By Alemayehu G. Mariam

Teddy Afro in Zenawi’s Kangaroo Court

The great Tewodros Kassahun (Teddy Afro) is Zenawi’s most famous political prisoner in Ethiopia today. Zenawi jacked Teddy on bogus charges of vehicular manslaughter, failure to assist the injured and driving without a license. Teddy was out on “bail” until April 2008, when his bail was revoked for no good cause and taken to the lice-infested Kality prison. He was later caged in solitary confinement (administrative segregation), a severe disciplinary punishment reserved only for the most violent, incorrigible and destructive criminals in any correctional institution in the world. As Teddy left his last kangaroo court hearing in July, he proclaimed his innocence to the world: “I did not kill anyone! God is my witness. I did not kill anyone! God’s powers are above all powers. I appeal to the sense of justice of all those who are sworn to serve this country. Without just cause, I have been caged in a lice-infested jail.” There was not a dry eye in kangaroo court.

Teddy is Innocent!

The allegation in kangaroo court is that Teddy in the evening hours of November 2, 2006, driving his vehicle at a high rate of speed and without an operator’s license, struck and killed a pedestrian. Teddy allegedly fled the scene of the accident without rendering assistance to the injured victim. Teddy denies the allegation. He told the kangaroo court: “I did not kill anyone!” Teddy is telling the truth. He is innocent!

How can we be so sure? We are so sure because Article 22 (3) of Zenawi’s “constitution” says Teddy is innocent: “Everyone charged with an offense shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a court of law and not to be compelled to testify against himself.” That is also the universal rule under Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (incorporated by express reference in Art. 13 of the “constitution” ), the Rome Statute of the International Court (Art. 66, presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt) and under the laws and constitutions of all civilized nations. For Teddy to be convicted of the alleged offenses, the prosecution must prove the elements of the alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving Teddy’s guilt is ENTIRELY on the prosecution. That burden of proof never shifts to the accused. Teddy does not have to do jack to prove his innocence. He does not have to call witnesses or produce any evidence in his defense. He has the absolute right not to testify in order to prove his innocence. (Art. 22 (3).)

Proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest standard of evidence known in the law of civilized societies; and ostensibly, Zenawi’s kangaroo court subscribes to that standard as well. Proof of strong suspicion that the accused has done the alleged crime does not amount to “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. Evidence that Teddy possibly, probably, plausibly, and presumably did it, just does not cut it under the reasonable doubt standard. Proof that Teddy very, very likely did it, does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt. Proof that there is overwhelming evidence Teddy did it, but there is reasonable doubt (that is, a single doubt based upon reason and common sense, the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act) about the pre-dated autopsy report or the contradictory testimony of the police officers does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A directive from Zenawi’s office that Teddy be convicted because he wrote unflattering lyrics about him, refused to sing at his millennium party and sang songs that told the truth about his dictatorship is definitely not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence that transforms the “presumption of innocence” to a factual finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is evidence “which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the fact finder (judge or jury) in that condition that they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.” Simply stated, the fact finder must have “moral certainty about the evidence presented against the accused to a point where s/he would act in reliance upon its truth in matters of the greatest importance to himself or herself.” Ultimately, the universal rule is that if the fact finder views the evidence in a criminal case reasonably permitting either of two conclusions — one of innocence, the other of guilt — the fact finder is required to adopt the conclusion of innocence. Such is the foundation of the criminal law in all civilized societies. Even the kangaroo court in Teddy’s case is supposed to follow these rules as manifested in Article 13 of the “constitution”, and Article 141 of the rules of criminal procedure.

The Evidence Against Teddy

After a police investigation that has been going on since November 2, 2006, and with all of the massive investigative resources at the disposal of the regime, the scanty evidence assembled against Teddy shows the following: 1) A man claiming to be a cab driver called police and gave the license plate number of a vehicle registered to Teddy. 2) Police officers came upon the scene of the accident and found a man who appeared to have sustained injuries lying on the ground. They saw no vehicle strike the man. 3) The vehicle allegedly belonging to Teddy had sustained damages. 4) The cab driver who allegedly reported the incident to the police could not be located. 5) A death certificate produced in court showed the victim had died the day before he was allegedly struck by the vehicle registered to Teddy and killed.

The prosecution’s case has more holes in it than a worn out fishing net. Here is a short list of the most glaring evidentiary deficiencies:

1) The autopsy report does not show the victim died specifically from trauma resulting from a vehicle collision. All it shows is that the victim died from blunt force trauma.

2) The autopsy report showed that the alleged victim had died one day earlier than the date of the hit and run that allegedly killed him. The prosecution claimed the date registered on the death certificate was a “clerical error”. (By the same token, could it be that the license plate number reported to the police by the alleged cab driver at night implicating Teddy is an “observational error”? What is good for the goose must be good for the gander!)

3) The prosecution has not produced any forensic evidence connecting Teddy’s vehicle to the deceased’s injuries or death. No blood, hair, fiber or any other physical evidence belonging to the victim was found on Teddy’s vehicle.

4) The prosecution has produced no evidence on the mechanical condition of the vehicle. There is also no accident investigation/reconstruction evidence.

5) There is no expert testimony showing the deceased’s injuries are consistent with vehicular collisions in general, or with the vehicle damage observed on Teddy’s vehicle. There is no expert testimony in the form of traffic accident reconstruction findings to connect the cause of death of the alleged accident victim to the vehicle in question; and no data were extracted from the onboard “black box” of the BMW which retains critical parametric performance data in the seconds preceding impacts of the nature alleged in this incident, and often critical in vehicular manslaughter cases., e.g. engine rpm, brake status, throttle position, position of air bag sensors and restraint systems (which would be deployed in the event of high speed impact with an external object at factory preset specifications), time from maximum velocity to impact, etc. In high impact vehicle collisions, it could be reasonably expected that the driver and/or passenger could sustain minimally some soft tissue injury from secondary collision effects (e.g. sudden tensioning of the inertial belt retractor from high velocity impact, injury from debris, etc.). In any case, if Teddy’s BMW had been involved in any kind of collision serious enough to cause the death of a pedestrian, one could reasonably expect evidence of some physical injury on him. But there is no evidence Teddy had sustained any physical injuries consistent with collision impact.

6) There is no evidence that at the time of the alleged incident Teddy was actually driving the vehicle. No witness has been able to positively identify Teddy as the driver of the vehicle that allegedly struck the decedent.

7) There is no evidence that the driver of the vehicle in question was “speeding” or driving at a high rate of speed, e.g. no evidence of fixed maximum speed limits for the accident location, no “black box” data or other expert or eyewitness testimony on traffic, road, weather conditions and visibility at the time of the alleged collision with the deceased.

8) The police officers testified that when they came upon the scene, they found an apparent victim of a hit and run accident. Supposedly, the victim had been drunk. They did not see Teddy hit and run from the scene. It was further reported that the police officers had difficulty expressing themselves in the official language, and without translation assistance, it was difficult to follow their testimony. Further, their testimony was conflicting.

9) Teddy was denied fundamental due process by the admission of hearsay evidence (an out of court statement given by a witness to the police) without cross-examination of that witness. When Teddy’s lawyer objected to the evidence and complained that he can not defend his client in a manifestly arbitrary proceeding, he was ordered to serve 20 days in jail for contempt of (kangaroo) court.

10) There is no evidence that Teddy made any admission of culpability, and he has always maintained his innocence against the charges.

Enough of the theory and practice of reasonable doubt in Zenawi’s kangaroo court! It would be a waste of paper and time to comment further on the kangaroo court proceedings. Suffice it to say that one finds more integrity, better prosecutorial trial advocacy, a more coherent judicial process and display of legal savvy in a mock trial courtroom in an American high school than in Zenawi’s kangaroo court.

The Real “Crimes” of Teddy Afro in Federal First Kangaroo Court

Teddy Afro is in Zenawi’s jail not because of any traffic or other criminal offense. Teddy is in jail because he pissed off Zenawi and his henchmen by getting in their faces and telling them like it is! Zenawi feels “dissed” by Teddy. He feels insulted. He wants to punish Teddy by showing him who is really “wearing those shorts (qumta) darned with 17 needles.” That’s why Teddy is in jail! That is why he will remain in jail. Zenawi knows it. So does everybody else. If Teddy would ask for a “pardon” tomorrow (“Lord! I have sinned against you!”), he would be out of jail before you could say jack.

Now, if you really want to know the “crimes” for which Teddy is rotting in a lice-infested jail, check out the following list of charges:

Charge 1: Crime of Love of Country.

For his entire artistic career Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a Teddy Afro, has shown undying love for Ethiopia. In all of his songs and lyrics, said Teddy Afro has glorified Ethiopia, condemned mercenaries and thugs and paid homage to African fathers who have toiled to bring about African unity and promote pan-Africanism.

Charge 2: Crime of Speaking Truth to Power.

