Statement by Dr Berhanu Nega, Mayor-Elect of Addis Ababa at the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health hearing on Ethiopia
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Payne, Ranking member Congressman Chris Smith, Distinguished Members of the House Africa Subcommittee, and Committee Staff:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is indeed a great honor and privilege to get the opportunity to appear before you to discuss issues related to the state of Democracy in Ethiopia. Since my colleague Judge Bertukan have spoken on the current state of democracy in Ethiopia in great detail, it would be more fruitful to concentrate my remarks on where we are going as a country in terms of political stability and democratization. I will largly limit my brief presentation to that issue today.
I must, however, first use this opportunity to thank the committee, particularly the chairman and the ranking member for your unflinching support for the causes of liberty and democracy in Ethiopia and for your efforts to secure our release from prison.
Mr. chairman, your personal visit to Kaliti and your words of support when we met in prison was a great source of strength for all of us during our long period of incarceration on what everyone knows are completely fabricated charges that will not deserve a minute’s worth of a judge’s time in any self respecting court. For most foreign observers of that court’s proceedings, it must have been a text book case of the waste of the human and material resources that condemned developing countries to their perpetual poverty. For me as an Ethiopian, it was a painful but familiar exercise in the humiliation not only of individual functionaries of the state, but key institutions such as the judiciary, inflicted by the incredible arrogance of dictatorships.
Your visit to Kaliti was a source of strength for us partly because of the different message that it conveyed to us about America’s position towards dictatorships in our continent. At a time when we were uncertain about US positions based on what we were hearing from the then official representative of the US government, your visit reassured us that this great nation’s commitment to democracy and human rights is still strong. We really thank you for that.
You must also allow me to use this opportunity, Mr. chairman, to thank numerous US citizens that provided us with continuous support by writing to congress on our behalf, by urging the executive branch to reflect their core values of liberty, democracy, and human rights in its dealings with our country, Ethiopia.
When I met congressman Smith in Addis Ababa after the first massacre in June, I told him the story of the continuous open surveillance by security forces that I and other CUD leaders were subjected to beginning immediately after the election. I told him the behavior of the security forces during this surveillance. I told him about the insult, the occasional spitting on our faces, the wielding of loaded guns and the direct and open threats on our lives. He first thought that this was simply an exaggerated claim by the opposition to tarnish the image of the government of Meles Zenawi. I remember him telling us that this cannot happen. No decent government could do this to a legal opposition. For him, it was simply unfathomable that a government that claims to be democratic could even think about doing such a thing in the 21st century. I asked him if he wants to see it in his own eyes right there and then by taking a five minutes drive with me. He agreed and he sent one of his aides with me for a few blocks ride. The minute we left the US embassy grounds there they were. Two cars full of plainclothes men, without any fear of being seen but tailgating me wherever I go. The rudeness of the security guys was quite amazing to my guest in the car. But for me that was the life I lived for six months till I was finally sent to prison in November. I heard later that the congressman, as promised, raised the issue with the Prime Minister and got the usual response. Complete denial. That is the arrogance of dictatorships that we have to live with on a daily basis.
The absence of the rule of law in any meaningful way in our country does not need detailed reporting to this committee. It is a well known fact and amply reported by human rights groups and the State Department, among others. The human rights abuses practiced in countries such as Ethiopia mainly because of lack of rule of law and democratization is also well documented. But, the effect of such form of government on the economy and on the fight against poverty was an issue that was given short shrift by aid agencies and international development institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. A number of scholars (among them the Nobel Laureate Amaratya Sen) have been strongly arguing on the link between freedom and development for a long time, although largely ignored by development practitioners. As an economist and the president of the Ethiopian Economic Association, I personally have advised policy makers in Ethiopia for the need to open up and democratize society as part of the larger strategy to provide peace, stability and economic development in the country. Indeed, I was pushed to join politics largely to practice what I preached. I strongly believed then, and I passionately believe now that the only way we could have a stable and prosperous Ethiopia that could be a source of stability in the region and a stable and reliable partner to the international community in the struggle against terrorism and extremism is by democratizing the country and providing basic liberty to its citizens.
