Statement by Senator Leahy on the the Senate floor today.
After the overthrow of Ethiopia’s brutal former Prime Minister Mengistu, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi ushered in a period of hope and optimism. On May 15, 2005, Ethiopia held its first open multi-party elections. The international community praised the people of Ethiopia for an astounding 90 percent voter participation rate, an encouraging beginning to a new political process. The Ethiopian people deserve a democratic process in which opposition parties can organize and participate, and journalists can publish freely, without fear of arrest or retribution. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the 2005 election was not the turning point many had hoped for.
Early polls suggested the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party would make gains in the Ethiopian Parliament that could threaten the control of Prime Minister Meles’ ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front. These reports were followed by credible allegations of manipulation of the vote-counting process. When the government finally announced results that assured its continued hold on power, thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The police arrested over 30,000 people and some 193 people were killed. Although most of the protestors were released soon after their arrest, 70 opposition leaders and journalists remained in prison.
Following these events, I wrote to Ethiopia’s Ambassador Kassahun Ayele and officials at the State Department to express my concern with the imprisonment of the Ethiopian politicians. Human rights organizations and other international figures condemned the detentions and urged Prime Minister Meles to release them. These efforts were to no avail.
Some detainees remained in jail for over two years before being brought to trial in a manner that was incompatible with international standards of justice. Last month, they were convicted of such vague charges as “outrage against the constitution” and “inciting armed opposition.” They were stripped of their rights to vote and to run for public office. Several were sentenced to life in prison. Nothing was done to prosecute the police officers who fired on the protesters. The situation had gone from bad to worse.
Then suddenly, less than two weeks ago, the Ethiopian Government announced the pardon and release of 38 opposition leaders. I am pleased that Prime Minister Meles heeded the pleas of the Ethiopian people and the international community and released these prisoners. The fact is, none of them should have been arrested or tried in the first place. Their release was long overdue and is welcome.
I hope the government acts expeditiously to release the remaining political detainees, and bring to justice police officers who used excessive force. I also hope the negotiations that resulted in the prisoners’ release will lead to further discussions between the government and the leaders of the opposition, to ensure that their political rights are fully restored and that future elections are not similarly marred.
While this news is positive, it comes at a time when journalists and representatives of humanitarian organizations report human rights abuses of civilians, including torture, rape and extrajudicial killings, by Ethiopian security forces, including those trained and equipped by the U.S., in the Ogaden region.
Congressman Donald Payne, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and a vocal defender of human rights and democracy in Ethiopia, inserted into the Congressional Record a June 18, 2007, New York Times article that described these abuses.
This situation is also addressed in the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2008 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and report, which were reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 10. The Appropriations Committee seeks assurance from the State Department that military assistance for Ethiopia is being adequately monitored and is not being used against civilians by units of Ethiopia’s security forces.
We need to know that the State Department is investigating these reports. We also want to see effective measures by the Ethiopian Government to bring to justice anyone responsible for such abuses.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Bush administration has made little effort to monitor military aid to Ethiopia. It is no excuse that the Ethiopian military has impeded access to the Ogaden, as it has done. In fact, this should give rise to a sense of urgency. If we cannot properly investigate these reports, and if the Leahy Law which prohibits U.S. assistance to units of foreign security forces that violate human rights is not being applied because the U.S. Embassy cannot determine the facts, then we should not be supporting these forces.
As if the allegations of human rights violations were not enough, the New York Times reported on July 22 that the Ethiopian military is blocking food aid to the Ogaden region. The article also claimed that the military is “siphoning off millions” of dollars intended for food aid and a UN polio eradication program. A subsequent article on July 26 indicated that the World Food Program and the Ethiopian Government have reached agreement, after weeks of discussions, on a process for getting food aid through the military blockade to civilians in the Ogaden region. But the same article also reported that regional Ethiopian officials have expelled the Red Cross.
Mr. President, during the Cold War we supported some of the world’s most brutal, corrupt dictators because they were anti-communist. Their people, and our reputation, suffered as a result. Now the White House seems to support just about anyone who says they are against terrorism, no matter how undemocratic or corrupt. It is short sighted, it tarnishes our image, and it will cost us dearly in the long term.
