On May 23, Ethiopia’s incumbent Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was reelected in a landslide. Despite claims of fraud and coercion, Zenawi said: “We have no regrets and we offer no apologies.”
Ethiopian journalist and democracy activist Abebe Gellaw has worked for the Ethiopian Herald, the only English daily in the country, and is a founding editor of Addis Voice, an online journal in English and Amharic that focuses on Ethiopia. The visiting scholar at Stanford is currently working on a book, Ethiopia Under Meles: Why the Transition from Military Rule to Democracy Failed.
He has an op-ed piece, “Ethiopia’s Embarrassing Elections,” in Monday’s Wall Street Journal.
He spoke to the Stanford News Service about the election.
What are the implications of Meles Zenawi’s win for human rights in Ethiopia?
It is a serious setback. The reason why this 99.6 percent election victory is outrageously ludicrous is due to the fact that it can simply be interpreted as if Ethiopians have unanimously endorsed their suffering and abuse under the Meles regime. This can’t happen anywhere.
Supporters of Ethiopia’s opposition coalition have been beaten, harassed and jailed, and one of the country’s last independent newspapers closed in December after its senior staff fled the country for fear of arrest. One opposition parliamentary candidate was stabbed to death, although the government denied involvement. A candidate was arrested while campaigning and sentenced to six months in prison on a contempt charge. Despite government claims, isn’t that evidence of fraud?
The whole situation is even worse than that. There is no question that the elections have been fraudulent. No repressive regime that kills, muffles, harasses and jails innocent citizens can win free and fair elections.
Yet the United States doesn’t seem prepared to put pressure on a stable government in an otherwise war-torn region. Why?
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is considered a key U.S. ally in the war on terror despite his appalling human rights record and making matters worse in Somalia. It appears that the chaos in Somalia, the turbulence in the Sudan and the anti-American stance of Eritrea has bought U.S. silence in exchange for security and military cooperation.
Many Ethiopians see the reactions from Washington as a lip service, a kind of “rest in peace” for democracy.
The U.S. State Department expressed “concern” and urged Meles’ administration to strengthen its democratic institutions and offer a “level playing field” to electoral candidates free from intimidation and favoritism in order to ensure “more inclusive results.” Is that going to mean anything?
Not really. This call should have come five years ago. The process of killing any hope for democracy started in earnest in the aftermath the 2005 disputed elections.
When the Meles regime realized the danger of allowing relatively contested elections, it launched a series of measures that derailed any democratic gains in the last years.
Over 13 popular newspapers were closed down, critical websites were blocked, civic society organizations were crippled as they were forbidden from raising funding from foreign sources. The Voice of America was jammed, peaceful assembly was almost totally banned, freedom of expression was criminalized and serious dissidents like “Ethiopia’s Aung San Suu Kyi,” Birtukan Mideksa, were locked up. Where was the U.S. during that time? Almost nowhere.
The Bush administration even blocked the passage of HR2003, the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007, which was aimed at consolidating respect for human rights, democracy and economic freedom in Ethiopia. After the bill passed the House of Representatives, it died in the Senate. The Ethiopian government had hired DLA Piper, which received $50,000 per month to lobby against the bill, and was threatening that the Ethio-U.S. alliance would be over.
What can and should the U.S. government do?
The Meles regime has received tens of billions of dollars from the United States since it came to power in 1991. The financial, military and diplomatic support of the United States has undoubtedly consolidated the regime. Meles continues to pretend that his regime can survive without America’s support, but he knows full well that he still needs a lot of propping up. Over 30 percent of the national budget comes from foreign aid.
The future of Ethiopia is now more uncertain and it can potentially join Somalia if serous conflicts break out. What makes Ethiopia a ticking time bomb is that the regime has fragmented the country along ethnic lines in pursuit of its divide-and-rule tactics.
Advocates of armed struggle as the only viable option to bring about change are likely to get serious listeners.
The warlords in Somalia and the regimes in Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea are part of the problem, as their tyrannies and irresponsible style of governance will continue to make the sub-region more unstable and violent.
The U.S. can actually send stronger messages to Zenawi, who has been convinced that he is indispensable and irreplaceable. It should not turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed against the people of Ethiopia. President Obama should also live up to his promise of standing by the bitter struggles of oppressed people to end tyranny. There must be no exceptions.
A few months ago, you said expressing your views can be “extremely dangerous” in Ethiopia.
The majority of Ethiopian journalists who dared to do their jobs honestly suffered immensely. The reason why hundreds of journalists live in exile is due to the fact that the regime jails, tortures and harasses journalists. In Ethiopia, the regime has been engaged in the business of closing down so many serious newspapers and attacking journalists without any consequences for the last 15 years.