Mr. Chairman,
I believe this link between good governance (as defined by the existence of rule of law) and economic development is by now incontrovertible. Even the World Bank is grudgingly acknowledging this issue.
Last weekend’s edition of the Wall Street Journal (September 29-30th, 2007) featured an article titled “The Secrets of Intangible Wealth” by Ronald Bailey based on the recent World Bank Resarch “Where is the Wealth of Nations?” Following is excerpt from the article:
Intangible wealth – The trust among people in a society, an efficient judicial system, clear property rights, and effective government boost the productivity of labor and results in higher total wealth. The world bank finds, “Human capital and the value of institutions (as measured by rule of law) constitute the largest share of wealth in virtually all countries.” ….80% of the wealth of rich countries and 60% of the wealth of poor countries is of this intangible type. Bottom line, “Rich countries are largely rich because of the skills of their populations and the quality of the institutions supporting economic activities.” According to their regression analysis, the rule of law explains 57% of countries’ intangible capital. Education accounts for 36%. The US scores 91.8 out of 100 on the rule-of-law index and Ethiopia 16.4. 30 wealthy developed countries have an average score of 90, while sub-Saharan Africa’s is a dismal 28.
The World Bank’s path breaking “Where is the Wealth of Nations?” convincingly demonstrates that the “mainsprings of development” are the rule of law and a good school system. The big question that its researchers don’t answer is: How can the people of the developing world rid themselves of the kleptocrats who loot their counties and keep them poor?”
Mr. Chairman,
That is the political question that we must answer if Ethiopia is to be prosperous, stable and at peace with itself. And that is what Ethiopia seriously lacks presently. Since the brutal repression of the democracy movement in 2005, the country is moving further and further away from the path of democracy and prosperity and towards the slippery slope of conflict and tyranny. The key political challenge we are facing as a country today is whether we are able to choose the right course. Unfortunately, this decision currently and largely rests on the government in power and all indications are that it seems determined to cling on to power by force even if it is plain to anyone with a clear mind that this could only lead to further conflict and instability and economic misery to its largely impoverished population.
More recently, Ethiopia is again in the news concerning the conflict and the horrific human rights abuse perpetrated by the government on its own people in the Ogaden region. Our heart bleeds for those civilian compatriots who are the most recent victims of this ongoing conflict in our country and we condemn this barbarity in the strongest possible terms. But, I am afraid the Ogaden is but one manifestation of the escalation of conflict in various parts of the country largely owing to the refusal of the government to address the political problems of the country in a peaceful and civilized manner.
Currently, there is some kind of low intensity guerilla warfare in 8 out of the 9 regions of the country. In Oromia and Amhara, the two largest regions of the country, human rights abuses, lack of good governance and democratization has alienated the population so much, it has become an open field for recruiting armed combatants to a variety of causes. Even in Tigray, the region supposedly most favorable for the ruling party is slowly becoming a hot bed of armed opposition to the government. The broadening armed conflict in the country is fueled by the loss of hope among the population in the government’s ability and willingness to find a peaceful, negotiated settlement to the country’s political impasse. This was made amply clear to the public in the way the government handled the problems related to the 2005 elections and its current belligerent behavior. What the government’s brutality showed was that any serious attempt at a peaceful opposition or any serious challenge to the powers of the ruling party even through the ballot box will meet stiff resistance from the government.
Unless otherwise something is done soon to reverse this frightening trend, I am afraid our country will further plunge into a more intensified conflict with wider ramifications to the region’s stability and the international community’s wider interest in combating extremism.
