The Washington DC Metro Area Kinijit Support Chapter Public Relations Office will host a press conference to be given by the Kinijit delegation that has just completed its mission in the United States. This will be the last press conference the delegation will be giving before its return shortly back to Ethiopia.
The delegation will address questions from foreign and Ethiopian community Media on Thursday November 15, 2007 beginning 3:00PM Eastern Time.
The press conference will be given at the lounge of the ETHIOPIAN TELEVISION NETWORK located at 614-A South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304
The Washington DC Metro Support Chapter thanks ETN for the gracious offer of its premises for the Conference. Interested media operatives who want to participate from distant places through the phone can register by calling 202-541-0556 until 12 noon Thursday November 15, 2007.
Public Relations Office Washington DC Metro Area Kinijit Support Chapter
The last few weeks have shed more light on the shady dealings that are going on between the TPLF government and the US Administration (primarily through the State Department and the nominally independent USAID) and the unprincipled stand of a few people in these two institutions. Here are examples.
One of the interesting developments is a Request for Applications (RFA 663-A-08-002) that USAID advertised last Friday (9 November) to fund a programme called “Human Rights Technical Assistance in Ethiopia”. Under this programme, USAID intends to provide approx. $1,028,000 USAID funding to be allocated over a two-year period.
According to the RFA, the purpose of the programme is “improved independent monitoring, investigation, and reporting of human rights abuses and violations with the objective of deterring human rights violations. This will be achieved through a package of interventions primarily targeted at the EHRC [Ethiopian Human Rights Commission] and EHRCO [Ethiopian Human Rights Council]. In addition, other NGOs will have access to capacity building activities, primarily through training, as the occasion arises”.
By USAID’s own admission, the EHRC has done little since its establishment by Parliament in 2000. EHRCO is an organisation that the TPLF would love to see disappear from the face of the earth!
One may ask, so what is the problem if USAID decides to make funds available to support human rights in Ethiopia? Is it not good news? Would not most Ethiopians like to see human rights violations independently monitored, investigated and reported? Well, at face value, we should rejoice that the US Administration has finally come to its senses and it is going to support human rights in Ethiopia. But, hang on, is it not the case that HR 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007) was prepared by Congressmen Payne and Smith to support human rights in Ethiopia? Is it not true that the HR 2003 Bill actually offers a lot more money to support human rights protection in Ethiopia, not just US$1 million? Did not the State Department publicly oppose that Bill? It does not take a genius to understand the plot behind this “gesture” – the US Administration is doing everything including provision of a Human Rights Technical Assistance fund to support human rights in Ethiopia in order to avoid a Bill which highlights the lack of progress Ethiopia is making in this area.
The RFA blames the opposition for the post-election violence and tries to appease the TPLF government by arguing that it inherited weak institutions from the Derg and it is “some governmental institutions [that] have been accused of compromising the spirit and letter of the constitution when faced with threats, either in the form of active insurgencies or the unwillingness of some opposition parties to accept election results”. Are they trying to tell us that the top leaders are angels and bear no responsibilities for the execution of hundreds of people on the streets of Addis Ababa and up and down the country? This is completely unacceptable.
Furthermore, according to the RFA, “The Ethiopian Government has made strong constitutional, legal and rhetorical commitments to improve the human rights situation”. Indeed, the TPLF government is full of hollow rhetoric and very clever in pulling the wool over the eyes of the international community in this way. The RFA does not stop there. It tells us that “In the post-May 2005 election environment, some opposition parties and leaders allegedly used inflammatory rhetoric and even called for the overthrow of the Government, willingly or unwillingly contributing to the street violence and human rights abuses that followed the national elections of May 2005”. Conspicuous by its omission from the RFA is whether the said violence and human rights abuses were independently investigated and what the conclusions of the inquiry commission were! Who was responsible for the violence and abuses? Who carried out the violent acts and abuses? May be Mr Michael Rossman (the Agreement Officer) and Ato Belay Teame (the Agreement Specialist) could enlighten us more.