As an example let me mention the difficulties even the Voice of America is facing in Ethiopia. In 2005, four VOA broadcasters and reporters as well as one manager, all naturalized U.S. citizens and permanent residents, were accused of fictitious treason and genocide charges – charges later dropped under international pressure.
Since earlier this year, the Voice of America has been jammed. When reporters asked Zenawi why his government was jamming VOA, he said the station “copied the worst practices of radio stations such as Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda” and he accused it of instigating genocide.
An Ethiopian journalist, who declined to give his name for fear of retribution, told the Wall Street Journal that many Ethiopians expected the United States to do more than send food. “People are starving for freedom, not just for food.” Would you agree?
Food aid is starving Ethiopia. Food aid has made the regime think that feeding the starving millions is the responsibility of the West. Earlier this month, I had a chance to raise a question to Meles Zenawi at the World Economic Forum on Africa, which was held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
He was a panelist on vision for African agriculture. I plucked up my courage and asked him why millions of Ethiopians are still starving under his leadership while the country has huge water resources and unutilized virgin land. I asked him why he is giving away hundreds of thousands of hectares of land to Saudi Arabia and China to grow food for their own people. I also wanted to know why he is not privatizing land instead of using it as a means of control for the ruling party.
He was visibly unhappy about the questions. According to him, distributing food aid was an achievement. It is very unfortunate that Ethiopia is being led by people who lack creative thinking and courage to take responsibility.
The hunger for freedom is something that cannot be addressed with food aid from America and Canada. Credible research indicates that democracies and free countries never suffer from extreme food insecurity and famine. The Nobel Prize winner economist Amartya Sen, for instance, theorized that in countries where there is relative freedom and democratic governance famine can hardly occur. Unfortunately, food aid has now been institutionalized in Ethiopia. That is a disaster for Ethiopia, which is a very proud nation.
The following is a letter from DLA Piper, a law firm in Washington DC.
February 5, 2010
Mr. Elias Kifle
Publisher, Ethiopian Review
Annandale, Virgina
Re: January 27, 2010 On-Line Article Entitles “Ethiopian billionaire’s daughter faces stoning in Saudi”
Dear Mr. Kifle:
This firm represents Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi and his family.
We are writing to you regarding the content of your article entitled “Ethiopian billionaire’s daughter faces in Saudi,” appearing on-line in the January 27, 2010 edition of the Ethiopian Review. Your article states that the “identity of the alleged Saudi Princess given secret asylum in the United Kingdom early last year has been revealed” as Sarah Mohammed Al Amoudi, daughter of Sheikh Mohammed Al Amoudi. The alleged Saudi Princess referenced in your article is not the daughter of Sheikh Al Amoudi, The information in your article making the link between the alleged Saudi Princess and the Al Amoudi family is false, highly inflammatory, and is a defamatory statement.
We insist that you immediately cease and desist from making this false and defamatory statement. We also demand that you issue an immediate retraction of the article by issuing a formal statement disclaiming the link between the alleged Saudi Princess and the Al Amoudi family, by removing the reference to Sheikh Al Amoudi and his family from this on-line article, and by issuing an apology to Sheikh Al Amoudi and his family.
If you are represented by counsel, have your counsel contact us immediately to discuss this very serious matter. If you are not represented, you may contact us directly to confirm arrangements for the retraction and apology.
Very truly yours,
Mary E. Gately
DLA Piper LLP
500 Eights Street, NW
Washington DC 20044 [email protected]
T. 202 799 4507
F. 202 799 5507
————————————
Ms. Gately,
Here is my formal statement:
Screw yourself. Same goes for all DLA Piper “lawyers.” Stop bluffing and face me in court.
WASHINGTON (Africa Insight) — The Kenyan government has reportedly retained a top Washington public relations firm to improve its image in the United States at a reported cost of Sh129 million ($1.7 million) over the next two years. According to the Paris-based Indian Ocean Newsletter, CLS & Associates have added the Kenyan Government to their list of clients.
By retaining the firm, Kenya has joined a growing list of countries including some in Africa that rely on lobbyists to protect and promote their interests in Washington. This subculture reflects a steady decline and privatisation of diplomacy and has an impact on growth of democracy in Africa.
Power and influence are the trademarks of Washington D.C.’s K Street, a major thoroughfare that is known as a hotbed for over 14,000 lobbyists, advocacy groups and think tanks who, in 2008, cumulatively made an estimated $3.30 billion (Sh251 billion). Lobbying, a multi-billion dollar profession, involves all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups.
