Pledging the support of the United Nations in efforts to resolve the stalemate between Ethiopia and Eritrea, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the two countries to uphold their commitment signed agreements.
They must “respect the ceasefire and the integrity of the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ), and refrain from any action that could undermine it or lead to an escalation of tensions between the two countries,” Mr. Ban wrote in a new report to the Security Council made public today.
He voiced deep concern regarding the “continuing serious violations” of the TSZ along the border between the Ethiopia and Eritrea.
While calling on Eritrea to withdraw its troops and heavily military equipment from the TSZ, he urged Ethiopia to de-escalate the situation by withdrawing forces it has recently stationed near the border.
Reiterating appeals from previous reports, the Secretary-General asked Eritrea to lift restrictions it has imposed on the UN peacekeeping mission deployed – known as UNMEE – deployed in the TSZ.
Mr. Ban also voiced concern for the continued impasse in the boundary demarcation process between the two countries. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission handed down a final and binding decision in 2002.
“I strongly urge both countries to take advantage of the Commission’s advice and assistance before it takes action to conclude its work at the end of November,” he noted.
Pledging his intention to “do everything possible” for the implementation of the Algiers Agreements – which ended the bloody war between the two countries – the Secretary-General pointed out that Ethiopia and Eritrea “bear the primary responsibility for a successful resolution of their border dispute and the establishment of lasting peace between themselves.”
In the report, Mr. Ban recommended that UNMEE’s mandate, set to expire at the end of this month, to be extended for six months until next January.
Both the farcical kangaroo court and the use of blackmail to extort guilt and demand for forgiveness reflect one goal and one goal only, namely, the resolution to humiliate CUD leaders. We must ask the question of knowing why a ruling party and the representative of a national state feel the need to humiliate their political adversaries. What does the commitment to humiliate tell us about the inner thought of the jailers of the CUD leaders and, by extension, of the Ethiopian people?
To the extent that humiliation wants to degrade a person in his /her dignity, it is clear that one cannot degrade what one has not already recognized as superior or better. I want to humiliate means that I want to disgrace what is surpassing me, more exactly, what I have already recognized as being above me. To be sure, it is natural that loss frustrates me, but I harbor the resolution to humiliate only insofar as I admit my inability. Were I confident of my ability, I would refrain from humiliating my opponent. I want my adversary in full shape and armament, for only then does my victory reflect my inner ability. The more the integrity of my adversary is intact, the more shining is my victory.
In an unequal competition between two opponents, the high standing of one opponent induces meanness in the other, which meanness craves for nothing but the infliction of humiliation. Meanness carries the sense of inferiority: since I cannot be like him, I have to bring him down. But in order to hide my meanness to myself, I need to construe humiliation as punishment. I cannot do so, however, unless I obtain a confession of guilt. Without the admission of guilt, only my meanness, that is, my ingloriousness remains.
The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, argued that the sole purpose of punishment must be to elevate the lawbreaker. In punishing criminals, society does not more than bring them back into the human community, which they left by violating its laws. Any motive for punishment other than the promotion of humanness is inspired by revenge. Inasmuch as revenge refuses integration, it directly targets the degradation of the criminal.
In their dealings with CUD leaders, Meles and the TPLF government have shown no other motive than revenge. The imprisonment and the court are punishment for their electoral success, which they thus secretly admit. Why, otherwise, would them become revengeful and resort to humiliating behavior? Suppose for one second that the TPLF was really convinced of its own electoral victory. It would have used all the available democratic means to make its case, thereby moving away from the use of violence and humiliating measures.
Meles and the TPLF government know that any agreement obtained while CUD leaders are in prison has neither moral nor legal value. The purpose of an agreement under duress cannot be the desire to achieve reconciliation, either: the latter is not in sight so long as freedom is made conditional on admission of guilt. Only the need to inflict humiliation makes sense of such a behavior. It is meant to show that CUD leaders are not so glorious after all. In admitting guilt, they exhibit how unwilling they are to sacrifice their freedom for their principles. The behavior squarely recalls the Derg’s cruelty toward the civilian left, which also originated from the inner sense of unworthiness.