Mr. Chairman,
The political problem of Ethiopia is not complicated as some suggest. In my view it is really a very simple problem. The manifestations of the problem could be varied. But the source and essence of the problem is the same. Whether in Addis Ababa, Oromia, Amhara, Ogaden or Tigray, the issue is the same. It is the people’s yearning for democracy. It is the fulfillment of the aspiration of the Ethiopian people to live in freedom and liberty. It is their natural urge to be ruled by a government they elected. They have amply demonstrated that they deserve such a system in the 2005 elections. All the other issues that are specific to the various regions, important as they are, are simply a variation on the same theme. If we address these issues of democratization and the rule of law that were clearly written in the constitution of the country in practice, if we do this through a peaceful, negotiated settlement on the mechanics of how to institutionalize it in practice, we would have addressed the greater portion of the country’s development problems. I really believe the various opposition forces in Ethiopia (both armed and peaceful opposition) are matured enough at this time to work towards this end and settle their political differences through the ballot box if the polls are credible and the institutions that ensure this are in place. What remains is to put enough pressure on the government to see that this is the only future for Ethiopia and that it should be a part of this future. The government must be and can be pressured to see this light and play a constructive role in usuring this new democratic and prosperous Ethiopia.
Mr. Chairman,
Ethiopia has always been a good friend to your country and the relationship between our two countries has a long history. The Ethiopian people have a great admiration to the American people particularly for their hard work, decency and above all their love for liberty. The Ethiopian people rightly expect Americans to be with them in these difficult times and to support their legitimate struggle for liberty as they deeply believe they are with Americans in their fight against terrorism and extremism. I deeply believe that the fight against terrorism is a struggle for decency and liberty. The best and durable allies in the fight against terror are those countries and governments that deeply share the values of liberty and democracy. Dictatorships that have nothing but scorn for liberty in relation to their own people, autocratic regimes that see all alliances as temporary instruments with the sole purpose of maintaining their grip on power, governments that have no qualms about lying and cheating in so far as it proves even temporarily useful to maintain power and states that terrorize their own people, cannot be real allies to a fight against international terrorism.
A good and durable ally for your country is a stable and democratic Ethiopia. As a good friend and ally that provides broad support for the government of Ethiopia, the United States has the potential and certainly the capacity to help us get out of the current political impasse. We know most of the work to make this a reality is to be done by local political forces. Still, well timed and measured pressure from the international community will certainly help. All that is needed from the US is to work with its other allies to mount a coordinated pressure to force the Ethiopian government to negotiate in good faith with all the opposition political forces for a broad political settlement that leads towards genuine democratization in Ethiopia. I truly believe, Mr. chairman, that the opposition would play its part for such an effort if the government is serious. But such an effort is time sensitive. It has to happen quickly before the ongoing conflict passes that threshold where peaceful and negotiated settlement becomes too late in the game.
Mr. Chairman, working towards such an outcome is not only the right thing to do but also the smart thing to do. The world community has enough experiences by now to know that doing nothing at the early stages of a crisis could be extremely costly later. The crisis in Ethiopia is a looming crisis. If we act wisely now, we can avoid a lot of pain later. I hope the United States will play its part to bring about a peaceful and durable solution to the political crisis in Ethiopia. Such an outcome is good for the Ethiopian government, good for the international community and certainly good for Ethiopia.
I know, Mr. Chairman, under your leadership your committee and this house will do its part for the wellbeing of the people of Ethiopia.
Bertukan Mideksa at the U.S. Congress
[photo: Abraham Takele/ER]
Statement delivered by Kinijit Vice President Bertukan Mideksa at a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
October 2, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Payne, Distinguished Members of the House Africa Subcommittee, and Committee Staff:
It is a distinct honor and privilege for me to be invited to address you here today on the subject of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Ethiopia.
When I sat in prison for nearly 20 months, until my release in late July, 2007, with many other colleagues accused of unspeakable political crimes, I had no idea that I would be invited to appear in the halls of the Congress of the United States and share my views with American lawmakers. Thank you Mr. Chairman for opening the doors to this great House of the American people, and for inviting me and my colleague, Dr. Berhanu Nega, Mayor-elect of Addis Ababa, to participate in these proceedings.
