Skip to content

Ethiopia Double Digit Growth

U.S. Double-talking Human Rights in Ethiopia, Again!

Posted on , Updated on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

dt3As my readers know, I enjoy watchin’ American diplomats chillin’ out and kickin’ it with African dictators. I like watchin’ ‘em kumbaya-ing, back-pattin’ and fist bumpin’. I have trained myself to decipher their cryptic diplomatese spoken with forked tongue. I have also learned to chew on their indigestible words with a whopping spoonful of salt and pepper.

Despite years of relentless effort, I have been unable to fathom their mendacity. I am mystified and spellbound by the depth of their duplicity and height of hypocrisy. Bewildered and frustrated, I was compelled to engage in a neologistic exercise and create a word that captured their culture of mendacity. I coined the term “diplocrisy” to refer to the deliberate and calculated use of double-talk, double-speak and double-dealing to misrepresent facts and mislead the inattentive public about what the U.S. is doing to actively promote human rights in Africa.

Diplocrisy is diplomatic hypocrisy in “lights, camera and action”. For instance, the diplocrites say, “We will work diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people…” Yet they turn a blind eye (or pretend to be legally blind) to the complete “closure of political space” in Ethiopia. (The euphemism “closure of political space” is what used to be called in the old days, oppression, repression and suppression.) The diplocrites promise to “work for the release of jailed scholars, activists, and opposition party leaders…”, but when Africa’s ruthless dictators tongue-lash them, the diplocrites become tongue-less (or tongue-tied) and their lips are sealed.

The diplocrites say, “When a free media is under attack anywhere, all human rights are under attack everywhere. That is why the United States joins its global partners in calling for the release of all imprisoned journalists in every country across the globe and for the end to intimidation.” The truth is they plug their ears to avoid hearing the pained whimpers of heroic journalists like Eskinder Nega, Reeyot Alemu, Woubshet Taye and so many other political prisoners chained deep in the bowels of Meles Zenawi Prison in Ethiopia. When they proclaim, “History is on the side of brave Africans…” and conveniently position themselves on the right side of the bed with Africa’s brutal dictators, I marvel at the height of their diplocrisy.

On June 20, 2013, I had another distressing opportunity to witness American diplocrisy in lights, camera, action when Donald Yamamoto, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs (and former ambassador to Ethiopia) testified before the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. Yamamoto presented testimony to answer a single question:  What is the U.S. prepared to do to improve the prospects for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia following the death of dictator Meles Zenawi?

Mr. Yamamoto’s answer, ungarnished with the sweet ambiguity of diplomatic argot, was “Not a damn thing!!!”

I find nothing surprising in U.S. inaction and aversion to action to help improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia or elsewhere in Africa. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Obama Administration does not give a rat’s behind about Ethiopian or African human rights. That does not bother me anymore. I am cool with it! I also do not mind if the diplocrites think we are “fools and idiots”, as the former U.S. U.N. Ambassador (currently National Security Advisor) Susan Rice chose to vicariously describe those of us who opposed the regime of Meles Zenawi. But I do mind when we are treated as “fools and idiots.” What I find outrageous is the audacity of diplocrites who give testimony under oath which insults our intelligence (or what little scrap of gray matter they think we have).

On January 20, Mr. Yamamoto gave testimony which went beyond insulting our intelligence. He testimony gave new meaning to the phrase “speaking with forked tongue.” When Mr. Yamamoto was an ambassador in Ethiopia in 2009, his position on what could and should be done to improve human rights in that country was crystal clear and radically different than was revealed in his testimony in 2013.

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto was confident, forthright, frank, veracious and scrupulous as he advised Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew about what could and should be done to promote human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia. In June 2013, Yamamoto’s testimony before the House Subcommittee on Africa  evasive, patronizing, platitudinous and clichéd and amounted to nothing more than an elaborate obfuscation of the truth about what the U.S. needs and has the capacity to do to help improve human rights in Ethiopia. In effect his entire testimony before the Subcommittee could be reduced to one simple proposition: The U.S. is not able, willing or ready to use its resources to help improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia!

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (6/23/2009):

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto, assessing the political and human rights situation, instructed Deputy Secretary Jacob Lew:

Your visit to Ethiopia comes at a time when the Ethiopian Government’s (GoE) growing authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, and ideological dominance over the economy since 2005 poses a serious threat to domestic stability and U.S. interests.  The GoE has come to believe its own anxieties about a fundamental shift in U.S. policy against it.  This self-induced crisis of confidence has exacerbated the GoE’s natural tendency of government control over politics, the economy and personal freedoms.  To pre-empt retaliation, the GoE has increasingly purged ethnic Oromos, Amharas, and others perceived as not supporting the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) from the military, civil service, and security services…

… The May 2005 elections and their aftermath continue to weigh heavily on Ethiopia’s domestic political scene, and as a result, the government is systematically closing political space in Ethiopia.  The U.S. Embassy has taken the lead in advocating for transparent and open national elections in 2010, the next major milestone in Ethiopia’s democratization process… Since 2005, the government has enacted laws which limit and restrict party politics, the media, and civil society… The April 2008 local elections saw the ruling party take over all but three of over three million seats…

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/2013):

In assessing the political and human rights situation in Ethiopia in 2013 for the Subcommittee on Africa, Mr. Yamamoto stated:

Ethiopia’s weak human rights record creates tension in our relationship and we continue to push for press freedom, appropriate application of anti-terrorism legislation, a loosening of restrictions on civil society, greater tolerance for opposition views, and religious dialogue. The ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) controls all aspects of government, including the legislative branch where the EPRDF and its allies hold 545 of 547 parliamentary seats. Political space in Ethiopia is limited and opposition viewpoints are generally not represented in government. In recent years, Ethiopia has passed legislation restricting press freedoms and NGO activities. 

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

Is the “Ethiopian government” less intolerant of dissent and less authoritarian and less ideologically dominant over the economy in 2013 than it was in 2009?

Does the “Ethiopian government” in 2013 have any “anxieties about a fundamental shift in U.S. policy against it”?

In the April 2008 local elections, the ruling party in Ethiopia took all but three of over three million seats. In 2010, the ruling party won 545 of 547 parliamentary seats (99.6 percent). What result does the U.S. expect in a “post-Meles” 2015 election?

In light of the “GoE’s natural tendency” to exercise total “control over politics, the economy and personal freedoms”,  when did the “GoE” stop its “preemptive retaliation of purging ethnic Oromos, Amharas, and others perceived as not supporting the ruling party from the military, civil service, and security services”?

