By Alemayehu G. Mariam
Remember H.R. 2003?
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
The following is a 45-page report that is issued today by International Crisis Group on ethnic politics in Ethiopia
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) [a cover organization for tribalist Tigrean People Liberation Front ({www:Woyanne})], led by its chairman and prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has radically reformed Ethiopia’s political system. The regime transformed the hitherto centralised state into the Federal Democratic Republic and also redefined citizenship, politics and identity on ethnic grounds. The intent was to create a more prosperous, just and representative state for all its people. Yet, despite continued economic growth and promised democratization, there is growing discontent with the EPRDF’s ethnically defined state and rigid grip on power and fears of continued inter-ethnic conflict. The international community should take Ethiopia’s governance problems much more seriously and adopt a more principled position towards the government. Without genuine multi-party democracy, the tensions and pressures in Ethiopia’s polities will only grow, greatly increasing the possibility of a violent eruption that would destabilise the country and region.
The endeavour to transform Ethiopia into a federal state is led by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which has dominated the coalition of ethno-nationalist parties that is the EPRDF since the removal in 1991 of the Derg, the security services committee that overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974. The EPRDF quickly institutionalised the TPLF’s policy of people’s rights to self-determination and self-rule. The federal constitution ratified in 1994 defined the country’s structure as a multicultural federation based on ethno-national representation.
The government has created nine ethnic-based regional states and two federally administered city-states. The result is an asymmetrical federation that combines populous regional states like Oromiya and Amhara in the central highlands with sparsely populated and underdeveloped ones like Gambella and Somali. Although the constitution vests all powers not attributed to the federal government in them, the regional states are in fact weak.
The constitution was applauded for its commitment to liberal democracy and respect for political freedoms and human rights. But while the EPRDF promises democracy, it has not accepted that the opposition is qualified to take power via the ballot box and tends to regard the expression of differing views and interests as a form of betrayal. Before 2005, its electoral superiority was ensured by the limited national appeal and outreach of the predominantly ethnically based opposition parties. Divided and disorganised, the reach of those parties rarely went beyond Addis Ababa. When the opposition was able to challenge at local, regional or federal levels, it faced threats, harassment and arrest. With the opportunity in 2005 to take over the Addis Ababa city council in what would have been the first democratic change of a major administration in the country’s history, the opposition withdrew from the political process to protest flaws in the overall election.
The EPRDF did not feel threatened until the 2005 federal and regional elections. The crackdown that year on the opposition demonstrated the extent to which the regime is willing to ignore popular protest and foreign criticism to hold on to power. The 2008 local and by-elections went much more smoothly, in large part because the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) was absorbed with internal and legal squabbles, and several other parties withdrew after their candidates experienced severe registration problems. The next federal and regional elections, scheduled for June 2010, most probably will be much more contentious, as numerous opposition parties are preparing to challenge the EPRDF, which is likely to continue to use its political machine to retain its position.
Despite the EPRDF’s authoritarianism and reluctance to accept genuine multi-party competition, political positions and parties have proliferated in recent years. This process, however, is not driven by democratisation or the inclusion of opposition parties in representative institutions. Rather it is the result of a continuous polarisation of national politics that has sharpened tensions between and within parties and ethnic groups since the mid-1990s. The EPRDF’s ethnic federalism has not dampened conflict, but rather increased competition among groups that vie over land and natural resources, as well as administrative boundaries and government budgets.
Furthermore, ethnic federalism has failed to resolve the “national question”. The EPRDF’s ethnic policy has empowered some groups but has not been accompanied by dialogue and reconciliation. For Amhara and national elites, ethnic federalism impedes a strong, unitary nation-state. For ethno-national rebel groups like the ONLF (Ogaden National Liberation Front; Somalis in the Oga den) and OLF (Oromo Liberation Front; the Oromo), ethnic federalism remains artificial. While the concept has failed to accommodate grievances, it has powerfully promoted ethnic self-awareness among all groups. The international community has ignored or downplayed all these problems. Some donors appear to consider food security more important than democracy in Ethiopia, but they neglect the increased ethnic awareness and tensions created by the regionalisation policy and their potentially explosive consequences. [… click here to read the full report]
Reported by Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
For decades, Ethiopia has been affected by famine and conflict. In 2009, there have been various reports of internal displacement resulting from conflicts and human rights violations perpetrated by the army and groups opposed to the government. It is difficult to establish the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) as neither the government nor any international organisation has undertaken a profiling exercise. The access of humanitarian and human rights organisations and the media to some areas of the country has been restricted.