Given this goal of humiliation, it is very hard to attribute any positive outcome to the effort of conciliators. If we are to believe the document released by the TPLF government, the signed agreement––assuming that it is authentic––puts the entire blame on the CUD leaders, thereby fully exonerating Meles and his government. The admission of guilt is exchanged for freedom obtained through the further humiliating condition of the jailed begging for forgiveness and of the government showing mercy. The intervention of conciliators has achieved nothing, since the same agreement, if such we can call a completely one-sided document, could have been obtained without their mediation. Worse yet, the mediators could be accused of participating in the conspiracy to humiliate the prisoners. Even if the released letter is proved to be forged, it does no more than confirm the intent to humiliate.
Let us briefly see what the terms of real reconciliation should have been. Since the imprisonment has created an impasse for both parties, the only way out beneficial for all is the strengthening of the democratic process. From this impasse, no one should benefit except democracy. For only one outcome can dilute the conflict: the victory of democracy, the continuation and strengthening of the democratic process.
The process should beginning by an assessment of the reasons why suspicions and conflicts emerged during and after the election. Both the TPLF and the CUD must recognize that they were dragged into conflictual attitudes and behaviors subsequent to the absence of trustworthy institutional mechanisms guaranteeing the fairness of the electoral process. This way of analyzing the situation gets us out of the impasse resulting from mutual accusation and suspicion. Such an approach can quickly move toward discussion over how to avoid future conflicts, thereby focusing on the strengthening of the democratic process.
The discussion implies the unconditional release of the jailed leaders while making them full partners in the continuation and strengthening of the democratic process. They no longer blame the government for past conducts; they work with the government to avoid similar derailments in the future. In return, the government is exonerated from its violent behavior insofar as the behavior is attributed to weak democratic mechanisms. In this way, everybody says: let by gone be by gone; on the basis of past lessons, let us move forward.
This way of solving the problem penalizes and humiliates nobody. The government comes out reinforced: the promotion of reconciliation and the continuation of the democratic process are none other than the virtues it needs to fare better in the coming election. I don’t see how people would not be sensitive to TPLF leaders arguing that the manner they solved the crisis validates their democratic credentials and their ability to promote a peaceful and prosperous Ethiopia. Such a party will become a much tougher adversary to beat in the next election.
As to CUD leaders, they secure their freedom without any humiliation, but regain their parliamentary seats and behave as leaders of a minority party. In exchange for recognizing the ruling party as a majority party, they secure constitutional and institutional changes preventing the occurrence of similar problems in the future. Their participation makes sense because they achieve what they had wanted all along, to wit, the promotion of democracy.
Messay Kebede, Professor of philosophy, University of Dayton, Ohio (USA). He can be reached at [email protected]
(Paris – July, 2007) — Reporters Without Borders voiced relief on learning that the Ethiopian government today heeded international pleas and pardoned 38 opposition members, including four journalists, who had been given jail terms ranging from six months to life on 16 July.
The four journalists to receive pardons were Ethiop editor Andualem Ayele, Abay editor Mesfin Tesfaye, Asqual editor Wonakseged Zeleke and Dawit Fassil, the deputy editor of the now defunct weekly Satenaw. Two other journalists who were given life sentences in absentia –
Menilik editor Zelalem Guebre and Netsanet editor Abey Gizaw – have not so far been included in the pardon.
“We have finally had some good news in this interminable case, but we remain on our guard,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has taken account of the international community’s appeals but he made the release of these prisoners conditional on their signing an ‘apology to the Ethiopian people’ for the ‘mistakes made in November 2005’.”
The press freedom organisation added: “This case will not be over until Zelalem Guebre and Abey Gizaw have also been cleared of all the charges against them.”
(New York, July 20, 2007) — Amnesty International today welcomed the release of 38 Ethiopian opposition party officials, prominent human rights defenders and journalists who had been detained since November 2005. They received a pardon and had their political rights restored four days after most were sentenced to life in prison and others to prison terms of up to 15 years. Amnesty International considered most, if not all, to be prisoners of conscience.
