A reassessment of U.S. policy toward Ethiopia is very much in order. A year has passed since Ethiopia intervened in Somalia, and its troops are bogged down there in an ongoing low-intensity conflict that has created a grave humanitarian crisis. The invasion appears deeply unpopular with the Somali people, and the tide of battle could yet turn decisively against the Ethiopians. Meanwhile, the December 1, 2007 deadline set by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission (EEBC) for demarcation of the border between the two countries has passed without implementation by either party. Troops are massing on both sides of the border, and a renewal of the 1998-2000 border war is entirely possible. Finally, the human rights situation within Ethiopia remains poor, and the country’s long-term political stability is uncertain – prompting the U.S. House of Representatives to pass legislation intended to strengthen U.S. democracy programs in Ethiopia and ban “nonessential assistance” to the Ethiopian government.
The United States must remain engaged with Ethiopia, and with all the countries of the Horn of Africa region not only for humanitarian reasons, but also because of the well-grounded concern that the region will be a breeding ground for terrorism unless it is stabilized. But the United States should be intentional and strategic in its interventions, and should not let short term counter-terrorism objectives blind it to the need for a broader vision of regional development and democratization. The United States should be careful not to narrow its alliances in the region to those who claim to be friends, to the neglect of other strategic relationships – however challenging they may be. And the United States must seek regional solutions to the Horn of Africa’s conflicts as the best means of protecting local communities from violence.
U.S. policy in the Horn necessarily focuses on Ethiopia, which is clearly the regional hegemon. It has a powerful and disciplined military, and after the suppression of dissent following the disputed 2005 parliamentary elections, a tightly-controlled and consolidated regime in the capital at Addis Ababa. At the same time, the Ethiopian government has a number of enemies, both internally and in the region. Many of these enemies pose no particular threat to U.S. interests, at least at present. Ethiopia’s regional rivals, however, have sheltered rebel movements opposed to the regime of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) political party. The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which controlled Mogadishu and much of southern Somalia from June until December 2006, hosted insurgent groups such as the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). (See Terrence Lyons, “Ethiopia and the Search for Regional Peace in the Horn of Africa,” CSIS Online Africa Policy Forum, January 22, 2007). All three of these groups now find sanctuary in Ethiopia’s arch rival, Eritrea.
In Ethiopia itself, high-level leaders of the main opposition were imprisoned for nearly two years after the 2005 election, before being released in July 2007 by a presidential pardon. Thousands of ordinary Ethiopian citizens also spent considerable time in jails across the country, many only to be released with no charges ever filed. Untold numbers remain imprisoned throughout the country, as documented by Human Rights Watch, including prominent civil society activists and ordinary citizens. Members of marginalized ethnic communities, particularly the Oromo and increasingly the Ethiopian-Somali communities, face political repression and harassment by security forces. Opposition political parties have been restricted from establishing and staffing regional party offices and preparing for upcoming local elections.
The October passage of the Ethiopia Democracy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2003) by the U.S. House of Representatives is a signal that pressure for a change in U.S. policy toward Ethiopia is rising. The bill is unlikely to obtain the votes it needs for passage in the Senate, but the new Senate taking office in 2009 may well be more willing to criticize Ethiopia and could agree to a similar bill. The focus of the legislation is on financial and technical support for fostering human rights and democratization in Ethiopia – and programs such as these should be the backbone of U.S. policy in that country and in the region. Other sections of the legislation would limit security assistance to Ethiopia, impose travel restrictions on officials of the Ethiopian government found to have violated human rights, and require certification by the President to the Congress that Ethiopia is moving forward on eleven domestic democracy measures. These include the release of political prisoners, ensuring freedom of the judiciary, and allowing human rights organizations to work freely. The legislation would not prevent peacekeeping assistance, counter-terrorism assistance, or international military training assistance to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government, through its ambassador in Washington, has condemned the bill as a violation of Ethiopia’s sovereignty, but this is a shortsighted view. Over the long term, a solid U.S.-Ethiopia relationship will depend on Ethiopian progress in building democracy, strengthening the rule of law, ensuring human rights, and promoting economic development.