The ongoing conflicts in Somali Region between the army and the Ogaden National Liberation Front, and in the south and south-west of the country with the Oromo Liberation Front, both pose serious security, humanitarian and protection challenges. The impact on civilians of the conflict in Somali Region has been likened to that of Darfur. Meanwhile, there are also conflicts in at least five of the country’s nine regions with causes ranging from competition over scarce water and pasture resources to disputes over administrative boundaries. In February 2009 alone, some 160,000 people were driven from their homes by conflict between the Garre of the Somali region and the Boran of the Oromiya region over a contested piece of land.
Displacement in Ethiopia is well documented but there is no evidence of durable solutions for IDPs. There is no agency or ministry mandated to respond to issues of forced internal displacement. Even though Ethiopia is actively involved in the drafting of the African Union convention on internally displaced people, there is growing evidence to suggest that conflicts in the country have far-reaching implications for protection and humanitarian assistance for internally displaced people. In a context of widespread impunity, no-one sanctioning violence that leads to displacement has been prosecuted.
The absence of political efforts to resolve internal conflicts and the continuing border dispute with Eritrea presents an ongoing serious risk of renewed conflict and displacement in the Horn of Africa. If the government does not improve humanitarian access, affected IDPs and other vulnerable people will continue to face a protection and humanitarian crisis.
Background: locations and causes of conflict and displacement
For decades, Ethiopia has faced severe famines and regional and international conflicts. From 1977 to 1978 it waged a war with Somalia in which the USA and USSR were involved, it fought a border war with Eritrea between 1998 and 2000, and from 2007 to early 2009 its army was pitted against insurgents (supported by Eritrea) and other nationalist groups in Somalia (The Enough Project, 9 February 2009).
Ethiopia was transformed from a unitary state to an ethnic federal state in 1994 by the new government led by the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which seized power from the Dergue government of Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991. This new constitutional order was intended to redress the ethno-national grievances among the many ethnic groups in the country (International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 2008).
However, despite this system of ethnic federalism under which the country is divided into ethnically-defined regions and zones, in almost all cases, displacement was triggered by conflict between different ethnic groups over access to political power or scarce resources such as water and pastoral or agricultural land. There are several conflict-induced displacement situations in Ethiopia, the largest occurring in the administrative regions of Somali, Oromiya, Gambella and Tigray. In addition to these, the government’s counter-insurgency activities in regions such as Oromiya, Somali, and Gambella have led to serious human rights violations which have also led to displacement of civilians (HRW, June 2008; ISS, May 2007).
In November 2008, a study undertaken by the Ethiopian NGO African Rally for Peace and Development (ARPD) showed internal armed conflicts in most of the regions of Ethiopia, including Oromiya, Tigray, Somali, Southern Nationalities and Peoples Republic (SNNPR), Afar, Gambella, and Benishangul-Gumuz (ARPD, November 2008). The US State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report on Ethiopia reported that ethnically-based conflicts in western, eastern and southern areas had resulted in an increase in killings and injuries since 2007 and the displacement of tens of thousands of people (USDoS, 25 February 2009).
According to ARPD, the major causes of conflicts within Ethiopia’s regions are ethnicity, disputed border and administrative arrangements, the impact on the distribution of resources and power, large-scale spontaneous and planned migration, religious differences, and mineral extraction.
The Borena zone of Oromiya Region, Gambella Region and SNNPR have witnessed recent intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic conflicts (ARPD, November 2008; ISS, 1 May 2007). In August 2008, inter-clan conflict displaced almost 13,000 people in Gambella Region (interview with OCHA, 5 June 2009).
Even though numbers of people displaced by conflict and human rights violations are not easy to establish due to the restrictions that are placed on the activities of media reporters and humanitarian organisations wishing to profile populations in need, the UN and other international organisations estimate that over 300,000 people are displaced by conflict or violence in Ethiopia in 2009 (interviews in Addis Ababa, June 2009).