The strongest lobbies promoting foreign interests are driven by cohesive ethnic population groups in the United States such as Armenians, Greeks, Taiwanese and Irish. Arguably, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most influential and well connected lobby in America whose work is to defend Israel’s hard line stand on the Palestinians at the same time deflecting criticism of its military operations in the Palestinian territory especially when dealing with Hezbollah.
For Africa, there exists the Africa Action group, which is the oldest organisation in the US working for Africa affairs, lobbying on issues that fit into the broad goal of political, economic and social justice in Africa. The fifty-year old African Studies Association – a vocal conglomerate of people with a scholarly and professional interest in Africa is yet another African lobby. Lastly is the Trans Africa Forum which advocates human rights and social justice in the continent.
John Newhouse in the article ‘Diplomacy Inc’ (Foreign Affairs May/June 2009) argues that advantages of using lobbyists emanate from the fact that they operate within the system in ways that experienced diplomats cannot. This is not to negate the work of foreign embassies, but lobbyists can identify with a domestic ethnic bloc even though the bloc is paid by a foreign government.
Ethnic politics can hence trump corporate interests and, more important, influence what agencies within the US government may see as the national interest. Lobbying firms are also able to put forward arguments in ways that Ambassadors cannot, in part due to the diplomacy rules they operate under.
Compiled fact sheets on Kenya
It has also been argued that even the US government has become so complex that only insiders, such as former members of Congress or congressional staff members turned lobbyists, can navigate its confusing structure. In addition, foreign missions, including those representing African countries, have limited resources and hence are spread thin, with limited access to the people and offices that matter. Thus, it becomes necessary to engage lobbyists who will cover much of the legwork in Congress for the client country.
Nations retain a specific lobbying firm with an eye to extracting maximum advantage in areas such as foreign aid, investments and trade matters. Whatever it is they want, the lobbying firms in Washington help them get it.
In the initial phase of its work, CLS is said to have compiled a series of eight fact sheets on Kenya for distribution to the US media, government officials in Washington and American corporate executives.
These brief releases attempt to put a positive spin on Kenya’s efforts at national reconciliation, its fight against corruption and the country’s security ties with the United States. The strategy appears to be designed to highlight considerations that are already at the forefront of President Barrack Obama administration’s relations with the Kenya’s coalition government.
Lobbying firms are also expected to deflect criticism against their client country, when the US Congress takes note, concerning violations of human rights. Congressional indignation, after all, may lead to partial or total economic and financial sanctions. However, it is this capability of lobbyists to shield its client country from human rights accountability and scrutiny that posses a challenge to Africa’s democracy.
Flipping through the US State Department annual global survey of human rights for the past four years, it is noticeable that many of the African countries known as human rights violators have got significant support from the American government whether military assistance (Egypt), development aid (Nigeria), or expanded trade opportunities (Angola, Cameroon).
It is also worth noting that most of these countries have natural resources that they could have appropriated for American support. Nevertheless, even the best natural resource-endowed regimes need help navigating the bureaucratic seas of Washington, and it is their great fortune that, for the right price, countless lobbyists are willing to captain even the foulest of ships.
During the 2008 US Presidential campaigns, the top adviser to US Senator John McCain, then prospective Republican Party nominee for president, was heavily criticised for his work on behalf of former President Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and other past African leaders accused of human rights abuses.
Repackaged Savimbi
Charles Black Jnr, a longtime Washington power broker, was a well-paid lobbyist for Kenya’s government in the late 1980s and into the 1990s. A report by the non-governmental Centre for Public Integrity documented that Black’s firm, Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly Public Affairs Co., was paid about $1.5 million (Sh114 million) by the Kenyan government from 1990 to 1993. The money was intended to win influence for Kenya with the US Congress, the White House, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and an array of Washington-based NGOs.
Black’s firm also helped orchestrate the widely publicised 1989 burning of $3 million (Sh228 million) worth of poached elephant tusks in Nairobi National Park by the former President. Moi’s private visit to the United States in 1990 was in part organised by Mr Black’s firm and it also handled media relations during the visit, including a press briefing by Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Robert Ouko, who would be assassinated on returning to Kenya. Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly Public Affairs Co. also represented DR Congo (then Zaire) dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Nigerian military ruler Gen Ibrahim Babangida, Somalia strongman Mohamed Siad Barre, and Angola rebel leader Jonas Savimbi. It greatly helped repackage Savimbi as a valiant anti-communist “freedom fighter.”
In 2004, six former members of Congress served as “election observers” in Cameroon and offered positive assessment of President Paul Biya’s overwhelming reelection victory. However, it was later found out that the so called observers had been financed by the firm of Patton Boggs, which worked for and was paid by the Biya government.