Prime Minister Meles has been an ally against Islamic extremism in the Horn of Africa, for which we are grateful. But there are serious concerns with Ethiopia’s U.S.-supported military invasion of Somalia. It has led to some of the same problems associated with the Bush Administration’s misguided decision to invade Iraq without a plan for leaving the country more stable and secure than before the overthrow of Saddam. Iraq’s partition now seems only a matter of time, and it is hard to be optimistic that Somalia a year from now will be any more secure, or any less of a threat to regional stability, than before the influx of Ethiopian troops.
Ethiopia is also a poor country that has faced one natural or man-made disaster after another, and the U.S. has responded with hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian and other assistance. We have a long history of supporting Ethiopia and its people, and we want to continue that support. But our support to the government is not unconditional. We will not ignore the unlawful imprisonment of political opponents or the mistreatment of journalists. We will not ignore reports of abuses of civilians by Ethiopian security forces.
Judges trying the case of two anti-poverty campaigners in Ethiopia yesterday (Thursday) adjourned the trial until 8 October, when the court will give judgement.
Daniel Bekele, 40, policy manager of ActionAid Ethiopia, and Netsanet Demissie, 29, general manager of the Organisation for Social Justice in Ethiopia, will now spend two more months in prison awaiting the verdict, while the court takes its annual recess.
The two were detained in November 2005 alongside opposition political leaders and charged in January 2006 with the crime of ‘outrage against the constitution and the constitutional order’.
Of 131 originally charged, they are the only two still on trial.
Amnesty International considers them to be prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders.
On Thursday 2 August they concluded their defence, after calling 29 witnesses and presenting 300 pages of documentary evidence. The prosecutors asked for time to consider the verbal and written evidence before presenting their concluding remarks. The judges agreed and said that the prosecutors must present a final written submission by 26 August and the defence should respond in writing by 31 August.
The court will reconvene on 8 October, at the beginning of the new legal year, to give judgement.
Ramesh Singh, chief executive of ActionAid said: “This further delay comes as a big disappointment when we were so near to the end of the process.”
Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) One person was killed and three others injured when a mortar exploded in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, APA learnt here on Friday.
Police said the mortar exploded in Merkato, one of the largest open markets in Africa.
“The four people were trying to use the mortar for another purpose unknowingly, and it immediately resulted in the death of one person while it injured the three people seriously,” police said.
The incident occurred in one place of Merkato mainly known for the sale of second hand and used metals and other materials.
Police are investigating how the mortar came into the hands of the people who are said to be used materials sellers.
New York, USA – Two big-name favourites with near-matchless credentials – Haile Gebrselassie of Ethiopia and Catherine Ndereba of Kenya – head the men’s and women’s fields for Sunday’s NYC Half-Marathon. But those fields are so strong that either of the favourites could be upset by any of several formidable challengers.
New York debut for Gebre
Gebrselassie, who will make his New York racing debut on Sunday, has a résumé paralleled in distance-running history perhaps only by the multi-gold medallists Paavo Nurmi and Emil Zátopek. As if his myriad of World records and two 10,000m Olympic gold medals weren’t enough, Gebreselassie is undefeated in his seven previous half-marathons.
“Sunday is going to be really fantastic,” he said upon his arrival in New York. “I have no idea about the course. I hear it’s quite difficult. My top priority is to win the race and get a good time.”
But not far behind “Geb” in the big-race-reputation department is Robert K. Cheruiyot, the defending LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon champion and a three-time Boston Marathon winner. A master of rising to the occasion, he excels on hilly terrain – like that of Sunday’s first seven miles, all in rolling Central Park.
Cheruiyot and Abdi lead field of challengers
Although the soft-spoken Cheruiyot made no predictions, a direct challenge came from Abdi Abdirahman, a two-time U.S. Olympian and the national 10,000m champion, who threw down the gauntlet at a Thursday news conference.
