Aristotle wrote that “man is a political animal” to suggest that the defining characteristic of human beings is involvement in the civic life of their communities. Today, many Ethiopians across the board are strangely disengaged and alienated from Ethiopian politics. For the “alienated majority”, the disengagement is justified. They liken Ethiopian politics to a driverless bus, a pilotless plane or a freight train careening down a steep gorge without an engineer. People are starving. The economy is in shambles. Human rights violations are widespread. There is no rule of law. Corruption is endemic; and misery is a fact of daily life. Many have given up on politics believing that the country is in the iron clutches of “evil forces”, and pray for rescue through divine intervention. The average person in Ethiopia is a walking tale of woe and misery. A good segment of the civically active and potentially active community in exile is turned off by what they perceive to be the politics of endless recriminations, accusations, labeling, name-calling and finger-pointing. Ethiopian “Diaspora” politics is viewed by some as an exercise in self-indulgence at best, and not infrequently cannibalistic.
The discourse in contemporary Ethiopian politics undoubtedly has a sharp edge to it. It tends to be confrontational and adversarial, which serves its own purposes. It is also preoccupied by exertion of moral outrage over the general decline of the country. Rightly so, the moral bankruptcy, criminality, ineptitude, abuse of power, corruption and decadence of the current dictatorial regime has been laid out for the world to see. Much is written and said about the palace intrigues and behind-the-scenes maneuvers in the dictator’s lair. But the political discourse has yet to produce a clear, convincing and coherent alternative to the total and unmitigated mess created by the current dictatorship. In short, no one has stepped forward to articulate and define a brave new vision of a better future for the people of Ethiopia.
The current state of affairs in Ethiopia calls for the reinvention of politics in the democratic opposition by disconnecting from the self-destructive politics of the past and overwrought politics of the present, and connecting to a new politics of the future which transcends partisanship, ethnicity, ideology, language, region and so on. This reinvention requires several things: a paradigm shift in political thought and behavior, a radical change in perspective, a new approach and lexicon for political communication and a redefinition of the issues within a broader national agenda. It calls for politics that is “compassion-centered” and pragmatically oriented to creatively solving the entrenched problems of governance.
What is needed to begin the “reinvention” of Ethiopian politics? The “reinvention” is a multi-step process whose ultimate aim is to cultivate a true democratic civic culture shared by all Ethiopians. Step 1 begins with a clear understanding of the current situation so that we need not spend any more time trying to convert a one-man, one-party dictatorship into a genuine multiparty system, or even wasting time talking about it. As one can not change copper into gold, neither can one change dictators into democrats. What is it that we need to clearly understand about the current dictatorship before we begin the task of reinventing the Ethiopian politics of the future?
The answer is not complicated. The dictators of Ethiopia are trapped in a historical time warp. They have clutched the reigns of state for two decades and ostentatiously display the trappings of political power and wealth. But they have not been able to transform “bushcraft” into statecraft as recent scholarship by one of the original founders of the party-in-dictatorship today has shown. In their armed campaign against the Derg junta, decision-making was left in the hands of the few. The few leaders exercised raw, brute power over their followers and the communities they controlled. They silenced dissent and criticism ruthlessly, and leaders who disagreed were marginalized, labeled as traitors and removed. Everything was done in secrecy. Power was understood not as a public duty but as a means of self-enrichment, political patronage and intimidation. Leadership meant the cult of personality. The best they have been able to do is to transform the “politics of the bush” fighting the Derg into a one-man, one-party state, whose guiding motto is, “What is good for the TPLF/EPDRF is good for Ethiopia!”
The transition from “bushcraft” to statecraft requires tectonic transformations. Democratic statecraft requires an appreciation, understanding and application of basic democratic principles such as the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances and constitutionalism in the governance process. The dictators have little experience with or practical understanding of such principles. It is illogical for anyone to expect them to institutionalize accountability which they never had or experienced in their political lives. They never had free elections in the bush; and it is no wonder that they were totally surprised when they got thumped in the 2005 elections. Upholding the rule of law is absurd to them because they believe themselves to be THE LAW. The idea of an independent judiciary and impartial administration of justice is alien to them because they have no understanding or practical experience with due process. They scoff at civil liberties and civil rights as Western luxuries because they never lived in a system where the powers of government are constitutionally subordinated to the rights of the individual. In short, it is wishful thinking to expect from them the kind of statecraft necessary for democratic governance.
Reinventing politics means learning the lessons of the past and present and transforming the current political culture of oppression and corruption into a genuine future democratic civic culture. It means finding creative ways of replacing the climate of silence and fear with a culture of free expression, deliberation and debate and tolerance of dissent and divergent viewpoints.
There are many ways of reinventing Ethiopian politics. One approach is to adapt the model of the American civil rights movement. That movement was not aimed at seizing political power; rather it sought to organize, mobilize and channel basic popular disaffection on fundamental issues of civil and human rights. It was a movement guided by the idea of empowering ordinary people. From the outset, it was an inclusive movement. The maids, street cleaners, clergymen, doctors, lawyers and bankers participated equally in the movement and took ownership of their collective destiny. The religious institutions were the centers of “civic democracy” as they mobilized the community to be involved in the struggle for civil rights. Young people got involved in large numbers and became the vanguard of the movement. The NAACP led the legal battles in the courts.
There is a special burden on all Ethiopians, and particularly the exiled intellectual community to lend assistance in getting the process off the ground. It is to be acknowledged that there are the “old” and “new” generation of Ethiopian intellectuals in exile. Many in the “old” generation have bit their tongues in public. They have withdrawn from public debate turned off by what they perceive to be uncivil dialogue. There are also the “new” generation of intellectuals who circulate their brilliant scholarly papers, research studies and analysis on various facets of Ethiopian society for review but do not necessarily see the need to share it with the wider public in a manner accessible to those without a technical background. It is vital that both generations be involved and directly engage the public in envisioning the future of the future country. They must come out of self-imposed censorship and share their extraordinary knowledge and innovative ideas with the rest of us.
Without the involvement of progressive Ethiopian intellectuals, it would be difficult to nurture and cultivate a vigorous civic culture that will enable us to envision a dynamic, pluralistic and inclusive society of the future. Most importantly, they can be sources of creative and innovative ideas that will be needed to make the transition from ethnic-building to nation-building and help empower each Ethiopian to forego ethnic identity for a new national democratic identity based on a shared history of suffering oppression and a common conviction for a shared destiny. In the meantime, their participation is needed to inform and elevate the contemporary debate and in speaking truth to power.