Egypt, historically one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid, has also mounted a large effort to preserve American funding in a case that shows the power of well connected lobbyists. Nevertheless, critics have voiced that American aid has allowed Cairo’s political elite to put off much needed changes especially in democracy and governance that can spur growth.
Killed anti-Ethiopian bill
In June 2006, the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Advancement Act was introduced by Rep. Christopher Smith (Republican, New Jersey) proposing to put limits on military aid to Ethiopia — with the exception of peacekeeping and anti-terrorism programs — until the government released all political prisoners and provided fair and speedy trials to other prisoners held without charges. Most of these political prisoners had been arrested during the 2005 post election protests following the re-election of vote stealing by Prime Minister tribal warlord Meles Zenawi, which also left more than 500 people dead.
The bill swiftly passed the House International Relations Committee with bipartisan support with the Ethiopian diaspora in America launching letter and e-mail campaigns to push the legislation in Congress. To counter this effort, the Ethiopian government hired a well-established law and lobbying firm, DLA Piper, to protect its interests in Washington at a cost of $2.3million.
The lobby shop in a memo argued that the bill compromised “the national security interests of both the United States and Ethiopia.” They also raised concerns about Somalia that Addis Ababa and the United States shared. Through numerous meetings and lobbying, eventually the bill never made it to the House floor. It has been argued that lobbying is undesirable because it allows people with particular interests and who represent a minority to gain special access to law-makers and through contributions and favours have controversial relationships with representatives. This is a danger to Africa’s democracy including settling its internal conflicts. A case in point is of Western Sahara which has been fighting for independence from Morocco — and has been the subject of over 34 UN Security Council resolutions since 1999.
In late 2007 and 2008, the desert region was a top priority for Morocco’s hired lobbyists who sought the support of the Congress in the territorial dispute. In 1991, the United Nations had brokered a cease-fire agreement between Morocco and the Polisario Front, a group fighting for Western Sahara’s independence. Part of the terms of that deal included holding a referendum to determine the territory’s final status.
In 2007, Morocco issued a proposal to grant Western Sahara autonomy within sovereign Morocco. The US initially welcomed the proposal, and direct talks began between Morocco and the Polisario with the involvement of Algeria, which supports self-determination for the Sahrawi tribes from the area.
Behind the scenes was the work of lobbyists for both parties. By the end of negotiations according to records released by Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the Algerian government’s lobbyists had 36 contacts with members of Congress and staff promoting self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.
The Algerians paid a modest $416,000 (Sh31.6 million) in lobbying fees. By comparison, lobbyists for the government of Morocco had 305 contacts with members of Congress and their staff. Morocco paid $3.4 million (Sh258 million) in lobbying expenses — putting it among the top foreign government spenders for FARA filings in the period.
The intense campaign resulted in a bipartisan group of some 173 House members signing on to a statement supporting Morocco’s offer of autonomy for the region without formal independence. President Bush also expressed support for Morocco’s plan, a decision that has since been reversed by President Obama who backs a Western Sahara State.
Obama reining in lobbyists
It is due to this power to influence that President Obama made lobbying a key target of his ethics policies, sharply limiting their access to the administration and forbidding appointment of former lobbyists in the government without special waivers. The moves angered many lobbying groups but it is doubtful if it has made any impact on the booming business on K Street.
It is not only in America where the lobbyists are based. There are currently around 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels, the headquarters of European Union, seeking to influence its legislative process. In Britain, the lobbying industry has been steadily growing in recent years and was estimated by the Hansard Society in 2007 to be worth £1.9 billion (Sh234 billion) and employs 14,000 people. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee held an investigation into lobbying, and its 2009 report called for “a statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests.”
It is thus clear that lobbyists have gained considerable influence in Washington and their work is affecting how different Africa countries run their affairs. Whereas there are some lobbyists who carry out harmless and good work, others continue to be used by African leaders to stifle the continent’s democracy.
For the growth of the continent and stronger foreign policy ties, Washington needs to assist fragile democracies reform and strengthen their institutions instead of bowing to pressure from lobbyists working for the interests of the political elite.
At the same time, Africans need to elect strong capable leaders who view success as delivering development and reducing poverty rather than siphoning public resources and buying support or rigging elections. This will be an easier route to take than the power of lobby groups which is a short term gain mostly for the minority.
(Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group’s Africa Media Network Project)
Do you remember H.R. 2003 (“Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act”)? That was a bill sponsored by Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) to promote the “advancement of human rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.” It passed by a unanimous vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on October 2, 2007. A motley crew of human rights advocates and defenders, grassroots activists, international human rights organizations and others toiled long and hard to help get that bill passed. While we were pounding the pavement on Capitol Hill, guess what the other side was doing?
