It was a beautiful morning and we all arrived early in order to get a seat, as it was rumored that they would only be allowing a limited number of people inside the courtroom today.
There was an unusual feeling of excitement in the air, and even the most skeptical among us dared hope that today was THE day. All the regulars were there—the ferenj (journalists , observers, and diplomats) crowding the front rows, the immediate family members behind to the left, and additional relatives, friends and supporters left to fill in the gaps.
As usual, we had time to kill. After the greetings, speculations and words of encouragement were exchanged, casual conversation began to wane and the defendants had still not appeared.
Finally, shortly after 10 o’clock, they were brought in and everyone sprang to their feet, waving and smiling (now skilled in the art of communicating without words.) The prisoners looked well and flashed us triumphant thumbs-up as they filed in. They appeared overjoyed to see one another again, and we silently interpreted this scene as the appropriate prelude to their immediate release.
After about 15 minutes everyone was settled in their seats and the judges filed in.
Leul. Momhammed…When it was clear that Judge Adil would not be present (a fact that was neither acknowledged nor recorded), all hope instantly evaporated.
The session was over less than 5 minutes later.
The trial would once again be adjourned, due to the “complexity of the case”, we were told. At first, the date of May 9th was given, which was almost immediately corrected to April 9th. By way of excuse, the judge assured us that they had first intended to resume proceedings on March 30th, but couldn’t because it was a holiday. Then he hesitated again, and consulted the other, amidst disproving murmers from the crowd. After a few moments of confusion, he again corrected himself and announced that the trial would definitely resume the following Friday (the 30th). He announced that on this date the court would make their final ruling and then repeated that this would be the “last one”.
(It is amazing, really. He must have spoken less than 5 sentences–which he had over two weeks to prepare–and he still managed to get it wrong not once, but twice!)
There were sighs and tears from family members, and frustration was evident on the faces of all in attendance.
Elders from the dominant clan in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, have reached an informal truce with the Ethiopian army after two days of heavy fighting.
More than 20 people have died in clashes between insurgents and Ethiopia-backed government forces.
The Ethiopian army last year helped the interim government drive out an Islamist group, which was largely drawn from Mogadishu’s dominant Hawiye clan.
But there are reports that the ceasefire has already broken down.
Correspondents say it is too early to determine exactly what is going on but one resident in the south of the city said he had heard a number of large explosions and machine gunfire.
A government official, who did not want to be identified, told the BBC he had heard that Ethiopian tanks had been firing on buildings occupied by Islamist insurgents.
He said he had heard reports that a truce had been signed but he had no details and agreed that the resumption of fighting in the past few hours threw doubt onto whether a truce had been effective.
Meanwhile, the Somali government has ordered the Dubai-based TV channel Al-Jazeera to close its Mogadishu base following its coverage of the fighting.
Significant
Earlier, a Hawiye clan spokesman said that the elders had agreed with Ethiopian military officials to implement a ceasefire.
“After serious discussions on the current political situation and on the renewed violence, we agreed with the Ethiopian military officials to implement a ceasefire,” AFP news agency quotes Ugas Abdi Dahir Mohamed as saying.
The BBC’s Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says at the meeting it was discussed how government troops would withdraw from Hawiye clan strongholds.
The latest fighting – described as the heaviest since the Islamists fell – started when pro-government forces tried to take control of these areas.
The bodies of government soldiers were dragged through the streets and set on fire.
Our correspondent says that although the deal is informal, it could be significant as the Hawiye clan is powerful in Mogadishu.
Mistrusted
The transitional government is led by President Abdullahi Yusuf, who is neither a Hawiye nor from Mogadishu.
He is a Darod from the Puntland region and is accused by the Hawiye of precipitating this crisis by bringing in his own militiamen and relying on the mistrusted Ethiopians.
The withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from the country was also discussed at the meeting, our reporter says.
Ethiopian troops have been gradually handing over responsibilities to an African Union force which has been deploying to Mogadishu this month to try and bring stability to the city.
The interim government has blamed remnants of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) for escalating violence in the capital.
Somalia enjoyed a six-month lull in the insecurity that had dogged the country for the past 16 years when the UIC took power last year.
But insecurity has returned to the city and the UN estimates some 40,000 people have fled from Mogadishu since February.
Yet another delay occurred today in the Ethiopian trial of Yacob Hailemariam, a former Norfolk State University business professor arrested after 2005 election protests in his home country.
That means he and more than 70 co-defendants facing treason and genocide charges must wait to hear whether they’ll be released or their trial will continue. They deny the charges, calling them politically motivated, and Amnesty International has labeled them “prisoners of conscience.”
If convicted, Hailemariam has said, he could be sentenced to death.