For his entire artistic career Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a Teddy Afro, has refused to lie, and bow before thugs and thieves. In his album, Yasteseryal, said Teddy exposed the truth about the seizure of the throne by a criminal band of thugs.

Charge 3: Crime of Refusing to Bow Down Before King Kong.

For his entire artistic career Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a Teddy Afro, has refused to bow down and worship King Kong.

Charge 4: Crime of Refusing to Sell Out or Be Corrupted.

For his entire artistic career Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a Teddy Afro, has been offered riches and rewards beyond measure to sell out his integrity and honor. But on all occasions, he has adamantly refused to sell out. He was offered millions to sing at the Millennium Mambo but he refused; instead he sang for free to the public at the stadium.

Charge 5: Crime of Courage and Refusing to Be Silent in the Face of Inhuman Acts.

For his entire artistic career, Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a/ Teddy Afro, has steadfastly refused to remain silent in the face of crimes against humanity, war crimes and human rights violations.

Charge 6: Crime of Advocating Reconciliation and Unity.

For his entire artistic career, Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a/ Teddy Afro, has called upon all Ethiopians to unite. He has called upon Christians and Muslims to join hands and people of all ethnic backgrounds to live in harmony, peace and love in a single Ethiopian nation.

Charge 7: Crime of Singing Uplifting Songs.

For his entire artistic career, Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a/ Teddy Afro, has sung songs that are, without exception, inspiring and uplifting. His music, songs and lyrics have been effective antidotes to diabolical efforts to undermine the spirit of the Ethiopian people. Teddy wrote and sang the subversive lyric, “Hold on, hold tight! Ethiopia’s resurrection (Ye Itopia tinsae) is near, if only we forgive each other in love.”

Charge 9: Crime of Captivating the Hearts of All Ethiopians.

For his entire artistic career, Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a/ Teddy Afro, has sung songs that have captivated all Ethiopians, young and old.

Charge 10: Crime of Being the Most Inspiring Young Artist of His Generation

Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a/ Teddy Afro, is without doubt, the most inspiring musical artist of his generation. Beyond his peerless artistic talents, said Teddy has inspired millions of people to yearn for democracy, freedom and human rights in a single Ethiopian nation.

Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of the Foregoing Crimes

In the commission of all of the foregoing crimes, Tewodros Kassahun, a/k/a/ Teddy Afro, has acted with the intent to promote love and understanding among the people of Ethiopia, and in the furtherance of social harmony and national unity.

There is a mountain of evidence larger than Ras Dashen that Teddy is GUILTY of all 10 charges beyond a shadow of doubt.

The Ballad of Teddy Afro

“Teddy Afro! I charge you with a crime!!!”

Thundered His Honor, the First Instance Kangaroo Judge.

“What is my crime?” asked Teddy with his usual sunny smile,

“Crime?” snorted His marsupial Honor.

“Don’t gotta do no crime!

We’ll just make you do the time.

Make YOU, do the time! The time!! THE TIME!!!”

Teddy returned once more to plead his case,

Said he to His Kangarooship:

“Please hear me out, Your Honor, sir”

“You must do me justice! Must do me right!”

“Young man! I’d love to do you justice and right,”

But you can see, I am just a kangaroo judge and not very bright,

I do as I am told, be it wrong or right.”

Jah people stood in kangaroo court,

Shouting, “Teddy is innocent, him no do no crime.

“God him witness, Jah is Supreme Power.

“Rulers of Babylon, free Teddy!

“Unchain Teddy today!

“Set Teddy free,

“Let him be.”

But them took Teddy back to the dungeon,

A lice-infested hellhole they call Kality prison.

Them vowed to break Teddy’s spirit and pride,

Them vowed him solitary keep, make him weep, deny him sleep!

But Teddy, him put his faith in Jah.

Him say, “Break my bones, bruise my flesh,

Jah Man’s spirit, Jah Man’s pride will never diminish.”

Teddy, him sat solitary in jail (no bail),

Him sang Bob Marley (Ye Ityopia Anbessa) songs:

“Africans Unite!” “Ethiopians Unite!”

“Them belly full, but we hungry.”

“We gonna chase those crazy,

Chase those crazy bunkheads,

Chase those crazy baldheads out of our town.”

The people cried, “It’s a shame, an outrage!”

Them ask, “Isn’t it odd, isn’t it strange,

“To put a lion in a cage?

“Isn’t it odd, isn’t it strange,

“To see hyenas on the stage?

“Hyenas chain a lion in a cage?”

Them say, “It’s a doggone outrage!”

Teddy Afro! You are our Hero!

My HERO, Teddy Afro!

“You rock so, you rock so, like you never did before.”

Bob Marley, him say:

“Get up, stand up: stand up for your right!”

“Get up, stand up: don’t give up the fight!”

Teddy: Don’t give up the fight! Don’t give up the fight… Don’t…!

Jah, Yasteseryal!

Free Teddy Afro, our HERO!!!!

Please sign the “Free Teddy Afro” online petition here.

One Ethiopia today. One Ethiopia tomorrow. One Ethiopia forever.

– – – – – – – – –

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]

By Alemayehu G. Mariam

The Sisterhood of Misfortune

Pakistan and Ethiopia are sisters in misfortune. First, for much of their modern political history, they have been the playgrounds of autocrats and tinhorn dictators. For over one-half of its 61 year existence as a state, Pakistan has been ruled by iron-fisted generals, including Mohammad Ayub Khan (1958-1969), Mohammad Ziaul Haq (1977-1988), Yahya Khan (1969-1971) and Pervez Mushrraf (1999-2008). Ethiopia languished long under the autocratic regime of Emperor Haile Selassie, followed by the murderous rule of a communist military junta. For the last 17 years, she has been plundered by a bloodthirsty dictatorship of thugs. Second, Pakistan and Ethiopia have two of the most corrupt governments in the world.

On the 2007 Corruption Index, Ethiopia and Pakistan are tied for 138th place out of 179 countries. But last week Pakistan’s fortunes turned decidedly against dictatorship and in favor of the rule of law and democratic governance. Poor Ethiopia (Oh! Poor Ethiopia!) continued to hurtle on its trajectory of the past 17 years and fell deeper into the abysmal quagmire of famine, war and political turmoil.

Musharraf’s Time to Fold’em

“You just gotta know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em,” sang country great Kenny Rogers. For Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf, August was the time to fold’em. The general-cum-civilian president often raised a clenched fist in the form of a hammer to defiantly warn his opponents that he will always “lead from the front” in any hostile confrontation. But in his resignation speech last week, Musharraf led from the moral and patriotic high ground: “This is not the time for individual bravado, but for serious thinking,” he reflected. He said he had done no wrong to be impeached; and vigorously pleaded that “no [impeachment] charge-sheet can stand against me. No charge, not one charge can be proved against me because I have confidence in me that I did nothing for my own self. Whatever I did was in [putting] Pakistan first.” He said he was resigning to serve a higher purpose: “After considering this whole situation and consultation with my legal advisers and political supporters and with their advice, it is for the sake of the country and the nation that I have decided today to resign from office… I don’t need anything from anybody, I have no concern. I leave my future in the hands of the people. Let them be the judges and let them do justice.” It was a stunning end to the political career of a man who had ruled Pakistan with an iron-fist for nearly a decade. It was a humble concession to the sovereignty of the people.

Impeachment of Musharraf

Pakistan’s Constitution (Art. 47) provides for impeachment (constitutional removal from office) of the president “on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.” A vote of 295 parliamentarians out of the 439 in both the Houses of parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora) is required to remove Musharraf from the presidency. The coalition party leaders who were spearheading the impeachment effort — Asif Ali Zardari (Pakistan People’s Party) and Nawaz Shariff (Pakistan Muslim League, and the man Musharraf ousted in a coup in 1999) — would have needed an additional 29 votes beyond the 266 seats they currently hold to meet the minimum two-thirds required for conviction and removal of Musharraf from office.

But Musharraf’s conviction on impeachment charges was not a sure thing. Musharraf had an arsenal of legal defenses and offensive political capability if he had chosen to fight back. In fact, until he announced his resignation, his closest aides said that he has “vowed to fight his impeachment through all legal and constitutional means”. Musharraf could have opted for a knock-down-drag-out fight in Parliament, Pakistani constitutional lawyers tell us. Since Musharraf’s impeachment would have been the very first for the Pakistani parliament, the whole process would have to be improvised. The rules and procedures for an impeachment trial would have to be made as the “trial” unfolds. The novelty of the impeachment process would have given Musharraf a special opportunity to wreak havoc on the process with procedural snafus and technical challenges, keeping parliament in a state of chaos for weeks or even months. Musharraf intimated as much when he said going through an impeachment process would prolong a state of uncertainty in the country, “horse-trading” in parliament, putting “my (political) associates to a difficult test” and the severe “tension between the government and the presidency”. In other words, Musharraf could have conducted trench warfare and made it exceedingly difficult for the impeachment managers to get the required two-thirds vote to obtain a conviction. But Musharraf also had other extra-parliamentary political options to keep himself in office for a quite a while longer. He could have appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court (where his cronies are in charge), declared a state of emergency in collusion with his powerful generals, and even used the “nuclear option” of article 58 of the Pakistan Constitution and dissolved parliament. But he subordinated his personal lust for power to the glory of Pakistan and the well-being of the Pakistani people.