Recent developments in the Horn of Africa indicate that Ethiopia is flexing its military muscle to the detriment of regional stability and local communities. This is a threat to U.S. security interests. In April 2007, members of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), attacked a Chinese-run oil site in eastern Ethiopia, killing 77. The attack required a response, but the ruthless campaign of repression launched by the Ethiopian military in Somali Regional State of Ethiopia seems likely only to make the situation worse. (See “Ethiopia: Crackdown in the East punishes Civilians,” Human Rights Watch, July 2007). There are reports of targeted violence against the Somali inhabitants in the area, including civilian communities (also called the Ogaden). Despite promises by the regime in Addis, access to the region has been denied, making it difficult for aid agencies to reach needy recipients and nearly impossible for media outlets and human rights organizations to investigate the serious allegations of human rights violations.
Ethiopia’s December 2006 intervention in Somalia provided the necessary military force to allow the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) to drive out the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and other related militias that had controlled Mogadishu and much of southern Somalia for at least six months before. Since that time, however, the TFG has been unable to consolidate its hold militarily or politically and has suffered from in-fighting, a lack of serious efforts at reconciliation, and increasingly, insurgent violence by anti-Ethiopian and anti-TFG forces. Ethiopia’s stated intention was to defend the TFG from the forces of the UIC until such time as an African Union (AU) peacekeeping force could be deployed. Throughout the fall and winter of 2006, AU countries reluctantly pledged troops, but none were deployed until about 1,300 Ugandan troops arrived in Somalia in March 2007 as the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Nine months later the Ugandans remain the only members of AMISOM in Somalia.
While the Ethiopian government has repeatedly stated its desire to leave the country, and has said periodically that it is withdrawing its forces, no figures are given. Most accounts suggest that the numbers of Ethiopian troops inside southern Somalia are substantial, at least in the thousands. No drawdown of forces has occurred. There is little chance that they will be reduced any time soon, as AU reinforcements are slow to be promised or arrive. On her recent trip to Ethiopia, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice urged the TFG to “renew and revitalize efforts toward a lasting political solution,” including an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, the situation has been called the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa, with at least one million Somalis displaced by the violence. The response of the international community to the political and military causes of this humanitarian crisis has been woefully inadequate.
The situation on Ethiopia’s northern border is equally alarming, and the possibility of a return to war with Eritrea has been raised by credible sources, such as the International Crisis Group report. Even if it is not in the interests of either side to instigate the war unilaterally, the possibility of a small incident provoking a conflict are high given the number of troops and the stalemate in negotiations. The UN monitoring force (UNMEE) has faced increasing restrictions of its troop movements and aerial surveillance inside the Temporary Monitoring Zone (TMZ) by the Eritrean government, leading the Security Council to extend UNMEE’s mandate in six-month intervals, with reductions in troop levels from 3,200 to 2,000 in January of 2007. For its part, Ethiopia insists that it continues to accept the EEBC ruling “in principle” but demands further dialogue on crucial issues, such as its claim to the town of Badme, which was awarded to Eritrea by the EEBC. Tens of thousands of troops (some estimates put the numbers much closer to 100,000 on each side near the border) have been deployed to the border and military exercises are ongoing. Eritrea regards any encouragement of dialogue as a sign of a lack of international will to enforce the EEBC ruling.
Whither U.S. Policy?
Most agree that the United States should remain engaged in Ethiopia and the Horn. There is general agreement, even among critics of the Meles regime, that partial or complete disengagement would likely reduce the prospects for democratization and stability in Ethiopia. Ethiopians express an interest in more US engagement rather than less. The politically active and financially powerful Ethiopian diaspora in the United States and Europe has continued to invest in Ethiopia, despite their own frustrations with the Meles government’s backsliding on democratization. If the diaspora has hope for Ethiopia’s future, so too should the international community. The challenge for the United States is to find avenues of interaction and assistance without condoning violence and human rights violations. This will require more than diplomatic persuasion or military assistance, including long-term, practical, and targeted development interventions in rural and urban communities throughout the country as well as a willingness to criticize the Meles regime for repressive legislation and political violence by its security forces.