Having said the above, the architects of the RFA could not have timed the announcement better. When the HR 2003 Bill goes to the Senate floor in the coming few weeks, we should not be surprised if the Oklahoma Senator (R) James Inhofe (despite latest denials from his office that he has not put a hold on the Bill) argues that the US Administration is already doing what the Bill sets out to achieve and there is no need for the Bill. The ideas of Senator Inhofe and Jendayi Frazer are nauseating not only to Ethiopians who would like to see human rights respected in Ethiopia but also to their own citizens. I was having a conversation with two American colleagues from Washington DC (originally from New Hampshire) and San Diego areas a few days ago. Our conversation led us to politics and the foreign policy of the current US Administration. Their conclusion that the current US Administration is the worst that they have seen in their lives (they are in their late 40s) says it all. They commented the Administration completely ignores the world reality and lives in its own “invented reality”. I hope this will help them to understand the Ethiopian reality, and that what they are doing is not based on the facts.
What next? May be another USAID programme to build the capacity of the media in Ethiopia announced a day or two before the HR 2003 goes to the Senate floor? It will not come as a surprise if the major beneficiaries of such a programme are going to be the state controlled Ethiopian TV and Ethiopian Radio and the “free press” Walta Information Centre!
Jendayi Frazer, when she retires from public service, may tell why she blindly supported a dictator. Is it not that what Ambassador John Bolton (formerly US Ambassador to the UN) did in his new memoir, “Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”? He exposed Ms Frazer for informing him that she wanted him to “reopen” the 2002 Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) decision, “which she had concluded was wrong, and award a major piece of disputed territory to Ethiopia”. Ms Frazer may also tell in her memoir pretty soon after the current Administration’s departure who instructed her to ask the Ambassador to consider “reopening” the EEBC decision.
As long as such blind diplomatic, political and financial support is maintained, Meles, Bereket and their comrades will continue abusing the human rights of Ethiopians: the right to life and personal security, to a fair trial, right to participate in the democratic process, and freedom of expression. As Bereket was quoted saying in a recent interview, the death of Ethiopian soldiers in Somalia is a sacrifice but “not that serious in our opinion”. Of course, the death of Ethiopian soldiers is not a matter for Bereket to lose sleep over!
___________________________
Samuel Habtu Belay can be reached at [email protected]
This week, Bill Fletcher discusses escalating violence in Somalia, rising political tensions between Ethiopia and
Eritrea, and the latest on the North-South dispute in Sudan. Fletcher is the senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and former president of TransAfrica Forum.
It’s time now for our Africa update. This week, escalating violence in Somalia, plus rising political tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the latest on the north-south dispute in Sudan. For more, we’ve got Bill Fletcher, a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and former president of TransAfrica Forum.
Hi, Bill. Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies; Former President, TransAfrica Forum): Hey, glad to be back.
CHIDEYA: Yeah, great to have you on. So, let’s talk – we’re really talking about the east of the continent and the last week, dozens people have been killed in heavy fighting in and around Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu. Tens of thousands of people have fled the area, journalists have been killed, Ethiopian troops were killed as well, and one dead soldier’s body was dragged through the streets. What’s behind all these violence?
Mr. FLETCHER: The invasion has failed. The Ethiopian invasion, fundamentally, has failed. The transitional government that was put in is attempting to suppress opposition, not just the Islamists, but also trying to suppress the media itself, and so tension is arising.
CHIDEYA: Give us a little bit of background – just briefly, we’ve talked about this. But on the question of the Ethiopians being in Somalia, give us the backgrounder on that.
Mr. FLETCHER: The Union of Islamic Courts, an Islamist group, which is something along the lines of the Taliban, succeeded in taking over some – a good chunk of Somalia and restricting the ability of the clans to create chaos. The Ethiopian government was deeply worried about the situation there. There has been historical antagonisms between Ethiopia and Somalia. And with the apparent encouragement of the U.S. government, the Bush administration, Ethiopia invaded Somalia, routed the Union of Islamic Courts and everyone thought that that was that – or at least many people thought that was that. The Islamists regrouped and they’ve been conducting a guerilla war against Ethiopians and the Somali allies.