From Dictator to Statesman?

Could dictators somehow become statesmen? Could Musharraf have been a closet statesman all these years? Surprisingly, when push came to shove and impeachment charges were a virtual certainty, Musharraf proved to be a man of courage, a crusty old general who put the interests of his country above his own. His resignation was not merely an act of vacating a public office; it was a courageous act of patriotism, a refusal to drag his country through a prolonged and agonizing impeachment trial. Few dictators would have shown such guts even when they know the jig was up. Most would have fought to the bitter end hopelessly clinging to power. Not Musharraf. He proved he had the guts to do the right thing. He showed grace under fire, an act of heroism rarely shown by tin pot dictators in the Third World. In his parting words, Musharraf showed the qualities of a statesman: “I am sad that Pakistan is going down fast, poor people are being pressed by price hikes. I pray that the government will provide relief to the people… For the people my heart is weeping. We were going in the right direction, our children were getting education. But now, where are we going?… If we continue with the politics of confrontation, we will not save the country. People will never pardon this government if they fail to do so.”

When Musharraf took power in 1999 in a “bloodless coup”, he was the archetypal Third World tinhorn junta dictator, and an insignificant player on the world stage. He promised to institute “true democracy.” In 2001, he appointed himself President of Pakistan. In 2003, he changed the Constitution (Amendment 17) and gave himself sweeping powers to fire the prime minister and dissolve Parliament. He promised to give up his position as army chief of staff in 2004, but conveniently reneged on it. By 2007, his perverted definition of “true democracy” was to fire Supreme Court judges wholesale (and replace them with his cronies) and jail lawyers who opposed military dictatorship and his unconstitutional efforts to be head of the armed forces, and a civilian president. In a six-week state of emergency in 2007, Musharraf jailed thousands of political activists and imposed strict media censorship.

After studying Musharraf’s resignation speech, one is tempted to conclude that Musharraf may well have been a statesman-manqué (a man who had a strong desire to serve the general welfare [not the General’s welfare] but just could not cut it), a closet statesman. It was evident all along that he had streaks of statesmanship in him. He actively sought peace with India; and even though he did not succeed in resolving the problem of Kashmir, by opening dialogue he averted the chances of a third catastrophic war between the two nuclear powers. He advanced the cause of women’s rights in Pakistan by reserving seats for them at the local and national levels. He helped America fight the global war on terror. And so on. Is it possible that in his resignation Musharraf showed his true colors, that he is really a statesman in thug’s clothing?

No one can diminish Musharraf’s historic last act in office. By stepping down and abiding by the Constitution, Musharraf made his resignation a defining moment for himself and his country. He upheld the rule of law and the supremacy of the Pakistani Constitution; and he demonstrated his acceptance of civilian multiparty democracy and the ultimate sovereignty of the Pakistani people. In a final act of statesmanship, Musharraf chose to speak his peace, leave office with dignity and honor for himself and Pakistan, and his “future (fate) in the hands of the people.” When General Douglas MacArthur was relieved of his command in Korea, Congress asked him to address a joint session. He closed his speech with a famous line from an old army ballad: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” For Musharraf, “Old soldiers never die. They just ‘leave their future (fate) in the hands of the people’.”

Prosecution or Exile for Musharraf?

It is unclear what Musharraf will do now, or what his opponents will do to him. Some suggest that he has cut a deal to go into exile, possibly in Saudi Arabia. Idi Amin went there after he left Uganda. The tradition in Pakistan seems to be exile than prosecution, e.g. former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. What eventually happens to the Supreme Court judges sacked by Musharraf could be determinative on the issue of prosecution. Shariff wants all of them reinstated (which is likely to increase the chances of prosecution) but Zardari does not (possibly because he is afraid full reinstatement of the judges could revive a corruption case against him). Ironically, in that balance may hang the fate of Musharraf and Pakistan’s embryonic coalition government. Pakistan is facing many pressing problems, including food and energy shortages, galloping inflation and declining economy, rise in fundamentalist militancy and terrorism, an increase in al-Queida presence and a growing insurgency in Balochistan along its southwestern border with Afghanistan, and in the tribal areas of Waziristan in the northwest. If the coalition civilian regime should fail (as it appears it might with Shariff threatening to leave the coalition on the issue of reinstatement of all the judges and significant curtailment of presidential power), Musharraf’s dark prophesy that Pakistan will be plunged into abysmal political and social turmoil may come to pass after all. Hopefully, the specter of another general perched atop an armored personnel carrier in black sunglasses will encourage the coalition government to manage a successful multiparty democracy in Pakistan.

Musharraf’s Message to All Dictators: “Don’t be Gamblers!”

There is a great lesson for all dictators in Musharraf’s resignation. It is a lesson taught in the lyrics of Kenny Rogers:

You got to know when to hold’em, know when to fold’em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’ is done.

It’s time to fold’em, Zenawi! There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’ is done!

One Ethiopia today. One Ethiopia tomorrow. One Ethiopia forever.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
The White House

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate three individuals and appoint two individuals to serve in his Administration.

The President intends to nominate Mimi Alemayehou, of the District of Columbia, to be the United States Director of the African Development Bank. Ms. Alemayehou currently serves as Founder and Managing Partner of Trade Links, LLC. Prior to this, she served as a Program Manager at the International Executive Service Corps. Earlier in her career, she served as Director of International Regulatory Affairs at the Worldspace Corporation. Ms. Alemayehou received her bachelor’s degree from West Texas A&M University and her master’s degree from Tufts University.

The President intends to nominate Rear Admiral Jonathan W. Bailey, of New York, to be Commissioner of the Mississippi River Commission (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Representative).

The President intends to nominate William Clifford Smith, of Louisiana, to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission (Engineer), for a nine-year term.

The President intends to appoint Karen P. Hughes, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy, for the remainder of a three-year term expiring 12/30/10.

The President intends to appoint Charles M. Younger, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy, for the remainder of a three-year term expiring 12/30/10.

(Full text of speech given at the University of Minnesota Law School, Conference “On the New Breed of African Leaders and the Future of Human Rights and Democracy in Africa”, April 6, 2007.)

It feels great coming back to my alma mater after nearly a quarter of a century.

Momentary Reflection on My Youthful Activism at the U of M

Before I offer my remarks, I would like to ask you to bear with me for a minute as I reflect on the great tradition of human rights advocacy at the University of Minnesota, when I was a graduate student here in the second half of the 1970s.

Back then, there were two major issues that galvanized the campus activist community: Apartheid in South Africa, and gross violations of human rights by military regimes in Latin America.

In the late 1970s, many of us at this university, supported and guided by progressive faculty members, formed a vanguard to advocate and mobilize for divestment of university assets in corporations that did business in apartheid South Africa. That effort paid off in the early 1980s when the University of Minnesota became one of first three major American universities to divest its portfolio from corporations doing business in apartheid South Africa.

Then there was “Operation Condor.” The military dictators of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia had united their security services to eliminate progressive opponents of their regimes throughout the 1970s.

We had the great honor of hosting Mrs. Hortensia Allende, the widow of President Salvador Allende of Chile on campus. And many of us participated in grassroots campaigns to aid victims
of human rights abuses in Latin America.

You could say that was when I was baptized in the holy cause of human rights right here on the banks of the River Mississippi.

I am really glad and very proud to see that even after 25 years, the human rights beat for Africa still goes on loud and strong at my alma mater.

The Importance of This Human Rights Conference
Let me preface my remarks by saying a word or two about the extraordinary importance of this conference.

As I was preparing for this event, I asked myself a simple question: What difference does it make to have a human rights conference on Africa or Ethiopia at the University of Minnesota, or

Harvard or UCLA, or Berkeley or anywhere else for that matter? Are we here today to make a symbolic statement, feel good, congratulate and pat each other on the back, and go home intoxicated by an overwhelming sense of self-righteousness? I believe not.

This conference is exceedingly important because it crystallizes the fact that human rights abuses in the African continent at large, or in specific countries such as Ethiopia, are not just an African or Ethiopian problem, but rather a problem for all humanity.

Our presence here today reaffirms the vitality and relevance of that glorious charter of human liberty, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For me, this is a special forum because here today the world will hear again the faint echoes of the voices of those victims of human rights abuses from the graves, prisons and dungeons in a place called Ethiopia.

This conference is also important for the message it telegraphs to human rights abusers in Africa. Let me assure you that our presence here today sends chills down the backs of African dictators who have hoodwinked Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to confer upon them the bogus title of “New Breed of African Leaders.”

But conferences such as this show that the “New Breed of African Leaders” are really no more than pitiful emperors with no clothes. We are not fooled by the “new breed” of African dictators
or naked emperors!