In the final analysis, reinventing Ethiopian politics is about redefining the problem of politics not merely as competition for political power but as a process of developing a democratic civic culture and strengthening the moral fiber of ordinary citizens to take collective responsibility and perform their individual civic duties. None of these seem strange to the shameless idealist and audacious optimist who thinks everything is possible and nothing is impossible, and believes with every fiber in his body that Ethiopia can be a utopia!
[1]“The Future of the Future Country” is serialized set of special commentaries written by the author in honor of Ethiopia’s foremost political prisoner Birtukan Midekssa. Birtukan, the first woman leader of a political party in Ethiopia’s history, is an individual of extraordinary intelligence, integrity, courage and fortitude. Her favorite aphorism is, “Ethiopia is the country of the future.”
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
“Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” said Sir Walter Scott, the novelist and poet. Is there “famine” in Ethiopia, or not? Are large numbers of people “starving” there, or not? Is convulsive hunger a daily reality for the majority of Ethiopians, or not?
Ethiopian famine map
No one wants to use the “F” word to describe the millions of starving Ethiopians. In August 2008, the head of the dictatorship in Ethiopia flatly denied the existence of famine in a Time Magazine interview. Meles Zenawi explained, “Famine has wreaked havoc in Ethiopia for so long, it would be stupid not to be sensitive to the risk of such things occurring. But there has not been a famine on our watch – emergencies, but no famines.” Last week, the dictatorship’s “Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development”, Mitiku Kassa, reacting defensively to the latest Famine Early Warning System (FEWSNET) projections, was equally adamant: “In the Ethiopian context, there is no hunger, no famine… It is baseless [to claim famine], it is contrary to the situation on the ground. It is not evidence-based. The government is taking action to mitigate the problems.” This past October, Kassa claimed everything was under control because his government has launched a food security program to “enable chronic food insecure households attain sufficient assets and income level to get out of food insecurity and improve their resilience to shocks… and halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.”
But there is manifestly a “silent” famine and a “quiet” hunger haunting the land under Zenawi’s “watch.” In April, 2009, Zenawi gave an interview to David Frost of Al Jazeera in which he openly admitted that famine is rearing its ugly head once again in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. Frost asked: “Is there any danger that as a result of this [current] crises there could be famine like there was famine in 1984?” Zenawi responded:
Well, the famine of 1984 was precipitated by drought in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa in general. The famine that could emerge as a result of this [current] crises is likely to be silent across the continent in terms of not swaths of territory that are drought affected but people suffering hunger quietly across the continent. That is the most likely scenario as I see it.
So, if the famine Horseman of the Apocalypse is haunting Ethiopia and the continent, “silently” and “quietly”, why are we not sounding the alarm, ringing the bells and hollering for bloody help? Why are we quiet about the “quiet” hunger and silent about the “silent” famine enveloping Ethiopia today? Why?
It is mind-boggling that no one is making a big deal about the fact that famine and hunger are back in the saddle once more in Ethiopia. Ethiopians need help, and they need a lot of it fast and now. Of course, nothing more depressing than the sight, smell and experience of famine and hunger. For the second part of the 20th Century, much of the world believed the words “Ethiopia” and “famine” were synonymous. But it is unconscionable and criminal for officials to avoid using the “F” word to describe the forebodingly bleak food situation in Ethiopia today because they are concerned it would cast a “negative image” on them. Even the international experts have joined the local officials in boycotting the use of the “F” word. Just last week, the U.S.-funded FEWSNET declared that the majority of Ethiopians will be facing “food insecurity” (not hunger, not starvation, not famine) in the next six months. According to FEWSNET, because of poor harvests from the summer rains in 2009
as well as poor water availability and pasture regeneration in northern pastoral zones” [and coupled]with two consecutive poor belg cropping seasons… high staple food prices, poor livestock production, and reduced agricultural wages, [there will be an] elevated food insecurity over the coming six months [particularly in the] eastern marginal cropping areas in Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia, pastoral areas of Afar and northern and southeastern Somali region, Gambella region, and most low-lying areas of southern and central SNNPR…. In most areas of the country, food insecurity during the first half of 2010 is projected to be significantly worse than during the same period in 2009… Food security in eastern marginal cropping areas will likely deteriorate even further between July and September 2010. Overall, humanitarian assistance needs are expected to be very high.
Is it not a low-down dirty shame for international organizations, political leaders, officials and bureaucrats to use euphemisms to hide the ugly truth about famines and mass-scale hunger? These heartless crooks have invented a lexicography, a complete dictionary of mumbo-jumbo words and phrases to conceal the public fact that large numbers of people in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa are dying simply because they have nothing or very little food to eat. They talk about “food insecurity ”, “food scarcity”, “food insufficiency”, “food deprivation”, “severe food shortages”, “chronic dietary deficiency”, “endemic malnutrition” and so on just to avoid using the “F” word. FEWSNET has invented a ridiculous system of neologism (new words) to describe hungry people. Accordingly, there are people who are generally food secure, moderately food insecure, highly food insecure, extremely food insecure and those facing famine (see map above). Translated into ordinary language, these nonsensical categories seem to equate those who eat once a day as generally food secure, followed by the moderately secure who eat one meal every other day, the highly insecure who eat once every three days, the extremely insecure who eat once a week, and those in famine who never eat and therefore die from lack of food.
For crying out loud, what is wrong with calling a spade a spade!? Why do officials and experts beat around the bush when it comes to talking about hunger as hunger, starvation as starvation and famine as famine? Do they think they can sugarcoat the piercing pangs of hunger, the relentless pain of starvation and the total devastation of famine with sweet bureaucratic words and phrases?
As officials and bureaucrats quibble over which fancy words and phrases best describe the dismal food situation, hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians are dying from plain, old fashioned hunger, starvation and famine. The point is there is famine in Ethiopia. One could disagree whether there are pockets of famine or large swaths of famine-stricken areas. One could argue whether 4.9, 6, 16 or 26 million people are affected by it. But there is no argument that there is famine; and this is not a matter for speculation, conjecture or exaggeration. It can be verified instantly. Let the international press go freely into the “drought affected” and “food insecure” areas and report what they find. For at least the past two years, they have been banned from entering these areas. Is there any doubt that they would reveal irrefutable evidence of famine on the scale of 1984-85 if they were allowed free access to these areas?
Obviously, it is embarrassing for a regime wafting on the euphoria of an “11 percent economic growth over the past 6 years” to admit famine. It is bad publicity for those claiming runaway economic growth to admit millions of their citizens are in the iron grip of a runaway famine. If the “F” word is used, then the donors would start asking questions, relief agencies would be scurrying to set up feeding stations, the international press would be demanding accountability and all hell could break loose. That is why the dictatorship in Ethiopia reacts reflexively and defensively whenever the “F” word is mentioned. They froth at the mouth condemning the international press for making “baseless” claims of famine, and castigate them for perpetuating “negative images” of the country merely because the international press insists on finding out verifiable facts about the food situation in the country. The fact of the matter is that unless action is not taken soon to openly and fully admit that large swaths of the Ethiopian countryside are in a state of famine, we should soon expect to see splattered across the globe’s newspapers pictures of Ethiopian infants with distended bellies, the skeletal figures of their nursing mothers and the sun-baked remains of the aged and the feeble on the parched land.