Regionally, U.S. engagement must involve robust support for the African Union mission in Somalia, AMISOM. The aim should be to quickly end the Ethiopian military intervention and create the conditions for security and political dialogue among Somali groups. The Ethiopian presence is an incitement to violence by various Somali nationalist groups, and a deterrent to meaningful reconciliation processes by the TFG. If AMISOM is no longer viable, the United States should support rapid and decisive action by the UN Security Council to assure the speedy deployment of an effective peacekeeping force.
At the same time, the United States must soften its rhetoric on Eritrea, particularly with regard to the border issue, while continuing to insist on unrestricted access for UNMEE peacekeepers in the TMZ. The Administration has suggested that Eritrea might be designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its support of rebel groups from Somalia. Unfortunately, threats do not work well with Asmara and are inappropriate in light of Ethiopian intransigence on the Border Commission decision and its military engagement in Somalia. A more even-handed approach is required. In her recent visit to the region, Secretary Rice urged Ethiopia to “avoid any acts that might heighten friction between Eritrea and Ethiopia and to take concrete steps to lessen tension on the border.” This was helpful, but the United States should be clear that existing agreements, including the Algiers Agreement creating the EEBC and binding the parties to accept its decision, must be honored by all.
With respect to political issues inside Ethiopia, the United States must remain engaged, but in ways that signal its concern for democracy and human rights. This means not turning a blind eye to human rights abuses by the Ethiopian military in remote areas of the country and in occupied areas of Somalia. The United States cannot afford to receive its intelligence on these areas from the Ethiopian government alone, but must insist that independent observers be given free access throughout Ethiopia. In addition, there is a need for specific humanitarian and development interventions focused on practical concerns, such as food security, education, and health care. These programs should target marginalized communities, including ethnic and religious minorities, Muslim communities, and others who have suffered at the hands of the Ethiopian state and military for decades. Such humanitarian and development work would send the right signals to these communities of America’s commitment to shared goals of peace and economic opportunity.
U.S. policymakers should pay special attention to elections expected to be held in Ethiopia in the first months of 2008. By-elections are to be conducted for all seats in the parliament now being boycotted by the opposition. In addition, the long-delayed woreda and kebelle elections are to be held. These are local elections originally slated for late 2005, but repeatedly delayed. All indications suggest that the ruling party is using the disciplinary mechanisms already in place at the community level to ensure an EPRDF victory, while harassing and intimidating members of opposition political parties, including the Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement (OFDM), the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF), and the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party (CUDP). Many of the opposition parties, and particularly the CUD groupings, will struggle to field candidates owing to divisive internal power struggles. But there is little doubt that EPRDF activities in rural areas are also hindering the opposition from playing a meaningful role in the elections. The United States should insist that independent elections observers be allowed into Ethiopia to monitor the 2008 elections at an early date, and strenuously object if they are interfered with in any way or if opposition parties and local communities are prevented from participating freely and fairly in the vote.
_________________ Lahra Smith is Assistant Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and the author of several recent reports and articles on Ethiopia.
Jan 6. 2008, 10:30 PM EST
The Hailu Shawel public meeting in Minneapolis has ended in another public relations disaster. Ethiopian Review has been able to confirm from multiple sources that there were at most 35 people at the meeting. Out of those, four were Ethiopian Review sources. Ato Hailu, his relatives, chief of staff (Assefa Dires), chika shum (Taye), bankers (Moges Brook and wife from Los Angeles were there), bodyguards, butlers, and the meeting organizers add up to about ten. The rest were well known EPRP cadres in the Minneapolis area.
As soon as the “public meeting” started, members of the Hailu Shawel gang, Wzr. Nigist Gebrehiwot and Ato Bedru Adem, begun to shower insults on Wzt. Bertukan Mideksa and the other Kinijit officials. At one point, Ato Bedru called Wzt. Bertukan “mendertegna who came from nowhere.” Wzt. Nigist angrily stated that Bertukan Mideksa was not the only female political prisoner in Ethiopia!