In 2009, the “U.S. Embassy took a leading role in advocating for transparent and open national elections in 2010” which it described as “the next major milestone in Ethiopia’s democratization process”. The ruling party claimed victory in the 2010 election with a margin of  99.6 percent. Does the U.S. expect a 100 percent victory margin for the ruling party in the “next major milestone in Ethiopia’s democratization process” in 2015?

What specific measures or steps has the U.S. taken since 2009 in its “continued push for press freedom, appropriate application of anti-terrorism legislation, a loosening of restrictions on civil society, greater tolerance for opposition views, and religious dialogue” in Ethiopia?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (6/23/2009)

In 2009, Mr. Yamamoto advising Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew argued for swift, decisive and forceful action and urged a no-nonsense approach to dealing with the “Ethiopian Government” on the issue of human rights:

 …   Since 2005, the government has enacted laws which limit and restrict party politics, the media, and civil society… Laws have been passed regulating political financing, access to the press, and ability of civil society organizations (NGOs) to receive funding from foreign sources and participate in the political process… Without significant policy reform to liberalize the economy and allow mounting political dissent to be vented… [there could be] major civil unrest.  The United States can induce such a change, but we must act decisively, laying out explicitly our concerns and urging swift action.  Because the GoE has enjoyed only growing international assistance and recognition despite its recent record, it currently has no incentive to veer from the current trajectory to which the EPRDF is so committed.  If we are to move the GoE, we must be willing to use USG resources (diplomatic, development, and public recognition) to shift the EPRDF’s incentives away from the status quo trajectory….

If we are to move them, though, we need to deliver an explicit and direct (yet private) message that does not glad-hand them.  We must convey forcefully that we are not convinced by their rhetoric, but rather that we see their actions for what they are…  We should [assure them]… that we are not trying to promote regime change, and that we are delivering a similarly explicit message of the need for change to opposition groups.

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/13):

In June 2013, Mr. Yamamoto told the Subcommittee on Africa that the best the U.S. could do was to “encourage Ethiopia to improve its human rights record”:

Post-Meles Ethiopia presents the United States with a significant opportunity to encourage Ethiopia to improve its human rights record, liberalize its economy, and provide increased space for opposition parties and civil society organizations. Post-Meles Ethiopia also presents a significant challenge since Ethiopia plays an important role in advancing regional integration and mitigating regional conflict in Somalia and Sudan. Our partnership with Ethiopia balances these interests by focusing on democracy, governance, and human rights; economic growth and development; and regional peace and security.

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

What “significant policy reform” has been taken by the “GoE” since 2009 to liberalize the economy and allow mounting political dissent to be vented?

In what ways has the U.S. acted decisively to get the “GoE” to relax application of its draconian media, civil society and other repressive laws in Ethiopia?  Have any of the “laws enacted in Ethiopia after 2005 limiting and restricting party politics, the media, and civil society” been repealed, modified or in any way tempered or mitigated?

Since 2009, what “incentives” (or disincentives) (including “diplomatic, development, and public recognition”) has the U.S. used to “induce change” or redirect the “GoE from the status quo trajectory”? Alternatively, how has the U.S. “acted decisively, laying out explicitly our concerns and urging swift action” by the “Ethiopian Government”?

Could Ethiopia experience a “spark of major civil unrest” in 2013-14 if the “GoE does not undertake significant policy reform to liberalize the economy, allow mounting political dissent to be vented”, competently manage the economy and “control inflation”?

When and why did the U.S. stop trying to promote “regime change” in Ethiopia?

When did the U.S. stop “glad-handing” and start fist bumping with the leaders of the regime in Ethiopia?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6/23/2009

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto told Deputy Secretary Lew that the “Ethiopian government” maintained a chokehold on the economy and that its claims of double-digit growth are fabrications:

Foreign investment restrictions are widespread, including key sectors such as banking, insurance, and telecommunications.  The state-owned Ethiopian Telecommunications Corporation (ETC) is the only service provider in the sector, creating an environment of poor telecom service and access.  In a country of nearly 80 million people, there are only 920,000 fixed phone lines, 1.8 million cell phones, and 29,000 internet connections.  The GOE maintains a hard line stance on these key sectors…

The GOE publicly touts that Ethiopia has experienced double-digit real GDP growth of over 11 percent in recent years.  The GOE predicts real GDP growth of 10 percent this year.  Many institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, dispute the GOE’s growth statistics, stating that Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate will most likely range between six and seven percent this year.

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/2013)

In June 2013, Mr. Yamamoto told the Subcommittee on Africa that

Ethiopia ranks among the ten fastest-growing economies in the world, averaging 10 percent GDP growth over the last five years. State-run infrastructure drives much of this growth. Our bilateral trade and investment relationship is limited by investment climate challenges and the lack of market liberalization… Currently about 100 U.S. companies are represented in Ethiopia. Total U.S. exports to Ethiopia in 2012 were $1.29 billion; imports from Ethiopia totaled $183 million.

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

Mr. Yamamoto: Which one of the following statements is false: 1) “Ethiopia ranks among the ten fastest-growing economies in the world, averaging 10 percent GDP growth over the last five years.” 2) Over the past five years, “Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate  most likely ranged between six and seven percent.”

Why is “foreign investment” from China (instead of the U.S.) more widespread in Ethiopia in 2013?

Ethiopia has “invested some US$14 billion in infrastructure development between 1996 and 2006 and made “exceptionally heavy recent investment in its telecoms infrastructure” and made “exceptionally heavy recent investment in its telecoms infrastructure”? What accounts for the fact that Ethiopia has the worst “telecom service and access” in all of Africa and quite possibly the entire world?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6/23/2009

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto advised Deputy Secretary Lew how to leverage U.S. aid to bring about human rights improvements in Ethiopia:

Ethiopia is now the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the preponderance of this assistance is humanitarian, including food aid… of which a significant share supplements the Government of Ethiopia budget…. The increasingly difficult operating environment and growing transaction costs for non-budgetary foreign aid and, in particular, the proposed tight restrictions on non-governmental organization (NGO) implementing partners, call for a reassessment of the mix and effectiveness of U.S. assistance to Ethiopia in order to support U.S. foreign policy objectives…

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/2013)

In June 2013, Mr. Yamamoto told the Subcommittee on Africa one of the proudest achievements of U.S. human rights policy in Ethiopia:

On democracy and human rights, we recently secured agreements to do media development training and open two community radio stations.Mechanisms such as our bilateral Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights Working Group, bilateral Economic Growth and Development Working Group, and Bilateral Defense Committee are useful tools for advancing our policy objectives in our three focus pillars. At the same time, we are public in our support for an improved environment for civil society, those we believe to have been subjected to politically motivated arrests, inclusive democratic processes, and rule-of-law. Making progress on this area will continue to be challenging and will require a great deal of creativity…. Ethiopia is a significant recipient of U.S. foreign aid, having benefited from over $740 million in FY 2012 assistance…

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

In 2009, you stated that a significant amount of U.S. humanitarian aid “supplemented the Government of Ethiopia’s budget….” Doesn’t use of “humanitarian aid” to “supplement the Government of Ethiopia’s budget” flagrantly violate 22 USC § 2151n et seq. (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) which provides in relevant part:

No assistance may be provided under subchapter I of this chapter to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.