Denial of famine by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes is nothing new. During 1959-61, nearly 30 million Chinese starved to death in Mao’s Great Leap Forward program which uprooted millions of Chinese from the countryside for industrial production. Mao never acknowledged the existence of famine, nor did he make a serious effort to secure foreign food aid. Ironically, the Chinese Revolution had promised the peasants an end to famine. The Soviet Famines of 1921 and 1932-3 are classic case studies in official failure to prevent famine.
Why is it so difficult for dictatorships and other non-democratic systems to admit famine, make it part of the public discussion and debate and unabashedly seek help? Part of it has to do with image maintenance. Official admission of famine is the ultimate proof of governmental ineptitude and depraved indifference to the suffering of the people. But there is a more compelling explanation for dictators not to admit famine conditions in their countries. It has to do with a fundamental disconnect between the dictators and their subjects. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argued,
The direct penalties of a famine are borne by one group of people and political decisions are taken by another. The rulers never starve. But when a government is accountable to the local populace it too has good reasons to do its best to eradicate famines. Democracy, via electoral politics, passes on the price of famines to the rulers as well.
An examination of the history of famine in Ethiopia lends support to Sen’s theory. Emperor Haile Selassie lost his crown and life over famine in the early 1970s. He said he was just not aware of it. The military junta’s (Derg) denied there was famine in 1984/85 while it waged war and experimented with the long-discredited practice of collectivized agriculture. That famine accelerated the downfall of the Derg. The current dictators have opted to remain willfully blind, deaf and mute to the “silent” famine and “quiet” hunger that are destroying the people.
The official response to famines in Ethiopia over the past four decades has followed a predictable pattern: Step 1: Never plan to prevent famine. Step 2: Deny there is famine when there is famine. Step 3: Condemn and vilify anyone who sounds the early alarm warning on famine. Step 4: Admit “severe food shortages” (not famine) and blame the weather, and God for not sending rain. Step 5: Make frantic international emergency calls and announce that hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians are dying from famine. Step 6: Guilt-trip Western donors into providing food aid. Step 7: Accuse and vilify Western donors for not providing sufficient food aid and blame them for a runaway famine. Step 8: Tell the world they knew nothing about a creeping famine until it suddenly hit them like a thunderbolt. Step 9: Put on an elaborate dog-and-pony show about their famine relief efforts. Step 10: Go back to step 1. This has been the recurrent pattern of famine response in Ethiopia: Always too little, too late.
The fact of the matter is that famines are entirely avoidable as Sen has argued with substantial empirical evidence.
Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have.
There is another question that needs to be answered in connection with the “severe food shortages” in Ethiopia. Why are millions of fertile hectares of land under “lease” or sold outright to foreigners to feed millions continents away when millions of Ethiopians are starving? To paraphrase Sen, such a thing would be unthinkable in a functioning multiparty democracy!
With no pun intended, the “breadcrumbs” of famine (or as they euphemistically call it the “early warning signs”) are plain to see. There have been successive crop failures and poor rainfall; water availability is limited and staple food prices are soaring; livestock production is poor as is pasture regeneration. Deforestation, land degradation, overpopulation, pestilence and disease are widespread in the land. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck, it is famine!
If those whose duty is to sound the alarm and get help are not willing to do their part, it is the moral responsibility and duty of every Ethiopian and compassionate human being anywhere to create public awareness of Ethiopia’s creeping famine and call for HELP! HELP! HELP!
“There has never been a famine in a functioning multiparty democracy.” Amartya Sen
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.)
“Ethiopia is the country of the future,” Birtukan Midekssa would often say epigrammatically. Ethiopia’s No. 1 political prisoner is always preoccupied with her country’s future and destiny. Her deep concern for Ethiopia is exceeded only by her boundless optimism for its future. For that reason, her maxim echoes not only a manifest general truth, but also makes a profound and complex historical argument that calls for a paradigm shift in the way we understand contemporary Ethiopian politics and envision the future.
To be the country of the future necessarily means not being the country of the past. Birtukan’s Ethiopia of the future is necessarily the categorical antitheses of an imperial autocracy, a military bureaucracy and a dictatorship of kleptocracy. Her vision of the future Ethiopia is a unified country built on a steel platform of multiparty democracy. Birtukan would have been pleased to explain her vision and dreams of the future country of Ethiopia; unfortunately, she can not speak for herself as she has been condemned to “rot” in jail.
As we begin the second decade of the 21st Century, it is important for the rest of us to carry on the conversation that Birtukan has so insightfully sparked. She is concerned about Ethiopia’s future because she understands that a nation without a clear sense of its future is a nation without a destiny, and one doomed to suffer the scourges of tyranny and oppression. When Birtukan speaks of Ethiopia as the country of the future, she speaks of it in the same way as Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of his American dream. He dreamt that one day in the future, America “will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed… that all men (and women) are created equal.” He dreamt that Americans, despite their bitter history of oppression and injustice, “will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood” and resolve their differences amicably and peacefully. Above all, he dreamt of a future where his “four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Birtukan also has a dream that one day Ethiopians will sit together at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood to discuss their historic grievances and current issues, atone for and forgive each other for past transgressions, and in a renewed spirit of reconciliation, compromise and accommodation, forge a common destiny. She dreams of the day when her 4-year old daughter and the millions of children in Ethiopia will grow up in a country where they are judged not by their ethnicity, tribal affiliation, gender, language, religion, region or wealth, but by their abilities and the content of their character. She dreams of a just and moral society.
Fully accepting and working towards such a future for Ethiopia may sound naïve and idealistic to some given the present grim state of affairs. If the trend projections of the doomsday soothsayers are to be believed, in Ethiopia’s future, there is no future. The scientists tell us that Ethiopia will prove to be a poster child for “environmental determinism” in 40 years. It’s population will double to 150 million by 2050; and overpopulation, coupled with large and growing per capita resource consumption and negative environmental impact will trigger a complete collapse of the society by the middle of the century. These scientists point to evidence of large-scale deforestation and habitat destruction, soil degradation, decline in potable water supply and water pollution, overgrazing, desertification and so on as the unmistakable present warning signals of future collapse.