Getting Fleeced on “K” Street
Dick Armey’s army at DLA Piper was leading the cavalry charge on the Hill against H.R. 2003. Or were they? The evidence from the official lobbying reports show that the “K” Street boys (“K” street is the address of choice for the high powered Washington lobbyists) were on “easy street” lobbying for the dictators in Ethiopia. In the Sharkdom of Lobbying, DLA Piper is BIG, “with 3,500 lawyers located in 29 countries and 67 offices throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the US.” Between 9/01/2007-7/30/2008, DLA Piper was “variously” paid by the “Government of Ethiopia” $1,351,851.25 for fees and expenses. DLA Piper made several hundred “contacts” with U.S. officials, media reps and others for the “Government of Ethiopia.” With the exception of a few face-to-face meetings with members of Congress, all of the other official contacts were with congressional staffers by email. (See fn. 1) The Piper firm made over 114 contacts with U.S. officials on H.R. 2003, almost all of them by email to Congressional staffers.
The Dewey and LeBoeuf (DL) firm was also retained to do additional lobbying. DL is a prominent “white-shoe firm” (a phrase used to describe leading American professional services firms that have been in existence for more than a century) with many Fortune 500 clients. Between 12/26/2007 and 02/01/2008, DL snagged four payments from the “Government of Ethiopia” ($183,307.48; $28,642.50; $73,962.30; $300,000) for professional fees and expenses. DL arranged a total of 17 face-to-face meetings and 13 telephone contacts, principally with officials in the U.S. State Department Office of East African Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs. (See fn. 1.)
The “Government of Ethiopia” paid the Mark Saylor public relations firm $328,040.18 for consulting fees and expenses between 3/19/2007 and 9/29/2008. (See fn. 1.) The firm made 78 phone calls, wrote 35 emails and arranged 13 in-person meetings, mostly with representatives of major U.S. media outlets. Saylor claims that its “principals serve as trusted advisors, offering clients strategic and tactical counsel on sensitive matters.” Highlighting its “aggressive” style, Saylor brags: “We find opportunities where others see only disaster. We combine swift action with careful judgment.” Saylor sure knows how to find opportunity in disaster for themselves.
The total payments by the “Government of Ethiopia” to the various lobbying firms in 2007-2008 exceeded $2,265,802.
Inscrutably, between November 2007 and October 2008, “lobbyist payments from Ethiopian People Revolutionary Party” were made in the amount of over $91,418 12 “for membership fee and contribution.” [2] (See fn. 2.)
Paying the Piper of “K” Street?
The gold diggers of “K” Street can spot a sucker a mile away. Dick Armey (who resigned from DLA Piper a couple of weeks ago over the bad publicity caused by his FreedomWorks organization turning out anti-heath care reform protesters to disrupt town hall meetings) was the point man lobbying to defeat H.R. 5680 (later H.R. 2003) because the dictators in Ethiopia believed he could best defend their cause on the Hill. After all, Armey was a former republican majority leader in the House and the second most powerful person in that institution. He was also one of the key leaders of the “Republican Revolution” which enabled Republicans to gain control of Congress in 1994. Armey was more connected to political power on the Hill than Siamese twins to each other. The dictators thought he could walk on water. Indeed, Armey did a pretty good job by making sure that the bill never saw the light of day on the House floor after it passed committee in October, 2007. No doubt, he had Republican speaker Dennis Hastert’s ear on the issue. But Democrats “thumped” the Republicans in November 2007, and the whole game changed.[3]
But what really happened to the dictators of Ethiopia on “K” Street? To say they were taken to the cleaners is to state the obvious. They paid millions to have lobbyists shovel hundreds of emails to Congressional staffers, make a few telephone calls and arrange even fewer in-person meetings with American officials. That is not exactly getting the biggest bang for one’s lobbying buck. What a monumental waste of the scarce resources of one of the poorest countries in the world! What a rip-off! But the old saw must be true: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
To fathom what happened to the dictators on “K” Street, one must appreciate the lobbying industry and its role in the American political process. Lobbyists (a term which came in to use in the late 1800s to describe the wheelers and dealers who hanged out in government building lobbies to chat with law makers before legislative sessions) are a special breed of influence peddlers in the American political system. Even though their activities are fully protected by the expressive freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lobbyists suffer from a bad public image. In the past few years, lobbyists have been at the center of various high profile political corruption scandals in Washington, and various members of Congress were forced to resign or ended up in jail.
