Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
Released by the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

March 11, 2008

Human rights abuses reported during the year included: limitation on citizens’ right to change their government during the most recent elections; unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition or insurgent groups; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens’ privacy rights and frequent refusal to follow the law regarding search warrants; use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counter-insurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly; limitations on freedom of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation (FGM); exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities, including killing and harassment of union leaders… Security forces committed politically motivated killings during the year. Security forces committed arbitrary killings during the year. For example, on January 16, two police officers beat, shot, and killed Tesfaye Taddese, who was an organizer for the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) during the 2005 parliamentary elections. An autopsy later revealed that the victim had lost several teeth and one eye from the beating before being shot. The police officers were arrested and an investigation was ongoing at year’s end… Read more >>

Evaluating U.S. Policy Objectives and Options on the Horn of Africa

Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on African Affairs

March 11, 2008

Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Washington, D.C.

Introduction

Good morning, Chairman Feingold, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the situation in the Horn of Africa, and the Department of Defense’s activities in the region. Africa, and the Horn of Africa in particular, is a region of great strategic importance to the United States. At the crossroads of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East, the Horn presents a series of complex threats to U.S. national security, including weak governance, lawlessness, territorial disputes, and safe havens for terrorism. If ignored or unaddressed, all of these issues will have dire consequences for the people of the Horn, for the broader region, for our friends and Allies on the continent, and for the United States. We believe that a coordinated U.S. foreign and national security policy in the Horn of Africa, of which our defense relations are a component, is of critical importance to U.S. strategic and security interests.

Department of Defense in the Horn

The Department of Defense’s activities in the Horn are a subset of the U.S. national strategy for Africa, as outlined by the President in National Security Presidential Directive 50, and support the Department of State’s foreign policy goals of countering terrorism and building local capacity. Our activities with African partners focus on issues of mutual strategic concern, including the elimination of terrorist safe havens, prevention of arms and human trafficking, and ensuring enduring access to land and sea lanes of communication. We address these security interests by working with African partners to promote civilian control and defense reform, and to build local military capacity. This is achieved by ensuring their militaries are appropriately sized and funded, by
professionalizing militaries through training to develop and maintain well-trained and disciplined forces with a respect for law and human rights, and by building capacity of African partner militaries that positively contribute to combating terrorism, and that prevent and respond to national and regional crises. Theater security cooperation remains the cornerstone of our strategy to enhance partner capabilities and to promote these relationships and common interests. Within the Horn, our engagement and activities are governed by the realities of regional instability and our bilateral relationships.

Ethiopia

The security situation in Ethiopia remains challenging and complex, with profound regional implications. One area of significant concern is the on-going border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea dedicate a significant portion of military resources and efforts to manning the border region, and we remain concerned about the possibility for renewal of hostilities along the border. We believe that any return to conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea would undermine stability throughout the entire region.

Beyond the border, Ethiopia is facing genuine security concerns in the Ogaden region. The Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) continues to wage a separatist movement in the Ogaden region with outside support, including from neighboring Eritrea. Following the April 2007 attack that killed nine Chinese oil workers and more than 70 Ethiopians, the Government of Ethiopia increased its operations in a coordinated counterinsurgency campaign in the region. As a result, we have seen increased military operations coupled with restrictions on commercial traffic and humanitarian access. We continue to monitor the situation in the Ogaden, but given that we no longer have the level of access that we previously had to the region, we are unable to confirm the actual facts on the ground. We are, however, acutely aware that for a counterinsurgency campaign to be successful, the military must respect the local civilian populace.

Centering Human Rights in U.S. Policy on Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea

Subcommittee on African Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate

Testimony by Lynn Fredriksson, Advocacy Director for Africa, Amnesty International USA

March 11, 2008

I would like to thank Chairman Feingold and distinguished members of the subcommittee for this important opportunity for Amnesty International to share our concerns about violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the need for a consistent re-centering of human rights in U.S. foreign policy on the Horn of Africa.

Introduction

Amnesty International is deeply concerned by widespread egregious human rights violations being perpetrated against civilians throughout the Horn of Africa. Ending current violations and preventing future violations in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea is perhaps one of the greatest challenges of our time, requiring immediate action and long-term planning, attention to domestic conditions within the context of a regional perspective. Each set of country concerns must be considered independently—as with Ethiopian government repression of its domestic opposition, journalists and human rights defenders, and the humanitarian crisis in the Somali region (known as the Ogaden). In Eritrea an authoritarian government maintains a stranglehold on freedom of expression, freedom of religion and press freedom, while detaining thousands of dissidents, many in the harshest conditions. In Somalia a transitional government without popular mandate has not only failed to protect over one million displaced civilians, but has failed to hold its own troops accountable for violations against them. Compounding these challenges is the intervention of Ethiopian forces in Somalia, and recent threats of renewed conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea along their disputed border. Further compounding these challenges is a flawed U.S. foreign policy which has placed short-sighted counter-terror concerns at the forefront of U.S. involvement in the region, while human rights and humanitarian concerns are routinely pushed aside.