“We are pleased by the decision to pardon prisoners of conscience, including human rights defenders, who are now free to participate in the social and political development of their country,” said Lynn Fredriksson, Africa Advocacy Director for Amnesty International USA.
Amnesty International expressed the hope that this important measure of political reconciliation will be a step toward the institutionalization of human rights protections throughout the country. The 38 were arrested after political demonstrations against official parliamentary election results in 2005, after which security forces killed 187 people and six police officers were also killed.
“Following today’s news, we renew our appeal for the release of two other prisoners of conscience, Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie, accused with the 38 but whose trial is continuing next week,” said Fredriksson. Unlike those sentenced the two had opted to submit a defense. Another prisoner of conscience whose trial is adjourned until October is Kifle Tigneh, who was elected to parliament in 2005.
The 38 released today received pardons after submitting a letter to the government of Ethiopia acknowledging “mistakes committed both individually and collectively” in relation to the 2005 elections.
They include Coalition of Unity and Democracy (CUD) leaders Hailu Shawel, Birtukan Mideksa, Dr. Berhanu Negga and Professor Yakob Hailemariam, as well as Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, founder of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and journalist Andualem Ayele.
(New York, July 20, 2007) — Amnesty International today welcomed the release of 38 Ethiopian opposition party officials, prominent human rights defenders and journalists who had been detained since November 2005. They received a pardon and had their political rights restored four days after most were sentenced to life in prison and others to prison terms of up to 15 years. Amnesty International considered most, if not all, to be prisoners of conscience.
“We are pleased by the decision to pardon prisoners of conscience, including human rights defenders, who are now free to participate in the social and political development of their country,” said Lynn Fredriksson, Africa Advocacy Director for Amnesty International USA.
Amnesty International expressed the hope that this important measure of political reconciliation will be a step toward the institutionalization of human rights protections throughout the country. The 38 were arrested after political demonstrations against official parliamentary election results in 2005, after which security forces killed 187 people and six police officers were also killed.
“Following today’s news, we renew our appeal for the release of two other prisoners of conscience, Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie, accused with the 38 but whose trial is continuing next week,” said Fredriksson. Unlike those sentenced the two had opted to submit a defense. Another prisoner of conscience whose trial is adjourned until October is Kifle Tigneh, who was elected to parliament in 2005.
The 38 released today received pardons after submitting a letter to the government of Ethiopia acknowledging “mistakes committed both individually and collectively” in relation to the 2005 elections.
They include Coalition of Unity and Democracy (CUD) leaders Hailu Shawel, Birtukan Mideksa, Dr. Berhanu Negga and Professor Yakob Hailemariam, as well as Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, founder of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and journalist Andualem Ayele.
Washington, DC – After months of negotiations, the government of Ethiopia has released 30 opposition leaders, human rights activists and journalists. They had been convicted of what the government called the instigation of violence and an attempt to change the government through unconstitutional means. This, following the turmoil of last year’s contentious elections that saw the re-election of the ruling EPRDF party in Ethiopia. The opposition, which also made strong gains in the Parliament, maintains it was cheated out of an overall victory.
Tamru Wondimagegn is a member of the negotiating team that helped facilitate the release of the detainees. He said months of negotiations came to a successful conclusion thanks to what he calls the flexibility shown by both the government and the detained leaders.
He said it was significant that the accused admitted some responsibility – though not guilt – for what they called “mistakes” during the time of public protests. He said, “The admittance of a mistake on the part of the defendants was very important, very crucial, and that was exactly what they did.”
He said it was part of the give-and-take process by both parties, including the court, which said it would give the defendants a life sentence. However, in the end, the government recommended the case to the Pardon Board based on the document reportedly signed by the opposition leaders.
The deal to release the detained leaders includes a provision that allows them to resume political activities. But Tamru was ambivalent on the question of whether the opposition leaders will now be able to take their seats in Parliament. He said, “Let’s hope that is going to happen… I’m not in a position to comment on that, but that is my understanding.”