Lobbyists are often hired because of their presumed expertise in the legislative process, their knowledge of certain areas of public policy and special connections with certain influential members of Congress and their staff. As of 2007, there were some 15,000 actively registered lobbyists in Washington, and spending on lobbying exceeded $3.3 billion in 2008. In theory, the principal task of lobbyists in the legislative process is to prepare and present information to members of Congress and their staff, and to set up and attend face-to-face meetings. They also play a critical role in arranging testimony for Congressional hearings. In practice, they do a lot more, including drafting legislation, mobilizing grassroots activists, campaign fund raising and other activities. The most effective lobbyists are those with experience as Congressional insiders, often former members or staffers who use their skills and experience to navigate the circuitous legislative process.
For the dictators, Armey and DLA Piper may have appeared to be winning hands in the Republican-controlled Congress. Armey was at the top of his game. They never thought the Republicans would be dislodged from power, and arrogantly and ill-advisedly put all their eggs in the Republican basket. To add insult to injury, they targeted some powerful members of Congress and made them enemies by vilifying and harshly criticizing them. When the Democrats took control of the House, it was time for the dictators to pay the piper. They had burned their bridges and discredited themselves with Hill Democrats, and now they are facing the music for their arrogant miscalculations.
Banana Republic Running (Buying) Capitol Hill?
“While they are entitled to their own opinion,” quipped the arch dictator in Ethiopia, “this government and this country are incapable, unwilling and unable to be run like some banana republic from Capitol Hill. It is very worrisome that some of these individuals appear to have entertained such views.”
What is “very worrisome”, indeed downright creepy, is the fact that an outlaw dictator could spend millions of dollars to influence (buy) the Government of the United States while berating and castigating it. But that’s one of the great things about America: Even the worst human rights abusers, thugs and criminals in the world are given the opportunity to be heard by the representatives of the American people. This does not mean that there are no reasons to be alarmed over the fact that dictators are spending millions to buy influence and corrupt American democracy. We should all be concerned. These dictators are not accountable to the American people, and could not care less about the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Hiding behind the silk curtains of the lobbying firms and defended by legions of lobbyists, these dictatorships could inflict serious damage by depriving American citizens of their right to clean government. More troubling is the fact that these dictators could overwhelm the efforts of grassroots efforts of American citizens by spending their millions like a drunken sailor.
But there is something weird about the whole situation. Today sleazy dictators are using lobbyists to do work normally and traditionally done by diplomatic missions. While most governments who uphold the rule of law seek to influence American policy through normal diplomatic channels, dictators are increasingly relying on lobbyists and fat cat influence peddlers to circumvent the regular diplomatic process. This presents an obvious question: What do the fully staffed and resourced diplomatic missions do in their day jobs?
Anyway, under Barack Obama’s watch, the panhandling dictators are being defanged so that they will not spread their venom in the American body politics. No doubt, they will keep trying new tricks to get back in the game. But President Obama has made his position crystal clear to Africa’s tin pot dictators: “Africa’s future is up to Africans,” and “history is on the side of these brave Africans, and not with those who use coups or change constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn’t need strongmen. It needs strong institutions.”
The Little People United Can Never Be Defeated
Back in late 2007, supporters of Ethiopian human rights were all bent out of shape worrying that Armey’s army would vanquish us on the legislative battlefield on Capitol Hill. But the E-Mail Warriors of DLA Piper, DL and Saylor proved to be no match for the defiant ragtag crew of pavement-pounding, Capitol-Hill-hoofing Ethiopian grassroots advocates. For the millions they paid to lobbyists, the dictators could not get a single vote against H.R. 2003 on the House floor. The bill got stuck in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and failed to make it to the Senate floor because of entangled Senate procedures, unrelated to its merits.
What is the lesson to be learned? The dictators can spend millions on lobbying to buy American politicians to do their bidding. They can spend all the money they want to change their ugly image. But the fact remains that even the mighty Goliath DLA Piper could be defeated if thousands of little Davids band together.[4] If the little people unite, they can kick the rumps of the “K” Street boys and their sleazy paymasters: Exhibit A — H.R. 2003.
——————–
[1] http://foreignlobbying.org/client/Government%20of%20Ethiopia/
[2] http://foreignlobbying.org/client/Ethiopian%20People%20Revolutionary%20Party/
[3] http://almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com/2006/11/farewell-mr-hastert-good-bye-mr-armey.html
[4] http://almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-to-dla-piper.html
“There are no good dictators. But some are better than others. The best dictators permit freedom of expression, rule of law and economic growth, creating a democratic minded middle class that eventually pushes them aside. The worst dictators, by contrast, grind down civil society, breeding poverty and sectarian hatred and pulverizing all the institutions from which liberalism might grow. The worst dictators eventually leave too, but when they do, all hell breaks loose.”