Today’s was the third trial postponement in two months. It was confirmed by the office of U.S. Rep. Mike Honda, D-California, which has been tracking the case. The Ethiopian court set a new date of March 30.
The next day, Hailemariam’s wife and son are scheduled to pick up on his behalf a Distinguished Career Award from the Virginia Social Science Association in Richmond. It will recognize his almost 20 years of teaching at Norfolk State, as well as his human rights work with the United Nations and reform efforts in Ethiopia.
_________
Reach Matthew Bowers at (757) 222-3893 or [email protected]
Mogadishu (Sh.M.Network) A cargo aircraft that was flying over low level has been shot down by unknown gunmen with anti aircraft rocket over eastern the Somalia capital Mogadishu late Friday.
The plane which took off the airport around 5:00pm local time has got crashed after it was hit by a rocket fired from the ground as witnesses say.
The Arabic Satellite Channel of Al-Jazeera quoting AU military sources reports that 11 African Union peacekeeping soldiers onboard have been killed in the plane accident.
But witnesses told Shabelle they heard the sound of a rocket fired into the aircraft which caught on fire and sent huge thick cloud smoke in the sky and then fall into the ground.
In an interview with Shabelle Radio, the spokesman for the AU peacekeeping mission in Somalia Paddy Ankunda said they are investigating the cause of the crash and what the plane was.
He said he is now meeting with government officials over the matter and they will soon report on the accident.
http://www.shabelle.net/news/ne2612.htm
Shabelle Media Network Somalia
E-mail us: [email protected]
MOGADISHU – Somali and Ethiopian troops entered an insurgent stronghold in central Mogadishu on Wednesday, setting off a battle in which at least seven people were killed and 10 were wounded, witnesses and medical officials said.
Hundreds of masked insurgents confronted the government forces, which were supported by tanks and armored vehicles, said Ali Haji Jama, a resident of the northeastern neighborhood at the center of the fighting.
An AP photographer saw insurgents drag the bodies of Ethiopian soldier and one Somali government soldier through the streets of northeastern Mogadishu and then set them on fire.
“Ethiopian tanks rolled out of the former defense ministry and moved into nearby Shirkole area, which is seen as the stronghold of the insurgent groups and they met with stiff resistance,” he said. Other witnesses said minibuses filled with insurgents were racing through the city to reach Shirkole and defend against the Ethiopian advance.
Muqtar Abdulahi Dahir, a Mogadishu businessman, said he saw the same minibuses carrying away the wounded.
“I also saw insurgents evacuating some of their men with minibuses, but I am not sure whether they were dead or not,” he said.
Medical officials at Mogadishu’s three hospitals said they had recorded at least seven dead and 10 wounded by midmorning. Government officials did not answer their telephones early Wednesday.
Ethiopia sent soldiers into Somalia in December to counter an Islamic movement that threatened to destroy Somalia’s internationally-recognized government. Though they have lost control most of their territory, the Islamic forces refuse to accept defeat, and violence has continued in the capital. Mortar attacks forced dozens of residents to flee Mogadishu on Tuesday.
Somali leaders have said in recent weeks that they were preparing a major offensive to stop the growing insurgency.
Somalia has been without an effective central government since 1991. The present government has so far failed to assert itself and the African Union has deployed a small peacekeeping force to defend it.
Ethiopians have been confused and puzzled by America’s indifference to the on-going political crisis in their homeland. During the 2005 Ethiopian election and after, conventional wisdom among Ethiopians assumed that The United States would stand with them in their fight for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. They underestimated the power of national economic interest and national security issues on the part of the United States. While America’s rhetorical support for democracy, human rights, and rule of law around the world is eloquent and impressive, its foreign policy practice falls far short of its rhetorical ideals. And this in turn has angered and disappointed those who took America’s promised support seriously and literally.
The United States of America has the distinction of being the longest enduring democracy in the world, which is still strong, vibrant, and inspiring. Americans believe in their democracy and freedom and they also believe that the world would greatly benefit from it. Many Americans further believe that “the American nation has been chosen by god or by history to promote democracy”. President George W. Bush put it this way. “Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass on”. And he goes on to say that “Americans are a free people who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to humanity.” According to Robert Jervis, “The hope of spreading democracy and liberalism throughout the world has been an American goal.” It is a fact that Americans see themselves as champions of human rights and they have inspired billions of oppressed people around the world.
But the problem comes when American political leaders try to integrate democratic values into foreign policy practices. Unfortunately, the devil is always in the detail. There has been an ongoing debate between two American foreign policy camps on this issue and it still goes on. There are those who argue that American foreign policy should be ethical, moral, and universal and that what is good for America is also good for the world. Americans who represent this view further believe that the United States should be consistent with her values at home and abroad. This camp strongly believes that American foreign policy should be as good as the American people. Besides, promoting democracy and freedom and banishing tyranny will be good for America’s long term security and economic interests.
