Alemayehu G. Mariam
“Let Ethiopians Debate Ethiopia”
Following Meles Zenawi’s speech at Columbia University on September 22, Prof. William Easterly of New York University expressed his delight in seeing Ethiopians “participating in a debate about Ethiopia.” In his AID WATCH blog under the title “Lessons after the Meles Speech at Columbia: Let Ethiopians Debate Ethiopia”, Prof. Easterly noted[1]:
It sure was nice to see mainly Ethiopians vigorously participating in a debate about Ethiopia, in contrast to the usual Old White Men debating Africa. The Meles visit to Columbia had the unintentional effect of promoting this debate. We were very happy at Aid Watch to have had the privilege of turning over our little corner of the web to host some of this debate, and then just get out of the way.
Prof. Easterly is the author of the widely-read book, The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. He is one of the most informed and critically skeptical economist in the world today on the failures of foreign aid to produce sustainable growth in the so-called Third World. His views stand in clear contrast to Columbia professors Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs who are avid advocates of foreign aid as a vehicle for economic development in countries such as Ethiopia.
Prof. Easterly’s colorful intimation about “Old White Men debating Africa” masks two bold-faced and painful truths from which the Ethiopian “intelligentsia” cannot escape. The first is that Western-educated Ethiopian intellectuals in particular have curtsied and made way to the two “Knights of Columbia” who earned their fame and fortune thrusting lances in the heart of the International Monetary Fund and panhandling Western governments to keep Africa on the dole indefinitely. The second truth is that Ethiopian intellectuals have stood by idly as the “Gang of Two” have made it their mission to promote Zenawi internationally by spinning fairy tales of “economic growth” and “development” in Ethiopia.
For well over a decade, Profs. Stiglitz and Sachs have served as intellectual godfathers to Ethiopia’s dictator-in-chief Meles Zenawi. The “objective” of these two “academic entrepreneurs” and “unacademic professors”, to use the recent words of Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia, is to “ingratiate” themselves ” with influential African leaders regardless of their democratic and human-rights record, to get PR and ‘goodies’ for themselves at African summits, at the UN where these leaders have a vote…” Their style has been to rub elbows and hobnob with iron-fisted and human rights-trashing kleptocratic African dictators while preaching and pleading for more foreign aid and spinning fairy tales of “double-digit economic growth” in the international media and policy forums to promote the dictators.
According to the Stiglitz-Sachs theory, decisive and benevolent dictators powered by massive amounts of panhandled Western aid could pull Ethiopia and Africa out of the darkness of poverty into the sunshine of development. All of the human rights stuff is a frivolous distraction that should be ignored in the single-minded pursuit of the Holy Grail of foreign aid to solve the problem of poverty once and for all by 2015, if one is to believe, as does Sachs, in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Such fatuous nonsense has become the credo of the Western foreign aid world thanks to the likes of Stiglitz and Sachs. In 2010 alone, the U.S. has dropped nearly $1 billion in aid to Ethiopia.
The fact of the matter is that the much vaunted foreign aid provides a lifeline to dictators and stokes the furnace of corruption that incinerates the poor and the powerless on a daily basis in countries such as Ethiopia. Suffice it to say that expecting economic growth from foreign aid is like expecting a harvest from desert rains; only the succulent plants benefit from it.
Prof. Bhagwati, charitably, but grossly understates the relationship between Ethiopia’s dictator and Stiglitz-Sachs as ingratiation. Since 1997, Stiglitz-Sachs have been Zenawi’s unofficial hagiographers (biographers of saints). Stiglitz wrote: “These intellectual attributes [Zenawi’s ‘deeper and more subtle understanding of economic principles’] were matched by integrity: Meles was quick to investigate any accusations of corruption in his government. He was committed to decentralization–to ensuring that the center did not lose touch with the various regions.”[2] In 2010, Ethiopia ranked 138/159 (most corrupt) countries on the Corruption Index; 17th among the most failed states (Somalia is No. 1) on the Failed States Index; 136/179 countries (most repressive) on the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom; and 107/183 economies for ease of doing business (investment climate) by The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 2010. But we have only seen the tip of the glacial iceberg of corruption in Ethiopia.[3]
In his 2003 book, Stiglitz wrote, “His [Zenawi’s] political opponents came mostly from the long-dominant groups around the capital who had lost political power with his accession, and they raised questions about his commitment to democratic principles.” In his Columbia speech on September 22, during the Q&A session, Zenawi said that the only people complaining about human rights violations and opposing him are “remnants” of Mengistu’s regime, the erstwhile military junta gone nearly 20 years, who lost their power nearly two decades ago. It seems they all read from the same tired 20 year-old script.