The agricultural experts express shock and dismay in the sale and lease of millions of hectares of land to foreign corporations who are set on producing food for export back to their home countries while Ethiopians are dying of massive starvation and famines (officially known in the politically correct phrase “severe food shortages”). The economists paint an equally dire picture of a country overburdened by debt to international lenders and a local economy in the chokehold of businesses closely allied with the ruling regime, and whose principal capitalization is derived from conversion of previously government-owned properties through a bogus privatization process. With land and key sectors of the economy such as telecommunications under the control or ownership of the regime or its supporters, without a functional financial services sector and youth unemployment in excess of 70 percent, the practitioners of the “dismal science” predict a dismal economic future for Ethiopia.
There are even those who predict political implosion long before systemic collapse. A research group with expertise in international crises analysis recently sounded the alarm over “the potential for a violent eruption of conflict in Ethiopia ahead of the May 2010 elections amidst rising ethnic tensions and dissent.” The international human rights groups and organizations who have extensively documented the regime’s sustained pattern of crackdowns on dissent, criminalization of civil society groups, persecution of the independent media, election rigging and theft, massive rights violations and implementation of repressive decrees consign Ethiopia to the scrapheap of the most hopeless and wretched nations on the planet. If we are to believe the doomsday soothsayers, Ethiopia is presently in critical triage on life support. They peg her survival without complete societal collapse and political implosion in the first half of the 21st century at much less than 50 per cent.
We must categorically reject the dark predictions of the naysayers and the merchants of doom and gloom. The future of Ethiopia is in the hands, hearts and minds of its people, not in the tea leaves read by the experts. As John M. Richardson, Jr. said, “When it comes to the future, there are three kinds of people: those who make things happen, those who let it happen, and those who wonder what happened.” Birtukan belongs in the first category. Because of the enormous sacrifices she has made, she rightly deserves to be called a future maker, as anyone who chooses to join her in her quest for a better future in Ethiopia would be. What makes Birtukan unique is that she understands that if we do not work together actively to shape the future, the past will assuredly shape it for us. Only when the future makers put their shoulders to the grindstone and do the heavy lifting can we prove the experts wrong and guarantee that Ethiopia’s best days are yet to come.
The future of the future country will be decided in a battle between the “future makers” and “future takers”. We are witnesses to the handiwork of the future takers today. They have taken everything in the present — the rights of the people, their dignity, their daily bread, their land, their hopes and their dreams — so that there will be no future. They calculate the future to be a continuation of the past, and they will do everything in their power to perpetuate the past into the future. Future takers worship at the altar of greed and corruption; and for them fairness, decency, generosity and morality are anathema. The battle between the future makers and future takers will be waged and decided in the hearts and minds of the people. The future takers will wage a war of tears and fears. The future makers will fight back with hope, faith, charity and love.
We should reject the static and deterministic outcomes predicted by the experts because their assumptions about Ethiopia are fundamentally incorrect. Their analytical models are predicated on a flawed postulate that Ethiopians are fundamentally a weak and desperate people who are passive objects of oppression, charity and pity. We must reject out of hand, and without hesitation, any argument that suggests Ethiopia’s future will be sealed in ethnic fragmentation, political dissolution and national self-destruction. We must cast aside any theory that predicts the systemic collapse and the end of a nation whose history dates back 3000 years. We have been a nation of survivors. We have survived and prevailed over the plague of European colonialism when nearly all of Africa succumbed to it. We have survived recurrent famines of Biblical proportion. We have endured conflicts and wars. We have survived autocracy, despotism and kleptocracy. Let there be no doubt: We will survive until the end of time because we are the “masters of our fate” and the “captains of our destiny”.
Philosophers and historians speak of a recurrent cycle in human events. Great nations rise and fall. Governments come and go. Leaders change and are replaced. But nations survive because each generation accepts its responsibilities and forges ahead with the enormous tasks of future-building. When Birtukan says Ethiopia is the country of the future, she means to say that this generation of Ethiopians has a rendezvous with destiny. Whether Ethiopia will self-destruct in ethnic fragmentation and strife is not carved in stone. This generation can avert that dark future by working for and promoting ethnic diversity and national unity. A new generation of statesmen and stateswomen could trump the political expediency and machination of those desperately clinging to power. Whether Ethiopia is doomed to ecological collapse is not determined by the inexorable forces of global warming. Carefully planning and prioritization of societal needs, implementation of creative policies, public awareness, education and mobilization could help steer away the Ethiopian nation from the dangerous shoals of ecological calamity.
The future requires responsibility, creativity, endurance and sacrifice. It can not be left to a few leaders, politicians, intellectuals or experts. If there is one thing to be learned from the recent past, it is that the Ethiopian people know what kind of a future they want. Their verdict in the 2005 elections stands as a final testament for a genuine multiparty democracy. History is also on the side of freedom and the youth. Despite all the setbacks of recent years, the values of democracy, freedom and human rights have taken deep root in the psyche of Ethiopian youth. They will be leading the forward march of Ethiopia into a glorious future. With Ethiopia’s future in the hands of her young people, we have cause to be confident and even to celebrate. Let our youth learn from a wise African saying: “Tomorrow belongs to the (young) people who prepare for it today.”
“The Future of the Future Country” is a special commentary to be offered in periodic serialized future segments by the author.
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media. twitter@pal4thedefense
Birtukan Midekssa condemned to life in prison by a vengeful dictator, but unconquered.
Birtukan thrown into the dungeon of wrath and tears, but defiant.
Birtukan beaten, bludgeoned and bloodied, but unbowed.
Birtukan mocked, ridiculed and disrespected, but gracious.
Birtukan denounced, vilified, strong-armed and manhandled, but unafraid.
Ethiopia under the crushing boots of soldiers of fortune.
Birtukan, Invictus!
Ethiopia, Invictus!
I remember the 29th of December, 2008. Almost a year ago to the day, the only woman political party leader in Ethiopia’s 3,000-year history was manhandled and abducted to prison. Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, founder and former chairman of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, was an eyewitness to the crime. He told the Voice of America that he was having a conversation with Bitukan and another person outside an office building when four unmarked official vehicles stormed on the scene. Approximately 10 armed men got out and surrounded Birtukan. They grabbed and dragged her into one of the vehicles. One of the thugs savagely assaulted the nearly 80-year old professor with the butt of his rifle. In seconds, Birtukan was snatched away to the infamous Kality prison, and the professor to the hospital.
The facts leading up to the street abduction of Birtukan’s are not in dispute. On December 10, 2008 the “Federal Police Commissioner” sent two District 12 policemen to order Birtukan to come to his office. She went thinking that he probably wanted to talk about her political party. He wanted to talk about her pardon which resulted in her release from prison in 2007. She questioned his authority to interrogate her on the matter. He mocked her and she left. On December 24, 2008, the “commissioner” ordered her to appear in his office and gave her an ultimatum: Retract a statement she made in Sweden allegedly denying receipt of a pardon, or face immediate imprisonment.