Mr. Chairman: I want to take this special opportunity to thank you and this subcommittee for standing with me and my fellow political prisoners in our darkest hours in Kality prison. We remember vividly, Mr. Chairman, when you traveled all the way to visit us in Kality prison in 2006. Your words comforted us then, as they did throughout our imprisonment when you called unrelentingly for our immediate and unconditional release. I thank you very much!
Mr. Chairman: You and this distinguished Committee have defended and promoted democracy, freedom and human rights in Ethiopia since the last parliamentary elections in May, 2005. Your recent actions in the consideration of H.R 2003 have demonstrated to the American and Ethiopian people, and indeed the world, that democracy and human rights are of paramount importance in the relations between our two countries. I thank you all deeply for your efforts to promote and sustain democracy, freedom and accountability in Ethiopia.
Mr. Chairman: I am currently Vice Chairperson of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party (CUDP) in Ethiopia. Prior to my election to this position, I served as a Judge on the Federal First Instance Court. I served in that capacity for about seven years, before I resigned. I spent nearly 20 months in prison on various alleged state crimes and was released with 38 of my colleagues on July 20, 2007.
Mr. Chairman: In my opening statement, I will briefly summarize my testimony. I respectfully request the Chairman to include my prepared statement in the official record of these proceedings.
In my testimony today, I would like to provide the Committee with a brief overview of the state of democracy in Ethiopia since the May, 2005 parliamentary elections and outline some ideas that could be helpful in the establishment of democracy and protection of human rights.
The Pre-Election Period in Ethiopia, 2005
To understand the current situation and meaningfully discuss future course of actions it is necessary to consider the birth of democracy in Ethiopia in 2005. As you know very well, the period immediately preceding the May, 2005 elections was an extraordinary time in Ethiopia’s history[1]. For the first time in our history, the seeds of democracy were planted throughout our land, and a time of great hope and expectation for ordinary citizens.
The preparations for the 2005 parliamentary elections were unprecedented in the country’s history. For the first time, genuine political competition by the various political parties in the electoral process was allowed. There was fair access to publicly-controlled media outlets, and the level of public participation and political debate on radio and television between opposition and government leaders and supporters provided a solid background for an open and genuine exchange of views on the important issues affecting Ethiopian society.
Public interest and participation in the electoral process was massive. The European Union Observer team estimated voter registration at no less than 85% of all eligible population, based on voter lists containing 25,605,851 names of registered persons in 2005. The total number of candidates for the House of Peoples’ Representatives was 1,847. a total of 3,762 candidates ran for Regional Councils. The total number of women candidates to the House of Peoples’ Representatives was 253, and 700 in the Regional Councils.
The pre-election process while much more open than any past election it fell short of accepted norms of free and fair election. To its credit the government allowed limited media access, established a Joint Political Party Forum at national and constituency levels, regular consultations with electoral authorities to resolve problems in campaign and election administration, special elections-related training programs for the police and the judiciary, pledges of non-violence between the ruling and opposition parties for election day and invitation of international election observers by the Government of Ethiopia, among others.
As election day approached the government started to use its power to influence the outcome of the election, The problems in the pre-election period also included administrative and bureaucratic problems, wide spread interference by local authorities in the conduct of public gatherings and opposition party rallies, threats and intimidations by some local public officials. In some instances, force was used to disrupt public gatherings and detain opposition supporters throughout the country. There was concern among opposition leaders that the national elections board lacked independence and impartiality because of the dominance of the ruling party in the operation and administration of that board. In the days preceding the elections, there was a spike in negative campaigns on radio and television using images and messages designed to intimidate by associating the genocide in Rwanda with opposition politics.
Polling Day, May 15, 2005
As documented by various international organizations, there was a very high voter turnout on May 15, 2007, election day. There were international elections observers as well as political party observers who attended the polling stations to ensure the integrity of the outcome of the elections.