Do you deny that the “Government of Ethiopia” has engaged and continues to “engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights”?

Is U.S. “humanitarian aid” still used in 2013 to “supplement the Government of Ethiopia’s budget”?

If the U.S. could use its aid leverage (through “a reassessment of the mix and effectiveness of U.S. assistance”) to bring about improvements in human rights in Ethiopia in 2009, why can’t it do the same in 2013?

You stated, “On democracy and human rights, we recently secured agreements to do media development training and open two community radio stations.” Is this the singularly proud outcome of “working diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people”?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6/23/2009

In June 2009, Yamamoto cautioned Deputy Secretary Lew to understand the “Ethiopian Leadership’s Guiding Philosophy”:

Understanding Ethiopia’s domestic political and economic actions, and developing a strategy for moving the ruling party forward democratically and developmentally, requires understanding the ruling Tigrean People’s Liberation Front’s (TPLF) prevailing political ideology: Revolutionary Democracy. Hard-line TPLF politburo ideologues explain the concept in antiquated Marxist terms reminiscent of the TPLF’s precursor Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray…. As an extension of this philosophy, to the ruling party, development is their gift to Ethiopia, and their first priority.  While they accept assistance from the international community, they resent attempts by donors to tell them how development should be done.  The leadership believes that only they can know what is best for Ethiopia, and if given enough time, Ethiopia will transform itself into a developed nation.

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

Has the “Ethiopian leadership’s guiding philosophy” changed since the passing of Meles Zenawi?

Is the “Tigrean People’s Liberation Front’s prevailing political ideology of Revolutionary Democracy” compatible with the values of the Founders of the American Republic?

You stated that “while the GoE accepts assistance from the international community, they resent attempts by donors to tell them how development should be done.  The leadership believes that only they can know what is best for Ethiopia.” Does the TPLF “leadership” in 2013 believe that “only they can know what is best for Ethiopia”?

Does the U.S. share the TPLF “leadership’s” belief that “only the TPLF can know what is best for Ethiopia?

Of Fools and Idiots

I don’t mind them double-talking us as though we are “fools and idiots”. If they must relate to us as such, we demand to be treated as “Shakespearean fools”. Our silence in the face of outrageous lies may give the misimpression that we are ignorant, witless, fainthearted and without much sense or sensibility. But we know the simple truth; and that truth is human rights in Ethiopia is an afterthought for the Obama Administration. There is no need to double-talk us on human rights anymore. Just tell us straight that human rights in a world in which the U.S. is at war with terrorism is for the birds, not Ethiopians! We’d understand. In the final analysis, in the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa, we must draw our inspiration from our tower of power Nelson Mandela and keep walking that long road.  We keep on walking, let them keep on talking, double-talking…!

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

Kerry-ing on with African Dictators

Posted on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

Kerry1Watching American Diplocrisy at the African Union

I enjoy watching American diplomats chilling out and kicking it with African dictators. I like seeing them  kumbaya-ing, back-patting and carrying on. Their body language, more than their forked diplomatic tongue, speaks more honestly and eloquently.  I have learned to take their words with a grain of salt and a dash of pepper.  (Is it true that a diplomat is an honest gentleman (woman) sent to lie abroad for the good of their country?)

Not to be misunderstood, I get a kick listening to American diplocrats (practitioners of human rights diplomacy by hypocrisy) pontificating about human rights. I enjoy listening to them talk as much as I like reading Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Jabberwocky”.  The diplocrats say, “We will work diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people… We will work for the release of jailed scholars, activists, and opposition party leaders… History is on the side of brave Africans…” These words, like “The Jabberwocky”, are nonsense; but I enjoy fairy tales, like Alice in Wonderland. (If history is on the side of a few brave Africans, what is on the side of the millions of frightened Africans? Just curious.)

After listening to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at a press conference during the Golden Jubilee of the Organization of African Unity/African Union (OAU/AU) Summit (a/k/a “African Dictators’ Club”) in Addis Ababa last week, I have concluded it is preferable to watch American diplocrats than listening to them. Kerry made a number of statements at that press conference which were not only disconcerting but also appalling. (I was tempted to plug my ears, but didn’t have the darn things handy.)  Kerry glibly remarked,

With respect to the economic growth, we [U.S.] would love to have Ethiopia’s economic growth. Ethiopia’s one of the ten fastest growing countries in the world.  It’s up in the double digits in growth. It’s really quite an extraordinary story.

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, I do not want to insult Kerry’s intelligence by suggesting that he really believes what he said about Ethiopia’s economic growth and “extraordinary story”.  I am just not sure he meant what he said. Actually, I am totally confused. Was he being artfully glib, patronizingly humorous, graciously disingenuous or congenially accommodating in his hyperbole? Could he be so woefully uninformed or willfully ignorant about Ethiopia?  Could he be engaging in barefaced diplomatic mendacity?

If he really believes the canard, it is shocking because it shows a reckless disregard for elementary facts bordering on gullibility. If it is an attempt at humor, it is pretty lame.  If he is being disingenuous, no one is amused. If he said it to patronize his hosts, he does great disservice to U.S. foreign policy by lending the credibility of his high office to legitimize a manifest and notorious fraud.

A fact check by the Associated Press reporter Bradley Klapper following Kerry’s press conference showed a disturbing pattern of  loosey-gooseyness with the facts. Kerry seemed to be sleepwalking facts. Klapper cites numerous instances of factual lapses at the press conference in which “Kerry exaggerated the U.S. record on climate change, appeared to conflate past U.S. policy on drones with President Barack Obama’s new policy and gave an incomplete account of how he opposed the Iraq war (and how) he struggled with economic data as well as the contents of his own department’s terrorism blacklist.”  Klapper gave a big smack down to Kerry’s assertion that “Ethiopia is up in the double digits in growth.” According to Klapper: “THE FACTS: Ethiopia’s economic growth was 7 percent last year, following several other years of growth in the mid to high single digits.”