Birtukan has never denied receiving a pardon. In Sweden where she allegedly denied the so-called pardon in a talk to a small group of supporters, she merely explained the legal and political circumstances surrounding the grant of pardon. In Q’ale (My Testimony), her last public statement issued a couple of days before her abduction, she made full acknowledgement of the so-called pardon:
I have not denied signing the document which the elders persuaded us to sign on June 22, 2006 for the sake of national reconciliation. How could it be said that I denied a pardon document I signed, and whose content I accepted? How is that a crime? Where is the mistake?
The fact of the matter is that Birtukan was granted a bogus pardon for a bogus crime for which she was convicted in a kangaroo court. As it is said, “any excuse will serve the tyrant”; and for Zenawi to claim that he jailed Birtukan because she denied receiving a pardon is an insult only to his own intelligence. The real reasons have to do with incapacitating her from running in the 2010 elections, and thwarting her efforts to build a broad coalition of political parties to oppose his dictatorship. No doubt, he takes her outright defiance as a personal slight.
But who is Birtukan Midekksa? Dictator Zenawi not long ago proverbially characterized her to his rubberstamp parliament as a faddish hen that hanged herself. If we must indulge in animal metaphors to describe her, she is best characterized as a lioness fighting hordes of hyenas. She has always defined herself as an ordinary woman irrevocably committed to the rule of law, freedom, democracy and human rights. She understands her adversaries well. Days before her abduction, she told journalist Abiye Teklemariam, founding editor of the independent weekly Addis Neger, (which recently folded following the dictatorship’s relentless war on the independent press in Ethiopia):
You have to know that they are paper tigers. They are weak, but want to appear strong. They would think caging a woman with a three year old daughter who lives under their firm surveillance every day demonstrates their toughness…. They forcefully make people hostage to their family and social commitments. They compel you to choose between freedom and family.
So for anyone who wants to know the real Birtukan, the answer is simple. She is the Lioness of Ethiopia who chose, without the slightest hesitation, freedom over family, country over child; and above all, Mother Ethiopia over the mother that gave her birth. She is an Ethiopian woman of integrity, humility, conviction, principle and intellect. It is a special honor and privilege for me to pay tribute to this extraordinary woman and outstanding Ethiopian political leader on the first anniversary of her unjust imprisonment.
I believe every blessed nation is given by Providence an individual that personifies its suffering and its pain, its present predicament and its future grandeur. Such an individual evolves to become a transformative leader guiding a lost and hopeless nation out of the darkness of discord and strife into the sunshine of freedom, equality and democracy. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela sutured the racially and ethnically torn South African body politics and led his people to a successful multiparty democracy. In India, Mahatma Gandhi rid his country of the plague of colonialism with nothing in his hands but love in his heart and nonviolent resistance in every fiber of his body. In the U.S., Martin Luther King seared the conscience of Americans and helped them confront the twin demons of racism and discrimination. In Burma (Myanmar), Aung San Suu Kyi has languished in prison for years, yet for every Burmese she stands as a shining beacon of hope and redemption. Ethiopia is blessed to have Birtukan Midekssa who today languishes in prison for standing up to a ruthless and barbaric dictator. She willingly gave up her personal liberty so that her people could one day live in freedom and enjoy the blessings of democracy.
I first met Birtukan on September 9, 2007, when she arrived at Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., leading a delegation of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (Kinijit) party to North America. I had the honor of chairing an informal North American coordinating committee for that delegation which included Dr. Berhanu Nega, Dr. Hailu Araya, Ato Gizachew Shiferraw and Ato Brook Kebede. Their reception at Dulles is now the stuff of legend. Thousands of Ethiopians showed up and filled that cavernous airport. A special airport detail was assigned for crowd control. The motorcade that followed them to their hotel was several miles long. In the nearly one-half century of that airport’s existence, nothing so historic, spectacular and triumphant had ever been witnessed. It was a September to remember.
From the very moment I met Birtukan and the delegation, I was impressed by their humility, simplicity, integrity, matter-of-factness and optimism about Ethiopia’s future. Many Ethiopians were pleasantly surprised to see a woman leading such an important delegation. Many who met Birtukan in the following weeks deepened their respect and appreciation when they saw that she has a “a good head and a good heart [which] are always a formidable combination” in a leader, as Mandela once noted. In private and in her public statements and speeches, she did not dwell on the past but showed intense concern and optimism for Ethiopia’s future. Remarkably, she never showed any bitterness or animosity towards those who had unjustly imprisoned and persecuted her for nearly two years.
Who is afraid of Birtukan Midekssa? Birtukan’s maxim is, “Ethiopia is the country of the future.” The dictators are not afraid of Birtukan, but they are terrified of what she represents: Ethiopia’s bright future. Birtukan stands for the unity of all Ethiopians and stands against ethnic hatred, division and strife. That petrifies her captors. As Mandela “dreamt of an Africa which is in peace with itself, ” Birtukan dreams of an Ethiopia at peace and harmony with itself. That sends shivers down the spines of those who have caged her. Birtukan appeals to Ethiopia’s youth, who represent over 70 per cent of the population. Her universal youth appeal makes the dictators shake in their boots. Birtukan stands resolute in the defense of the rule of law, the “Constitution of Ethiopia”, freedom, democracy, equality, human rights and accountability. That makes her tormentors panic-stricken. As Ethiopia is the country of the future, Birtukan is the shining star rising over the horizon of that future.
Birtukan is in prison, but she is the freest person in all of Ethiopia. She stood up to dictatorship and did not back down. They threw everything at her. They kept her in solitary confinement hoping she would go mad in isolation. They denied her visitation with her lawyers believing she will forget her basic human and constitutional rights. They denied her books, a radio and newspapers thinking she will feel lost in the dark. They would interrupt her family visits before she finished exchanging smiles, hugs and kisses with her mother and daughter hoping to crush her emotionally. They would not allow her friends and colleagues to visit her expecting she will feel abandoned and forgotten. They played every dirty psychological game to humiliate, mistreat and provoke her; and they thought that would break her spirit, weaken her resolve and plunge her into the depths of despair and sorrow. They have spared nothing to make her believe that she will suffer and die alone in prison. But Birtukan survives, and she will survive and prevail. Prison for a true political leader is like fire to steel. Prison makes the political prisoner stronger and steadfastly resolute.