Election day was not entirely without its problems. There were significant instances of expulsion and harassment of poll workers and inadequate supply of polling materials. However, the incidents of intimidation, multiple voting, ballot stuffing, and disregard for secret vote was limited.
Post Election Period
The early elections results showed considerable gains for opposition candidates. Opposition parliamentary and municipal candidates swept the seats in the capital, Addis Ababa. Opposition candidates had posted substantial gains in most of the reporting constituencies, and all objective indications were that the winning margins for opposition candidates would expand as more reports came in.
Even though the Board was required to announce the official results on June 8, that requirement was superseded when Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared a state of emergency, outlawed any public gathering, assumed direct command of the security forces, and replaced the capital city police with federal police and special forces drawn from elite army units were deployed. The Elections Board simultaneously ordered the vote tallying process to stop, and on May 27, the Board released its determination that the ruling party, the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front had won 209 seats, and affiliated parties 12 more. The report indicated the opposition parties had won 142 seats. Our party filed complaints in 139 constituencies, the UEDF lodged 89 complaints, while the EPRDF raised concerns over irregularities in more than 50 seats.
The ruling party, faced with the prospect of being swept out of office, and before the votes were fully counted, announced on May 16 that it had won more than 300 seats. It
conceded that opposition parties had won the capital, but claimed victory in the national parliamentary elections. Our party, the CUD and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces, claimed that we had won 185 of the approximately 200 seats for which the National Elections Board had released preliminary results.
By early June, 2005, it was unofficially reported that the ruling party had won the parliamentary elections. This led to spontaneous public protests and demonstrations throughout the country alleging election fraud. Throughout June and subsequent months, such protests continued. The government undertook a program of massive arrests and incarceration of protesters and political opponents. In an attempt to suppress protests, hundred of demonstrators were shot and killed or severely wounded. Our party strongly protested the use of deadly force against unarmed protesters.
Report of the Official Inquiry Commission
On October 18, 2006, the report of a 10-member public inquiry into election-related unrests was released to the Associated Press. The Commission concluded that a total of 193 people were killed and 763 were injured, a number much higher than that was reported by the Ethiopian government. The vice chairman of the Commission, Judge Wolde-Michael Meshesha, told AP that “this was a massacre … these demonstrators were unarmed yet the majority died from shots to the head.” He added that the government attempted to pressure and intimidate members of the inquiry after learning about its controversial finding.
As you will recall, both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission have briefed this Congress in November, 2006.[2] The chief of the European Union Election Observer Team, Ana Gomes, commenting on the Commission’s report stated that the report “only confirms what we have said in our report on the elections,” and “that indeed there were massive human rights violations.”
Post Election Efforts by the CUDP to Create National Political Reconciliation
In light of the unstable political situation in the country following the May, 2005 elections, the CUDP made 8 specific proposals to the government as conditions for it to join parliament. These proposals addressed a number of critical institutional and rights issues, including: restructuring of the Election Board to insure its independent and impartial operation, equal accessability of public media to all political parties, institutional independence for the judiciary and non-interference in judicial matters by political authorities, establishment of an investigative committee to look into killings of unarmed protesters by government security forces, de-politicization and professionalization of the police and armed forces, recission of recently introduced parliamentary procedures that limit the participation of opposition parliamentarians and governance of the City of Addis Ababa, release of all political prisoners and reopening of opposition party offices and establishment of an independent commission, that is acceptable to all parties, to follow up on the various proposals.
Government’s Response to CUDP Proposals
In November 1, 2005, the government responded to the CUDP proposals by arresting, jailing and charging numerous opposition party leaders including myself, human rights advocates, journalists and civic society leaders for various state crimes. For nearly, 20 months these leaders were jailed in Kality prison while their case was being heard. The international press characterized the court as “Kangaroo Court”.