I believe this conference has enormous practical significance. It demonstrates to African dictators that someone is watching them, and that “someone” is the tip of the spear of the American intellectual community — law professors and law students allied with grassroots human rights advocates and defenders.

This conference is singularly important for me because it could be the gateway to decisive and concerted international action against human rights abusers in Africa. Using the investigative research and advocacy skills of your faculty and students, the techniques of naming and shaming perfected by Amnesty International, the application of astute lobbying and media work, all of you here have the power and the means to hold repressive regimes in Africa accountable not only to their people, but also to the international community.

Should We Hang Our Heads in Shame?
I want to answer a question recently posed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as a bridge to my presentation today.

On March 16, 2007, Archbishop Tutu, one of the two greatest African leaders in living memory, commenting on Mugabe’s crackdown on the opposition asked:

We [Africans should] hang our heads in shame…How can what is happening [in Zimbabwe]… elicit hardly a word of concern let alone condemnation from us leaders of Africa?… What more has to happen before we who are leaders, religious and political, of our mother Africa are moved to cry out ‘Enough is Enough’? Do we really care about human rights, do we care that people of flesh and blood, fellow Africans are being treated like rubbish, almost worse than they were ever treated by rabid racists?

I have often asked similar questions. How can the wanton killing of 193 peaceful protesters and the wounding of 763 others by Zenawi’s security forces in Ethiopia “elicit hardly a word of concern let alone condemnation” from African leaders?

Why did the African Union turn a blind eye when hundreds of thousands of innocent Ethiopians were herded into pigstys that pass off for jails and prisons?

Why are the fathers of Africa silent when Zenawi keeps the winners of the 2005 parliamentary elections chained in his dungeons?

Why aren’t the leaders of mother Africa not “moved to cry out ‘Enough is Enough’” Zenawi? Yes, Archbishop Tutu, leaders of mother Africa should all hang their heads in shame! But so should the rest of us. For our silence when our African brothers and sisters are brutalized. For being mute when we could have shouted a mighty shout of protest against injustice. For turning a blind eye to crimes against humanity committed against our people. For our passivity and lack of courage to do the right thing, when we can, when we should.

Human Rights and Humans Without Rights in Ethiopia
I have captioned my talk today, “Human Rights and Humans Without Rights in Ethiopia”. I have chosen the title advisedly because I believe the whole human rights issue in Africa has become a sordid joke to both the old and new breed of dictators.

On October 7, 2004, Tony Blair congratulated his handpicked Commissioner for Africa, Zenawi, for “the greater freedom and democracy there is here [in Ethiopia] today.” In June and November 2005, when thousands of Ethiopians were arrested, imprisoned and massacred, Blair said nothing. Tony still hasn’t said a word, but Ethiopians today continue to be hammered by his Commissioner for Africa.

Of course, Commissioner Zenawi has a perfect explanation for not respecting the human rights of the Ethiopian people. He says: “We are just fledgling democracy. Our people are not ready for Western style democratic government. They don’t understand human rights. They hunger for food, not human rights. Hardliners and extremists will use human rights to create anarchy and chaos in the country.” Blah, blah, blah.

But Zenawi “doth protest too much.” Observance of human rights is not an option for him. Article 13 of the Constitution he wrote declares: “The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in [the Constitution] shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” Zenawi has accepted in his constitution all of the major international human rights conventions. He must live by them, observe and respect these conventions. He has no choice!

Of course, as we all know, the past decade has been a total disaster for human rights in Ethiopia. Let’s just take a glance at the evidence on the state of human rights in Ethiopia in the past year by reviewing some of the major findings of the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Ethiopia, released exactly a month ago today, on March 6, 2007. We will also consider Zenawi’s recent responses to these findings in an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera.

Zenawi, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report On arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
The 2007 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Ethiopia concluded: In late October [2006] the commission of inquiry established by the government to investigate the alleged use of excessive force … found that 193 civilians–nearly four times the number originally reported by the government–and 6 members of the security forces were killed, while 763 civilians and 71 members of the security forces were injured, many seriously.

Zenawi’s says: “I regret the deaths as you know, up to 194 civilians died, six policemen were killed, more than 70 policemen were wounded, I regret all these deaths but there was a challenge to the constitutional order in Ethiopia and that challenge had to be faced.”

On torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The 2007 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Ethiopia concluded:
Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment, there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees.

Zenawi says: “That’s not the case… I have not read [the 2007 report] it, but I know having read the department of state reports on human rights for over a decade now that they do tend to get
things wrong, that what they write is not always the last word in the Bible.”

On arbitrary arrest or detention, Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

The 2007 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Ethiopia concluded: Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, the government frequently did not observe these provisions in practice…. Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in outlying regions.

The independent commission of inquiry… found that security officials held over 30,000 civilians incommunicado for up to three months in detention centers located in remote areas… Other estimates placed the number of such detainees at over 50,000.

Zenawi’s says: “Well, people are entitled to their own opinion in the case of Ethiopia, we took people to court, they’ve had their day in court we are still waiting for the verdict of the court, we detained a large number of people immediately after the attempted insurrection but we released them within weeks, the vast majority of them were released within weeks, the 100 or so were detained and taken to court. I do not believe that is a disproportionate response to a concerted effort to bring about a change in government by force.”

On denial of fair public trial, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

The 2007 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report concluded: While the law provides for an independent judiciary, the judiciary remained weak and overburdened. The judiciary was perceived to be subject to significant political intervention.

Zenawi says: “That’s not the case… I have not read [the 2007 report] it, but I know having read the department of state reports on human rights for over a decade now that they do tend to get things wrong, that what they write is not always the last word in the Bible.”

On freedom of speech and press, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The 2007 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report concluded: While the [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government continued to harass and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors for publishing allegedly fabricated information and for other violations of the press law. The government continued to control all broadcast media. Private and government journalists routinely practiced self censorship.

Zenawi says: “That’s not the case… I have not read [the 2007 report] it, but I know having read the department of state reports on human rights for over a decade now that they do tend to get things wrong, that what they write is not always the last word in the Bible.”

On academic freedom and cultural events, the 2007 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report concluded: The government restricted academic freedom during the year, maintaining that professors could not espouse political sentiments. Authorities did not permit teachers at any level to deviate from official lesson plans and discouraged political activity and association of any kind on university campuses…The government arrested students and teachers during the year. Professors and students were discouraged from taking positions not in accordance with
government beliefs or practices.

Zenawi says: “That’s not the case… I have not read [the 2007 report] it, but I know having read the department of state reports on human rights for over a decade now that they do tend to get things wrong, that what they write is not always the last word in the Bible.”

Well, so much for Article 13 of Zenawi’s Constitution!
But we should all be amused by Zenawi’s observation that the State Department report he has not read is “not the last word in the Bible.” Never mind the State Department report. He should read the Bible itself, beginning with the first Word: Thou shalt not kill!

What Can America Do to Champion the Cause of Human Rights in Ethiopia, and in frica?

On March 13, 2007, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice commenting on the situation in Zimbabwe declared: The United States calls for the immediate and unconditional release of those individuals detained by the Government of Zimbabwe after its brutal attack March 11 on a prayer meeting in the Harare suburb of Highfield. We hold President Mugabe responsible for the safety and well-being of those in custody, including Movement for Democratic Change leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara, and National Constitutional Assembly leader Lovemore Madhuku.

Hooray, for Dr. Rice for taking such a principled stand on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. But what is good for Zimbabwe is also good for Ethiopia. So, we should demand that she use the same exact press release and hold Zenawi “responsible for the safety and well-being of those in custody”, including Hailu Shawul, Mesfin Woldemariam, Berhanu Nega, Birtukan Midekssa, Muluneh Eyuel and many others.

It is only fair and just for America to hold accountable those who committed brutal attack on March 11, 2007 in Zimbabwe with those who committed massacres in Ethiopia in June and November 2005.

That is indeed the first thing America can and needs to do to improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia: Demand the release of all political prisoners, and hold the chief architect and mastermind of the repressive regime there accountable for gross violations of international human rights law.

Now, President Bush seems to speak with forked tongue when it comes to human rights. He says: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Well, when Ethiopians stood up for liberty in May 2005, and Zenawi herded their democratically elected leaders into jail, not only did he not stand with them, he did not even say a word.

I must say, Dr. Rice’s protests against Mugabe and the State Department human rights report on Zenawi’s crimes sound hollow without swift corrective action to bring both human rights
abusers into full compliance with international law.

But I believe there is a lot America can do to improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia. As a major donor, the U.S. can refuse to conduct business as usual with Zenawi. It can declare: “America does not do business with torturers, murderers and gross violators of human rights!” That is pretty much what the U.S. Congress was saying in a nice diplomatic way to Zenawi in H.R. 5680, the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Act. “America does not do business with torturers, murderers and gross violators of human rights!”

H.R. 5680 provided $20 million to Zenawi’s regime to implement a comprehensive human rights and democratic-institution building agenda in Ethiopia.