Mandela said, “In my country we go to prison first and then become President.” I shall argue that Birtukan is just doing what is required of all great leaders before they are called for duty in the service of their country. When Mandela was sentenced to life, he did not waste his time in prison crying over his fate; rather, he used his time to prepare himself for his future leadership duties in bringing all South Africans together. It is the natural occupation of all great imprisoned political leaders to use their time in prison to prepare for the solemn duties that await them. I do not doubt that Birtukan is doing that right now. But political prisoners are the ultimate survivors. As Mandela said, it is an essential condition of survival for the political prisoner to believe that good will in the end triumph over evil. Mandela was written off for decades by his tormentors, but his name was at the tip of every freedom-loving South African’s tongue. It was in prison that Mandela learned to understand and even empathize with his hateful persecutors. He honed his negotiating skills in prison and developed infinite patience and perseverance in his pursuit of equality and justice for all in South Africa. Like Mandela, Birtukan is undergoing necessary training in prison before she is called to perform her solemn duties of state.
Birtukan does not see the struggle for freedom, democracy and human rights as a short-term effort. She knows in every fiber of her body that it will take time and enormous effort to purge the poison of ethnic politics from Ethiopian society. She knows it will not be easy to establish and practice the principle of the rule of law in a land that has suffered for so long under the immoral creed of might makes right. Birtukan understands that it will take a massive effort to build working coalitions, partnerships and alliances to forge a strong multiparty political system. She knows it will take all of Ethiopia’s youth to build bridges from the north to the south and east to west. But Birtukan also knows that she will be ready for these challenges when she is called to report for duty.
In his recent diatribe on Birtukan, Zenawi said that she became the proverbial faddish hen believing that powerful people in the West would get her out of jail quickly. The dictator apparently believes that Birtukan is “too much of a darling” for the West and stealing the spotlight from him. The fact is that Birtukan never put much stock in diplomats or Western pressure to help her personally or to bring about fundamental change in Ethiopia. Though she understood the need to build support in the international community, she knew very well that all of the heavy lifting has to be done by Ethiopians:
I thought that diplomatic battle was a major part of the non-violent struggle. In politics, as they say, a week is too long. I have learnt my lessons. This is our fight. We ask them to join the fight for freedom and justice. We ask them to live up to their rhetoric and supposed creed. But we don’t beg them. This is our fight, not theirs. They would come running when they think they think that we have won it… We have to stop overemphasizing their value…. They like winners. They have strategic objectives which only winners can help them achieve. We should show them that we are winners, not beggars.
Zenawi becomes apoplectic at the mention of Birtukan’s name. His hackles go up and he could hardly contain his rage and antipathy towards her. Taking a chapter out of the book of Burma’s dictator, Gen. Than Shwe, he recently told a press conference, “There will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” On this point, he is right. As Mandela said, “Only free men (and free women) can negotiate; prisoners cannot enter into contracts.” Birtukan is a political prisoner and can not negotiate an “agreement” for her freedom. She will also never beg for her freedom. “Ever. Full stop.” Period!
Don’t cry for Birtukan, Ethiopia! “The truth is she never left you. She kept her promise. Don’t keep your distance.” The dictators will do everything to break her spirit, torment her body and make her life in prison a living hell. Mandela told his Apartheid tormentors, “You may succeed in delaying, but never in preventing the transition of South Africa to a democracy.” The dictators may succeed in jailing Birtukan and thousands of others for however long they want and victimize and dehumanize them; but they will never, never be able to keep Ethiopia ethnically fragmented and its people at war with each other so that they can cling to power. Nor will they be able to permanently stave off the triumph of freedom, democracy and human rights from that ancient land.
On a personal note, I thank Birtukan for inspiring me and many others like myself to be involved in the struggle for human rights and democracy in the country of our birth. The courage of her convictions refreshes us every day like the pure mountain spring water. For all Birtukan Midekssa has done and tried to do, and in the spirit of eternal gratitude, I dedicate to her William Ernest Henley’s poem, “Invictus” (Unconquered). Nelson Mandela had this poem written on a piece of paper which he kept in his cell to uplift his spirit over the long years of incarceration. I trust this poem will uplift Birtukan’s spirit as much as it did Mandela’s.
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Birtukan, stay strong! The “night that covers” you will not last forever. Darkness always turns into light.
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog onThe Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
It was a remarkable display of raw machismo: “My way or the highway… or jail!” It was a one-man political theatre, a monologue about absolute power, domination, toughness, brawn and pugnacity. It was a demonstration of sang froid machismo calculated to taunt and sneer at the opposition, and bombard them with contempt and derision. It was an ostentatious public vindication of the ignoble principle “might makes right.”
In a recent two-minute and forty-three second video[1] of an exchange in Ethiopia’s rubberstamp parliament, Meles Zenawi, African dictator extraordinaire, ridiculed and lambasted his political opponents. He unsparingly tongue-lashed Birtukan Midekssa, the iconic Ethiopian political prisoner and first female political party leader in Ethiopia’s 3,000-year history. He caricatured the imprisoned leader of the Unity, Democracy and Justice opposition party as a faddish hen that hanged herself.
In the 103 seconds, Zenawi lectured with the sternness of school martinet. He berated with the coarseness of a drill sergeant. He taunted with the polish of a schoolyard bully. He explained why he had jailed Birtukan with the warped logic of a kangaroo kourt judge. His words and phrases were measured and calculated like those of a crooked accountant. His demeanor was armored in stone-cold arrogance and hubris. It was a study in political psychology, a glimpse of the cognitive process and personality of a dictator and the pathos that drives him.
As Zenawi deftly switched the topic to speak about Birtukan as an object lesson to his parliament, he could barely conceal his loathing for her. In a calculated act of public humiliation, he began talking about her in the form of a silly chicken who ultimately did herself in because she did not know the limits of her modest abilities and his overwhelming and boundless might. He sermonized:
As our parents say, ‘A hen once heard of a fad and hanged herself trying to follow it.’ They [the opposition] heard about the Kenya and Zimbabwe [“orange revolution”] model and decided to try it in our country. By doing so, they were exposing themselves to harm. But it was not only they who will suffer from harm, but unavoidably, all Ethiopians will suffer from it at different levels also. The bad thing is that many of our folks who got into this way of thinking were not ready to learn from their mistakes.
If we take Ms. Birtukan as an example, she said she did not ask for a pardon. We sent elders, ambassadors [to plead with her]. She said, ‘I will not listen to them. I will not change what I have said outside of the country. I will not take it back.’ She said that thinking the chaos created by her supporters or through external pressure she will get out of prison in a short time. She had a strong position on that.
At the time, she was repeatedly told that it was a mistake [for her to deny having received a pardon]; and that once she is put back in prison, she will not get out. So the main thing is it would be better before she got in. So the main thing is that it would have been better for all that she did not have to go back to prison. She was told this repeatedly. It would have been good for all of us. For one month the government begged her in direct and indirect ways. If we ask why, who will benefit from this? The government does not get five cents profit from this. So the harm goes beyond the individuals to everyone. I suggest that one ought not choose to dream of such things. But as I think of their experiences, their ability to learn from their mistakes is very limited.