So said one called Peter Beinart on 6 August 2007 in a piece he wrote to Time Magazine under the title “How to deal with dictators.” At the time, he was outlining his ideas for the US administration on what is the best course to deal with one of Washington’s friendliest dictator, Pervez Musharraf, by drawing historical parallels between South Korea which evolved from a benevolent dictatorship into a democracy and Iraq which degenerated from a fully blown dictatorship into a killing field for sectarian violence to the point of abdicating its sovereignty to a superpower. After having read the writings on the wall, Musharraf, as we know it today, has left from the political landscape of Pakistan gracefully thereby prompting the ever prolific pen of Prof. Alemayehu G.Mariam to wonder as to whether dictators somehow become statesmen; also whether Musharraf had been a closet statesman all these years? (Read “Gotta know when to fold’em” 25 August 2008)
In Africa too, we have seen these kinds of dictators who got transformed from a military dictatorship into a statesmanship ranging from Lt. Jerry Rawlings of Ghana to General Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. Others currently in power in most African nations too, manifest this positive signs of transforming themselves into statesmanship whenever their respective country requires it. They show the wisdom on how to blow with the wind of governance by consent. That’s why right after the Kenyan election debacle, the incumbent led by Mwai Kibaki got back to its senses and sat down with the opposition to form the coalition government for the good of Kenya. Even that octogenarian dictator of Zimbabwe who has been the object of unabashed vilification by the western media didn’t mess that much with the independence of the judiciary, nor the press.
On the contrary, where so-called judges and prosecutors in Ethiopia take blind orders from Meles Zenawi, Judges in Harare grant bail and also turn in a not guilty verdict for the adversaries of the Mugabe government. While you see gruesome pictures of Zimbabwean victims of “cholera” on CNN, you’ll be told in a hushed tone by a BBC Correspondent in Addis that the Ethiopian government/regime in my lexicon/prevented them from taking pictures and the matter rests at that.
In Uganda, where this writer has taken refuge since 2007, people complain vociferously that their president is a dictator.Indeed, according to my observation; he has the inclinations of a dictator. Unlike Ethiopia, though, let alone Ugandans, I the refugee suffer no consequence for saying so. People in Kampala get away everyday with obnoxious expressions on the numerous FM Stations and TV channels on any topic. Of course, abuses take place but not with impunity.And, when they do, those behind them will be made answerable for it.Recently, for instance, Human Rights Watch grilled the Ugandan government for the disappearance and torture of a couple guys in a secret detention centre run by the army. The American lady who did the research presented her findings right here in Kampala. Later, she was put on a talk show on FM and TV with the army spokesperson. The spokesperson, Major Felix Kulaigye was humble when defending the position of his government. I can go citing incidents like this from the Ugandan political landscape. The bottom line is; can any Ethiopian imagine such a scenario under the regime of Meles Zenawi?
The bare fact is, the Ethiopian regime even by African standards, is a relic of history belonging to barbarism. Being barbaric with zero tolerance for dialogue, rule of law or any civility, it views the whole world through its archaic lens.Thus,because of some exchange of diplomatic niceties between Meles Zenawi and Yoweri Museveni,TPLF’s lieutenants such as Girma T/sion here in Kampala expect their counterparts to hand them over some Ethiopian exiles. Little did their dense ‘intelligence’ allow them to understand how strong the political will in Uganda is when it comes to respecting human rights, including the sacred rights of refugees. Just because their bribery worked in the highly corrupted Kenyan society, they think they can do the same with Ugandan officials.However, it’s not the first time, nor would it be the last for Meles Zenawi’s regime to behave in this sort of asinine manner. During the height of its incursion in Somalia where it received a humiliating defeat, Aljazeera exposed the brutality committed by Zenawi’s henchmen on Somali civilians. Unable to stifle Aljazeera by invoking its partnership in the fight against terrorism to the White House so that it bears upon the Kuwaiti sheikdom, it broke diplomatic relationship with the Kuwaiti government with a manifestation of egregious infantile politics.
And, now accompanied by his new found lackey, Bereket Simon reportedly went to the United States to request for the umpteenth time so that VOA Amharic service is taken off the air. Probably too, to ask for the extradition of that “terrorist”Dr.Berhanu Nega.”All these farcical and frantic effort to stifle dissent not only reminds you of that age old saying “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It also shows you how a fully blown dictatorship inching by the day towards its demise becomes so out of touch with reality. Due to the highest level of intoxication that the Meles-Bereket clique suffers from controlling and undermining everything in Ethiopia ranging from SMS to the airwaves, they think it easy to do the same with Aljazeera and VOA. Because,they managed to bribe some Kenyan officials for the abduction of Ethiopian exiles or because of their previous success with Sudan and Djibouti in having Ethiopian asylum seekers extradited in a scratch-my-back-I-will-scratch-yours understanding of barbaric regimes, they assume that this is how things are done in international relations.Well,I’ve news for them. Uganda is different with many strong institutions notable among them is the judiciary. The police and the army too is not a force that panders to the whim of officials like its counterpart in Ethiopia.