In 2004, Sachs wrote[4], “When I meet with Prime Minister Meles and President Museveni I feel like I am attending a development seminar. They are ingenious, deeply knowledgeable, and bold.” In 2005, at an award ceremony for Zenawi, Sachs spoke beatifically of Zenawi: “You have distinguished yourself as a one of our World’s most brilliant leaders. I have often said that our many hours of discussion together are among the most scintillating that I have spent on the topics of economic development. I invariably leave our meetings enriched, informed, and encouraged about Ethiopia’s prospects.”[5] Goethe said, “A person places themselves on a level with the ones they praise.” Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum!
The Echo Chamber of the “Gang of Three”
The “Gang of Three” have had their mutual admiration society going for quite a while. They have carefully orchestrated a subtle campaign of disinformation about stratospheric economic growth rates in Ethiopia using the reputable media; and through sheer volume of media references and repetition, many have now come to believe in the fairy tale that Ethiopia has finally become a utopia where economic growth gallops at a steady clip of 14.9 percent annually. As they buttered up each other for their intellectual insights, foresights, hindsights and angelic integrity and put in place their foreign-aid panhandling schemes to rid Ethiopia of poverty, Ethiopian intellectuals, particularly those in the Diaspora, have been standing on the sidelines in catatonic silence. We have heard the “Gang of Three” lying, but we have not testified against them. We have heard them misleading the people with “lies, damned lies and statistics”, and we have failed to lead the people with simple truths. We have stood deaf, mute and blind as our motherland is raped by land-grabbing raiders and marauders from the Middle East to India.
But others, including Prof. Easterly, have not been silent; in fact, they have been systematically demonstrating with data that shaking down the Western donor dollar tree for every last penny will produce neither economic growth nor development. Prof. Easterly has relentlessly exposed those officially pimping foreign aid as the silver bullet to end poverty in the Third World[6]:
The goal [of foreign aid] is simply to benefit some poor people some of the time… In virtually no other field of economics do economists and policymakers promise such large welfare benefits for modest policy interventions as ‘we’ do in aid and growth. The macroeconomic evidence does not support these claims. There is no Next Big Idea that will make the small amount of foreign aid the catalyst for economic growth of the world’s poor nations.
Ghanaian economist Prof. George Ayittey and international economist Dambissa Moyo have also exposed the scam of foreign aid-dependent development and offered alternative views on promoting economic growth and development in Africa ranging from the radical proposal of cutting off all aid to Africa over a period of time to finding money for development through financial markets, microfinance, improving governance, reducing corruption through rigorous accountability structures, focusing aid to meet the urgent needs of the poor in health care, education, clean water supply and by calling for innovative approaches to development. But in an echo chamber of a self-absorbed foreign aid community that resonates with “lies, damned lies and statistics”, Easterly, Ayittey and Moyo have been voices in the wilderness. But because of their persistence, the simple truth that foreign aid is not changing the lives of the most needy in recipient countries such as Ethiopia is coming out and taking hold, much to the chagrin of those pimping foreign aid.
