officially called “severe malnutrition”) ravages the country, we were assured: “There are more people in Ethiopia who have benefited from the high food prices than those who have lost out from them.” Perhaps someone ought to tell the “benefits of high food prices” and the great agricultural prosperity to the 4.5 million (regime estimate) and 10 million (international estimate) people who are starving, or to be more politically correct, undergoing “severe malnutrition”. It is all surreal. The truth is there is nothing to brag about Ethiopia’s economy. In its 2007-08 report, the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index (which quantifies not just the “rise and fall of national incomes” but assesses “the environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive lives”) ranked Ethiopia 169th out of 177 countries. Only 7 other countries were worse off than Ethiopia. No one can deny that the so-called agricultural-led industrialization has benefited a small group of politically-connected individuals and made it possible for them to live on exquisite islands of wealth on a vast ocean of poverty where the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians live under $1 USD a day. But please give us a break: The old voodoo economics about wealth trickling down to the unwashed masses has long been discredited.
From Human Wrongs to Human Rights?
Human wrongs continued in the first year of the New Millennium. In June, 2008, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported in its 130-page report “Collective Punishment: War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in the Ogaden Area of Ethiopia’s Somali Regional State,” that “ in eastern Ethiopia’s Somali Region, Ethiopia’s army has subjected civilians to executions, torture, and rape.” The widespread violence amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to HRW. In Oromia, suspected sympathizers of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) continue to be imprisoned, harassed, and physically abused, including school children.
Castles in the Sand
The history of dictatorships shows that dictators are very good at building castles in the sand. One need only look at the “castles” built by the most notorious dictators of the last century. Hitler built his “1000 Year Reich”, but it lasted barely 12 years. Pol Pot terrorized Cambodia for 4 years before he was driven out. Saddam Hussien ruled Iraq with an iron fist for over three decades, and died a broken, deeply humiliated and defeated man. Mullah Omar’s Taliban ruled Afghanistan for 5 years before they were routed into the caves. Robert Mugabe, once a liberation hero today clings to power by electoral fraud and brute force. Mengistu Haile Mariam and the Derg are gone leaving behind only a legacy that made it possible for the current occupants of power to continue in their footsteps. Even the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the Soviet Union and elsewhere has vanished from the face of the earth after 70 years.
It is easy to fall prey to despair and hopelessness in the face of an unrelenting tyranny that rules with an iron fist. It is easy to believe that one is condemned by destiny to live in fear and oppression under such dictatorial rule. But there is an eternal truth about all dictatorships. As Gandhi said, “There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fail — Think of it always.” One need not doubt that the current dictatorship in Ethiopia is rushing blindly to its impending doom. It may pretend not to hear the distant thunder of the approaching storm. But all the signs that portend of its inevitable end are evident. Deep-seated and prolonged discontent has seized upon the people. Grinding poverty, inflation, high prices, unemployment, pent-up resentments, frustrations and rising anger, widespread misery and “severe malnutrition” (a/k/a famine) (in the land of the Blue Nile and many of the great rivers of Africa), tell the tragic story of suffering of a people as the dictatorship’s end draws near. The truth is that regime is out of solutions. They are playing for time in their endgame haunted by fears for their own survival, which they can prolong by becoming more and more repressive everyday. They know they do not have the support of the Ethiopian people. A Gallup poll conducted in July 2007 “reveals that relatively few Ethiopians express confidence in their country’s social and political institutions. Religious organizations are the only national entities to garner trust from a majority of respondents (68%). The national government garners trust from just 28% of Ethiopians… But participatory politics prompt the lowest levels of trust, as only 13% of Ethiopians have confidence in the honesty of elections.” Imagine a “democratic government” based only on the consent of 13 percent of the people! Have no doubts. The current dictatorship will go the way of all other dictatorships. The real question is: What happens after the dictators are gone?
The answer to this question is too frightening to contemplate. But we can take lessons from recent history. Take Saddam Hussien, for instance. Saddam engineered himself into dictatorial power and ruled Iraq with an iron fist for over three decades. He used policies designed to divide and paralyze Iraq’s ethnic groups. He used his ubiquitous military, security and intelligence apparatus, paramilitary security forces, tribal militias and emergency force units to ensure that he remained unchallenged and in absolute control. He packed the leadership of the Baathist party with Tikriti-based clan members and coerced, bribed and corrupted other ethnic and clan leaders to submit to his rule and party’s dominance. Those who did not belong to Saddam’s club or were considered hostile to him — Kurds, Shia, Marsh Arabs — were targeted for repression and savage persecution. Saddam was merciless even against his relatives, his best friends and clan members. His long-time comrade-in-arms who helped him come to power were singled out for the harshest treatment.
But what happened to Iraq after Saddam was toppled by the Americans? It was bedeviled by ethnic and regional fragmentation. Each of the three major ethnic groups claimed their own territory. Local warlords, Al-Quieda and homegrown terror cells, tribal leaders, and government security forces controlled separate areas and territories. Powerful clan and religious leaders became power brokers. Tragically, the post-Saddam era offered many Iraqis limitless opportunities to exact revenge for actual and perceived past grievances. Today, Baghdad is nothing more than clusters of ethnic enclaves divided by high concrete walls, each ethnic group flying its own flag. Few could have predicted the present reality of an imploded Iraq. What is seen in today’s Iraq was beyond the comprehension and imagination of the average Iraqi during the time of Saddam. The writing is on the wall in the form of a question for all Ethiopians to read: “What do we do the morning after all the dictators are gone?”