“I want to be the first guy to beat Haile in a half-marathon. And I should be the first guy to beat him in America – he’s coming to my home town!” Clearly, the outspoken “Abdi” has adopted New York, much as America has welcomed him from his native Somalia.
And one shouldn’t count out Hendrick Ramaala, the ING New York City Marathon 2004 champion and perhaps the closest runner-up in marathon history at that race in 2005, when he lost by three-tenths of a second to World record holder Paul Tergat in a diving finish. History’s seventh-fastest half-marathoner, Ramaala considers the distance a specialty; another of his specialties is setting a tough early pace that forces lead packs to run hard from the gun.
“This weekend, well, we just don’t know yet,” said Ramaala. “I won’t wish him bad on Sunday, but I know that in any race, any runner can win or lose.”
Sunday’s lead pack will likely include Kenyans John Korir, who is riding a hot streak of shorter road-race victories, and James Kwambai, a 1:00:22 half-marathoner who was second in this year’s Boston Marathon.
Ndereba aims at defending title
Ndereba, the defending champion of the NYC Half-Marathon, won the 2003 World Championships marathon and was the first woman to break 2:19 for that distance. She has won four Boston Marathons and a total of seven World Marathon Majors races. The smoothest of runners, she showed that her grit matched her cool when she edged hard-charging Benita Johnson of Australia to win last year’s race by less than one second.
Ndereba’s main threat may come from Hilda Kibet, a cousin of reigning IAAF World Cross Country champion Lornah Kiplagat. Kibet has already won two half-marathons this year and has cut her personal best to 1:09:43.
Also improving steadily is Maida Perez, the Mexican marathon record holder at 2:22:59 and third in this year’s Boston Marathon. New Zealand record-holder Nina Rillstone (1:10:49) and a strong Japanese contingent led by Megumi Oshima (1:09:59 personal best) and Yuri Kano (fourth in the inaugural NYC Half-Marathon) round out the field of women’s contenders.
Already a world-class destination race in only its second year, the NYC Half-Marathon expects some 11,000 runners to travel from Uptown through Midtown (and Times Square) to a Downtown finish in sight of the Statue of Liberty. Included are about 600 international athletes and 51 professional runners.
Gebrselassie, ever diplomatic, remarked, “It’s a strong field. Sunday will be a hard time for me because of such big names in the race. It’s going to be a difficult competition.”
As any running fan knows, there are few names bigger than Gebrselassie.
Israel’s interior minister faces accusations of racism after he suggested suspending the policy of allowing Ethiopians with Jewish ancestry to move to the country.
While rabbinical authorities judge the so-called Falash Mura to be sufficiently Jewish to qualify for Israeli citizenship, Meir Sheetrit said they were not really Jewish and had been let in only because of “political correctness”.
In remarks that incensed the large Falasha community already in Israel, he implied that Ethiopians were fleecing the state by leaving the economic hardship of their birthplace and enjoying comfortable new lives in Israel.
advertisement
“Who needs them?” he said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post. “They are all Christians. We need to take care of the future of Israel and this immigration will never finish.”
His comments were denounced as racist by senior members of the Falasha community who pointed out that Jews from white countries were allowed into Israel without any question from the authorities.
“The way he is expressing himself has a smell of racism about it because he would not say such statements to any other immigrants from America or Russia,” said Avraham Neguise, chairman of the Representatives of Ethiopian Immigrant Organisations in Israel.
“His remarks are unacceptable and irresponsible. The state of Israel is the home for every Jew and is it not the minister’s private home.
“These people have been described and identified as part of Jewish Ethiopian community by the chief rabbinate. They are our blood, our flesh and our bones.”
Ethiopians who come to Israel often complain of not being able to find good jobs and experiencing discrimination.
Some claim that Israel imposes a quota of 600 Falasha being allowed into Israel each month.
Others complain that Israel used the Falasha cynically to boost the population as part of the demographic battle with the Palestinians, who have a high birth rate.
The Falasha are said to be the descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel that trekked south and set up home in the Horn of Africa.