American Diplocrisy by Kerry-speak?

Let me say at the outset that I have no intention of  “swiftboating” Kerry. I am not criticizing him because he was waltzing with the dictators in Ethiopia on the marbled floors of the African Union Hall.  I appreciate the need for diplomatic decorum. Diplomatic language must be used with delicacy. I also bear no malice towards Kerry. I supported and voted for him in the 2004 presidential election. Though I fiercely opposed  Susan Rice’s potential nomination to become Secretary of State earlier this year (soon to be National Security Advisor), I raised no objection when Kerry’s name was submitted for Senate confirmation. I was not overly concerned about his foreign policy credentials since he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I followed his confirmation hearing closely.

I am, however, concerned about Kerry’s “factamnesia” (to coin a new word to describe the selective recollection of fantasy facts intentionally or to unwittingly paint a rosy picture of thorny policy issues and problems), loosey-gooseyness with facts in general and a penchant for “doublethink” and “doublespeak” (kerryspeak) on important issues. Kerry has a history of fudging facts which troubles me in light of his statements at the AU press conference. For instance, in October 2002, Senator Kerry said he voted to give President Bush authority to use force against Saddam Hussein because he “believed that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”  In February 2003, he said, “If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (I did not believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction but voted for Kerry anyway.)  In March 2004, Kerry said “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for Iraq war] before I voted against it. …” (Should I say I actually did vote for Kerry before experiencing pangs of remorse for voting for him?) In September 2004, Kerry branded the Iraq war, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

What really concerns me about Kerry as America’s diplomat-in-chief particularly in the human rights area is the same concern many of  those closest to him had during the 2004 presidential election. Kerry has a penchant for being namby pamby on critical policy issues. During the second presidential debate in 2004, Kerry was asked by ABC news moderator Charles Gibson, “Senator Kerry, after talking with several co-workers and family and friends, I asked the ones who said they were not voting for you, “Why?” They said that you were too wishy-washy. Do you have a reply for them?” (I voted for Kerry despite the same misgivings.) Now that Kerry is America’s chief diplomat, I am worried about what a “wishy washy” Secretary of State could mean for African human rights.

Kerry-talking the myth of double-digit growth in Ethiopia

Benjamin Disraeli, the Nineteenth Century British politician, is reputed to have said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The late Meles Zenawi said it even better. In March 2010, Meles condemned and ridiculed the U.S. State Department’s “Reports on Human Rights Practices” on Ethiopia as “lies, lies and implausible lies.”  He said the U.S. State Department could not tell a crooked lie straight: “The least one could expect from this report, even if there are lies is that they would be plausible ones,” snarled Zenawi. “But that is not the case. It is very easy to ridicule it [human rights report], because it is so full of loopholes. They could very easily have closed the loopholes and still continued to lie.”

I am not suggesting that Kerry follow Meles’ prescription to “easily close the loopholes and continue to lie” about Ethiopia’s “extraordinary story”. (It is a boldfaced lie to say the Reports on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia are “lies, lies and implausible lies”.)  Kerry is an honorable man and incapable of such chicanery.

Meles was a master of mendacity. He had perfected the art of lying. He had incomparable skills in creating “loopholes” in the truth and transforming lies into half- truths. Double-digit growth is the greatest “lie, lie and implausible lie” ever created by Meles while he remained in the saddle of power for over two decades.  In a spectacular public relations coup, Meles managed to insert a bogus narrative of Ethiopia’s  stratospheric economic growth in the international media and policy circles which continues to be repeated ad nauseam  today by some of the  most respectable news organizations and magazines in the world, and top policy makers like Kerry who should know better. I realize that talk of double-digit economic growth statistics for Africa in general is part of the “Afro-optimism” (a/k/a African Renaissance) Western media, donor and loaner communities are trying to push to influence Africans and world opinion. By reporting  double-digit growth rates, they hope to mask the cataclysmic income inequalities and poverty in Africa. They are trying to make dictatorial rule acceptable and chic in Africa in the name of economic growth and development. (Remember the hype about the “new breed of African leaders”? Or was it “new breed of African dictators”?)

The fact of the matter is that many in the Western media, donors, loaners and diplomats know that the self-serving inflated double-digit statistics of economic growth in Ethiopia are pure fabrications generated from cooked books. For instance, in 2010, Meles Zenawi forecasted an 11 percent growth in 2011 and sanguinely opined that a 14.9 percent economic growth for Ethiopia over the next five years is “not unimaginable”. In 2011, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) artfully disagreed  concluding, “Strong growth [in Ethiopia] has continued in 2010/11 that the mission estimates at 7.5 percent (compared to an official estimate of 11.4 percent)….  The mission sees lower growth for 2011/12, at about 6 percent, on account of high inflation, restrictions on private bank lending, and a more difficult business environment (parentheses original).”  The World Bank similarly concluded that year “Ethiopia’s dependence on foreign capital to finance budget deficits and a five-year investment plan is unsustainable…” On June 9, 2011, deputy prime minister Hailemariam Desalegn, offered firm assurances that “economic expansion won’t drop below 9 percent in the fiscal year to July 7, 2012, from 11.4 percent this year.” For 2012, the IMF registered economic growth for Ethiopia at 5.0 percent, and for 2013 its projection is 5.5 percent. For 2017, the IMF estimates 6.5 percent economic growth for Ethiopia (see p. 197 at this link).    Simply stated, the claim about double-digit economic growth in Ethiopia is not only preposterous and a colossal insult to our intelligence, it is also a BIG BIG LIE!

Repeating BIG  LIES

Joseph Goebbels taught, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  The BIG LIE about Ethiopia’s stratospheric economic growth continues to be repeated through a silent conspiracy of mendacity and/or the willful ignorance of high level policy makers in the donor and loaner communities  and in the Western media. (I wish they would stop insulting our intelligence and treating us as “fools and idiots.)