The Shawel gang: Bedru, Hailu and Nigist
Turning his face to the Diaspora, Ato Bedru accused Ethiopian Review and others of making false reports regarding alleged financial improprieties by Hailu Shawel and friends. He gave as an example that ER had reported that Kinijit North America under Shaleqa Yoseph Yazew had collected $700,000 up to $1.2 million. Ato Bedru said this is false and that only $680,000 were deposited by Shaleqa Yoseph. Ato Bedru did not talk about the tens of thousands of dollars that were collected in cash, but were never deposited in the bank account. Ato Bedru also said that he and his colleagues are preparing to file a defamation lawsuit against Ethiopian Review and others. Bring it on.
Dr Taye did not say much at the Minneapolis meeting. He did not look and sound happy. He was not even sitting at the stage with the other guests. He sat down among the audience. When his turn came to speak, his complaints included how Starbucks is harming Ethiopia. It just happens that Ato Hailu Shawel’s son who is residing in Minneapolis works at a Starbucks Coffee Shop. Taye may be onto something this time.
Finally, Ato Hailu Shawel got up to speak. He talked incoherently for several minutes, mostly about personal stuff. He said that he has sold his $650,000 house in a suburb of Minneapolis to his son — the one who works at Starbucks. He said Bertukan is allowed to call him “Gashe”, but not Debebe Eshetu… His speech included no serious national issue. Mostly he talked about himself — how brave and right he is.
The Hailu Shawel comedy hour in Minneapolis
During the fund raising program of the event the organizers raised about $1,500 ($1,000 was pledged by Prof. Getatchew). Their cost for Ato Hailu’s bodyguards alone may exceed three times that amount.
We had promised to post photos as the meeting went on, but taking photos was prohibited. As the meeting was about to start, the organizers tried to confiscate a camera that belongs to one individual who was cooperating with ER. That had caused a brief disturbance. Police had to be called. We still managed to take some pictures. They will be posted shortly.
Overall, the meeting in Minneapolis was a disaster. It was worse than the one in Washington DC on Oct. 14. Next weekend, the Hailu Shawel gang will put themselves in another embarrassing situation in Atlanta. They are now becoming more of a joke than a threat to Kinijit. It is terribly sad that Hailu Shawel has turned out to be like this.
——————-
Jan 6. 2008, 9:00 PM EST
The Getatchew-Hailu meeting in Minneapolis continues. They are excitedly announced that there are 50 people inside the meeting hall, contrary to the report by Ethiopian Review over 4 hours ago. The meeting is being broadcast live via Ethiopian Review Radio Network.
——————-
Jan 6. 2008, 4:48 PM EST
Ethiopian Review sources are reporting that there are currently only 25 people attending a public meeting organized by Prof. Getatchew Hailu in Minneapolis. Most of those who are attending the meeting are relatives and personal friends of Prof. Getatchew and Ato Hailu. The meeting looks more like a Prof. Getatchew family reunion than a public meeting. We are trying to get some photos. More update later…
——————-
3:30 PM EST
The estranged chairman of Kinijit, Ato Hailu Shawel, sets himself up for another embarrassment by making an appearance at a public meeting organized by his friend Prof. Getatachew Haile in Minneapolis this afternoon (Sunday). ER Research Unit members will be inside the meeting hall to take photos and inform us how the meeting turns out. There will also be a live report by Ethiopian Review Radio Network. Click here to listen.
H.R. Here, H.R. There, H.R. Everywhere in Ethiopia!
The truth is finally out! The H.R. in H.R. 2003 stands for Human Rights! H.R. has become the special code for the Ethiopian people whenever they want to talk about the rule of law and due process and freedom of expression and association. It has become their special lingo to talk about the need for an independent press and an independent judiciary and for clean elections and the rest of it. And human rights were the rage in Ethiopia in the third quarter of 2007. From the barstools of the Sheraton and Hilton hotels to the tattered wooden benches of the tej, tella and katikalla bets, the talk was H.R. Farmers, day laborers and even listros (shoeshiners) wistfully talked about H.R. “This H.R. We need her! If only we had HeR…” they’d pine away.