Therefore, TPLF’s current effort to paint Ginbot 7 as a terrorist group thereby attempting to link Ethiopian exiles in Uganda with terrorism is in vain. Ugandans are too informed to be tricked by this sort of deviousness. They know very well to what extent the Meles-Bereket clique have narrowed the political space in Ethiopia and that no recourse is left to a people under such a tyranny except rebellion as laid down in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights/UDHR/.Encouraged by their understanding, we on our part tell to our Ugandan friends in the intelligence service to take any bribe offered to them by Zenawi’s agents here in Kampala.Though, it’s sad that the Meles-Bereket clique squanders the country’s meager resource in this way too, we should be consoled that our African brothers and sisters would benefit something, even if it’s not anything like the hefty payment made to the already rich American lobbyist DLA Piper. As the Meles-Bereket clique is a company of fools that says history repeats itself instead of learning from history not to repeat the same folly, it’s proper to throw some platitudes before parting as platitudes are befitting to people who try to turn the clock back.
Some of our DC-based readers may have spotted this anti-DLA Piper (a law firm) ad making its way around town via taxi. A reader sent us this photo, saying: :I saw this cab on Connecticut Ave. in front of the Mayflower yesterday and it caught my attention. Strange.”
Our first response was, “Bad PR for DLA Piper, but doesn’t everybody already know that blood money is the currency of Biglaw?” Our second response was to find out about this legislation and reach out to the firm.
The American Lawyer wrote in 2008 about the Piper’s playing the flute for the Ethiopian government. Partners Dick Armey, a former House majority leader, and Gary Klein lobbied on Capitol Hill on behalf of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who angered human rights advocates in 2005 with violent crackdowns on protesters during the elections there. The American Lawyer reports that the Piper was playing to the tune of over $50,000 a month. That’s a whole lot of injera.
The taxi ad refers to a bill, {www:S.3457}, introduced by Senators Feingold and Leahy “to reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices.” Or, in other words, a bill to encourage Ethiopia not to inflict violent crackdowns on its citizens. DLA Piper’s lobbying efforts may have paid off. The bill has been languishing with the Committee on Foreign Relations since 2008.
DLA Piper’s spokesman told us that the firm’s representation of the Ethiopian government actually ended in November. A statement from the firm refers indirectly to the protesting taxi driver (and other DLA Piper opponents): “There are some very vocal elements of the Ethiopian Diaspora, particularly in the Washington area, who are opponents of the current administration in Ethiopia and go to great lengths to try to embarrass or demean those who are associated with it.”
See the full statement, after the jump. DLA Piper may no longer have Ethiopia as a client, but the firm is actively helping to churn out new lawyers over in Addis Ababa.
DLA Piper says its representation of the Ethiopians ceased in November, though it’s still involved in pro bono initiative sending its lawyers to Addis Ababa to teach law school to aspiring Ethiopian esquires.
STATEMENT FROM DLA PIPER
For several years, DLA Piper provided advice and counsel to the democratically elected government of Ethiopia on a wide range of public policy, regulatory, legislative and legal matters. Our work focused on strengthening bilateral relations with the US, including humanitarian, economic and development assistance, trade and investment opportunities, and enhancing relationships with Congress and the Administration. In the past, the firm also provided legal support to the Government of Ethiopia at the International Court of Justice at the Hague on the Ethiopia-Eritrean border dispute. Our government affairs teams have worked with them in London and Brussels as well as Washington, DC.
This representation has ended, but we are continuing to assist Ethiopia on pro bono initiatives. In conjunction with the Northwestern University Law School, DLA Piper lawyers are teaching classes for the next generation of aspiring legal professionals at the law school in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. This is in addition to a number of major pro bono projects we are working on across Africa, including a new project to document systematic sexual violence by the Mugabe government against politically active women in Zimbabwe.
Ethiopia is an emerging democracy and an important ally of the United States in a troubled region of the world. The country has made remarkable progress in the last two decades, moving from dictatorship to a system of free elections, and a commitment to prosperity and greater inclusiveness. There are some very vocal elements of the Ethiopian Diaspora, particularly in the Washington area, who are opponents of the current administration in Ethiopia and go to great lengths to try to embarrass or demean those who are associated with it. While we disagree with these individuals and do not believe their views reflect the majority of Ethiopian Americans, we fully support their right to voice their opinions on this matter.
Some of our DC-based readers may have spotted this anti-