Despite the irrefutable facts, the BIG LIE about Ethiopia’s “extraordinary story” has taken on a life of its own. It continues to be repeated mindlessly in the media and policy circles like some mystical mantra: “Ethiopia’s one of the ten fastest growing countries in the world… double digits in growth….” Meles managed to hoodwink everybody, almost. Even the mighty Economist Magazine fell for Meles’ elaborate hoax.  In its November 7, 2006 editorial, The Economist minced no words in describing the Meles regime. Editorializing in the context of the Starbucks coffee row, The Economist bluntly stated: “The Ethiopian government, one of the most economically illiterate in the modern world, would do well to take Starbucks’s advice.”  In May 2012, The Economist wrote, “Long benighted, Ethiopia is attracting attention for a better reason. It has become Africa’s fastest-growing non-energy economy (see chart).” The “chart” drawn up by the Economist attributes its data source to the “IMF” which gets its data from the regime in Ethiopia!  In its ebullient appraisal, the Economist fails to explain how the regime it described in 2006 as  “the most economically illiterate regime in the modern world” was able to create “Africa’s fastest non-energy economy” in just six years! (Do they really think we are so dumb that we could not figure this out?!)

The “economic illiteracy” of the Ethiopian regime was also the talk of diplomats behind closed doors in 2009. At a high level meeting of Western donor policy makers in Berlin, there was debate about Meles’ economic knowledge and competence. According to a Wikileaks cablegram, a German diplomat suggested that Ethiopia’s economic woes could be traced to “Meles’ poor understanding of economics”. How such an “economically illiterate” regime pulled off the economic miracle of Africa is a mystery worthy of a Dan Brown novel. (How about the title, “Economic Illiterates and the Mystery of Double-Digit Growth”?)

I have made several attempts over the past few years to expose, debunk, deconstruct and unpack this pack of “lies, lie and implausible lies” about “Ethiopia’s extraordinary story”.  In my commentary “The Voodoo Economics of Meles Zenawi”, I exposed the double-digit canard and demonstrated how Meles exquisitely finessed it:

In March 2009, for instance, Zenawi bragged that he expected the Ethiopian economy to grow by 12.8 per cent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) disagreed in the same month, stating that given the global economic crisis Ethiopia could expect only about 6 per cent economic growth. Zenawi dismissively countered those who pointed out the discrepancies: ‘We have differences with the international financial institutions when we predict our economic growth, but we usually agree on the economic growth statistics at the end of each year.’ In March 2010, Paul Mathieu, the IMF team leader for Ethiopia, diplomatically told the regime in Ethiopia to stop cooking the books on economic growth. He said, ‘Statistics collection of the country requires transformations, and we advised the government to do that.’

In my commentary, “The Fakeonomics of Meles Zenawi”, I demonstrated that Meles’ economic planning (“Growth and Transformation Plan”) was based on juggled figures, massaged statistics and irrational exuberance about overrated and illusory economic development. Systematic falsification of economic data, fraudulent statistics and creative accounting in economic reports by the Meles regime have largely gone unchallenged by Ethiopia’s learned economists. (I still lament the fact that there has been little systematic analysis and critique done by Diaspora Ethiopian economists to entomb this cock and bull economic narrative and discredit the regime’s theatrical swagger and wind-bagging about stratospheric economic growth and development.)

Meles cunningly orchestrated his message of Ethiopia’s economic prowess and unrivalled economic success under his personal leadership to the world using the International Monetary Fund as a mule.  For instance, the  IMF’s Country Report (Ethiopia) No. 08/264 (July 2008) states: “Growth has averaged 11 percent since 2003/04, far exceeding the minimum target of 7 percent in the Program for Accelerated and Sustainable Development (PASDEP), that is estimated to be consistent with keeping the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) within reach.” On pp. 20–24 of this report, the source of the data for an 11 per cent growth is not some independent data collection and analysis agency or organization but Meles’ own Central Statistics Office. The footnotes in the above-referenced pages state: “Sources: Ethiopian authorities; and IMF staff estimates and projections.”  Similarly, the data source for “Financial Soundness Indicators for Banking” is identified as the “National Bank of Ethiopia; and IMF calculations.”

Does Kerry care about facts?

I am really perplexed. When Kerry talks about Ethiopia as “one of the ten fastest growing countries in the world” with “double digit growth” and swoons at its “extraordinary story”, is he also aware of the dark side of that “extraordinary story”? For instance, is Kerry aware that in 2010, the Oxford Human Development Index ranked Ethiopia as second poorest  country on the planet? Is he aware that in 2011, Global Financial Integrity reported,“ Ethiopia lost $11.7 billion to outflows of ill-gotten gains between 2000 and 2009” and  “in 2009, illicit money leaving the country totaled $3.26 billion.” Is Kerry aware Ethiopia is Africa’s largest recipient of foreign aid? A report issued by the Ethiopian “Ministry of Finance and Economic Development” in January 2012 showed the country shouldered crushing foreign debt in excess of USD$ 16 billion. Is he aware of this fact in his role as the raconteur of Ethiopia’s “extraordinary story”? Is Kerry aware every single year tens of millions of Ethiopians receive  emergency food aid or face starvation and famine?  Is Kerry aware that the Inspector General of  his State Department concluded in 2010 that there is no way to determine the scope of fraud, waste and abuse of American aid tax dollars in Ethiopia? Is Kerry aware that in 2013, the World Bank released its 448-page report entitled “Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia” documenting corruption of epic proportions?

It is true that “everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but not to his/her own facts.”  A high level policy maker like Kerry is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to cherry pick facts and embellish  them with hyperbole in making official statements that are reasonably likely to mislead the American people. He is not entitled to distort facts to present only one side of a foreign policy issue or paint a rosy picture for Africa’s most corrupt leaders without talking about the thorns on that rosy story. Kerry is not entitled to put out to the American people half-truths, discredited hyperboles and tall tales to defend a collaborating dictatorship. Kerry is not entitled to propagate and perpetuate a BIG LIE, a manifest hoax, misinformation and disinformation to humanize the inhuman face of a bloodthirsty regime in Ethiopia from his exalted bully pulpit.

Does Kerry really care about U.S. human rights in Ethiopia, Africa?

I am also bewildered by Kerry’s exuberance and morbid fascination with Ethiopia’s “extraordinary story”. He says the U.S. “would love to have Ethiopia’s economic growth.” Really?

Ethiopia   “achieved” its stratospheric economic growth following the “China Model”, NOT the “Washington Consensus [neoliberal] Model” (which demands fiscal discipline (limiting budget deficits), increasing foreign direct investments, privatization, deregulation, diminished role for the state”).  If the “China Model” produced an “extraordinary story” in Ethiopia, it is because that story was written by a brutal one-party system that has a chokehold on all state institutions including the civil service and the armed and security forces and rules by instituting a vast system of controls and censorship.  Meles, the arch foe of “neoliberalism” in Africa said “neoliberalism” is a death trap for Ethiopia and the continent. In a 2012 article,  Meles declared “the neo-liberal paradigm is a dead end incapable of bringing about the African renaissance, and that a fundamental shift in paradigm is required to effect a revival.” In a 51-page monograph, he expounded on his argument for the consignment  of the “neoliberal paradigm” to the dustbin of history and its replacement  by the economics of the “developmental state” (“China Model”).