Zenawi’s choice of a hen to caricature Birtukan Midekksa was dastardly and plain wrong. Birtukan ain’t no chicken. She is the Lioness of Ethiopia! She is a woman of conviction and principle. In “Q’ale” (My Testimony), a public statement she released two days before Zenawi imprisoned her on December 29, 2009, Birtukan boldly declared, “Lawlessness and arrogance are things that I will never get used to, nor will cooperate with.” Only a lioness would say something like that facing overwhelming odds. Birtukan is a woman of extraordinary intellect, dignity and honor. She does not lie, cheat or rob. She does what she does not out of expediency or in the eternal pursuit of self-enrichment on the public coffers. Rather her actions are guided by a commitment to the advancement of the causes of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. After all, what greater sacrifice could this young single mother make to her people and country than leave her precious four-year old child in the custody of her aging mother while serving out a life term? Birtukan shows the quintessential trait of a proud lioness, not a clucking frightened hen. (For the record, the proverbial reference to the “hen that hanged herself” is misstated. The adage properly rendered is: “Silu semta, doro motech chis wust gebta.” Roughly translated, “A hen having heard that others have walked through thick smoke tried to do the same and died.” Chickens are believed to have low pulmonary tolerance for smoke.)
Zenawi repeatedly slammed Birtukan for refusing to acknowledge her “mistakes” and publicly declare that she had indeed been granted a pardon. The indisputable fact is that she never denied receiving a pardon. She merely explained the legal and political circumstances under which she received it. She wrote in Q’ale. “I have not denied signing the document which the elders persuaded us to sign on June 22, 2006 for the sake of national reconciliation. How could it be said that I denied a pardon document I signed, and whose content I accepted? How is that a crime? Where is the mistake?”
Zenawi also tried to portray Birtukan as a stubborn, ill-tempered and quarrelsome woman. He speculated that she acted foolishly believing that the “the chaos created by her supporters” or others exerting “external pressure” could get her released from prison quickly. Birtukan knew exactly what Zenawi was likely to do regardless of what she may or may not do. She told the “federal police commissioner” as much days before she was imprisoned. She summarized that conversation in Q’ale: “But what they found to be funny and perplexing is something great that I will forever live for, stand for, and sometimes get jailed and released for – it is the rule of law and abiding by the constitution.” In other words, Birtukan did not risk prison because she was stubborn. She was imprisoned because she stood up for her constitutional rights and in defense of the rule of law.
Zenawi argued that Birtukan was under some sort of fantasy about leading an “orange revolution” modeled after Kenya or Zimbabwe. He used the opportunity to warn his opposition that they too will fail and suffer the same fate should they try to bring about political change through acts of peaceful civil disobedience. His unambiguous message to everyone is clear: Peaceful resistance to his dictatorship is futile. But Birtukan did not try to launch any kind of revolution. She registered her party and overcame numerous political roadblocks placed in her way by the regime so that she could have an opportunity to engage and participate in the political process “abiding by the country’s constitution.” She was under no illusions that the regime will play fair; in fact, she expected they would play dirty and incapacitate her somewhere along the line, as they in fact did. In Q’ale, the former judge made it crystal clear: “The message [of the government] is clear and this message is not only for me but also for all who are active in the peaceful struggle. A peaceful and law-abiding political struggle can be conducted only within the limits the ruling party and individuals set and not according to what the constitution allows. And for me it is extremely difficult to accept this.” Zenawi thinks this is a “mistake”. No, this is telling it like it is!
The 103-minute video monologue offers insight into Zenawi’s thought process. He repeatedly insisted that his opposition is simply incapable of learning from their experiences and have a bad habit of compounding their mistakes. But what exactly are their mistakes? He seems to believe that his opposition’s challenge of the stolen 2005 election was a mistake. The independent press’ insistence on offering an alternative medium of communication is a mistake. Insisting on observance of the “Constitution of Ethiopia” is a mistake. Demanding compliance with international human rights treaty obligations is a mistake. Having free and fair elections is a mistake. The gathering of opposition political parties under one umbrella is a mistake. Insisting on accountability is a mistake. Exposing corruption is a mistake. Anything that challenges dictatorship is a mistake!
The wages of making mistakes is rotting in jail. Zenawi did not mince words. Birtukan will rot in jail; and he has already thrown away the key to her cell. That does not surprise anyone. For nearly two decades, he has been doing just that. His own official Inquiry Commission in 2006 documented that over 30,000 individuals were rounded up and jailed following the stolen elections in 2005. An additional 196 individuals were massacred and nearly 700 wounded by security thugs. International human rights organizations and others have documented the cases of countless political prisoners rotting in the regular and secret jails.
It is also clear that Zenawi has little familiarity with the concept of the rule of law. His understanding of that principle is that he makes the rule and that is the law. Everyone must follow his rules or they will rot in jail. Simple zero-sum game everyone can understand!
The unvarnished truth about Birtukan’s incarceration is that Zenawi was afraid she could easily win in a free and fair election in May 2010. All of the chaff about denying a pardon, mistakes and the other nonsense are part of a smoke screen designed to distract attention from the real issue. It is a classic case of the Ethiopian proverb, “Aya jibo satamehagn belagn. (“Mr. Hyena, if you must eat me, do so without giving too many excuses.) He will keep Birtukan in jail just until he makes his victory lap at his already-won May 2010 “election”. He would have no logical reason to keep her in prison thereafter. Should he keep her jailed after the “election”, it would be to satisfy some deep-seated sadistic pleasure that comes from seeing her suffer, or because of a repressed psychological need to dominate strong-willed women.
The machismo of power is that it gives the one who has it a sense of exhilarated and exaggerated sense of strength and self-confidence. Machismo makes a man a compulsive bully who, because of an inner fear of looking weak, must dominate everything around him. The macho man in any potential conflict situation overreacts, swaggers, boasts and rushes to destructive action as proof of his intelligence, audacity and courage. He rarely stops to think things through; that would be dithering and flip-flopping to his way of thinking. He will stay the course even though that course is manifestly perilous, silly or absurd.
Real men don’t whine. They debate real women in the court of public opinion and challenge them in the voting booths.
FREE BIRTUKAN AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.)
The “delegation of African negotiators” rumbled into Copenhagen rubbing their palms and licking their chops to load up tens of billions of dollars in carbon blood money and make a quick exit. They were disappointed. There was no gold at the end of the Copenhagen rainbow. At the end of the day, the industrialized countries pledged chump change in the amount of USD$30bn to the poor countries for the 2010-2012 period.