The Challenge of the New, New Millennium
I do not believe the challenges of the New Millennium are exclusively and necessarily related to the removal of a particular regime or individual from power. Regimes and dictators come and gone. The real challenge, as I see it, is preparation for a post-dictatorship society, NOW. “What is to be done the morning after the dictators are gone? What should a post-dictatorship Ethiopia look like?” I am not sure many of us have reasonable answers to these basic questions. But we avoid answering them at our own risk.
My humble personal view is that to understand what can happen “the morning after”, one has to clearly understand the present state of affairs in Ethiopia. The foundation of politics in Ethiopia today is ethnicity and the elimination of unity of the people in all forms by accentuating historical, social, political, economic, regional, etc,. differences. Ethnic identity and loyalties are glorified, and identity in a common nationality mocked, scorned and ridiculed. The governing principle is “Ethnicity before one’s humanity, and definitely before one’s nationality.” The evidence on the current dictatorship for the last 17 years unambiguously shows that they have succeeded to some extent in “atomizing” Ethiopia into ethnic enclaves. As a result, the country has outwardly become an archipelago of ethnic and linguistic “homelands” or bantustans. People are structured and encouraged to relate to each other on the basis of ethnic affiliation; and with those who are not part of the same ethnic group, to relate on the basis of past of historical grievances, suspicion of their present intentions and fear and loathing of a shared national identity. This policy and practice has spawned a culture of distrust, and forced people to develop deeply embedded habits of fear, loathing, doubt and suspicion that will have serious consequences in a post-dictatorship democratic society.
A post-dictatorship society must first find effective means to neutralize and purge the poison of ethnic politics from the Ethiopian body politics and overcome the atomizing effects of ethnicity. We must find ways to build trust to overcome the structural and psychic damage done over the past 17 years. As Francis Fukuyama perceptively argued, trust is the most important “social capital” in a society: “A nation’s well-being, as well as its ability to compete, is conditioned by a single, pervasive characteristic: the level of trust inherent in the society…. Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of the community… Social capital is what permits individuals to band together to defend their interests and organize to support collective needs; authoritarian governance, on the other hand, thrives on social atomization.” Though Fukuyama’s theory of “trust” focuses on “economy-building”, his ideas have equal applicability in nation-building as well. It seems that Ethiopians of all ethnic origins are afflicted by a significant deficit in the “social capital” of trust. This is evident in the fact that few people pool their resources to work together for common purposes in groups and organization across ethnic, regional, linguistic, etc., lines.
While political parties can play an effective role in cultivating public trust in institutions as well as the future, in their enforced absence, civil society organizations are best situated to pick up the slack. It is hard to imagine democracy taking root in any society without vigorous and vibrant civil society (voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions and groups) institutions. The regime understands that where there are healthy and vibrant civil society institutions there also blooms participatory democracy. That is the reason the regime has gone to such great lengths to legally suppress civil society institutions. We have to develop and utilize effective civil society institutions as means to develop the social capital of trust if we are to overcome the deeply embedded culture of distrust and map out a vision of a post-dictatorship democratic society in Ethiopia.
It is clear that civil society organization in Ethiopia do not stand a chance of functioning with any degree of effectiveness under the so-called charities law. But a great deal of work can be done in the Ethiopian Diaspora. I believe we can play an exemplary role by creating and sustaining civil society institutions that function on a culture of trust. We can engage large numbers of people in diverse civil society organizations to work together and cooperate on common issues of democratic institution building, defense and advocacy of human rights, support for press rights and free speech, support for the institutionalization of the rule of law, improving inter-ethnic relations and communication, and other similar things essential for the establishment of a viable democratic society. It is an object less for us all to recall the tireless work done by diverse civil society groups — grassroots organizations – which resulted in the successful passage of H.R. 2003. In that effort, we worked together as a single force for a common cause in a matrix of trust. The greatest challenge for the Ethiopian Diaspora in the New Millennium is our ability to serve as incubators for “social capital” (trust) that will ultimately transform the arid political landscape of dictatorship in Ethiopia into a breadbasket of democracy, civil liberties and human rights. If we fail to acquire the needed “social capital”, democracy, freedom and human rights will remain elusive to us, and generations to come will be doomed to an endless cycle of dictatorships.
But All Is Not Lost…
In the first year of the New Millennium, the transition from tyranny to freedom is nothing more than a distant and receding mirage on the arid political landscape Ethiopia has become. But all is not lost: Though the dictators have succeeded in crushing the hopes of millions and forced them to live in fear and misery, they have not been able to destroy that defiant indomitable Spirit that brought out the millions of Ethiopians to the polls in 2005. That Spirit of democracy, human rights and freedom remains intact and gets stronger by the day steeled in the oppressive furnace of dictatorship. That Spirit in the end will guide Ethiopians find their way out of the darkness of dictatorship into the promised land of democracy and freedom.
Let us consider the poetic wisdom of Langston Hughes for the New Millennium in the context of the question: “What do we do when the castles made of sand dissolve into the sea eventually?”
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. For comments, he can be reached at [email protected]