When Kerry wistfully yearns for Ethiopia’s double-digit growth, is he openly advocating the importation of the “China Model” into America?

Given Ethiopia’s “extraordinary story”, is Kerry  openly endorsing the “China Model” for Ethiopia and the rest of Africa to produce even more “extraordinary stories”?

The fact of the matter is that the “China Model” in Africa is a demonstration not of the success of African economies but China’s economic conquest of Africa and the triumph of praetorian klepto-capitalism —  a form of militarized capitalism in which African dictators and their cronies maintain a stranglehold on the state apparatus and have privatized the economy for their personal use. The dictators in Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, etc. rule by coercion and their coercive power derives almost exclusively from their control and manipulation of the military, police and security forces, party apparatuses and bloated bureaucracies which they use for political patronage. They have successfully eliminated rival political parties, civil society institutions and the independent press.

The “China Model” or the “developmental state” has become the ultimate smokescreen for African Dictators, Inc. It has provided a plausible justification for circumventing transparent and accountable governance, competitive, free and fair elections and suppression of free speech and the press. Simply stated, the “China Model” in Africa is a huge hoax perpetrated on the people with the aim of imposing absolute control and exacting total political obedience while justifying brutal suppression of all dissent and maximizing the ruling class’  kleptocratic monopoly over the economy.  In my opinion, it is downright unpatriotic for Kerry to confer any legitimacy on a watered-down, kinder and gentler reinvention of klepto-communism in Ethiopia.

There is another issue Kerry seems to have intentionally or unwittingly overlooked. The “China Model’s” viability is currently undergoing an acid test. The heavy infrastructure investment and export-led growth model at the heart of China’s “economic miracle” is now showing serious cracks as that sector suffers from chronic overcapacity. This is particularly evident in the housing boom which has contributed significantly to China’s high GDP statistics. Soaring housing prices and high vacancy rates have created multiple massive ghost towns. Ordos, China is one such model city built under the  “China Model”.  Ordos was designed to house, support and entertain 1 million people, yet five years later hardly anyone lives there.  China’s “first quarter 7.7 percent rise (for 2013) in gross domestic product is even lower than the 7.8 percent rate for all of last year (which in turn, was China’s slowest growth in 13 years.)”  China’s economy keeps on chugging “because of huge increases in lending by state-controlled banks and a surge in off-balance sheet lending.”

Ethiopia is touting stratospheric economic growth driven by exports (including land giveaways to multinational agro-businesses) and sustained by handouts and crushing debt loans to finance infrastructure projects and build shiny buildings in urban areas that lack the most basic sewage facilities. Does Kerry really believe Ethiopia could continue with its “extraordinary story” by having state-controlled banks printing money? Not long ago, in Zimbabwe, China’s “biggest and arguably most important trade and diplomatic partner in Africa”, a USD$5 bill was worth a 100 trillion Zimbabwean dollars. Does Kerry believe such reckless economic planning is sustainable for Ethiopia which is expected to treble its population to 278 million in less than 40 years according to  U.S. Census estimates?

Whatever happened to President Obama’s “New Alliance”?

In May 2012, President Obama invited the leaders of Ghana, Tanzania, Benin to a Summit  for a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition  to spark a Green Revolution and achieve “sustained and inclusive agricultural growth and raise 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years by aligning the commitments of Africa’s leadership to drive effective country plans and policies for food security.” American  multinational giants including Cargill, Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft, and others signed a “Private Sector Declaration of Support for African Agricultural Development”. Kerry did not even mention a word about it.  Is the “New Alliance” dead like “neoliberalism”?

I agree with President Obama that what Africans need are policies that balance economic growth with human needs including food security and nutrition, reasonable access to health care and education and employment opportunities. But Africans can’t eat policies on paper nor could they have a Green Revolution when their most fertile lands are being sold and leased to multinational corporations who will commercially farm millions of hectares only to export the harvest. Africans will starve as their land is used to produce food for the rest of the world and the U.S. continues  to provide food aid to Africans year after year. When will Africa ever become self-sufficient in food production? (When America stops feeding them?) Just a historical footnote: Africans fed themselves on their own and without handouts during the worst days of colonialism. (Ummm!)

I do not think President Obama  and Secretary of State Kerry are on the same page on African issues. President Obama said Green Revolution first. Kerry said in his press conference that “our private sector businesses need to focus on Ethiopia and recognize the opportunities that are here.” Is it going to be a Green Revolution or a Trade Revolution? I believe expecting to “strengthen the trade and investment relationships between the U.S. and Ethiopia” under the “China Model” is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Skerry U.S. human rights policy in Africa 

The next four years for human rights in Africa under Kerry look pretty scary to me. At the AU Summit, I hoped to hear an announcement or a statement from Kerry that points to some meaningful shift in U.S. human rights policy in Ethiopia. I expected to hear a little bit of the usual babble about “history is on the side of brave Africans.” Nothing doing. Under Kerry, it seems human rights in Ethiopia and Africa have been sacrificed at the altar of political convenience and the “global war on terror.” That is why Kerry is downplaying and soft-pedaling  human rights in Ethiopia.  It is manifest to me that the U.S. is willing to turn a blind eye, deaf ears and muted lips to restrictions on civil society, theft of elections, repression of dissent and opposition politics, suppression of free expression, press and the Internet and the blossoming of  corruption in Ethiopia.

To borrow a line from Alexander Pope’s verse, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast”. I hoped Kerry would make a strong case for the immediate and unconditional release of all wrongfully imprisoned human rights defenders, journalists, political opponents in Ethiopia. I hoped Kerry would demand an end to ill-treatment and abuse of dissidents, opposition leaders and journalists. I hoped Kerry would plead for an end to the crackdown on civil society organizations and press for the free functioning of domestic and international human rights organizations to operate in the country without undue official interference. I hoped Kerry would insist on an end to suppression of media, harassment of journalists and strongly argue in favor of allowing publication of opposition newspapers in Ethiopia. (Oh, yes! I had faint hope Kerry would call attention to the need for the  arrest and prosecution of the police and security officers who massacred 193 unarmed demonstrators and wounded 763 others in 2005.)