As the “academic entrepreneurs” buy, sell and auction us off on the foreign aid market and the few voices in the wilderness struggle to call attention to the ineffectiveness of aid in spurring economic development, Ethiopian intellectuals in the main have resolved to stand deaf-mute and watch the debate from the sidelines. That’s what makes Prof. Easterly’s remark about “letting Ethiopians participate in the debate about Ethiopia” especially poignant and embarrassing. He is too much of a scholar and gentleman to call us out in the public square and say, “You Ethiopian intellectuals have not been part of the debate. You have been passive spectators as ‘White old men’ do the thinking and acting for you. You have not been engaged, but disengaged to the point of inexplicable indifference. You have not shown righteous intellectual outrage or courage to confront these foreign aid pimps, conjurers and enchanters. Get your shoulders to the grind wheel and ‘participate in the debate’ and come up with your own solutions to the problems your country is facing.” I catch the drift of Prof. Easterly’s delicate and finessed appreciation that they are “very happy at Aid Watch to have had the privilege of turning over [their] little corner of the web to host some of this debate.”
Let Ethiopians Lead the Debate on Ethiopia
So, what do we make of Prof. Easterly’s suggestion, “Let Ethiopians debate Ethiopia”? Do we ignore it or rise up to the challenge? I say, let us not only “debate Ethiopia”, but also challenge the dictators and their patron saints in all fields of intellectual endeavor. What is it that they got that we ain’t got? Aha! A Nobel Prize! But a Nobel laureate testifying for a dictator is like the devil quoting Scripture for his purpose, as Shakespeare might say: “An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek.” The true measure of that Prize should not be in possessing it to shield dictatorships from scrutiny, but in using it to help free humanity from the yoke of oppression.
I would like Prof. Easterly to know that Ethiopians are not just coming forward to “debate Ethiopia”, they are actually ready, able and willing to lead the debate. In the past few months, they have stepped up to the plate and begun slugging it out with the false prophets of foreign aid. Dr. Aklog Birara, an international economist, in his new book on “Ethiopia’s endemic poverty” takes on the intellectual apologists of dictators head on:
A vicious cycle of poverty afflicts the vast majority of Ethiopians despite incredible good will manifested in billions of dollars of emergency and development assistance from wealthy countries… The ruling-party, its supporters and a few in the donor community argue that substantial growth has taken place. There is substantial physical evidence in the form of hydroelectric power dams, roads and bridges, buildings and housing, schools and other infrastructure to show this… There is no indication that substantial investments into the productive sectors such as industry, manufacturing and agriculture have been made. Lag in the productivity of the real sector is evidenced by recurring hunger, high unemployment and underemployment, especially an estimated 14 million unemployed youth in the country.
Prof. Seid Hassan has debunked the claims of those who underplay and rationalize endemic corruption in the Ethiopian economy:
The government has been either ineffective in collecting taxes or the economy is unable to generate taxable incomes. The economy’s inability to generate tax revenues is strongly tied with the many constraints that the government has imposed on the people of Ethiopia, the most important of them being state seizure and corruption manifested by the transfer of Ethiopian assets to party-owned conglomerates (the so-called “endowments” who now control the most productive sector and commanding heights of the Ethiopian economy) and the reprieve given to them from paying taxes.
Prof. Getachew Begashaw has demonstrated that those who have a chokehold on the economy also have a chokehold on the people’s throats:
In Ethiopia the one-party government of Meles Zenawi owns all the urban and rural land and completely controls the major economic activities, including manufacturing, construction, and finance. This monopoly of the economic activities of the country, coupled with the absence of democracy, has contributed in a major way to the widespread poverty in the country.[7]
We Must Be Masters of Our Destiny
Prof. Easterly’s subtle intimation that we must master the debate before we can master our destiny is an important lesson to be learned from the Columbia experience. To become masters of our destiny, we must challenge those who have become our intellectual masters by default. We must confront the “Knights of Columbia” and their squires in the scholarly journals, in the media, in the conferences, in blogosphere, in any marketplace of ideas and wherever else they are found selling their snake oil of foreign aid and preaching their false gospel of aid-dependent development to deliver Ethiopia and Africa from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. If we fail to do that, we will forever be victims of the formulaic thinking of “Old White men debating Africa” from afar and the policy triumphalism of their puppets at home. Bertrand Russell said, “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution”. It is OUR job, first and foremost, to state the problem in OUR homeland in a way that allows for OUR solution. That is one of the major lessons we should learn from Columbia U.
FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS.
[1] http://aidwatchers.com/2010/09/nice-to-see-the-debate-on-an-african-country-dominated-by-africans/#comment-19951
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/10/stiglitz.htm
[3] http://www.ethiomedia.com/adroit/2083.html
[4] http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/29379
[5] http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/pubs/AUAgSem070504.pdf
[6] http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/EasterlyJEP03.pdf
[7] http://www.ethiomedia.com/augur/acute_poverty.pdf
Alemayehu G. Mariam
After the Dust Settled
After the dust settled following Meles Zenawi’s speech at Columbia’s World Leaders Forum, a dark shadow and glowing light were visible on stage to behold. The dark shadow was cast by the ghost of the erstwhile Ethiopian junta dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam. The glow of light was radiated by the spirit of Ethiopia’s First Daughter, Birtukan Midekssa.
The Q&A session after the speech showed how much Zenawi remains haunted by the ghost of Mengistu whom he overthrew nearly twenty years ago. Biting condemnation of Mengistu and scathing criticism of his atrocious human rights record during the 1970s and 80s animated a good part of Zenawi’s answers. He also surprised a few by casually announcing Birtukan, Ethiopia’s first ever woman political party leader and first political prisoner, is pretty much free to go after nearly two years of incarceration. The apparent reversal of misfortune for Birtukan came as good news. Just last year, Zenawi had promised the world with sadistic indifference that “there will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” It is true that “hope springs eternal in the human breast.”
The Ghost of Mengistu
It was stunningly incomprehensible for Zenawi to resurrect and promptly hide behind the ghost of Mengistu Haile Mariam to shield his own human rights record from scrutiny. A Nigerian economics student asked[1]:
How different is your regime from Mengistu’s since we know in 1993 there was an immense repression of a student demonstration, and the same thing happened in 2005 and these were the same types of things Mengistu did…?
Answer: … For those on the receiving end of the Mengistu regime, they would not have any difficulty distinguishing our regime from that of the Mengistu regime. The period of Red Terror… was a period where people were killed without any recourse to the courts, and their families were charged by the number of bullets that were used to kill these people. That type of criminalty is dead. It is finished and it is not coming back. I understand some people might have misgivings about it, but it is not coming back.
Zenawi is absolutely right that Mengistu, the bloodthirsty military dictator, has committed monstrous crimes in Ethiopia. He should be tried in a special U.N. court just like Charles Taylor of Liberia. But to put Mengistu’s ghost on trial at the World Leaders Forum as a straw man to deny and cover up one’s own atrocious human rights record shows astonishing arrogance or willful blindness to indisputable facts. But if the criminality of the bullet-charging Mengistu is long gone, as Zenawi asserts, how is that the murderers of 193 innocent protesters and shooters of 763 others still walk the streets free in Ethiopia today without their victims having “recourse to the courts”? No, the type of criminalty of which Mengistu is accused never left Ethiopia. It is alive and well. But it no longer wears uniforms and boots. It struts around in custom tailored suits and alligator shoes.
Zenawi’s use of what might be called the “Mengistu defense” in response to various questions about his own human rights record is insidious and demands careful consideration. His basic argument is mind-boggling: “Do not judge my human rights record on the merits; judge my record by comparing it to Mengistu’s. I may have violated human rights, but I am not as bad as Mengistu. The only people complaining about human rights violations in Ethiopia are “remnants” of Mengistu’s regime who have lost their power. Those “remnants” should be grateful because I let them speak and express themselves. There is free press in Ethiopia today; and the press elements that are complaining are “remnants” of Mengistu’s supporters. Anyone who criticizes me is, ipso facto, a “remnant” of Mengistu’s regime pining for the triumphal return of that ruthless dictator from the dustbin of history to save them.”