It is an observed fact that “democracies rarely attack other democracies”. In addition, democracies ensure better stability and that in turn promotes economic growth at home and trading partnerships abroad. This camp claims that capitalism and democracy have been good for America and they will also be good for the world. Spreading democracy can also relieve the United States of the constant worry about the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and rouge states. For example, America is more worried about “nuclear weapon in the hands of autocracies like China, Iran, North Korea” and others like them. But “no American loses sleep that the UK or France has deadly missiles”. It is a documented fact that 70% of terrorists come from authoritarian societies because such societies both breed and shelter them. And that may explain “why those who blow up Americans are rarely Indian or Turkish Muslims, (but are) more likely (to be) Saudis or Egyptians”.
Terrorists will be exposed in open and free societies sooner than later because there is transparency. People in democratic countries are national stake holders and would not protect or shelter those that disturb the peace and destroy their way of life. Liberal foreign policy proponents further argue that the promotion of democracy abroad would bring consistency and coherence between what America says at home and what she does abroad. Charles Pena says that “People love what we are; but they often hate what we do”. The one question asked by many Americans after September 11 was, “Why do they hate us?” Liberals say it is because of the inconsistency of America’s foreign policy and her support of those regimes that abuse their citizens with impunity.
The realist camp of American foreign policy on the other hand believes that the world is a complex and dangerous place. And moralistic and universal approaches are impractical, ineffective, misguided, and unwise. And they insist that “No responsible U.S. decision maker can allow our foreign policy to be driven by a single imperative, no matter how important”. Realists seem to agree with the great British statesman, Lord Salisbury, who once said “It has generally been acknowledged to be madness to go to war for an idea”. Unfortunately, democracy, freedom, and human rights are often considered good ideas but are rarely acted on when it comes to foreign policy decisions. The realist camp further argues that “different circumstances require different methods and sound foreign policy must be calculating and particular by necessity, because success depends on decisions other nations make and that their cooperation is necessary to achieve foreign policy goals”.
These foreign policy hardliners believe that in the world of realpolitik the essence of foreign policy is deciding between two or more difficult choices when dealing with nations whose values and practices are different and undemocratic. This is further complicated by internal political pressures coming from lobbyists and campaign contributors who have their agendas and self-interests in some foreign policy decisions. Furthermore, national security and economic interests overshadow democratic ideals. These factors in turn create a serious disconnect between deeply held American democratic ideals and foreign policy practices. Consequently, what America says at home and what she does abroad create serious confusion and disappointment and anger.
More often than not, deals are made with the devil to achieve short term goals at the expense of deeply held ideals and long term interests. In reality, American foreign policy as practiced creates hypocrisy and vulnerability instead of security and stability. Without minimizing or oversimplifying foreign policy challenges, one can conclude that consistency between democratic ideals and foreign policy practices is far than undemocratic shortcuts. That is the way to win friends and influence people around the world with lasting effect. As the old saying goes, “action speaks louder than words” and the world sees, hears, and remembers what America says and what America does.
Unfortunately, Ian Williams is correct in saying that “A constant element in American foreign policy for decades has been that it is reactive to perceived threats rather than agenda-setting in support of any positive value such as humanitarianism or democracy”.
He goes on to say that “In practice, American governments have found it difficult to separate words and actions”. And Robert Jurvis adds to this by saying, “No American government has been willing to sacrifice stability and support of U.S. policy to honor democracy”. The truth is that the “United States has had close, even intimate, relationships with many undemocratic regimes for the sake of American security and economic interests”. Through the years, America has had many unsavory and fair weather friends around the world who make the United States look bad and vulnerable.
In the past, the United States supported and continues to support “tyrannical governments prone to disregard agreements and coerce their neighbors just as they mistreat their own citizens”. There is a long list of unsavory and tyrannical friends around the globe stretching from Latin America to Africa and Asia that successive American governments supported. . Trojillo of the Dominical Republic, Marcos of the Philippines, Mobuto of Zaire, the Batistas of Cuba, the Somozas of Nicaragua, Salazar of Portugal, Franco of Spain, and Pinochet of Chile are just a few examples of a very long list of tyrants supported by the United States. These tyrants and others like them got away with murder until their people got fed up and threw them out of power.
Cold War politics and foreign policy interests made it possible for tyrants of the past to enjoy the support of the United States and Western Europe. And now, the War on Terrorism has spawned support for new tyrants around the world. The latest addition to this foreign policy laundry list is Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia. Shortly after Meles Zenawi’s EPRDF shot itself to the presidential palace and took power in Ethiopia, Mr. Herman Cohen, who was Assistant Secretary of State for East Africa, came to California to address Ethiopians about the situation in their homeland. In a speech he gave to an Ethiopian audience in the city of Oakland in California, Mr. Cohen made it clear that His Administration had informed the new Ethiopian leaders that the United States would only cooperate with them and assist them if they committed themselves to democratic governance. And the catch phrase he used over and over was during his speech was, “No democracy no cooperation”.