I am not just hoping naively or pipe dreaming. I am just taking Kerry and President Obama at their words. In September 2008, candidates Obama and Joe Biden promised  to “work for the release of jailed scholars, activists, and opposition party leaders such as Ayman Nour in Egypt.”  On January 24, 2013 during his confirmation hearing Kerry said,

… I’ve occasionally wrestled with that when I made a visit to one country or another and we have a primary objective and we’re trying to get it done, but I’ve never hesitated in any visit to raise human rights concerns, usually in the context of particular individuals where we are trying to get them out of a jail or trying to get them, you know, out of the country. And I obviously will continue to do that, as I know Secretary Clinton has. And she’s been diligent about it. And I intend to continue…

Secretary Kerry, I ask you a simple question:

When you visited Ethiopia last week, did you “work for the release of jailed scholars, activists, and opposition party leaders such as” Eskinder Nega, Reeyot Alemu, Woubshet Taye,  Aragie, Olbana Lelisa, Bekele Gerba, Abubekar Ahmed, Ahmedin Jebel, Ahmed Mustafa, Kamil Shemsu and so many others?

***My regular Monday Commentary scheduled for June 3 was delayed and a special commentary posted on that date in recognition of the peaceful mass human rights protest organized by the Blue (Semayawi) Party in Ethiopia over the past weekend. ***

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

 

 

Mr. Zenawi Goes to College!

Posted on , Updated on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

Alemayehu G. Mariam

Zenawi’s Charm Offensive in America?

Fresh on the heels of shutting down all private distance education, including distance higher education, and “winning” the parliamentary election in May by 99.6 percent, dictator-in-chief Meles Zenawi is scheduled to speak at Columbia University on September 22 and trumpet his accomplishments as the guardian of democracy and prosperity in Ethiopia and provider of enlightened leadership to the African continent. The puffed up announcement for his appearance at Columbia’s World Leaders Forum, which was subsequently withdrawn by an embarrassed University administration, stated:

… Meles Zenawi of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia will present the keynote address on the topic of Ethiopia and African Leadership. His address will launch CGT’s the World and Africa series…. Zenawi has served as chairman of the Organisation of the African Union (1995-1996), as co-chairman of the Global Coalition for Africa, and was appointed as Chair of the African Heads of State and Government in Climate Change (CAHOSCC)… Zenawi was the co-chairperson of the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in 2006, which led to the adoption of the Beijing Action Plan for partnership in economic progress. Under the seasoned governmental leadership of… Zenawi…Ethiopia has made and continues to make progresses (sic) in many areas including in education, transportation, health and energy.

The event is designed to facilitate “conversations to examine Africa’s place in the world”. The “key subjects” of the conversation reportedly “include the future of African agriculture, the explosion of Asian investment on the continent, the evolving contours of global aid to Africa, and the impact of the financial crisis on the region.”

Allowing Zenawi to Speak at Columbia is “An Affront to His Victims” of Human Rights Abuses

Nowhere is the case for disallowing Zenawi the right to speak at Columbia University made more convincingly and compellingly than in the letter of two extraordinarily courageous Ethiopian husband and wife team of journalists, Eskinder Nega and Serkalem Fasil, to university president Lee Bollinger. They wrote[1]:

We are banned Ethiopian journalists who were charged with treason by the government of PM Meles Zenawi subsequent to disputed election results in 2005, incarcerated under deplorable circumstances, only to be acquitted sixteen months later; after Serkalem Fasil prematurely gave birth in prison.

Severely underweight at birth because Serkalem’s physical and psychological privation in one of Africa’s worst prisons, an incubator was deemed life-saving to the new-born child by prison doctors; which was, in an act of incomprehensible vindictiveness, denied by the authorities. (The child nevertheless survived miraculously. Thanks to God.)

…While we acknowledge [Zenawi’s] right to express his views, it is an affront to his government’s numerous victims of repression to grant him the privilege to do so on the notable premises of Columbia…

Serkalem and Eskinder are absolutely right in their expressions of outraged disapproval of Zenawi’s speech at Columbia. These are two Ethiopian journalists for whom I have the highest respect and admiration. They are selfless patriots who could be described best in Churchillian terms: “Never in the field of journalism was so much owed by so many to so few.”

I have been approached by various groups and individuals to urge the leadership of Columbia to dis-invite Zenawi or have the university withdraw the offer of delivering the “keynote address”. The reasons are many. Some say mere invitation to speak at the world-class institution gives Zenawi a certain patina of legitimacy, which he could use to hoodwink Americans and camouflage his criminal history. Others say he will try to use the event as a soapbox to disseminate lies about his “accomplishments”, complete with wholly fabricated statistics about “double digit growth”[2] and fairy tales of a 99.6 percent election victory, and use the Forum as a bully pulpit to rag against his critics. There are those who suggest that Stiglitz staged the “keynote address” to give his “buddy Zenawi” an opportunity to clean up his image and build up some intellectual “creds”, which Zenawi could take back to Ethiopia for bragging rights. I respect the views of those who urge Columbia to disinvite Zenawi.

But as a university professor and constitutional lawyer steadfastly dedicated to free speech, I have adopted one yardstick for all issues concerning free speech, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” I underscore the words “everyone” and “regardless of frontiers.”

Alternatively stated, though I condemn Zenawi for his abuse, mistreatment and cruelty against Serkalem and Eskinder and other journalists, disagree with him on his repeated theft of elections, trashing of the human rights of Ethiopian citizens, boldfaced lies about economic growth[2], manipulation of the judiciary for political purposes, unjust incarceration of Birtukan Midekssa, the first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history and tens of thousands of other political prisoners, crackdown on the press and civil society organizations, subversion of the legislative process to mill out repressive laws and his completely bogus theory of “ethnic federalism” (an artifice of his divide-and-rule strategy) and so on, I shall vigorously defend his right to speak not just at Columbia but at any other public venue in the United States of America.

Right to Protest

Let me make it clear that I am not arguing here that those who wish to protest Zenawi’s speech at Columbia should not do so. They should; and I defend vigorously their constitutional right to protest and fully express their views about his actions and policies. My only plea to them is that we should strive to make this opportunity a teachable moment for Zenawi. In my view, it would be a crying shame for Zenawi to hop on his plane and go back to Ethiopia mumbling to himself something about the “extreme Diaspora” and so on because he is heckled, disrupted or somehow impeded from speaking. I say if we can tolerate racist and hate speech on university campuses, we can also tolerate the rant of a petty tyrant for an hour or two.

A Teachable Moment for a Tyrant

My reasons for defending Zenawi’s right to speak are principled, straightforward and myriad:

At the most elementary level, the American university is a traditional forum for the free exchange of ideas, whether silly or sublime. Every year, tens of thousands of speeches are given on American university campuses. Even the representatives of the Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and motley crews of racists and fascists are allowed to speak on American university campuses. By the same token, Zenawi should be able to speak at Columbia.