The claim was strong enough to convince Israeli rabbinical authorities in the 1980s and 1990s when 90,000 were allowed into Israel.
The first Falasha to move to Israel were unquestionably Jewish. But a new group calling themselves the Falash Mura emerged.
They were Ethiopians living a Christian lifestyle but who claimed to have been forced to convert to Christianity from Judaism.
Various Ethiopian websites exhibit articles that highly congratulate and praise the achievements of mediators in the long-drawn-out attempt to free the CUD leaders. According to these articles, thanks to the aggressive and unrelenting effort of the mediators, the dreadful outcome of life imprisonment has been reversed into a happy ending. Had such articles appeared only in websites supporting Meles and the TPLF, I would have no reason to share my perplexity, obvious as it is that Meles alone comes out victorious from the ordeal of CUD leaders. Unfortunately, the consensus among Ethiopians opposing Meles and his regime considers the release as a laudable achievement of Ethiopian negotiators.
Let me begin by expelling a misunderstanding: in a previous article, I stated that the desire to humiliate is behind the liberation of the CUD leaders. Several readers reacted to my interpretation with the suggestion that I do not seem to welcome the liberation. Some such reading of my article is anything but accurate, all the more so as I was convinced for quite some time that their continuous imprisonment had lost any meaning. Outside the exposure of their determination not to recognize the kangaroo court, the prisoners were not achieving anything. As dignified as the refusal to recognize was, I had constantly wondered whether the gain was worth the sacrifice.
The continuous imprisonment of CUD leaders would have had a positive outcome if it had led to a deterioration of Meles’s relation with Western governments of the kind entailing the complete cessation of financial aids and diplomatic support to his government. Nothing of the kind happened: after an initial verbal condemnation, the whole drama of the election did not upset for long the business-as-usual approach of Western governments. I don’t know what is required for Ethiopians to understand, once and for all, that national interests, and not what is right, essentially drive nation-states. Haile Selassie made this same mistake when he believed that democratic states will not tolerate the fascist invasion of Ethiopia.
In my previous article, I also indicated that the intent to humiliate reflected the deep and harrowing embarrassment of Meles and his associates following their unexpected defeat in the election. Meles was humiliated in front of the world, he who thought that the Ethiopian masses had nurtured an eternal gratitude to the TPLF for being liberated from the Derg, not to mention the exacting effort he made to appear as a new African leader to Western governments. Alas, now the whole world knows that he is only another dictator in the long list of bouffons parading as heads of states in Africa’s sickening post colonial history.
The sharp depreciation of Meles’s supersized but bleeding ego in his own eyes and that of the world needed some appeasement, which could come only through the attempt to humiliate those who humiliated him. Neither mere imprisonment nor court procedures would give him the much-needed remedy, since in both cases the prisoners would continue to claim their innocence.
What else could wipe out Meles’s deep humiliation but a confession of guilt and a plea for forgiveness? Herein lies the major role of the mediators. For Meles had to make sure at the same time that whatever confession is obtained from the prisoners, it must not seem to be extracted by means of force. Confession obtained by force has no soothing effect on him if only because constraint is devoid of vindicating virtue. By contrast, consent can be inferred both from the process of mediation and the involvement of independent and respected people. Since nobody is openly forcing anybody, the outcome can be construed as the product of free admission. Without free consent, the admission of guilt is not usable for the purpose of rehabilitation.
What this means is clear enough: since only Meles comes out as winner, the mediation was nothing but a scheme used by him to obtain confession of guilt. The involvement of independent and respected people put heavy pressure on the prisoners through the argument that the common good, the prospect of reconciliation alone motivates their effort. How could prisoners who fought for peace and democracy refuse for long the appeal for reconciliation? They would agree to anything rather than reject a goal coinciding with their political agenda of peace and democracy.
What other term than soft coercion can characterize a mediation with such a one-sided result? I have read many comments concerning the release, but I have yet to see what concessions Meles made. Yet, mediation is a two-way street; it results in mutual concessions done for the purpose of achieving a higher common goal.