From the universities to the school yard, it was all about H.R. The mantra of the Grant Run was H.R. “We want H.R. Pass H.R. now!”, the multitudes chanted in unison as they pounded the pavement. Sinecured politicians and bureaucrats, and sycophants lined up to condemn H.R. On regime-controlled radio, television and in the “newspapers”, it was H.R. H.R. H.R. H.R.!!!! The Ethiopian Diaspora basked in the sunlight of H.R., fresh from a unanimous House vote. In the United States, the epicenter of the H.R. phenomenon, and in Canada, Europe and Australia, and in the Middle East and Africa, they sang the H.R. song. Just like Harry Belafonte sang his freedom song: “If I had a hammer”. If we had H.R., we too would hammer for justice, and ring the bell of freedom all over the land. Ah! If we only we had H.R…
Let’s Thank Our Adversaries!
Passage of H.R. 2003 in the U.S. House of Representatives in October, 2007 “rocked their world”. They could not believe they would be thumped so decisively so well protected by the Armey of D.L.A. Piper. They frothed at the mouth. They recoiled in cold sweat. They cried foul. But all to no avail. H.R. had captivated the imagination of all Ethiopians. It was embedded deep in their psyche. H.R. had become the symbol of hope for millions who have been forced to endure hopelessness. The very acronym, H.R., had a magical quality of deliverance to it. It was empowering, and inspiring. Every time Ethiopians uttered the H.R. acronym, it was at once an act of defiance and of civil disobedience; and also a muted cry for help, an S.O.S. to America and the world for dignity, for democracy and for the rule of law.
How did H.R. 2003 become a symbol of hope and redemption, and an envelope for the hopes and desires of 76 million people? Well, we must give due credit to our adversaries for this singular achievement. They helped spread the gospel of human rights far and wide in Ethiopia. We could not have done it with them!
Of course, they did not intend to spread our human rights message. They were just victims of the law of unintended consequences. Their sole aim was to disparage and caricature H.R. 2003 and inflame public passions by fabricating nonsensical arguments about the bill. In fact, they pulled out all the stops to malign and distort the simple and unmistakable message of H.R. 2003. The litany of falsehoods and distortions about the bill changed and became more absurd by the day. They said H.R. 2003 will bring “slavery” and “colonialism” to Ethiopia. The people laughed. “The mighty Italian army with its tanks, planes and mustard gas could not enslave and colonize Ethiopia. Could America with a stroke of the legislative pen?”
They even resurrected the Ghost of Wuchale to support the fallacious argument that H.R. 2003 destroys Ethiopian sovereignty and usurps the legislative functions of the Ethiopian “parliament”. In the Wuchale Treaty, Menelik supposedly gave Eritrea to the Italians and agreed to have the Italians prosecute Ethiopian foreign policy. But did he really? No doubt, those who now trumpet their unabashed pride in liberating Eritrea could answer that question definitively. Only “parliament” can pass human rights laws, they said. The people chuckled, “Save parliament’s time. Just respect, follow and apply your constitution.” But why can’t they respect and follow their own constitution?
They said H.R. 2003 will undermine the current effort to build democracy in Ethiopia. They forgot they had told everyone for the last 17 years that Ethiopia was a democracy and a republic. Apparently, not. But if they are indeed building democracy now, it must be a democracy without foundation. There is no evidence of the rule of law as a cornerstone of this supposed democratic edifice. No independent press or independent judiciary as a support beam. No due process of law and no clean elections to make this vacant building a home for the people. They said H.R. 2003 is the only one of its kind stirred up by vindictive Diasporans who seek to harm Ethiopia. They seemed to be willfully ignorant of similar bills that are currently pending in Congress for North Korea, Iran and Vietnam, or others that have been recently enacted against Burma and the Sudan, among others. They tried to smear pro-democracy forces who support H.R. 2003. They threatened dire diplomatic consequences should the bill be enacted into law: “America will not have an ally in the war against terror in the Horn of Africa.” Sure, everyone knows what happened to the dog that bit the hand that fed it.
For months, our adversaries worked themselves into a frenzy rolling out one lie after another in a futile attempt to discredit H.R. 2003 and take the peoples’ eyes off the prize. But no amount of propaganda and disinformation could convince the people that H.R. 2003 is a bad thing for them, or for Ethiopia.