Somali Region
The conflict between the government and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in Somali Region has continued into 2009 (BBC, 9 March 2009; Garoweonline, 8 March 2009). In an August 2009 Al-Jazeera interview, Genocide Watch founder and president Gregory Stanton and the human rights activist Fowsia Abdulkadir described a “genocide-like” situation comparable to Darfur, with reports of killings and burning of villages despite the army’s severe access restrictions on the media and humanitarian organisations (Al-Jazeera, 9 August 2009).
These restrictions make it impossible to establish the number or situation of people displaced by the conflict in Somali region (The Christian Science Monitor, 26 February 2008; Reuters, 27 February 2008; VOA, 25 February 2009). However, many analysts talk of displacements of hundreds of thousands of people (interviews in 2009 in Addis Ababa, Geneva, and Nairobi).
According to a 2008 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, the government’s counter-insurgency campaign against the ONLF, designed to cut off civilian support to the ONLF and concentrate its rural support base in designated larger villages and towns, had caused widespread forced displacement, particularly between June and August 2007. The government had ordered civilians to relocate from small villages and pastoralist settlements to designated towns throughout the conflict-affected zones, typically ordering the villagers and nomads to move within two to seven days. To secure compliance with the evacuation orders, the army had repeatedly implemented a phased system of terror involving the confiscation and killing of livestock, public executions, and the destruction of villages by burning (HRW, June 2008; p.33).
Oromiya Region
Another rebel group operates in southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya and claims to be fighting for the autonomy of the Oromo people. The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) has fought the Ethiopian army since 1973. Little information is available on how this conflict has caused displacement due to government restrictions. In August 2009, the government summoned the Ambassador of Kenya, demanding that his government stop a private media company in Kenya airing an investigation on the OLF (Daily Nation, 6 August 2009).
Conflicts over disputed administrative borders
In October 2008, approximately 100,000 people were displaced as a result of conflict in the Filtu and Hudet areas over a disputed border between the ethnically-defined Oromiya and Somali Regions (IDMC interview, Addis Ababa, 9 June 2009). In the majority of cases, people sought shelter with host communities, while others scattered in the surrounding bush.
In early 2009, ethnic clashes between Somali and Oromo ethnic groups displaced tens of thousands of people. The conflict was triggered when the Oromiya regional authorities started drilling a borehole on contested land close to the dividing line between the Oromiya and Somali Regions, which has never been properly demarcated. When the Garre Somalis destroyed the rig, members of the Borana clan mobilised to take revenge, angry at what they saw as years of Somali encroachment. Some 300 people lost their lives during the conflict (BBC, 26 February 2009). Initial reports suggested 70,000 people were displaced (BBC, 13 March 2009), but regional government officials later put the figure at over 150,000 (interview with Somali and Oromiya officials in Moyale, 17 June 2008).
In October 2008, almost 18,000 people were displaced in Alaba district of SNNPR as a result of inter-ethnic conflict between the Arsi and the Alaba over a disputed administrative boundary (IDMC interview, Addis Ababa, 9 June 2009).
Physical security
HRW has reported that serious human rights violations have taken place in areas affected by conflict and displacement, and that the government has not investigated or brought to account the perpetrators (HRW, January 2009). A June 2008 HRW report on Somali region was very critical of the human rights records of both the Ethiopian government and army and the ONLF. According to HRW, violations included military attacks on civilians and their villages, while continuing abuses by both rebels and Ethiopian troops were posing a direct threat to the survival of people remaining in war-affected areas, and creating a pervasive culture of fear (HRW, June 2008).
HRW also reported a military campaign of forced relocations and destruction of villages in 2007 (HRW, June 2008). Villagers told HRW how the army killed herders and other fleeing civilians, and burned homes, property and food stocks (HRW, 3 October 2007). Reuters also reported that the burning of villages was forcing locals to flee to the bush where their basic needs were unmet (Reuters, 4 September 2007).
Similar allegations of the army committing human rights violations against the civilian population in the Somali Region were also documented by Amnesty International, the US Department of State and Genocide Watch (AI, 28 May 2009; USDoS, 25 February 2009; Al-Jazeera, 9 August 2009).