It was flabbergasting to hear this type ignoratio elenchi argument which conveniently circumvents the central issue. The question is not whether Mengistu is a human rights violator; he is certified as one of the monstrous human rights violators of the 20th Century. The central question is whether Zenawi himself has engaged in a pattern of gross human rights violations in Ethiopia in the first decade of the 21st Century. It is no argument to say Mengistu is a far worse human rights violator than I, and try to put him on trial at the World Leaders Forum. Attempting to build a factual, legal and philosophical defense of one’s own human rights record in the shadows of Mengistu’s ghost points to either an unrequited obsession with the long gone dictator, denial of the inescapable reality of one’s own atrocious human rights record or a poverty of imagination.
The point is nobody gives a damn about Mengistu. He has been gone nearly twenty years. Good riddance! There may be a few who may long for him, but their numbers are infinitesimally small. There is no need to trot out his ghost as a boogeyman (aya jibo) to scare Ethiopians, or to warn the world he will be back unless Zenawi stands sentry.
The fact of the matter is that after twenty years, Zenawi could not point to a single item of achievement in his human rights record. He could not produce proof to demonstrate that he has established the rule of law, guaranteed freedom of expression (without shuttering newspapers, filtering websites, jamming radio and satellite signals), promoted the independence of the judiciary, guaranteed clean elections, spread good governance throughout the land or successfully campaigned against corruption. All he could say was, “I am not as bad as Mengistu”. It is good to look at oneself in the mirror from time to time, but one ought to prudently compare oneself to others. There is always the risk of finding more similarities than differences. There is no need to shadow box with the ghost of Mengistu at the World Leaders Forum or anywhere else.
The Spirit of Birtukan
This spirit of Birtukan was also on stage at Columbia’s World Leader’s Forum. Zenawi had beamed her down from Kality “Federal” Prison. He casually said she can have her freedom by simply asking for it. It was a bold and disarming statement for those of us who have cringed listening to his vindictive, heartless and pitiless words: “Birtukan’s case is a dead issue.”
Faint rumors of her release have been circulating for days. My initial reaction to the rumors was ho-hum: “Here we go again. The European Union Election Team report is going to come out soon with its final report on the May 2010 ‘election’. What better strategy than to release Birtukan to get a softer landing?” I surmised the EU election report was probably delayed again to give Zenawi time to arrange her release at about the same time the EU report would be released. It crossed my mind that he was not doing it voluntarily but under pressure from donors. May be he thinks he is letting out a leader whose will is crushed and defeated and is unlikely to pose any challenge to him. Regardless, I was glad to hear him say she is free to go. The political calculations for her release did not matter to me much.
But I was intrigued by his legal analysis of her case before announcing his offer of a pardon. To demonstrate that she was incarcerated justly and with due process of law, he offered a check list of “evidence”: her admission of guilt, conviction “by a court of law”, request for a previous pardon and subsequent denial, refusal to acknowledge her mistakes, etc. He crowned his legal arguments by claiming, without citing article 16 (2) of Proclamation No. 395/2004 (“pardon law), that she had obtained a pardon “under false pretenses”. According to Zenawi, Birtukan[1]
went abroad and issued a statement to the effect that she did not ask for a pardon, and she was not given a pardon. Our pardon law [Proclamation No. 395/2004] says that if a pardon is sought under false pretenses or given (sic) [received?] under false pretenses, it is automatically null and void. So if she didn’t ask for a pardon, then the pardon given to her was completely illegal. When she came back from abroad, the police told her that her statement would necessarily lead to her being detained again unless she were to admit that she did indeed seek pardon and was indeed given pardon, then the pardon given to her is legally invalid. She was given a month to think about it… Many friends including ambassadors talked to her to try and convince her…. [that] if she denied receiving a pardon, she would be put back in prison. She did not feel convinced that she should retract the statement she issued in Sweden. At that point, we had no option but to detain her.
There is not much truth in the factual analysis. Two days before Birtukan was “detained”, she put out a public statement (“Qale” [My Word]) declaring:
I have not denied signing the document which the elders persuaded us to sign on 22 June 2007 for the sake of national reconciliation. How could it be said that I denied a pardon document I signed, and whose content I accepted? How is that a crime? Where is the mistake?