The people remained spellbound by the almost magical quality of H.R. 2003, and its promise to promote the rule of law, accountability, democracy and freedom in Ethiopia.
Our adversaries did more to teach the people of Ethiopia about human rights than we ever could in the Diaspora. The more lies they told about H.R. 2003, the more people became convinced of the righteousness of H.R. 2003 and the urgent need for the defense of their human rights. Every word of condemnation and censure of H.R. 2003 became a blessing in disguise to the cause of human rights in Ethiopia. People knew what they knew. They could not speak the truth out loud because the fox is guarding the henhouse. But that does not mean the chickens do not know the truth about the treacherous fox, or that the fox has convinced them into believing that it is necessary to violate their human rights to preserve it for them. Ultimately, H.R. 2003 proved to be a small bill that gave great hope to the Ethiopian people.
But despite the massive official campaign against H.R. 2003, the people did not rise up with righteous indignation and burn the American flag in the streets of Addis or any other city. They did not burn George Bush in effigy. They did not carry placards that said “Yankee go home!”. Not a single person said a critical word against H.R. 2003 during the Great Run of 2007. So we must sincerely thank our adversaries for what they have done to spread the message of human rights in Ethiopia, and encourage them to continue to malign, distort and criticize H.R. 2003.
H.R. 2003 in the U.S. Senate and in the American Political Process
The defeat of H.R. 2003 in the Senate has been trumpeted over the past months. Regime leaders and their minions have confidently proclaimed that H.R. 2003 will not be enacted into law because it will not pass the Senate. They arrogantly declared that even if the Senate were to pass it, Bush will certainly veto it since he understands the “bill is wrong and that Ethiopia is a poor country, not a poor dog.” But even if Bush were to sign the bill into law, they said “we would reject it” because “our constitution would not allow it as it represents a violation of our sovereignty, and the only people who could make laws are sitting in this parliament.” They even threatened American policy makers: “Ethiopian American cooperation will stop if they seek to implement the law”. They managed to enlist the huckster Jim Inhofe in the Senate to stonewall H.R. 2003. He obligingly vowed to defeat the bill. All indications are Inhofe will place a “hold” (delay floor action on the bill as much as possible) on the bill, and possibly even filibuster (a special senate procedure that requires the vote of 60 other members to bring a bill to a floor vote) it should it proceed to the Senate floor.
But we should not be discouraged by all the bluster and swagger. The forces of evil will do what they will. It is up to the forces of good to rise up and challenge them by doing good. We did good, damn good, just this past year. Who will forget the dark days of November, 2006, when Speaker Hastert snuffed the lights out of H.R. 5680? True, evil prevailed that November, but not for long. We came back in April; and on the exact anniversary of the defeat of H.R. 5680, we got H.R. 2003 passed in the House, unanimously. We persisted, therefore we prevailed! We prevailed because we learned the same lesson Winston Churchill learned when confronted by the overwhelming might of the Nazi war machine: “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” We must persist, again!
The struggle in the Senate will not be an easy one. We face many obstacles — procedural, structural and the adverse effects of partisan bickering from the campaign trail. Senate procedures make it possible for a single senator to obstruct the flow of legislation. “Holds”, “filibusters”, “unanimous consent” and other arcane senate procedures and traditions afford individual senators extraordinary powers to thwart speedy consideration and action on legislation. Committee hearings, legislative schedules and debates take place at the Senate’s (snail’s) pace. In the first half of 2008, the Senate will have a full plate. The war in Iraq will remain a contentious issue as will immigration and efforts to mitigate the predicted recessionary effects of the massive mortgage crises. The Senate itself is in a logjam with the balance of power evenly divided between 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. The run up to the November 2008 elections will have its own special effect on the Senate agenda, as both parties try to curry support from voters.