But in an interview with Voice of America soon after Ethiopia’s first democratic election in 2005 and its bloody aftermath, the same Herman Cohen said that democracy in Ethiopia is not as mission critical for the United States as the war on terrorism is. He admitted that Meles Zenawi is as dictatorial and as ruthless as Mengistu Hailemariam, and then added in the same breath that Meles Zenawi is an important ally of the United States in the war against terrorism. And once again, Ethiopia has become a pawn in the chase game of geopolitical expediency. Meles Zenawi got away with murder and the United States got a loyal partner in the troubled region of the Horn of Africa. Meles Zenawi’s current involvement is Somalia has further endeared him to the American government.
Meles Zenawi is a smart man and a survivor and he read the international political chase board correctly relative to the likely positions of Europe and North America. He knew that the war on terrorism has overshadowed all other foreign policy considerations in Europe and North America and he carefully calculated their likely response to his cruel and undemocratic actions against innocent and unarmed Ethiopian demonstrators and duly and fairly elected opponents. First, he stole the election. Next, he banned demonstrations. Then, he managed to stall the momentum of the opposition and confuse the diplomatic community in Addis Ababa. He took actions step by step and measured the diplomatic rhetoric of Europe and North America accurately. He stripped elected members of parliament of their constitutional immunity and eventually struck hard at the core of the opposition by jailing the entire leadership on trumped up charges of genocide and treason.
The democratic world simply shook its head with mild and diplomatically sugar coded concerns for the situation in Ethiopia. There was no outrage like there was on behalf the Ukraine and Georgia under similar circumstances. And financial aid was not withheld significantly from the Ethiopian government. The rational was and still is that withholding aid would end up hurting poor Ethiopians and therefore must continue. The truth of the matter is that Ethiopians have become poorer despite the large donations and financial aids to the tune of billions in the last sixteen years. Where did it all go? The aid does not reach the people and that is a documented fact. For the record, Great Britain and the European Union have withheld some financial aid from Ethiopia but not enough to pressure Meles Zenawi to change his ways. Besides, what Europe withheld has been made up by generous handouts from the World Bank and the United States.
What happened to President George Bush’s promise? Didn’t he say to a national and international audience that “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know—the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors”? Didn’t he also say that “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you”? These eloquent promises were conveniently side stepped in the Ethiopian situation. And once again, American foreign policy hardliners have carried the day arguing apparently convincingly that stability in a troubled region and the war on terrorism are more critical than democracy in Ethiopia. But in so doing, they have undermined the long term stability of the region that a democratic Ethiopia would have contributed to.
This is not to say that all is lost. No, all is not lost. The struggle for democracy in Ethiopia will continue until both the oppressed and the oppressors are free to live peacefully. And Ethiopians are not alone in their struggle. There are influential allies on both sides of the Atlantic represented by Chrstopher Smith, Donald Payne, Tom Lantos, and Mike Honda in the United States and the indefatigable Ana Gomez and company in Europe. For now, North America and Western Europe have chosen stability over democracy and human rights when it comes to Ethiopia, and they consider Meles Zenawi the winner of the political fight in Ethiopia. As the saying goes, “Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan”. American and European foreign policy makers and diplomats know the intimate details of Meles Zenawi’s actions and intentions against his real and imagined political opponents. Election observers sent to Ethiopia from both sides of the Atlantic have fully documented the events prior to and during and after the 2005 Ethiopian election and its aftermath. The diplomatic core in Addis Ababa has also watched the goings-on from very close range. And there is a general consensus that Meles Zenawi’s government committed gross violations after an otherwise peaceful and profoundly historic election and continues to do so to this day. Meles Zenawi got away with murder for the same reason others like him past and present have gotten away with. Ethiopians must realize that the United States and Western Europe are not going to liberate them from the tyranny they are suffering under. Ethiopians must liberate themselves once and for all. Ethiopians must also remember that the international community will inevitably side with the winner for its own national security and economic interests.
Eventually, the truth will prevail; the dictators will fail; the prisoners of conscience will be freed; and a new day of freedom, peace, and prosperity will dawn in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian political genie is out of the bottle and the day is soon coming when democracy, human rights, and the rule law shall prevail for all Ethiopians. And to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the children of political oppressors and the children of the oppressed will be able to live as brothers and sisters bound together by a common destiny in a beautiful land called Ethiopia. That is a dream worth fighting for. So, cheer up and continue the democratic struggle until victory is won!
Prof. Adugnaw Worku resides in California.