In light of this statement, it is absurd to argue that she had denied receiving a pardon. No reasonable person could find this statement to be a denial of pardon.
Interestingly, the alleged statement in which Birtukan denied receiving a pardon has never been made public. The alleged fact that she has denied a pardon is taken as an article of faith without any proof of the offending statement. But what are the exact words that Birtukan said that constitute a “denial”? While Zenawi was long on allegations of denial of pardon on the part of Birtukan, he was very short on facts to substantiate them. But Birtukan has meticulously explained what it was that she said in Sweden in “Qale”.
Many other legal and constitutional objections could be raised to contest his facts and analysis, but that is neither here nor there. What is here and now is the fact that Birtukan can go free for the asking. Zenawi said: “Given her past practice, I wouldn’t be surprised if she asked for pardon again, and given the practice of the government, I wouldn’t be surprised if the government were to pardon her again.” I have no reason to second-guess the man. The whole world knows she is unjustly imprisoned, and as far as I am concerned, the release of any person from unjust imprisonment for any reason is to be hailed.
The Devil in the Details
But how could Birtukan be released on a “pardon” given the facts of her case and the arbitrary application of the “pardon law” when she was re-incarcerated in December 2008? Zenawi’s proposed procedure is to have her formally request a pardon. To me that is reminiscent of the 2007 pardon fiasco which led to Birtukan’s arbitrary re-imprisonment in 2008. Birtukan has already declared in her formal statement (Qale) that she never denied receiving a pardon. To insist that she now request a pardon and admit guilt or wrongdoing merely to justify her unjustified 2 year imprisonment is simply unfair. It would be adding insult to injury. That is the problem in Zenawi’s precondition that she request a pardon. By requesting a pardon she must necessarily admit guilt.
I know Birtukan is as an astute lawyer and learned judge and could not accept the precondition of request for pardon voluntarily. I would even argue that if she were to “petition for pardon”, she would be in technical violation of Art. 16 (2) of the Proclamation, which sanctions applications for pardon based on fraud and deceit. Simply put, Birtukan cannot say, “I did not deny receiving a pardon in Sweden.” in December 2008, and now contradict herself in a pardon petition by saying, “I did deny receiving a pardon in Sweden.” It traps her in one of the classic proverbial legal conundrums: “Were you lying when you said you did not deny requesting or receiving a pardon in Sweden in December 2008? Or are you now lying in your pardon petition when you say you did deny requesting and receiving a pardon in Sweden? It is not fair to put her in such a situation.
The bottom line is that there is the law and there is the illusion of the law. If Birtukan were to apply for a “pardon”, it would certainly not be out of a true confession of guilt or moral conviction that she has committed a wrongdoing by denying receipt of a pardon. She would do it only to serve the purposes of the illusion of the law. But no one would blame her for regaining her unjustly taken freedom even if it means petitioning for a pardon just to help Zenawi save face and avoid needless suffering for herself and her family. Birtukan has been thrown in solitary confinement, abused, insulted and mistreated. Is it necessary to humiliate her once more by forcing her to request a “pardon” to give her back the freedom that was taken away from her unjustly in the first place? Is it really necessary to play the pardon game again when the whole world knows it is just a silly game? Can we come up with a win-win solution for everyone?
A Win-Win Solution
Yes, we can! It is possible to get Birtukan released by preserving her dignity and saving face for Zenawi. As Zenawi explained at the World Leaders Forum, her pardon was revoked because she allegedly obtained it by false pretenses which makes the original grant “null and void” under Art. 16 (2) of Proclamation No. 395/2004. Is there a way to get around this problem under the law. The answer, I believe, is to be found in article 12 of the Proclamation which provides:
(2) Without prejudice to the provision hereinabove, the Ministry of Justice and the Federal prison commission may apply for pardon for persons entitled to it. Where the offices decides to apply for pardon, it shall deliver a copy of the application letter to the person in whose favour it is to be made.