Despite the vicissitudes of election year politics and intricate legislative procedures, we can and we will prevail in the Senate. But we must redouble our efforts. There are many things going in our favor. Tectonic transformations are looming in the American political landscape. Americans want change, desperately and now. Who would have thought just a few weeks ago that a black man could sweep the Iowa caucuses in a rural state with a predominantly “white” population? But race did not matter to Iowans. Change did. Even in New Hampshire, Obama is in dead heat with Clinton. Republican Mike Huckabee, a relative unknown from one of the poorest states in America, trounced multimillionaire Mitt Romney, from one of the richest states in america, who outspent him in Iowa by more than six to one. The bottom line is that Americans are fed up with lies, liars, war mongers, and incompetents running their government and foreign policy.
There is no question that Americans are deeply concerned and are very unhappy about their country’s image, role and presence in the international community. They don’t want America to be the policeman of the world. They understand that the war on terrorism can not be won simply by bombing and breaking the bones of the enemies of democracy and freedom. They know it is essential to also reach the hearts and minds of those who oppose America. Americans want their troops back from Iraq, and they want an end to the reckless global military adventurism that wastes their hard earned tax dollars. They realize the best weapon to ensure American primacy in woirld affairs is a foreign policy genuinely based on promoting human rights, the rule of law, democratic institutions, independent judiciaries and independent free press isntitutions, among others. Even the republican presidential candidates are now earnestly talking about the vital need to promote human rights in the Islamic world and wherever else dictators dictate. Even the bought-and-paid-for politicians now understand that one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Change in American foreign policy means changing the image of the “ugly American” who wants to dominate the world by brute military force. Change means a recognition of the stark fact that America can reclaim its honored role in the world by upholding its founding principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Americans want a foreign policy that is humane and compassionate, not one that thrives on rabid militarism and the spectre of terrorism. Therein lies our hope and inevitable ultimate victory, despite temporary setbacks, the machinations of hucksters and fat cat lobbyists. Our cause is on the same side of the cause of the American people.
Beware the Ruse of the Adversary
Our adversaries would have you believe that the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia rises or falls with H.R. 2003. If the bill does not pass, they would like to have us believe, we have lost. The cause of human rights in Ethiopia is defeated and lost forever. We should beware the demoralizing propaganda and disinformation campaign of the adversary. We have no illusions about H.R. 2003. We believe it to be an important strategic tool in the struggle for human rights, but none of us believe it to be a cure-all for all human rights violations in Ethiopia. Anyone who has read the bill knows that the certification requirements give the president of the United States considerable discretion in determining statutory compliance. For instance, the president could refuse to apply the law if s/he felt applying it would compromise American national interest. So there are limitations to the bill even if it were enacted into law.
What we should clearly understand is the fact that H.R. 2003 is just one mile marker on the long walk to a free and democratic Ethiopia. That road neither begins nor ends in the U.S. Congress. That journey takes entirely in the hearts and minds of the Ethiopian people. We have always said that we shall win the struggle for human rights by winning hearts and minds of our brothers and sisters, not by breaking their bones and hearts. And how we win hearts and minds is no secret. We tell the truth. Nothing but the truth. So help us God! Of course, we have no choice but to speak truth to power, because as Scripture teaches, the “truth shall set us free.”
It is in the nature of human beings to yearn to be free; to be treated with dignity and respect; to be treated fairly and equally before the law. This yearning is the same for the filthy rich as it is for the dirt poor; the same for the young as it is for the old; for men as it is for women; for the educated and the illiterate alike. Human rights are to the human spirit of freedom as religion is to the immortal soul and bread to the mortal body. Man and woman need to be protected from political predators who derive their thrills from oppressing and persecuting the powerless. Humans need their fundamental rights protected and respected, by law. This Truth we must proclaim till Kingdom come!
The Task Ahead: Let’s Pass H.R. 2003 in the Senate!
H.R. 2003 now sits in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It needs to get committee action and get to the floor for a vote. It can be done, but it requires unceasing effort and unflinching commitment. We must keep doing what we have been doing, but we must do some of it differently. We must be better organized. We must do less freelancing and more concerted and coordinated grassroots action. We must intensify our efforts with individual senators from our respective states. We must educate and develop working relationships with their staffers. We must share with them the truth about human rights abuses on a regular basis. We must win the hearts and minds of our Senators with the Truth if we are to ultimately win.