CHIDEYA: Now, last week, Ethiopia deployed 2,000 more troops to Mogadishu. Some people blame the violence on the resentment towards the Ethiopian troops who monitor the area. What about civilians? How were they caught in this conflict?
Mr. FLETCHER: There has been a humanitarian disaster that’s been unfolding in Somalia, massive emigration of people out of Mogadishu – the United Nations is very worried – and in addition, Somalia has not been receiving the sorts of international aid that it needs to deal with the civilian refugees. So the situation is quite dramatic and unfortunately, it’s not getting the kind of attention it needs here in the United States.
CHIDEYA: So you have Ethiopia and Somalia, and now you have Ethiopia and Eritrea – neighboring nations. Is this a border war?
Mr. FLETCHER: This is one of the greatest tragedies of the last decade. Here you have two countries that’s succeeded in building a – something close to a partnership through the overthrow of the Ethiopian junta that was called the Derg in early ’90s. Eritrea achieved independence, and there was collaboration, and there was even talk of some sort of regional alignment that could take place between the two countries. And then things started to unravel. And it’s basically – what seems to be at route is a level of political opportunism that first emerged in Ethiopia, but now, I must say, also in Eretria, where the leadership is trying desperately to hold on to power, and it’s fanning the flames of nationalism and war.
CHIDEYA: What territory are they really fighting over?
Mr. FLETCHER: It’s an area that’s almost a – there’s really almost nothing there. It’s 25 kilometers round in a town called Badme, B-A-D-M-E. And it’s not exactly what you’d call an oasis. And that’s why many observers, in looking at the situation, say, no, no, no. This is not about the territory. This is about something else. And unfortunately, I think that the something else is that it becomes a convenient means for the Ethiopian government, which refuses to implement the border commission resolution of the crisis. It becomes a means for them to rally the troops against the evil bogeymen in Eritrea. It’s almost like the beginning of World War I.
CHIDEYA: Are you saying then that this is, in some ways, a fictional conflict – a real conflict with nothing more than mutual animosity fueling it?
Mr. FLETCHER: It’s close to a fictional conflict. What’s at stake, what’s being said that’s at stake really does not pass the straight-face test. The Ethiopians are clearly violating the agreement that was established by the border commission. That is true. At the same time, the Eritreans are not permitting peacekeepers to fully observe the territory that’s in dispute. So when you have a situation like that, and you have two very well-armed militaries, you have a recipe for a potential disaster.
CHIDEYA: Now, Ethiopia has been considered a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, and Eritrea has been considered as possibly being added to the list of states that sponsor terrorism. What happened there?
Mr. FLETCHER: It was a reckless, reckless move by the Bush administration, describing Eritrea as potentially sponsoring terrorism. There’s absolutely no foundation for this. But what it does is that it gives militaristic elements in Ethiopia, the idea that they have the green light to potentially attack Eritrea and have the support of the United States. It was the most idiotic move that anyone could imagine, where you have a situation that could blow up at any moment.
CHIDEYA: Let’s turn briefly to Sudan. There is a truce between north and south. Could be unraveling, what is the latest on that?
Mr. FLETCHER: Two years ago, there – a truce was signed. As you know, between the north and the south, ending a civil war that essentially started in the early 1960s. Some would say it started actually in the 1950s. And the northern government based in Khartoum under President al-Bashir was supposed to take several steps, including confirming a border between the north and the south, taking political steps or steps towards political reform, and third, working out agreements around the issue of oil, because oil have been discovered in the southern Sudan, which is what this dispute is really largely about. The al-Bashir government, by most accounts, has taken very few steps and appears to have been stalling. The southern – the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, which is the major force in the south, essentially had enough and withdrew its representatives from the government, from the Government of National Unity, said that al-Bashir must follow through or they’re no longer going to participate in the Government of National Unity.