Satellite images have backed up reports that the Ethiopian army has burnt towns and villages in Somali Region. The American Association for the Advancement of Science says the images confirm the HRW report and show the army systematically ill-treating civilians in their counter-insurgency campaign (BBC, 12 June 2008).
Gender-based violence is also said to be widespread in Somali region, which is reportedly openly countenanced by the army. Several witnesses have reported that they were gang-raped to the point of unconsciousness by soldiers (Al-Jazeera, 9 August 2009; HRW, June 2008; Reuters, 27 February 2008).
In the February 2009 conflict between the Garre-Somali and the Oromiya-Boran, 300 lives were lost. The BBC reported that many of the displaced had had their villages destroyed and their property stolen (BBC, 13 March 2009).
Landmines continue to hamper the free movement of people in conflict areas. Ethiopia is one of the most heavily-mined countries in Africa. A Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) survey found that 1.9 million people were at risk and identified almost 1,500 communities affected by landmines (Afrol News, 15 April 2009).
Humanitarian access
The activities of aid workers have been severely restricted in regions such as Somali. Humanitarian agencies have since 2008 been granted permission to deliver food but the military escorts still hinder full access (Daily Telegraph, 17 October 2008; BBC News, 19 September 2008; The Times, 18 September 2008). The army has maintained control over humanitarian aid by accompanying convoys, and determining whether it is safe for a delivery to go ahead. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has been denied access to Somali Region, and has called on the government to immediately allow its teams to provide assistance to people in the region who are facing an increasingly desperate situation (MSF, 4 September 2007). In July 2008, the Swiss arm of MSF halted its operations in the Region, due to the obstacles put in its way. According to the organisation’s statement: “The authorities’ attitude towards humanitarian organisations has translated into recurrent arrests of MSF Switzerland staff without charge or explanation… Despite continuous attempts to improve the working relations with authorities, our organisation can only regret the absence of any room to bring independent and impartial assistance.” (IRIN, 10 July 2008)
Insecurity in some parts of the country has also hindered aid delivery. In September 2008, two aid workers working for an international organisation were kidnapped by gunmen in Somali Region (BBC, 23 September 2008).
National and international responses
The absence of political effort to resolve internal conflicts and the continuing border dispute with Eritrea presents an ongoing serious risk of renewed conflict in the Horn of Africa, with potential for large-scale displacement and severe humanitarian consequences. At a recent joint meeting between the House of the Federation and representatives of all nine regional governments in Benishangul-Gumuz Region, regional governments accused the federal authorities of not doing enough to help them contain conflicts in the regions (The Reporter, 15 August 2009).
The government’s strong control of humanitarian response mechanisms has left many of the disasters either unreported or played down. Responses have been fragmented, inadequate, late, and have left affected populations in an even worse situation (interview in Geneva, November 2008). For example, government food distribution policies have reportedly prevented assistance reaching people in need (AI, 2009); The Telegraph, 17 October 2008; BBC News, 19 September 2008; The Times, 18 September 2008, IRIN, 10 July 2008).
If the government does not improve humanitarian access, affected IDPs and other vulnerable people will continue to face a protection and humanitarian crisis (ICG, 17 June 2008). USAID reported in March 2008 that “literally hundreds of areas… have neither been assessed nor received any food assistance”, with “populations terrorised by the inability to access food” (The Times, 18 September 2008). The British Channel 4 reported that the army had withheld food from villages in Somali Region as part of a “scorched earth” policy against the ONLF (BBC, 19 September 2008; The Times, 18 September 2008). Before the British Minister for International Development toured a hospital in the town of Kebri Dehar during a visit to Somali Region in October 2008, local officials forced starving infants out of the emergency ward and on to the street (The Telegraph, 17 October 2008).
There is no dedicated government agency or office or a focal point that is known to be dealing with conflict-induced displacement. In August 2008, the government disbanded the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency (DPPA) whose responsibilities were to be to anticipate and prevent disasters and build local capacities to do so as well and transferred its mandate to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Ministry officials now charged with disaster risk management (DRM) anticipate the increased decentralisation of these DRM responsibilities. A proposed policy has called for the mainstreaming of disaster risk management throughout government and greatly strengthened disaster management capacity at the highest levels of government. Debates continue within the government regarding the policy and it is unclear if or when it will be adopted and to what degree this will deal with conflict-induced displacement (ODI, June 2009).