Above all, we must resolve to stay with H.R. 2003 for the long haul. In the battle between good and evil, evil wins many skirmishes. But good wins in the end, always! That is the history of all dictatorships from time immemorial. They win for a time, but not for all time. Even the soulless tyrant knows he can not oppress forever. But Congress is not the only place we can plead our human rights cause. There is a much higher court than Congress to which we can appeal. It is a court called the Conscience of the American People. There we must plead our cause passionately and relentlessly. In the state legislatures. Before civic and professional organizations. In the churches, and universities and schools, and wherever else we can be heard. We must create awareness among our American friends, neighbors and coworkers. As others enlist hucksters, we must enlist the help of Average Joe American. We must make the American people our natural allies. We must tell them the truth about the massacre of 193 innocent people, and the thousands of nameless souls that have perished at the hands of a ruthless regime. And the thousands more that languish in subhuman jails today. We must speak up about those who abuse their powers and inflict great pain and suffering on their people. We must expose their evil deeds and evil ways. In all we do we must maintain unflagging fidelity to the Truth. And we must “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Let’s join hands and pass H.R. 2003 in 2008.
Women squealed as the headliner took the stage at the S.O.B.’s nighclub in New York late on Friday night, elegant in a dark suit with a yellow necktie. He started an anthemic ballad, and within moments, the audience was joyfully singing along and waving its arms overhead. The pop star onstage was Gossaye Tesfaye, a 32-year-old songwriter from Ethiopia, and he was singing love songs in the Amharic language. The crowd that filled the dance floor at 1 a.m. must have made up a considerable fraction of the 2,500 Ethiopians that the last census counted as living in New York City.
Mr. Tesfaye, who was born in Addis Ababa, plays modern pop that is well aware of the world outside Ethiopia. The song that started his set could almost have been an American R&B ballad but for its vocals, and he followed it with a song that rode the brisk Afro-Latin beat of Congolese soukous. On his albums Mr. Tesfaye also dips into reggae and Nigerian Afrobeat. His band used Western instruments: bass, trap drums, keyboard, saxophone.
But the melodies of Mr. Tesfaye’s songs were distinctively Ethiopian. They riffled up and down through pentatonic (five-note) scales, and when he sang sustained notes, they took on North African, Arabic-flavored quavers. Mr. Tesfaye has a high, sweet tenor voice that can break into a rich falsetto or add a hint of rasp; his tone is clear and genial, never pushy but never shy.
As the set progressed, the band’s rhythms made their way back toward Ethiopia. One song moved to a brusquely swinging modal funk vamp that, to a Western ear, sounded something like Louisiana zydeco. Other tunes built galloping six-beat grooves that stirred up the dance floor. As the music dug into its homeland beats, Mr. Tesfaye tossed phrases back and forth with his saxophonist and with an audience that was eager to sing along or clap the complexities of those six-beat rhythms. Women climbed onstage to dance with him and pose for cellphone photographs; one plastered paper money on his forehead. What had started out looking like a typical pop event had turned into something unmistakably African.
The estranged chairman of Kinijit, Ato Hailu Shawel, sets himself up for another embarrassment by making an appearance at a public meeting organized by his friend Prof. Getatachew Haile in Minneapolis this afternoon (Sunday). ER Research Unit members will be inside the meeting hall to take photos and inform us how the meeting turns out. There will also be a live report by Ethiopian Review Radio Network. Click here to listen.
Members of the Kinijit Council and Addis Ababa Mayor-Elect Dr. Berhanu Nega is set to spend the GENA holiday in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is going to speak in San Jose on January 5, and on the 6th he is scheduled to speak in Oakland.
Saturday, Jan 5
San Jose Meeting
West Vally Branch
San Jose Public Library
Community Hall
1243 San Tomas Aquino Road
San Jose, CA 95117
Sunday, Jan 6
Veterans Memorial Building
200 Grand Ave
Auditorium 1
Oakland CA 94610
Time: 2:00 PM
Entrance: Free
Also this coming weekend, Kinijit’s head of public relations, Ato Debebe Eshetu, will attend a public meeting organized by Kinijit-Minnesota. Click here for more info.