(3) Where a person in whose favour a petition for pardon has been submitted pursuant to Sub-Article 2 of this Article declines it, he shall notify, the same to the Board in writing within fifteen consecutive working days from the date of receipt of the copy of the petition.
(4) Except in cases of force majeure, the acceptance of the pardon shall be presumed where the convict fails to notify about his rejection within the time specified in Sub-Article 3 of the Article.
In simple terms, the Ministry of Justice and the Federal prison commission would apply for a pardon on behalf of Birtukan and serve her notice. Birtukan would exercise her right under sub-article (2) and decline to notify the pardon board of her position on the petition. After 15 days, by operation of law (without any further action by Birtukan, the Board or anyone else), her pardon becomes effective. Voila! Done. Birtukan walks out. It is all legal, transparent and aboveboard.
Alternatively, it could be done even faster. Birtukan’s pardon was revoked in December 2008 in a summary executive proceeding (or by executive fiat). The power of executive pardon revocation necessarily includes the power of executive pardon reinstatement. Just as a directive was given to the police commissioner to arrest and incarcerate her in 2008, a directive can now be given to the Kality prison warden to release her and let her go. Birtukan can be headed home in hours. It just as simple as that.
Now, I am not naïve enough to expect Zenawi to follow the law. But it is important to make the case for the historical record. I will predict that a whole re-pardon process will be set up (or is already underway) and statements of admissions will be drafted for Birtukan to sign and so on. The whole process will be subjected to cynical public speculation, and some will even say any pardon she gets is not going to be worth the paper it is written on. After all, they can take it away any time they want. That is the reality, but I will keep an open mind.
I have heard it said that “fire, water and dictators know nothing of mercy.” I would like to see an exception to this rule in Birtukan’s case. I will offer the givers of mercy some words of wisdom from Montesquieu: “So many are the advantages which monarchs gain by clemency, so greatly does it raise their fame, and endear them to their subjects, that it is generally happy for them to have an opportunity of displaying it.” Carpe diem!
[1] http://www.voanews.com/MediaAssets2/amharic/2010_09/Meles%20Speech8.mp3
FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA
Columbia University Protest Organizers issue the New York Manifesto
Following the successful demonstration staged against the visit of the Ethiopian dictator to Columbia University, the organizers of the protest from New York, D.C. area, and other north-eastern states issued the attached Manifesto.
In the coming few days and weeks, there will be extensive discussion on each of the three items constituting the Manifesto. We encourage all pro-democracy individuals and groups to participate in the discussions using all available forums and media, including the popular Websites, radio, focus groups, etc.
WHEREAS, On September 22, 2010, Ethiopians in the Diaspora staged an extraordinarily successful demonstration against the invitation of Meles Zenawi to Columbia University in the City of New York; and
WHEREAS, in the days leading to the said demonstration, there was a manifestation of unsurpassed unity among the democratic forces; and
WHEREAS, This unity was further galvanized by the 99.6% victory blatantly declared by the Dictator in the sham election of May of 2010, his continued violation of human rights, his untamed embezzlement of the country’s resources, and his remorseless use of land and jobs as means of subjugation; and
WHEREAS, There is a clear recognition of the need to maintain the momentum exhibited by the democratic forces in the Diaspora.
THEREFORE, The coordinators of the protest from the North Eastern part of the United States met immediately after the successful demonstration, and issued the following declaration, hereafter referred to as
The New York Manifesto
1. Henceforth, the FOCUS of the struggle by ALL individuals and groups of Ethiopian origin shall be solely on the liberation of Ethiopia from the TPLF tyranny.
2. The immediate launch of a capacity building initiative, with full transparency and accountability, shall be a critical component of the struggle to remove the dictatorship of Meles Zenawi and his ethno-centric party.
3. In the short term, meaningful, realistic and achievable goals shall be formulated and implemented to further motivate, rally and engage the Ethiopian community in the Diaspora.
Organizers from New York, Virginia, DC, Maryland, and other north-eastern states.