In the run up to the Copenhagen Conference, the trumpeted bravado to the world was that the “African delegation” will “walk out” and “de-legitimize” the proceedings unless the industrialized countries forked up a cool $40bn. The delegation and its leader, Meles Zenawi, were prepared to strong-arm, outwit and outplay the industrialized countries in their usual zero sum game. This time the game backfired. The wily “neo-colonial” Westerners outmatched, outplayed, overpowered and slickly finessed the African negotiators and others from the developing world.
Nobody walked out of the Conference. The “African negotiators” let off a whole lot of steam and huffed and puffed in the frigid Copenhagen winter, but they stayed in. Zenawi’s vaunted Copenhagen Showdown at High Noon with the rich countries never materialized. The bravado about “walking out” and “challenging” the industrialized countries proved to be just hot air. When push came to shove, all the bravado was replaced by servile groveling. Some representatives of African countries refused to walk into (“boycotted”) the conference. But they did their “boycott” during their lunch hour. They complained that the industrialized countries were railroading them into signing a deal that would be “against the interest of Africa.” A couple of days later, chief African negotiator Zenawi stood attentively clutching the podium at a farcical French-Ethiopian press conference as President Nicolas Sarkozy harangued his industrialized country partners for not being more forthcoming on emissions limits and mitigation aid.
At the press conference, Zenawi and Sarkozy buttered up each other. Zenawi said that he and Sarkozy mirrored each other so much on the issues that they were “preaching to the converted.” In a joint communiqué, they declared, “France and Ethiopia, representing Africa” appeal to all participants “to adopt an ambitious agreement limiting the increase of temperatures to 2°C above preindustrial levels.” They proposed “the halving of global CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.” This would require the developed countries to commit to an 80 per cent emissions reductions by 2050.
On the cold cash end of things, Zenawi and Sarkozy proposed “the adoption of a ‘fast-start’ fund of 10 billion dollars per year covering the next 3 years.” The fund will be used for “adaptation and mitigation actions, including the fight against deforestation.” Africa would get a cut of “40% of the fund.” They called for the “creation of a tax on international financial transactions and consider other sources such as taxes on sea freight or air transport.” They proposed “the development of carbon markets, which will be a major source of capital flows and investments between the North and the South.”
Throughout the negotiations, the rich countries threw out dollar figures at the poor countries as one would throw bones to hungry dogs. The U.S. offered the developing countries $85 million as part of a combined donation of $350 million from the industrialized countries to support clean energy technologies (wind, solar). Japan said it will kick in $15bn a year over the coming decade. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised a contribution of a $100bn a year to a long-term fund by 2020 to help poor countries deal with worsening floods, drought, storms and rising seas. The catch was that the developing countries had to sign on the Copenhagen deal and agree to transparency and emissions verification standards.
Other African countries and negotiators saw the Sarkozy-Zenawi deal as an outrage, an unconscionable trick to sell “Africa’s future” down the proverbial river. To borrow Zenawi’s pre-Conference phrase, they said the deal would lead to another “rape of our continent.” Rising to Africa’s defense was Algeria, with the support of South Africa and Nigeria. The trio accused the industrialized countries of conspiring to “kill” the Kyoto Protocol and get away with an agreement in Copenhagen that does not have strict and legally binding commitments on emissions cuts.
Zenawi was whipsawed by various representatives of the developing countries for bare-faced double-dealing. Lumumba Di-Aping, the chief negotiator of the G77 bloc of countries, representing some 130 nations, mauled Zenawi for selling out Africa to the rich countries:
Meles [Zenawi] agrees with the EU perspective and the EU perspective accepts the destruction of a whole continent plus dozens of other states… The EU’s very moral foundation is deeply questionable because she accepts that a large section of the human family should suffer in order for her to continue to thrive and prosper… The African Union has not accepted this. Meles is not the author of this proposal, the EU definitely is, along with the UK and France.
Mithika Mwenda of Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance, citing a study of the Working Group I to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, lashed out at Zenawi:“The IPCC science is clear – 2 degrees is 3.5 degrees in Africa – this is death to millions of Africans…. If Prime Minister Meles wants to sell out the lives and hopes of Africans for a pittance – he is welcome to – but that is not Africa’s position.”
Zenawi’s befuddled response was drenched in crocodile tears:
I know my proposal today will disappoint those Africans who from the point of view of justice have asked for full compensation for the damage done to our development prospects. My proposal dramatically scales back our expectation with regards to the level of funding in return for more reliable funding and a seat at the table in the management of such funds.
Compare this to Zenawi’s braggadocio in September, 2009:
We will use our numbers to de-legitimise any agreement that is not consistent with our minimal position… If needs be we are prepared to walk out of any negotiations that threaten to be another rape of our continent… Africa’s interest and position will not be muffled as has usually been the case… Africa will field a single negotiating team empowered to negotiate on behalf of all member states of the African Union…. The key thing for me is that Africa be compensated for the damage caused by global warming. Many institutions have tried to quantify that and they have come up with different figures. The sort of median figure would be in the range of 40 billion USD a year.
The farcical saga of the “African delegation” at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) is reminiscent of the story in Leonard Wibberley’s 1955 book, The Mouse That Roared. In that satirical work, the fictional little duchy (territory ruled by a duke or duchess) of Grand Fenwick in the French Alps declared war on the U.S. so that it could lose the war and receive U.S. aid. Following a series of wacky and comic twists and turns, Fenwick wins the war and forms a League of Little Nations which dictates its own peace terms to the U.S. and Russia and blackmails them into a general nuclear disarmament.
The “African delegation” came to Copenhagen with pipedreams of billions of dollars in carbon blood money. They left with pledges and promises of chump change. As the Copenhagen drama drew down its curtains, the “African negotiators” learned a valuable lesson: They may huff and puff and try to blow the Copenhagen House down, but in the climate change theatre, they are nothing more than servile stagehands. After two weeks of hanging around Copenhagen, the “African negotiators” became mere sideline onlookers to a hollow agreement, the “Copenhagen Accord”, signed by the US, China, Brazil, India and South Africa dubbed a “historic step forward” with “much further to go”.
The Accord affirms the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and sets a maximum of two degrees Celsius average global temperature rise. Following a review in 2016, that could be reduced to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The rich countries pledged to commit USD$30bn in new funding to help the poor countries during 2010-2012. They also promised to support “a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year” by 2020. The rich countries committed to a minimum 80 percent emissions reductions by 2050. There were other vague provisions for supporting national mitigation actions and verification procedures.
As the shiny limos scampered in the dark towards the Copenhagen Airport on December 18 with their freight of the world’s high and mighty, John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, lamented: “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.”
So ended the great adventure of the Mouse that Roared in Copenhagen!
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