In large part because of capable and resilient civil society throughout the region, despite these conditions, the situation is far from hopeless. But the United States and the International Contact Group, regional donors, and the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council, and other international organizations cannot simply maintain their current priorities and refuse to shift course. Crucial to this course shift is the re-centering of humanitarian and human rights in U.S. foreign policy. On Ethiopia, that means more consistent and more public denunciations of ongoing restrictions on civil society and the private media, demands for the release of remaining prisoners of conscience, and the requirement of a demonstrated opening of commercial and humanitarian access to the Somali region. Eritrea represents a different type of situation which requires a reversal in current policy. The U.S. administration should seriously consider any plans it might have to add Eritrean opposition groups to the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations or to add an already isolated regime to the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, but should consider opportunities to provide essential humanitarian aid. The international community must also decide where it stands on the Boundary Commission Ruling, denying Ethiopia the ability to continue to flout its findings, and Eritrea an excuse to interfere with UNMEE. On Somalia, if the U.S. intends to alleviate, not worsen, anti-American sentiment on the Horn, it must first and foremost cease all land and air assaults intended to “take out” presumed al-Qaeda or other terrorist operatives. Since early 2007 four such assaults have been launched in Somalia, leading to civilian casualties, destruction of civilian property and livelihood, and the widespread belief that the U.S. protects the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and backs up Ethiopian forces, without genuine concern for civilians. In addition, the U.S. government must exert significantly more pressure on the governments of Ethiopia and Somalia to prevent human rights abuses and ensure accountability for the conduct of their armed forces.

Evaluating U.S. Policy Objectives and Options on the Horn of Africa
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on African Affairs

March 11, 2008

Testimony by David H. Shinn
Adjunct Professor, Elliott School of International Affairs
George Washington University

I thank Chairman Feingold for inviting me to testify on U.S. policy objectives and options on the Horn of Africa. The Horn has long been one of the most conflicted regions of the world and, as back door to the Middle East, is strategically important to the U.S. It merits close attention by both the Administration and Congress.

The Subcommittee on African Affairs asked me to assess the current security situation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia, and to identify the most serious threats to regional and U.S. security. It also solicited my analysis of efforts by governments in the Horn and by the Administration to address these threats. It then urged that I offer
recommendations on how the U.S. can better contribute to security, stability, growth, and democracy in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. In particular, the Subcommittee asked what tools and leverage the U.S. possesses that would be most effective in achieving U.S. objectives in the Horn of Africa.

Current Situation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia

The serious challenges facing Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia are long-standing and have implications for neighboring Djibouti, Kenya, and Sudan just as developments in those countries impact the situation for the three countries discussed in this testimony. With approximately 75 million people and located in the center of the Horn, Ethiopia is in many ways key to peace and security (or lack thereof) in the region. But the cross-
border linkages are so important in the Horn that any one of the countries has the potential to destabilize or make more stable the other countries in the region.

Turning first to Ethiopia, the country is still recovering from the aftermath of the 2005 general election. The run-up to the election and the actual balloting were deemed to be generally free and fair. It was a major improvement over all previous elections. Charges by some opposition parties that the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) stole the election during the ballot counting process resulted in violence that continued sporadically for the subsequent six months. In some cases the opposition provoked a strong reaction by government security forces. Nevertheless, the security forces clearly used excessive force in responding to a number of challenges.

With local elections (districts and kebeles or wards) and those for some forty vacancies in the national legislature scheduled for April 2008, the internal political situation approaches another potentially significant turning point. Unfortunately, opposition political parties are demoralized, arguing that the government has shut down most of their regional offices and arrested some of their supporters. Several of the opposition parties may not even contest seats for local offices, which in Ethiopia are actually very important. The current internal political dynamic surrounding these elections does not auger well for enhancing democracy in the country. Traditionally, there are no international observers for local elections. In any event, because of the size of the country and large number of contests, it would be difficult to mobilize a sufficient number of international observers. Nevertheless, the local elections are an opportunity for advancing democracy in Ethiopia. If they fail to achieve this goal, it will be an enormous lost opportunity.

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama will win Mississippi’s Democratic primary, CNN projects. Obama will also finish first in the Texas Democratic caucuses, which were held last week. He will get more delegates out of the state than rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s primary. Under the Texas Democratic Party’s complex delegate selection plan, Texas voters participated in both a primary and caucuses last week. Two-thirds of the state’s 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses. The exit polls in Mississippi also showed Democratic voters divided. Of those who voted for Obama, 42 percent said they would be satisfied if Clinton was the nominee, according to the exit polls…. Read more >>