CHIDEYA: Again, very briefly, what’s the worst-case scenario here if there’s no resolution?
Mr. FLETCHER: The worst-case scenario is implosion; that Sudan, basically, unravels by a combination of the southern conflict, the Darfur situation, and the struggle for democracy that’s taking place in the north. A less-than-worst- case scenario is that we’ll have a long-term stalemate, something along the lines of what’s taking place in the Western Sahara, where you have armed camps that are more or less not fighting each other on a regular basis, but with a country that’s divided.
CHIDEYA: All right, Bill, thank you so much.
Mr. FLETCHER: Thank you as always.
CHIDEYA: Bill Fletcher is a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the former president of TransAfrica Forum. He spoke with us from NPR’s Washington D.C. headquarters.
This week, Bill Fletcher discusses escalating violence in Somalia, rising political tensions between Ethiopia and
Eritrea, and the latest on the North-South dispute in Sudan. Fletcher is the senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and former president of TransAfrica Forum.
It’s time now for our Africa update. This week, escalating violence in Somalia, plus rising political tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the latest on the north-south dispute in Sudan. For more, we’ve got Bill Fletcher, a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and former president of TransAfrica Forum.
Hi, Bill. Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies; Former President, TransAfrica Forum): Hey, glad to be back.
CHIDEYA: Yeah, great to have you on. So, let’s talk – we’re really talking about the east of the continent and the last week, dozens people have been killed in heavy fighting in and around Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu. Tens of thousands of people have fled the area, journalists have been killed, Ethiopian troops were killed as well, and one dead soldier’s body was dragged through the streets. What’s behind all these violence?
Mr. FLETCHER: The invasion has failed. The Ethiopian invasion, fundamentally, has failed. The transitional government that was put in is attempting to suppress opposition, not just the Islamists, but also trying to suppress the media itself, and so tension is arising.
CHIDEYA: Give us a little bit of background – just briefly, we’ve talked about this. But on the question of the Ethiopians being in Somalia, give us the backgrounder on that.
Mr. FLETCHER: The Union of Islamic Courts, an Islamist group, which is something along the lines of the Taliban, succeeded in taking over some – a good chunk of Somalia and restricting the ability of the clans to create chaos. The Ethiopian government was deeply worried about the situation there. There has been historical antagonisms between Ethiopia and Somalia. And with the apparent encouragement of the U.S. government, the Bush administration, Ethiopia invaded Somalia, routed the Union of Islamic Courts and everyone thought that that was that – or at least many people thought that was that. The Islamists regrouped and they’ve been conducting a guerilla war against Ethiopians and the Somali allies.
CHIDEYA: Now, last week, Ethiopia deployed 2,000 more troops to Mogadishu. Some people blame the violence on the resentment towards the Ethiopian troops who monitor the area. What about civilians? How were they caught in this conflict?
Mr. FLETCHER: There has been a humanitarian disaster that’s been unfolding in Somalia, massive emigration of people out of Mogadishu – the United Nations is very worried – and in addition, Somalia has not been receiving the sorts of international aid that it needs to deal with the civilian refugees. So the situation is quite dramatic and unfortunately, it’s not getting the kind of attention it needs here in the United States.
CHIDEYA: So you have Ethiopia and Somalia, and now you have Ethiopia and Eritrea – neighboring nations. Is this a border war?
Mr. FLETCHER: This is one of the greatest tragedies of the last decade. Here you have two countries that’s succeeded in building a – something close to a partnership through the overthrow of the Ethiopian junta that was called the Derg in early ’90s. Eritrea achieved independence, and there was collaboration, and there was even talk of some sort of regional alignment that could take place between the two countries. And then things started to unravel. And it’s basically – what seems to be at route is a level of political opportunism that first emerged in Ethiopia, but now, I must say, also in Eretria, where the leadership is trying desperately to hold on to power, and it’s fanning the flames of nationalism and war.
CHIDEYA: What territory are they really fighting over?