First and foremost, the bill demanded release of all prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia, including opposition party and civic leaders, journalists and human rights defenders. That is always job #1.

But the bill went beyond the question of the prisoners of conscience. It provided for technical assistance to significantly improve the electoral process and strengthen legislative bodies, political parties and civil society organizations. It also sought to improve the justice system by insuring the independence of the judiciary and by professionalizing the prosecutorial agencies. It fostered the growth of independent private journalism and promote the privatization of the electronic media. It aimed to facilitate the free operation of human rights organizations and guaranteed freedom of action for human rights defenders. Ultimately, the bill sought to promote reconciliation efforts between the regime and civil society organizations and opposition elements, among other things.

This past October, the bill passed the 50-member House International Relations Committee, with full bipartisan support, only to be derailed by none other than the mighty lobbyist and former House majority leader, Dick Armey. Old Tricky Dick whispered a few choice words into Speaker Hastert’s ears, and H.R. 5680 was stonewalled.

But we did not take it lying down. Like Joshua’s army at the Battle of Jericho, we shouted a mighty shout on Hastert’s stonewall. We took the battle to his district outside of Chicago, and we were able to capture and stoke the imagination of his constituents who launched a massive grassroots telephone campaign urging him not to stand in the path of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

But then like Joshua’s army, we were graced by divine intervention, and Hastert was humbled by the American voters. After the voters spoke to Hastert, he lost his voice and could speak no more.

But unlike Zenawi, Hastert listened to the voice of the American people with dignity and magnanimity, though he now lives in anonymity. But the flames of H.R 5680 still burn in the hearts of all freedom-loving Ethiopians.

We are very hopeful that a replacement bill for H.R. 5680 will be introduced in the House in the very foreseeable future. And we will continue the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia, day and night! Our young “firefighters” will keep the flame of H.R. 5680 eternally alive.

But we are not content to limit our human rights advocacy to a single piece of legislation, however important that legislation may be.

We are now working hard to engage our American brothers and sisters to join hands with us in advancing the cause of human rights in Ethiopia.

We have significantly expanded our educational efforts at the state and local levels to raise awareness of repression and human rights abuses in Ethiopia. We have pending resolutions demanding the release of the prisoners and improvements in human rights in Ethiopia in the state legislatures. In California, Majority Leader Karen Bass has introduced AJR 12.

But we are doing other things as well in the institutions of higher education. We are engaging American institutions of higher education in our human rights struggle. We are mobilizing American university students and faculty to be involved in Ethiopian human rights advocacy, and we are building bridges to connect our human rights cause with human rights causes and grassroots organizations and defenders the world over, as this conference demonstrates.

The New Millennium
At the stroke of the midnight hour on September 12, 2007, it will be the dawn of a new millennium in Ethiopia. At that hour, Ethiopia will have its appointment with destiny. At that moment, Ethiopia will cast off its history of tyranny and repression, and face a brave new millennium of freedom, democracy and human rights.

In the New Millennium, Ethiopia will be transformed from a land of famine to a land of plenty, from a land of despair and misery to a land of hope and opportunity.

In the New Millennium, Ethiopia will be transformed from a land of tyranny and repression to a land of freedom, democracy and human rights. That is her divine destiny!

Expressions of Gratitude
Before I conclude, I would like to thank all of the organizations that have sponsored, cosponsored and in other ways supported this conference today.

I thank specifically the Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs, the University of Minnesota Law School and the Human Rights Center of the University of Minnesota for organizing and sponsoring this very important event on the problem of leadership, human rights and democracy in Africa. I would also like to thank various Departments and Programs at the University of Minnesota — the African American and African Studies Department, the Department of History, the Department of Political Science, and the Institute of Global Studies for their collaboration with the principal sponsors to make this event possible.

A number of important student and civic organizations have also joined in co-sponsoring this event. I thank the Ethiopian-American National Alliance, the Oromo-American Citizens Council, the Oromia Student Union, the African News Journal, the African Student Association, Amnesty International Law Student Group, Amnesty International-University of Minnesota Student Chapter, Books for Africa, the International Leadership Institute, the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, and the Minnesota African Women’s Association (MAWA).

I would like to specially thank the renowned and distinguished human rights expert and Director of the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota and U.N. Rapporteur on the Rights of Non-citizens, Regents Professor and Fredrikson and Byron Professor of Law, David Weissbrodt, for his interest and commitment to human rights in Africa and Ethiopia.

I would like to personally thank two young men who played a pivotal role in the coordination of this event today — Mr. Patrick Finnegan and Mr. Birhanemeskel Abebe. Thank you both for your wonderful leadership in assembling such an impressive list of co-sponsors and speakers, and for coordinating such a massively successful event.

Let me also thank the other distinguished presenters here today for taking the time to come to my alma mater and discuss human rights in Africa, and for their penetrating comments and insights on human rights abuses in Ethiopia.

Thank you Michael Clough (formerly Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations and Advocacy Director for Africa, Human Rights Watch) for your compelling and irrefutable arguments demonstrating the illegitimacy of Zenawi’s regime. Chris Fomunyoh (Senior Associate and Regional Director of the National Democratic Institute), thank you for making a persuasive case for democratization in the continent. Peter Takirambudde (Executive Director, Sub-Saharan Africa Program Human Rights Watch), thanks for clarifying for us the extraordinary importance of grassroots advocacy for human rights. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the great job of grassroots advocacy Ethiopian Americans are doing in the United States.

Let me thank again Birhanemeskel Abebe, this time not for coordinating this event but for his passion and dedication to human rights in Ethiopia.

As some of you may be aware, Birhanemeskel was formerly a legal advisor to the Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the United Nations in New York. I am so proud to see one of our young people taking such an extraordinary leadership role in the Diaspora. He is one of the young “firefighters” that I talked about in my recent piece “The Hummingbird and Forest Fire”.

Unlike the “new breed of African leaders”, Birhanemeskel is among the new generation of young and dedicated Ethiopian human rights leaders and defenders who will bring the blessings of liberty to all Ethiopians. Birhanemeskel, I symbolically pass on the torch from the older generation to your generation to light the path for freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

I would also like to thank Arnold Tsunga, (Executive Director, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) Anna Ishaku (Director of Public Prosecutions, Kaduna State, Nigeria) Evelyn Jifon (Coordinator, Sistershare and Nsobahti Women’s Associations, Cameroon) and Aboubakary Moumouni Moussa (Senior Advisor, Educational and Social Activities, GERED-ONG, Benin) for their insights and analysis on critical human rights issues of gender discrimination and poverty.

Special thanks goes to our distinguished moderators, Dr. Daniel Abebe (Dean, Metropolitan State University) Barbara Frey, (Director, Human Rights Program, University of Minnesota), and Judge Lajune Lange (Hennepin County District Court, and President of International Leadership Institute). Please forgive me if I have left out anyone else.

Thank you all very much.

Tutu’s Question

Let me just leave you with Archbishop Tutu’s gnawing questions: “Do we really care about human rights, do we care that people of flesh and blood, fellow Africans are being treated like rubbish, almost worse than they were ever treated by rabid racists?”

Should we hang our heads in shame?
Thank you.

February 19, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:
In your second inaugural speech on January 20, 2005, you made a magnificent promise to all people in the world who endure under despotism and dictatorship, “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” We Ethiopian Americans commend you for your steadfast commitment to the cause of liberty throughout the world.

Ethiopians Have Responded to Your Promise

Mr. President, on May 15, 2005, Ethiopians rapturously responded to your promise, and stood up for liberty and democracy. Over 26 million of them — over 90 percent of the registered voters — stood up at the polling stations throughout the land and cast their ballots to choose their government, and to peacefully petition the seasoned practitioners of tyranny and oppression to stand down.

On that fateful day, Mr. President, Ethiopians did what has never been done in their ancient country’s history: They chose their leaders freely; and spoke directly to their present rulers and told them they are tired of 15 years of one-party rule. They want change. They want a country where the rule of law reigns supreme, and human rights and civil liberties are respected.

But human rights, democracy and justice remains elusive in Ethiopia, even today. One hundred and eleven prisoners of conscience who have been held in detention for nearly a year and half — many of them top leaders of opposition parties and members and human rights defenders — were told to come to court today to find out their fate. But when they showed up after months of calculated and malicious delay, they were told once again to come back. So justice is delayed and denied once more. Such, Mr. President, is the elaborate shell game the present rulers of Ethiopia play with justice, and the human rights of innocent victims of a wrongful and vindictive government prosecution.

Ethiopians Ask If the United States will Ignore Their Oppression

Mr. President: Those accustomed to ruling by force and intimidation have defiantly refused to heed the collective voice of their people, and allow a peaceful transition to democracy. They have cynically dismissed the prudent advice of the international community, and refused to conform their conduct to the rule of international human rights law. They continue to cling to power despite universal exhortations for national reconciliation and dialogue.