Our Release
As you well know, there were numerous attempts by various groups to secure our release from prison. Discussions with a group of elders to find a common ground between the government and the imprisoned CUDP leaders for negotiation on the future of democracy in our country did not bear fruit because of the belligerence of the government and the ruling party. While in prison and throughout these discussions with the elders, CUDP leaders showed their unflinching commitment to finding a peaceful and negotiated settlement to the political crisis in our country. All our calls for peaceful dialogue have, unfortunately, fallen on deaf ears. Even the most basic agreement we reached with the elders to secure our release was nullified and used by the government for mind numbing propaganda to isolate CUDP from the public and to instill fear in the public so that it will refrain from supporting the party. In so doing, the government once again showed its total preoccupation in gaining temporary political advantage rather than look at the long term interest of peace, democracy and national reconciliation. Our release after 21 months, unfortunately, failed to bring us any closer to a more serious dialogue for national reconciliation.
Restoring Democracy in Ethiopia
Mr. Chairman: Democracy can and must be restored in Ethiopia.
In 2005, we expected the results of the national parliamentary elections as strong foundation for building a temple of democracy in Ethiopia. Our hopes were dashed, and we found ourselves trapped in a burning house of tyranny.
There is no democracy in Ethiopia today, despite empty claims of “recent bold democratic initiatives taken by our government, the immense progress in creating a competitive, pluralistic system of government and a more open civil society.” The fact of the matter is that there is neither pluralism nor commitment to democratic principles and practices in Ethiopia.
The government’s claim of political pluralism has not gone beyond the stage of political sloganeering. If pluralism involves widespread participation and a greater feeling of commitment from society members, it does not exist today in Ethiopia. If pluralism means increased and diverse particiaption in the political deicsion making process and give everyone a stake in the outcome, it does not exist in Ethiopia. If pluralism means a process where every voice is heard, confocit is resolved by dialogue and compromise and an atmposphere of tolerance, understanding and respect is nurtured, it does not exists in Ethiopia today.
Democracy in Ethiopia today must not only refelect the vlaues of pluraim, it must also be participatory, transparent and accountable, equitable and based on the rule of law. The public and its representatives must participate effectively in decision-making at the institutional levels. The government must be accountable to the people, and its administration and governance must be transparent. It must function on the basis of fair rules and procedures applied equitably throughout society minimizing arbitrariness of government actions.
The United States and other countries can help us transition into a democratic society by helping us democratic institutions. There are some who talk about democratic development by merely talking about the ritual of lections that are neither free nor fair. It is far more important to have a democracy built on free civic institutions that are driven by an independent judiciary, vigorous political parties, uncensored media, free trade unions, universities, civic society organizations and transparent and multiparty electoral commissions.
We are all aware that democratization of Ethiopia will not be accomplished overnight. But we must start the process in earnest now. There are a number of pillars of support for democratization in Ethiopia.
Establishment of An Independent Judiciary
For the past two years, I and my colleagues were on the opposite side of the bench. We were prosecuted for various state crimes including treason, outrage against the constitution, inciting, organizing or leading armed rebellion, obstruction of the exercise of constitutional powers, impairing the defensive power of the state, and attempted genocide. Some of these offense are capital crimes.
Our prosecution occurred in a court system that has little institutional independence and subject to political influence and manipulation. It is a judiciary that is used as a tool of political harassment, intimidation and persecution. Judges are selected not for professionalism or legal knowledge but for their loyalty to the government.
It is universally accepted that an independent and professional judiciary is a key element in the institutionalization of the rule of law, the promotion and protection of human rights and even in implementing social and economic reform in society. The Charter of the United Nations declares the determination “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligation arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” (Article 1 (3)) and the aim to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Articles 1 (3), 55 (c)).
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights(4) provides for an independent judiciary in Article 10: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, explicitly states that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” There are many other principles that support an independent judiciary.
Ethiopia, of course, accepts these principles and obligations. In fact, judicial independence is guaranteed by Article 78 of the Ethiopian Constitution. Art. 13 of the Ethiopian constitution states: “The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” And the constitutional “human rights” and “democratic rights” enumerated in Arts. 14 – 43 depend on the vitality and independence of the judiciary for their preservation and protection.