Mr. FLETCHER: It’s an area that’s almost a – there’s really almost nothing there. It’s 25 kilometers round in a town called Badme, B-A-D-M-E. And it’s not exactly what you’d call an oasis. And that’s why many observers, in looking at the situation, say, no, no, no. This is not about the territory. This is about something else. And unfortunately, I think that the something else is that it becomes a convenient means for the Ethiopian government, which refuses to implement the border commission resolution of the crisis. It becomes a means for them to rally the troops against the evil bogeymen in Eritrea. It’s almost like the beginning of World War I.
CHIDEYA: Are you saying then that this is, in some ways, a fictional conflict – a real conflict with nothing more than mutual animosity fueling it?
Mr. FLETCHER: It’s close to a fictional conflict. What’s at stake, what’s being said that’s at stake really does not pass the straight-face test. The Ethiopians are clearly violating the agreement that was established by the border commission. That is true. At the same time, the Eritreans are not permitting peacekeepers to fully observe the territory that’s in dispute. So when you have a situation like that, and you have two very well-armed militaries, you have a recipe for a potential disaster.
CHIDEYA: Now, Ethiopia has been considered a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, and Eritrea has been considered as possibly being added to the list of states that sponsor terrorism. What happened there?
Mr. FLETCHER: It was a reckless, reckless move by the Bush administration, describing Eritrea as potentially sponsoring terrorism. There’s absolutely no foundation for this. But what it does is that it gives militaristic elements in Ethiopia, the idea that they have the green light to potentially attack Eritrea and have the support of the United States. It was the most idiotic move that anyone could imagine, where you have a situation that could blow up at any moment.
CHIDEYA: Let’s turn briefly to Sudan. There is a truce between north and south. Could be unraveling, what is the latest on that?
Mr. FLETCHER: Two years ago, there – a truce was signed. As you know, between the north and the south, ending a civil war that essentially started in the early 1960s. Some would say it started actually in the 1950s. And the northern government based in Khartoum under President al-Bashir was supposed to take several steps, including confirming a border between the north and the south, taking political steps or steps towards political reform, and third, working out agreements around the issue of oil, because oil have been discovered in the southern Sudan, which is what this dispute is really largely about. The al-Bashir government, by most accounts, has taken very few steps and appears to have been stalling. The southern – the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, which is the major force in the south, essentially had enough and withdrew its representatives from the government, from the Government of National Unity, said that al-Bashir must follow through or they’re no longer going to participate in the Government of National Unity.
CHIDEYA: Again, very briefly, what’s the worst-case scenario here if there’s no resolution?
Mr. FLETCHER: The worst-case scenario is implosion; that Sudan, basically, unravels by a combination of the southern conflict, the Darfur situation, and the struggle for democracy that’s taking place in the north. A less-than-worst- case scenario is that we’ll have a long-term stalemate, something along the lines of what’s taking place in the Western Sahara, where you have armed camps that are more or less not fighting each other on a regular basis, but with a country that’s divided.
CHIDEYA: All right, Bill, thank you so much.
Mr. FLETCHER: Thank you as always.
CHIDEYA: Bill Fletcher is a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the former president of TransAfrica Forum. He spoke with us from NPR’s Washington D.C. headquarters.
Senator James Inhofe
1900 NW Expressway, Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Dear Senator Inhofe,
I was sorry to learn of your opposition to H.R.2003, the “Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007.” I know you have a strong personal tie to Ethiopia and that you have been charmed by the personable Prime Minister Meles Zenawi (as have I). I believe, however, that H.R.2003 is sound legislation in holding the feet of the ruling TPLF to the fire to live up to its rhetoric about what you refer to as a positive democratization process. The record of the Meles-led government is too rife with democratic deficits and the abuse of human rights to make it worthy of your praise. The Government in Addis Ababa has gotten by for too long in not providing the people of Ethiopia with democratic processes and in stomping out any folk bold enough to dare oppose the government in the political arena. H.R.2003 provides a gentle corrective to a government that has received massive foreign and military aid from the United States but has thumbed its nose at the valid criticism of the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations. There simply are too many documented shortcomings of the TPLF Government to make H.R.2003 an inappropriate statement of the expectations of the United States for its ally in the Horn of Africa.