In the aftermath of the May, 2005 elections, Mr. President, Ethiopia’s rulers have chosen the path of repression, and unleashed violence against the civilian population unmatched in the recent annals of political savagery. An official Inquiry Commission set up by Zenawi’s regime, in its briefing to the United States Congress, documented the wanton killings of 193 unarmed protesters, and wounding of 763 others over a 14 day period in June and November, 2005. The Commission also documented the imprisonment of 30,000 suspected political opponents.

But, Mr. President, the catalogue of flagrant human rights abuses is not limited to atrocities committed over these few days. Zenawi’s regime continues to engage with impunity in extrajudicial killings of opponents, and presently holds thousands of political prisoners throughout the country. Zenawi’s regime has criminalized the exercise of the basic rights of free speech, assembly and the press, and continues to use the criminal justice system for political ends. Opposition leaders and human rights defenders continue to be subjected to prolonged prosecution and detention for pretended offenses, and judges have been inducted in the service of political partisanship. The regime has erected an extensive security apparatus and dispatched swarms of malignant mercenaries throughout the land to harass, intimidate, persecute and wreak havoc on the lives of the people. And for good measure, the current rulers of Ethiopia in their unrestrained hubris, continue to thumb their noses at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other related conventions necessary for the public good.

Mr. President, to borrow the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the Ethiopia’s rulers today continue with impunity their “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny.”

Ethiopians Ask If the United States will Excuse Their Oppressors

Mr. President: Today, Ethiopians ask whether you will honor your promise and stand with them, or excuse their oppressors. As Ethiopian Americans, we do not believe for a moment that you will stand on the side of those who have perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on thousands of unarmed protesters, imprisoned thousands of ordinary men and women on suspicion of political opposition, and jailed the rightful representatives of the people. We believe you will keep your promise and stand with all who stand up for liberty.

But our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia are not sure, and so they ask: “Will you excuse their oppressors, or stand with them?”

Two Types of Ethiopians in the World Today

Mr. President: There are two kinds of Ethiopians in the world today. There is an infinitesimal number of Ethiopians upon whom God has shed his grace and live with dignity, respect and hope in the greatest nation in the world, the United States of America, and other parts of the free world. And there are millions upon millions who live in their homeland seared in the flames of withering tyranny and oppression.

But the suffering masses of humanity in Ethiopia are not strangers and nameless people to be pitied from a distance. They are, Mr. President, our kinsfolk — our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, grandmothers and grandfathers, and neighbors, and countrymen and women.

As Lincoln has taught us, half the people can not bask in the sunlight of freedom while the other half struggles in the darkness of oppression. We, Ethiopian Americans, can not stand mute living under the beneficence of the American Constitution while our kinsfolk suffer under the sweltering heat of oppression.

Duty of Freedom Loving Ethiopian Americans

Mr. President: As free Ethiopian Americans, we have a solemn duty to help those we have left in Ethiopia. It is a duty that geminated in the magnificent promise you made to the world’s oppressed: “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” When those we have left behind in the land of our birth stand up for liberty, it is our duty to stand with them, by them; and with you, Mr. President, and the American people standing by our side.

As Ethiopian Americans, Mr. President, we bring to your attention the daily solicitations of our loved ones: “Isn’t there anything we can do to help them as Ethiopian Americans using the mighty Constitution of the United States of America? Isn’t there anything the American people can do to help them rise from under the yoke of tyranny and oppression?

Must American taxpayers bankroll their oppressors?”

Illusions of Hope

Mr. President, the great American patriot, Patrick Henry, facing similar tyranny and
despotism as contemporary Ethiopians said: “It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.” And looking over the past 15 years, Ethiopians are beginning to wonder if their aspirations for liberty are merely idle indulgencies in the illusions of hope.

Mr. President, the present rulers of Ethiopia have spurned and ignored all demands for justice and liberty; and have responded to their peoples’ petitions for democratic rights by inflicting upon them unspeakable violence and injury. They have categorically rejected the intercession of the international community — to release all political prisoners and their leaders who languish in prison, to institute the rule of law, to seek peaceful reconciliation — with contempt and derision. All efforts to institute the rule of law and ensure respect for human rights have been reduced to a distant illusion of hope.

In vain, Ethiopians now ask: How much longer must they languish under withering oppression? When will they breath the fresh air of liberty? Will America shut its eyes as they are transformed into lifeless mannequins by a totalitarian government?

But we Ethiopian Americans refuse to believe America will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to their plight. We believe there is real hope so long as the millions of Ethiopians remain armed in the holy cause of liberty. There is hope, because as Patrick Henry said: “There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.” And as Ethiopian Americans, we know you and the American people will fight with us, alongside us, and with God’s will, help bring the blessings of liberty and human rights to those we have left behind.
Counter-terrorism and Human Rights

Mr. President: When you addressed the United Nations General Assembly last September, you spoke passionately of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and “the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.” You said, “This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.”

Mr. President: Ethiopians know all too well the scourge of terrorism that has been unleashed on the world. They appreciate and support America’s role in spearheading the struggle against these elusive forces of evil. You should rest assured that Ethiopians wherever they are will never abandon America in its struggle against global terror. Never! Never! Never!

But, Mr. President, America must also never, never, never abandon the cause of human rights in Ethiopia. As you have eloquently pointed out, we can defeat extremism by making it possible for ordinary men and women to freely determine their own destiny, and by upholding those principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. America must stand by Ethiopians as they strive to build a democratic society where there are no arbitrary arrests or detentions, where citizens are free from torture, cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment, where those accused of criminal offenses are given a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, and the rights of free speech, press, assembly and petition for grievances and privacy are respected, and the rule of law reigns supreme.

Mr. President, in March, 2005, at the National Defense University, you said: “When a dictatorship controls the political life of a country, responsible opposition cannot develop, and dissent is driven underground and toward the extreme. And to draw attention away from their social and economic failures, dictators place blame on other countries and other races, and stir the hatred that leads to violence. This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off.”

We agree with you. In Ethiopia the “status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off.” The status quo must change. But there are those who will resort to duplicity and chicanery to preserve the status quo. They have now embarked on a global diplomatic and public relations offensive to draw attention away from their nauseating record of gross human rights abuses. They blame their neighbors and stir up fear against them; and by spreading rumors of war seek to create alarm and plunge the international community in historic regional conflicts. But Mr. President, these are also the very same ruffians who rule not by the consent of the people, but by force of arms and intimidation; and now seek to conceal their monstrous crimes against humanity in a wicked litany of anti-terror rhetoric. They have no credibility.

But, Mr. President, America’s abiding support for human rights should not be deflected by artful propaganda, bogus regional crises, savvy disinformation campaigns or other clever political trickery and deception. We echo your words when we say the fight for human rights is fundamentally a fight against terrorism; and we believe the “world beyond terror” that you spoke of to be a world in which human rights are truly respected and upheld, and the dignity and liberty of ordinary men and women preserved and protected under the rule of law.

America Always Keeps Its Promises

Mr. President, last June you said, “When America gives its word, it keeps its word.” We believe you will keep your word that America will stand with the oppressed when the oppressed stand up for liberty. Now that Ethiopians in Ethiopia have stood up for liberty, we Ethiopian Americans and Ethiopians in the Diaspora ask you to stand tall with us as we stand together in brotherhood and sisterhood for human rights and democracy in Ethiopia. We ask you to stand with us and exert the moral authority of the American people, and condemn those who brazenly and flagrantly violate international human rights law, and seek to drag humanity back to the age of barbarism.

Now Is the Time to Stand Up For Human Rights in Ethiopia

Mr. President, now is the time to stand up with the Ethiopian people. Now is the time to stand up for human rights in Ethiopia. Now is the time to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Ethiopia, and to demand freedom for all jailed opposition leaders and human rights defenders. Now is the time to demand justice: “Bring the killers and those who ordered the killing of 193 men and women and children to account for their crimes.” Now is the time to declare: “All who violate the human rights of their people will have to account for their crimes before the bar of justice.” Now is the time to state with conviction: “America has had enough! American taxpayers will no longer bankroll tyrants and dictators!” Now is the time to candidly tell Ethiopia’s dictators. “Stop playing games with human rights. Stop making a mockery of democracy.” Now is the time, Mr. President, to proclaim to the Ethiopian people: “It’s high time for you to enjoy the blessings of freedom, democracy and human rights! America stands by you!”

Please Stand With Us and Support H.R. 5680 — “The Ethiopian Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Advancement Act”

Mr. President, there is a simple way you can stand with Ethiopians and help advance the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia: Support H.R. 5680.

This bill provides for a comprehensive scheme to advance democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. First and foremost, it demands the release of all prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia, including opposition party and civic leaders. It provides ample resources to undertake institutional capacity building, including technical assistance to perfect the electoral process, strengthen legislative bodies, political parties and civil society organizations, assist in the development of an independent judiciary and professionalize the prosecutorial agencies, foster the growth of independent private journalism and promote the privatization of the electronic media, facilitate the free operation of human rights defenders and organizations, and promote reconciliation efforts between government and civil society organizations and opposition elements, among other things. This past October, the bill passed with full bipartisan support in the 50-member House International Relations Committee.