It could be argued that the mediation saved the prisoners from life imprisonment. This argument has no substance given that the prisoners could have obtained the same result without the mediators, if they had admitted guilt. European or American envoys could have easily broken a similar deal even a year ago.
Shrewdly, Meles encouraged mediation because it is all to his advantage. The direct intervention of Western governments would have further exasperated his humiliation by showing that his government is run, to use his own words, “like a banana republic from Capitol Hill.” His oversensitized ego, quite reminiscent of Mengistu Haile Mariam, would further suffer if the prisoners and the Ethiopian people they represent believed that they owe their liberation to Western pressure. No, if he is to pardon the prisoners, it must not be because of Western governments, but because he yielded to the exhortation of his subordinates. In this way, he recovers his original condescending grandeur while appearing concerned with reconciliation.
The way of mediation is all the more advantageous to Meles the more it refurbishes his shattered image in the West. Let no one be misled into thinking that the timing of the release of the prisoners has nothing to do with American politics. The illegal invasion of Somalia and the ousting of the fundamentalists from power was, no doubt, a calculated risk that Meles took to regain American support. This alone would have been enough to sustain the support of the State Department. But the change of majority in the Senate and the House has complicated the issue by reviving the postponed bill known as H.R. 2003. The only way to stop the bill from being voted on as a law was to give some signs that the democratic process is back on track in Ethiopia. In other words, Meles had to make a significant gesture and he did so by releasing the imprisoned elected members of the opposition.
Both to appease his mortified ego and stop the bill, Meles needed a successful outcome from the mediation process. He faced one problem, to wit, the stubborn refusal of the prisoners. To obtain from them the confession he needed, he was compelled to force them, though not directly. So he instructed his court to expedite the process and sentence the prisoners to life imprisonment. The sentence gave him the upper hand he needed to blackmail the prisoners.
We know the rest of the story: Meles pardoned the prisoners in exchange for their admittance of guilt and their plea for forgiveness. At last he had his revenge for the humiliation he suffered, but also much more since he will appear in the eyes of the West as the leader who for the sake of reconciliation reversed the harsh judgment of his own court and even went to the extent of reinstating all the rights of the prisoners, including their right to continue their political struggle. Clearly, thanks to the mediators, Meles emerges, by all accounts, as the only winner.
One last comment: I heard on the radio the chairperson of the mediating team, Professor Ephraim Issac, justifying the mediation effort in nationalist terms. He finds that what the team did revives the old Ethiopian tradition of conflict resolution through elders while ascertaining the ability of Ethiopians to resolve their own problems without the intervention of Western powers.
To begin with, the fact that the professor is in Washington to lobby against the bill clearly shows the link between the liberation of the prisoners and the discussion of the bill in the House. But more yet, his justification is particularly disappointing because it does no more than kill what he claims to revive. One cannot preach the revival of tradition if its outcome hinders progress.
In many of my writings I have tried to show that one of the tragedies of Ethiopia is that it undertook its modernization without the support of its traditions on the ground that the latter are outdated, if not barbaric. Aware of the detrimental effect of this direction, some Ethiopians scholars, among whom I include Professor Ephraim as a precursor, are increasingly involved in the laborious task of rediscovering and refurbishing the traditions of Ethiopia, which are also the secrets of its amazing survival.
One thing must be clearly stated, however: the revival of tradition is good if and only if it couples with the critical spirit separating the good elements of the past from the bad ones. So that, if tradition is used to retard progress or deprive people of their legitimate rights, it must be denounced with utmost firmness.
As regards the liberation of CUD leaders, the tradition of shimagele has indeed favored one side. We should refrain from hailing its outcome while underlining that Ethiopian history testifies that the intervention of mediators has convinced more than one king to even give up the throne for the sake of the common good. What this shows is that the tradition is invoked for normative purpose even as its actual implementation is distorted. So, for the future, let us make sure that the usage of the traditional way of conflict resolution is firmly harnessed to the cause of democracy, freedom, and collective interests.
Messay Kebede, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Dayton (Ohio). [email protected]