The fact of the matter is that there is no independent judiciary in Ethiopia today; at best there is a court system that is fully dependent on the political authorities for its own institutional existence.
Although judges are supposed to be free of political party politics, many are under the control of the party in power, if not outright members. The judiciary is not perceived as an independent and impartial body accessible by the public to seek justice and protect their legitimate rights. With the judiciary under the effective control of the executive, as it is today, there is little confidence in its institutional powers or the legitimacy of its rulings; and very little public expectation that the judiciary can be the guarantor of individual rights protected by the constitution or the law. As a result, the Ethiopian judiciary has failed to be the guardian of the Constitution and a protector of human rights.
Judicial reform in Ethiopia must begin with the realization that judges must be insulated from external pressure in their duties and must decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reasons. This principle must be accepted by the political authorities as well as the public.
The principal danger to judicial independence comes from parallel institutional forces in the form of executive interference and manipulation and legislative meddling in judicial matters. Impartiality requires that in the discharge of his judicial duty a judge is answerable to the law and his conscience only.
There are various ways judicial independence could be achieved. Institutional and constitutional reforms have to be implemented to ensure the judiciary’s capacity to deal with all matters of a judicial nature. The judiciary should have the exclusive authority to decide whether a matter submitted to it is under its jurisdiction. The final decisions of the judiciary must not be subject to revision of any the legislative or executive powers.
These proposals for reforms are not anything new. In fact, in Arts. 79-84 of the Constitution, all of them are listed one by one.
The Ethiopian judiciary has serious structural problems. As has been said, “A competent and independent judiciary can make a bad law become a good law, while an incompetent and dependent judiciary can make a good law become a bad one.” In Ethiopia, the judiciary is adversely affected by many factors that undermine its performance. It lacks adequate funds for proper performance, public confidence in its institutional process, well-qualified and interested lawyers in judicial service, low morale, merit based system for judicial selection. The status and compensation of judges is very low. Little attention was paid to their education and training.
Institutional guarantees are essential in establishing judicial autonomy and independence. This requires political commitments by those in the executive and legislative branches and public awareness and appreciation of the significance of an independent judiciary.
In addition to structural reforms, there must also be judicial accountability that will establish public confidence in the court system and enhance the quality of the judicial services. Such accountability can not occur unless mechanism are in place to monitor the relationships between those on the bench and those in the political branches and the need to fight judicial corruption which is always a looming threat.
If we can not have serious judicial reforms, not only will we be unable to protect the rights of citizens, but we will always live under the rule of the gun instead of the rule of law. 6
The U.S. can help us establish an independent judiciary by providing support to train judges in procedures that meet international standards. Such support could also be used to monitor political interference in the work of the judiciary..
Free Media Institutions
The Committee to Protect Journalists recently ranked Ethiopia at the top of the list of countries where there is little freedom of press. Without a free press, there can be no meaningful democracy. People in Ethiopia, particularly in the rural areas, do not have access to important political information because of exclusive government control of the media. Political parties need to have equal access to media controlled by the government so that they can effectively communicate with the people. The U.S. can help by promoting private electronic media and supporting the emergence of newspapers, weeklies and magazines, and other electronic media to help develop a well-informed informed public.
Independent Electoral Commission The lack of impartiality and transparency of the Ethiopian National Electoral Board was one of the factors that complicated the resolution of the dispute in the 2005 elections. We need an elections board that is representative of all the political parties and enjoys the public trust. People need to have confidence that their votes are counted correctly and there is no elections fraud. The U.S is in the best position to provide technical assistance in establishing an independent electoral commission.
Imrpoving the Human Rights Situation in Ethiopia
Mr. Chairman: You and this committee have worked tirelessly too improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia. The proposals that are currently being deliberated in this House are vital to the revitalization of human rights in Ethiopia, and in many ways reflect the policy postions of the CUDP, and many stated in our 8-point proposals.