I hope you will reconsider your position on H.R.2003 and join your colleagues in the House of Representatives in striving to promote democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. By not standing in the way of Senate concurrence in this significant foreign policy initiative, you will be serving your constituents well. Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional information about the current situation in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa.
Sincerely yours,
Theodore M. Vestal
Professor of Political Science, Oklahoma State University
Theodore M. Vestal, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Oklahoma State University
534 Math Sciences
Stillwater, OK 74078-1060
(405) 744-7586, Fax (405) 744-6534 [email protected]
http://fp.okstate.edu/vestal/
The following opinion piece by former American ambassadors Vicki Huddleston and Tibor Nagy is posted on the New York Times. While serving in Ethiopia, Ambassador Huddleston had earned a reputation as a Woyanne apologist instead of a true representatives of the U.S. Government and American values after she refused to speak out against the massacre of pro-democracy protesters and unarmed civilians by Meles Zenawi’s forces in June and Nov. 2005. It is callous diplomats like Vicky who advance the interest of dictators who are harming the image of the United States around the world. What Vicky and Tibor fail to point out is that for the 70 million people of Ethiopia there is no worse terrorist than Meles Zenawi and is gang of Woyanne thugs. That is why if Meles starts a war with Eritrea, most Ethiopians will stand with the Eritrean regime or boycott the war.
———————————————- Don’t Turn on Ethiopia Woyanne
By VICKI HUDDLESTON and TIBOR NAGY
NINE years ago, two nations began the first modern war in sub-Saharan Africa, leaving in two years more than 100,000 dead. Today Eritrea and Ethiopia Woyanne could reignite their old border conflict. Arms and money from radicals throughout the Middle East, as well as troops trained in Eritrea, have strengthened an insurgency in Ogaden Province, in southeastern Ethiopia.
A new war in the Horn of Africa would destabilize the region and bolster radical Islam’s push to build a Muslim caliphate.
Sadly, Congress is poised to fuel the march toward war by passing a bill that threatens to cut off technical assistance to Ethiopia Woyanne, one of our closest allies, if it does not, among other things, release political prisoners, ensure that the judiciary operates independently and permit the news media to operate freely. Ethiopia Woyanne has already freed opposition leaders, reformed parliamentary rules [not true] to give opposition parties greater legislative responsibility [not true] and approved a new media law that meets international standards [oh! what a lie]. By singling out Ethiopia Woyanne for public embarrassment, the bill puts Congress unwittingly on the side of Islamic jihadists and insurgents [to save Woyanne from embarrassment, the people of Ethiopia should continue to suffer, according to Vicky].
A far better approach would be to buttress Ethiopia against threats to its survival [the only threat Ethiopia faces to her survival is from Woyanne] — by helping it resolve its border conflict and ensuring that it reopens negotiations with insurgents and traditional leaders and permits international investigation of reported military abuses (including allegations of rape and murder [by Meles Zenawi’s soldiers]). Ethiopia Woyanne has begun this process by allowing the United Nations and humanitarian aid agencies to assist civilians in the Ogaden.
Eritrea demands that the border be marked exactly as determined five years ago. But this places some Muslim and Christian villages on what they consider to be the wrong side of the border, cuts through others and splices certain roads several times. The United States should press both governments to let people who live on the border help reach a mutual agreement on the final boundary.
Ethiopia is a nation where 77 million Orthodox Christians and Muslims live in peace, engaged in building a democracy while besieged from within and without by enemies of democracy. Congress should put aside its bill and instead use creative diplomacy to deal with the combined threat of insurgency and war.
_____________________________
Vicki Huddleston, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Tibor Nagy, a vice provost at Texas Tech University, are former chiefs of mission at the American Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