Mr. President, in the words of the great American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, in H.R. 5680, America offers Ethiopia a promissory note for $20 million in down payment to promote freedom, democracy and human rights. But instead of accepting and cashing this note in the bank of democracy and human rights and spreading the blessings of liberty to the people, the present rulers in Ethiopia have hired a mighty army of lobbyists to defeat this bill, hoping to extinguish forever the yearning for freedom of the Ethiopian people. But with your support, Mr. President, we will prevail against any army that threatens liberty and human rights.

Mr. President, you have said, “Americans, of all people, should not be surprised by freedom’s power. A nation founded on the universal claim of individual rights should not be surprised when other people claim those rights. Those who place their hope in freedom may be attacked and challenged, but they will not ultimately be disappointed, because freedom is the design of humanity and freedom is the direction of history.”

Mr. President, we Ethiopian Americans say: “Amen!” and “Hallelujah!”

Mr. President: As an Ethiopian American, the greatest reward and honor that I have received is the opportunity to defend the American Constitution and American liberties in the courts of the realm, and to prepare young Americans to understand, appreciate and defend this great instrument of government. Those who have had the good fortune of making close acquaintance with our Constitution are able to discern its meaning and relevance to all those who live beyond America’s shores. Though the words of this great Constitution and the liberties enshrined in it speak directly to Americans, Mr. President, its spirit, its genius lifts the world’s oppressed and the wretched of the earth from the depths of their despair. So, on behalf of all Ethiopians who have heard your call and stood up for liberty on May 15, 2005, we Ethiopian Americans now ask you to stand with us, and by us.

Please support H.R. 5680.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Sincerely,

Alemayehu G. Mariam, Ph.D., J.D.
Professor of Political Science &
Attorney at Law

cc:
Vice President Richard Cheney
Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary State
Jendayi Fraser, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Representative John Boehner, U.S. House, Minority Leader
Representative Steny H. Hoyer, House Majority Leader
Representative James E. Clyburn, House Majority Whip
Representative Roy Blunt, House Minority Whip
Representative Tom Lantos, Chair, House Committee on International Relations
Representative Donald Payne, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
Representative Chris Smith, U.S. House of Representatives
Representative Michael Honda
Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
Senator Russ Feingold, Chair, Subcommittee on African Affairs
Senator Richard Durbin, U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate Minority Leader
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Ambassador Donald Yamamoto

(Text of speech given at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University on February 8, 2007.)

Thank you very much. Good evening, and thank you all for coming to this event.

Before I make my presentation, I would first like to thank the sponsors of this event.

First, I would like to thank the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government.

The Carr Center was established to provide a balanced and critical perspective on the policies and actions of national governments and others that affect the realization of human rights with the ultimate aim of improving human rights advocacy strategies, monitoring practices, and response mechanisms.

Thank you the Carr Center for co-sponsoring this event.

Amnesty International and Amnesty International USA are the premier human rights organization in the world. AI and AI USA have made enormous contributions in preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination in every part of the world.

I am especially grateful to Amnesty International USA for doggedly investigating and monitoring human rights abuses in Ethiopia over the past two decades, and for championing the cause of Prof. Mesfin Wolde Mariam, the 76 year-old prisoner of conscience and founder and president of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and many other victims of human rights abuses in Ethiopia.

Thank you AI and AI USA for co-sponsoring this event.

I am also thankful to Qaliti Qal Kidan for working collaboratively with the Carr Center and Amnesty International USA to make this event possible. The name Qaliti Qal Kidan itself signifies a solemn covenant and a commitment to foster the development of a free society based on the rule of law in Ethiopia. Qalitiy Qal Kidan, thank you for organizing this event.

Human Rights and Government Wrongs

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be talking this evening about human rights and government wrongs in Ethiopia. I shall speak of human rights because Ethiopians are protected by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” This guarantee is unequivocally affirmed in Article 13 of the Constitution of Ethiopia.

So, what exactly are these human rights?

Well, there are quite a few of them. A partial listing includes a bundle of basic liberties such as the rights to free expression, association, peaceable assembly, petition for redress of grievances, and freedom of the press. There are also privacy rights protecting Ethiopians from unreasonable government searches and seizures. There are due process guarantees to those accused of criminal violations, including the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions, the right to be informed of criminal charges and the right against self incrimination, the right to prompt judicial review upon arrest and the right to habeas corpus proceedings to challenge unlawful detentions, the right to be released on bail and the right to a speedy trial once charged with a crime, the right to inspect any evidence brought against the accused and the right of confrontation of the accuser. This is just a partial list.

I shall also speak of government wrongs. And what are these wrongs?

Over the past decade and half, the regime of Meles Zenawi has engaged in serious human rights violations in Ethiopia. And the brutality and inhumanity of Zenawi’s regime was bared to the world in the aftermath of the May 2005 parliamentary elections.

There is little disagreement among fair-minded people about the outcome of that election. The coalition of opposition parties delivered a decisive defeat to Zenawi’s party. Kinijit, or the Coalition for Unity and Democracy as it is known in English, swept out Zenawi’s party from Addis Abeba’s mayor’s office and city council, and achieved similar decisive victories in nearly every part of the country. But before the votes were fully counted, Zenawi declared victory. Massive demonstrations in protest of the stolen elections followed in various parts of the country between June and November of 2005. Zenawi’s regime reacted violently against the protesters, and his security forces fired indiscriminately on unarmed protesters causing countless deaths and life-threatening injuries.

Under international pressure, Zenawi and his parliament established an Inquiry Commission to investigate the civil disturbances and the use of deadly force by the regime’s security forces. We have just heard from the Chairman of that Commission, Judge Frehiwot Samuel, and a member, Ato Mitiku Teshome. The Commission determined that government security forces used excessive force in causing the deaths of 193 persons, and wounding of 763 over a period of 14 days in June and November of 2005.

Now, no one should be misled into believing that only 193 persons were killed by government security forces after the elections. There is no doubt the actual figure is much higher, perhaps in the tens of thousands. But the Inquiry Commission did not have jurisdiction to investigate any other incidents.

In November, 2005, Zenawi imprisoned the opposition leaders who refused to join parliament in protest of the stolen elections, along with numerous journalists, human rights defenders and civic leaders. These prisoners are informally and collectively referred to as the Kality prisoners of conscience, named after the town where the decrepit prison facility is located.

In demanding the release of these political and civic leaders, Amnesty International USA in its February, 2006 report stated:

These people are prisoners of conscience, imprisoned solely on account of their non-violent opinions and activities….We demand their immediate and unconditional release and a halt to this attempt by the Ethiopian government to criminalize freedom of expression and prevent legitimate political and human rights activity.
So, my friends, this is the tip of the iceberg in the egregious government wrongs that have been, and continue to be committed in Ethiopia today.

And to borrow Jefferson’s words from the Declaration of Independence, the killing of innocent civilians and persecution of opposition and civic society leaders is part of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object of absolute despotism.”

So this evening, I hope to demonstrate to you ONLY, ONLY the wrongs that have been committed against the Kality prisoners of conscience.

Who are the Kality Prisoners of Conscience?

Now, who are the Kality prisoners of conscience? Let me introduce some of the prominent members of this group to you.

We have highly respected and accomplished scholars and academics such as Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, who also served as President of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (ERCHO), the premier independent human rights organization in Ethiopia.

We have Dr. Berhanu Negga, the outstanding mayor-elect of Addis Abeba and the author of the smashing 600-page Amharic bestseller, Dawn of Democracy in Ethiopia.

We have the indomitable Engineer Hailu Shawuel, the Chariman of Kinijit, or the Coalition for Unity and Democracy.

Then there is Dr. Yakob Haile Mariam, the respected former UN genocide prosecutor at the Rwanda tribunal and former UN Special Envoy in the Cameroon/Nigeria border dispute.

We also have one of the prominent women judges, Birtukan Midekssa, and Serkalem Fasil, a woman journalist, in detention.

Trumped-up Charges

In the narrow context of the prisoners of conscience, Zenawi’s regime committed its first wrong by filing trumped up charges against them.

It is interesting to note that long before these prisoners were charged with any crime, Zenawi was openly telegraphing his intentions.

On May 6, 2005, 9 days before the elections and seven months before the November demonstrations and the arrest of the prisoners of conscience, Reuters quoted Zenawi accusing opposition leaders of trying to cause a “Rwanda-type genocide” by spreading ethnic hatred and strife, organizing a violent uprising aimed at overthrowing the government, and treason.

These comments anticipated three of the seven “criminal” charges — high treason, armed uprising or civil war, and genocide — that were leveled against the prisoners of conscience in November, 2005.

It is clear Zenawi had laid his plans to use the legal process to incapacitate the opposition long before any of the alleged crimes had been committed.

The charges against the prisoners of conscience originate from a section of the Ethiopian Criminal Code designated “Crimes Against the State”.