Government line ministries normally help UN agencies disburse food and sanitation assistance (OCHA Humanitarian Bulletin, 10 August 2009). In July 2009, the UN disbursed some $6 million towards helping the Ethiopian government help contain the rising challenges of food insecurity, malnutrition, and ensure health care and water and sanitation support, mostly in displacement-affected areas of Somali, Oromiya, and SNNPR (IRIN, 27 July 2009).
In August 2009, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recommended to the government “to ensure that refugees and other vulnerable persons, such as internally displaced persons, enjoy their rights under national law as well as various international legal instruments to which it is a party…” The Committee further requested the State Party to “provide, in its next periodic report, detailed information on the human rights situation of refugees and internally displaced persons on its territory…” (CERD, 31 August 2009).
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA (AFP) — African nations dictators will walk out of climate change talks in Copenhagen if their demands, including hefty compensations from the West, are not met, Ethiopian Prime Minister warlord Meles Zenawi said Thursday.
[Meles, who has just returned from Belgium where he received medical treatment, must be hallucinating.]
One of the key demands that the world’s poorest most looted continent is making is billions of dollars in compensation to help it cope with the effects of climate change to line up the pockets of Africa’s thieves, rapists and genocidal killers like Meles.
However a panel representing the continent at the talks is yet to come up with a figure. [Meles and Azeb must have come up with the figure after an afternoon of khat chewing.]
“If need be we are prepared to walk out of any negotiations that threatens to be another rape of the continent,” said Meles, who leads the panel.
“While we reason with everyone to achieve our objective we are not prepared to rubber stamp any agreement by the powers,” he told African officials and experts from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development at a meeting in Addis Ababa.
“We will use our numbers to delegitimise any agreement that is not consistent with our minimal position.”
According to a study by the UK-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, global warming could cost the continent around 30 billion dollars a year by 2015.
That figure could rise to between 50 billion and 100 billion dollars by 2020 due to increasing costs to cope with climate change effects such as frequent and more severe floods, droughts and storms, as well as extreme changes in rainfall patterns, the group said.
African Union chairman Jean Ping urged rich nations not to renege on their financial commitments.
“It is my expectation that such financial resources must be from public funds and must be additional to the usual overseas development assistance,” he told the gathering.
African countries will also demand that industrialised nations take measures to limit global warming to two degrees celsius and cut emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020.
“What we are not prepared to live with is global warming above minimum unavoidable levels,” Meles said.
“We will therefore never accept any global deal that does not limit global warming to the minimum unavoidable level, no matter what levels of compensation and assistance are promised to us.”
ADDIS ABABA (MSF) — Ethiopia’s Ministry of Health has also reported patients suffering from acute watery diarrhea in several other regions of the country.
Since August 19, joint Ministry of Health and MSF teams have been providing medical care to patients with acute watery diarrhea in and around the capital city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
In collaboration with Ethiopian health authorities, MSF has set up a total of eight treatment facilities within Ministry of Health structures in the city. These treatment facilities are located in Yekatit 12 hospital, Ras Desta hospital, Zewditu hospital, Sint Petros hospital, Akaki health centre, Kaliti health centre, Bole and Kotebe Youth centre.
In total 5,178 patients have been cared for by medical teams from August 19 to 31 in Addis Ababa, of whom five have died. This very low mortality rate has been achieved thanks to the quick mobilisation of the Ethiopian health authorities and MSF. Over the last few days, the number of daily admissions to these treatment facilities has been decreasing.
People suffering from acute watery diarrhea have contracted the disease mostly by drinking unclean water. If left untreated, they run a risk to become dehydrated. While most severe cases need to be hospitalised and receive intravenous therapy, people who are moderately sick can be treated with oral rehydration salts only.
Since the beginning of July, MSF has also been responding to a watery diarrhea outbreak in the northeastern region of Afar. In two months, the team, in collaboration with the health authorities, has provided care to 570 patients in two treatment facilities.
Ethiopia’s Ministry of Health has also reported patients suffering from acute watery diarrhea in several other regions of the country.
Additional staff have been sent to Ethiopia to augment the MSF teams on the ground.