I realize that this may not be a popular view to hold, but I am reminded of the painful truth in Prof. Noam Chomsky’s admonition: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” On a personal level, it would be hypocritical of me to argue for free speech and press freedoms in Ethiopia and justify censorship or muzzling of Zenawi stateside. If censorship is bad for the good citizens of Ethiopia, it is also bad for the dictators of Ethiopia.

But there is another set of reasons why I want Zenawi to speak at Columbia. I want the event to be a teachable moment for him. Perhaps this opportunity will afford him a glimpse of the clash of ideas that routinely take place in American universities. He may begin to appreciate the simple truth that ideas are accepted and rejected and arguments won and lost in the cauldron of critical analysis oxygenated by the bellows of free speech, not in prison dungeons where journalists and dissidents are bludgeoned and left to rot. By denying Zenawi the right to speak at Columbia, we also risk becoming prisoners of ignorance. That is why free speech is at the core of Nelson Mandela’s teaching: “A man who takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness.” Free speech is the key by which one escapes from the steel bars and stonewalls of “prejudice and narrow-mindedness.” I sincerely hope Zenawi will find that key at Columbia and finally escape from his bleak and desolate planet of “prejudice and narrow-mindedness.”

On another level, to disallow Zenawi from speaking is an implicit admission that we fear ideas. Zenawi has muzzled and intimidated nearly all of his critics and shuttered newspapers in Ethiopia, jammed the Voice of America and the independent Ethiopian Satellite Television Service and enacted repressive press and civil society laws because he is afraid of ideas – ideas about freedom, democracy, human rights, accountability, transparency, the rule of law and so on. But the old adage still holds true: “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” In America, we cherish and embrace good ideas (not fear them) and put them into practice; we discard the bad ones in the trash.
But I have a reason that overrides all others. I believe in the power of truth. We can neither defend the truth nor championed it by muzzling the liar. Let Zenawi speak! Let him have his “conversation”!

A Few Topics for “Conversation”

Since Prof. Stiglitz is interested in having a “conversation”, here are a few topics he should ask Zenawi to talk about. How is it that Ethiopia, under his “seasoned” leadership, managed to rank:

138/159 (most corrupt) countries on the Corruption Index for 2010.

17 among the most failed states (Somalia is No. 1) on the Failed States Index for 2010.

136/179 countries (most repressive) on the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom.

107/183 economies for ease of doing business (investment climate) by The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 2010.

37/53 (poorest governance quality) African countries in the 2010 Ibrahim Index of African Governance.

101/128 countries in 2010 on the Bertelsmann Political and Economic Transformation Index, and

141/153 (poorest environmental public health and ecosystem vitality) countries in the 2010 Environmental Performance Index.

Fables, Fairy Tales and Q&As

I can imagine Zenawi’s angst at the podium preparing to tell his fables and fairy tales about Ethiopia’s double-digit growth, democracy and leadership in Africa, globalization and its impact on Africa or whatever topic he chooses at the last minute to confuse his audience. It’s all good; fairy tales are entertaining. However, I suspect that the story-telling session will not be the usual cakewalk. At Columbia, unlike his rubberstamp parliament, Zenawi will not be able to scowl at, browbeat, belittle or mock anyone; and unless Stigliz and company rig the Q&A session to give Zenawi only softball questions, he is going to get some heavy duty drubbing from students and faculty. I would wager to say that his speech will not be the usual soporific monologue; it will be a real “conversation”where he will be asked questions that will make him cringe and wince.
I can imagine the audience asking these questions:

Mr. Zenawi, what is the special magical spell you used to win the May 2010 election by 99.6 percent?

Answer: “Say ‘abracadabra’ ten times while holding a rabbit’s foot in the left hand at the crack of dawn.”

When will you stop trashing the human rights of Ethiopian citizens?

Answer: “As soon as you tell me when they started having human rights.”

Why do you lie about double-digit economic growth by using cooked up numbers from your Central Statistics office?[1]

Answer: “There are ‘lies and plausible lies’. Our statistics are of the latter variety.”

Why did you shut down all distance education programs in the country?

Answer: “Because education is overrated.”

Why did you wipe out the private independent media in the country?

Answer: “Because they don’t like me.”

Do you really believe the Voice of America is the same as Rwanda’s genocide Radio Mille Collines?

Answer: “VOA, VOI (Voice of Interhamwe). It all sounds the same to me.”

What do you think of your critics in the U.S.?

Answer: “They are all friggin extremists in the Diaspora. I can’t stand them. Why? Oh! Why don’t they like me?!?”

Do you believe in the rule of law?

Answer: “Yep! I am it.”

When will you release Birtukan Midekssa, the only woman political party leader in Ethiopian history, from prison?

Answer: “‘There will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.'”

“If there are no more questions, I am outta here!”

Just at that moment, I can imagine President Bollinger leaping to his feet with index finger wagging in righteous indignation and proclaiming: “Mr. Prime Minister, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”

We are All Ears!

Let Zenawi speak! Let’s hear what he has to say. Will it be the usual cascade of lies, half-truths, buzzwords, platitudes, clichés and boiler plate economics hokum bunkum? I have no idea. Over the past several days, Stiglitz and crew have been playing the old switcheroo on the topics Zenawi will be talking about. First, they said Zenawi will speak on “Ethiopia and Africa leadership.” They changed that and said he will talk about “the current global economy and its impact”. Now they say he will be talking about “the current global economy and its impact on Africa”. It is not clear what expertise Zenawi has on globalization or what morsels of wisdom he may be able to impart, but Stiglitz should have no problems writing a nice scholarly-sounding speech for Zenawi to read. After all, the “impact of the global economy on Africa” is the snake oil Joe “The Globalizer” Stiglitz has been peddling for the past decade.

Regardless, Zenawi may have something worthwhile to say. I don’t know. We won’t know unless we hear him speak. The bottom line is that Zenawi would rather go blind than face the naked truth about his atrocious record over the past two decades, but we are not afraid to confront his best dressed lies at the World Leaders Forum. At the end of the day on September 22, when the fog clears over Columbia, Zenawi would have walked off the stage at the Low Library as he walked on it: An emperor with new clothes! So I say: Rap on, Emperor. Rap on!

Welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave!

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.

[1] http://www.ethiomedia.com/augur/3900.html
[2] “The Voodoo Economics of Meles Zenawi”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ethiopia-the-voodoo-econo_b_542298.html