These “crimes” are not crimes in the ordinary sense of the word. Rather, they prohibitions which aim to discourage dissent and stamp out opposition political activity, and criminalize the free exercise of human rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other related conventions.

The most preposterous of these so-called “crimes against the state” charged against the prisoners is genocide, later amended to attempted genocide, under Article 269 of the Ethiopian Criminal Code. The prisoners are alleged to have attempted to kill or inflict serious bodily harm with the intent to destroy a nation, nationality, ethnic, racial, religious or political group.

They are also accused of committing such exotic crimes as “outrages against the Constitution, obstruction of the exercise of constitutional powers, armed rising or civil war, attack on the political or territorial integrity of the state and impairing the defensive power of the state.

The “Evidence”

The chief prosecutor sought to prove attempted genocide with evidence of beatings causing bodily injury to individuals of a certain ethnic group, or causing fear to such persons.

At “trial”, the prosecutor piled on perjured testimony of victims of attempted genocide who claimed they were psychologically “traumatized” by ethnic insults and epithets, police officers who testified that they suffered mental anguish from seeing rioters flipping their middle fingers (the bird) at them, and suffering the outrage of being called God-awful names.

The Problem With “Crimes Against the State”

The problem with the so-called crimes against the state charges is that they are manifestly absurd and untenable. Charging a 76 year old retired university professor, a former UN genocide prosecutor at the Rwanda tribunal and former UN Special Envoy in the Cameroon/Nigeria border dispute, one of the most distinguished women judges in Ethiopia and a whole bunch of academics and newspaper reporters and editors with genocide just does not make sense.

At least not in a world governed by reason, due process and the supremacy of the rule of law.

Denial of Due Process

There in lies the second egregious government wrong. Let me say point blank that to any fair-minded person or court, the outcome in the case against the prisoners of conscience should be a “no brainer”. The prosecution’s case is based entirely on lies, deceit, falsehoods, distortions, fraud libel and slander.

In its December, 2006 International Mission of Judicial Observation report on Ethiopia, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders concluded:

In view of its findings, the Observatory considers the charges to be arbitrary and disproportionate to the nature of the events that occurred in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. The Observatory expresses its deepest concern about the fairness of the trial, as it believes it to be a way to silence any political criticism of the current regime.

But due process violations can be demonstrated in each of the seven charges leveled against the prisoners of conscience.

Let’s just take one of those charges, the charge of “outrage against the constitution.” This offense involves the use of “violence, threats, conspiracy or other unlawful acts” with intent to “overthrow, modify or suspend the federal or state constitution.

The prosecution’s evidence against the Kality journalist-defendants for the commission of the crime of outrage against the constitution consists of published interviews with opposition leaders, and criticism of the government and the ruling party during the election process.

But the journalists are prosecuted for doing precisely what they are guaranteed under art. 29 (4) of the Constitution of Ethiopia, which states: “the press shall, as an institution, enjoy legal protection to ensure its operational independence and its capacity to entertain diverse opinions.”

Due Process Violations Documented by Trial Observers

The whole range of due process violations in the so-called trial of the Kality prisoner’s of conscience have been documented by international observers who monitored the proceedings, including representatives of various non-governmental organizations, officials of foreign embassies; and the U.S. States Department and the European Commission who submitted confidential reports on the deficiencies trial to regime leader Zenawi.

The Observatory for Protection of Human Rights Defenders, among others, has summarized the observations of the trial observers. Among the major breaches of due process include arrests without a court warrant, use of repeated dilatory tactics which has resulted in delays in court proceedings and denial of speedy trial rights, excessive delays in court rulings on motions, introduction of new evidence not previously provided in discovery to the defense or outright refusal to provide discovery to the defense, introduction of extraneous and irrelevant evidence, distortion of evidence by the prosecution in “extremely prejudicial manner”, prosecutorial tampering with the evidence, among others.

Zenawi’s Kangaroo Court

So we have a classic kangaroo court passing judgment over the Kality prisoner’s of conscience. Article 79 of the Constitution of Ethiopia talks about an independent judiciary composed of jurists unaffiliated with any political organizations or causes, and insulated from political pressure and external influences. But the reality is Ethiopian judges, particularly in high profile cases, are mere political puppets stage managed by the political authorities. The judges assigned to preside over the Kality matter were hand selected by the political authorities for their loyalty to the regime and its policies, and trustworthiness to deliver a guilty verdict. So, the outcome of the so-called trial is pre-determined, and the so-called judges — more accurately, political hacks in robes– will bend the rules to deliver the preferred verdict of the ruling regime: Guilty on All Counts.

Zenawi’s Problems on February 19

On February 19, 2007, in eleven days, the kangaroo court is expected to rule, pursuant to art. 141 of the Ethiopian Criminal Procedure, on the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence “which, if unrebutted would warrant conviction.” Simply stated, the three judges will rule to acquit the prisoners (dismiss charges) if they believed the prosecution has not met its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Partial Acquittal

But could they acquit, even partially? I don’t think so, but would love to be proved wrong on this issue. An acquittal would mean the government did not have a case from the beginning, and that the whole thing was politically motivated. An acquittal would confirm the prisoners’ claim that the whole “trial” is merely one manifestation of the regime’s systematic program of persecution and suppression of regime opponents.

Also, I would argue that Zenawi has learned a hard lesson from his experiences with the Inquiry Commission. He will not allow another humiliating embarrassment to himself or his regime. But he could direct his judges to acquit the prisoners on some of the charges while sustaining the prosecution’s case on the other charges; and order the defense to present its case on the remaining counts. This would allow him to claim that he has a real court instead of a real kangaroo court.

Withdraw All charges

Art. 122 of the Ethiopian Criminal Procedure allows the prosecutor to withdraw charges before judgment at any stage of the proceeding with the permission of the court. This can be done on the prosecutor’s own motion or at the “instructions of the government”. Zenawi could direct Kamal to withdraw or suspend the charges during the pendency of the supposed negotiations between regime officials and the prisoners of conscience. But I doubt it.

Dismiss All Charges

Could all of the charges against the prisoner’s of conscience be dismissed? If the judges were to acquit on all charges, it would mean, first and foremost, a new day for Ethiopian justice. It would mean the birth of an independent judiciary against all odds. It would mean the end of political prosecutions in Ethiopia; and the end of perjury and suborners of perjury in the Ethiopian justice system. It would be a New Millennium for the Ethiopian judicial system. But, it is also very, very unlikely.

The $64K Question

The big question now is whether the prisoners of conscience should defend or in any way participate in the proceedings of the kangaroo court after February 19.

The fact of the matter is Zenawi and the world know that the Kality trial is a “tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

Zenawi is the object of condemnation and scorn by the whole world — Ethiopians in Ethiopia and the Diaspora, international donors and human rights organizations and groups, the European Union, the U.N., the U.S. Congress and others.

Major international organizations and governments have condemned or criticized the so-called trial of the prisoners of conscience, and demanded their release.

But, the prisoners of conscience have already won. They have won the hearts and minds of the vast majority of their countrymen and women. They have won their cause for human rights and democracy in the court of world opinion.

The European Parliament has passed two resolutions demanding the release of the political prisoners, as has the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights. But they can’t win in Zenawi’s kangaroo court. And they don’t need to win in Zenawi’s kangaroo court.

Zenawi just needs to let them go! Zenawi, let my people go!!!

What Now?

Another incontrovertible fact is that Zenawi has thumbed his nose at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all of the other human rights covenants. He has shown his utter contempt for the rule of law and the mandates of his own constitution.

He has become an outlaw!

Indeed, he continues to brutally suppress opposition and dissent, and has assumed dictatorial powers.

We in the international human rights community must go beyond mere moral condemnation and demand compliance with international human rights law. We must not let Zenawi kill, torture and imprison his way out of democracy.

So, I ask you today, to support H.R. 5680, also known as the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Act. This bill, as its title suggests, aims to promote freedom, democracy and human rights by providing a system of incentives to Zenawi’s government. The bill demands first and foremost the release of the political prisoners. It also provides for a comprehensive scheme to advance democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. The bill provides $20 million to the Ethiopian regime to undertake institutional capacity building, including technical assistance to train election workers, technical support for regional legislative bodies, assistance to develop an independent judiciary and professionalize the prosecutorial agencies, facilitate the growth of independent private journalism and privatization of the electronic media so that the government will no longer have a monopoly on radio, television and the internet, and allow the free operation of human rights defenders and organizations, among other things.

This past October, the bill passed the 50-member House International Relations Committee with a unanimous vote, only to be sabotaged from getting to the floor by none other than Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House.

I am confident that H.R. 5680 will be reintroduced under a different bill number in Congress in the current session. I should like to think we have a much better chance of getting it passed this time around.

So, finally there is something we can all do to bring accountability to all of those who flagrantly violate the human rights of their people and thumb their noses at international law.

I respectfully ask you and the international human rights community to join those of us in the Ethiopian human rights community in advancing freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

Thank you.