We in the CUDP believe that all political prisoners in the country must be released and their democratic rights restored. We support democratic reforms and accountability. We favor protections for human rights and civic society organization and ensure adequate monitoring and reporting processes. We have argued for an independent judicial system with effective monitoring processes to protect judges from political interference. We are committed to bringing to justice all human rights abusers to justice. We have called for improvements in election procedures to ensure fraud free elections. We support the existence of a free press without censorship and restrictive press laws, and programs that seek to strengthen private media in Ethiopia.
We believe human rights and democratic institutions building go hand in hand. We fully support training programs that enhance democratic participation by the people, and enable political parties to do a better job in organization building and campaign management, lawmakers do a better job of legislative crafting, civil society groups become effective facilitators in the democratic process and professionalization of the National Election Board to help it become fair and balanced. We support limiting the use of U.S. security assistance to peacekeeping and counter-terrorism and not against the civilian population.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Chairman: I find it somewhat difficult to tell you and this Committee about human rights abuses and remedial actions to improve the human rights condition there. You have spent over two years studying the human rights situation in Ethiopia. You have come to Ethiopia time and again to take a first hand look, and to talk to political leaders in the government and the opposition, human rights advocates and civic society leaders and ordinary people. You have reviewed the reports and analysis of the numerous international human rights organizations on human rights conditions in Ethiopia. In my view, there are few individuals or institutions more familiar with the human rights situation in Ethiopia today than the Chair and members of this Committee.
All I can say today is highlight the incontrovertible facts about human rights in Ethiopia. It is well known that the current regime has sought to put up a façade of commitment to human and democratic rights. But its practices contravene al of its obligations under the Ethiopian constitution and the human rights conventions that bind Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian constitution under Art. 14 enumerates all of the “human rights” enjoyed by Ethiopian citizens. Arts. 14-28 enumerate these rights and include basic protections and guarantees of due process. Art. 13, sec. 2 states “The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.”
In fact, the ruling regime observes neither its won constitution nor the requirements of well-established international human rights conventions. The government established Inquiry Commission I mentioned above has documented the widespread excessive use of force by government security forces. It has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent people on suspicion of opposition or disloyalty. The human rights violations committed by this government are so numerous in their variety, and nature that it would obviously be too difficult to list them all here. But I wish to cite a few examples documented in the most recent U.S. State Department Human Rights Report for 2006[3].
The report stated that “Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment, there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees.” Massive arrests and detentions are common, and the Report concluded, “are Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, the government frequently did not observe these provisions in practice…. Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in outlying regions… The independent commission of inquiry… found that security officials held over 30,000 civilians incommunicado for up to three months in detention centers located in remote areas… Other estimates placed the number of such detainees at over 50,000.
There is a substantial risk of miscarriage of justic in the judiciary: “While the law provides for an independent judiciary, the judiciary remained weak and overburdened. The judiciary was perceived to be subject to significant political intervention.” Expressive freedoms are severly regulated or punished: “While the [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government continued to harass and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors for publishing allegedly fabricated information and for other violations of the press law. The government continued to control all broadcast media. Private and government journalists routinely practiced self censorship.”
On a matter that I have intimate knowledge: “The 200 political prisoners on trial in the Addis Ababa federal system were held in two separate prisons, Kaliti and Kerchele, often under harsh conditions. In March CUD Secretary General Muluheh Eyoel was placed in solitary confinement at Kerchele prison. In August fellow CUD member Andualem Arage, along with journalists Sisay Agena and Eskinder Nega, were placed in solitary confinement.” Perhaps the word “harsh” is an understatement. Perhaps better words to describe our condition may have been “dehumanizing”, “atrocious” or “barbarous”.
Th right to assembly and association were vilated just the same: “The [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of assembly. Prior to the May 2005 national elections, there were numerous opposition rallies, including one that occurred in Addis Ababa that was attended by nearly one million persons the weekend prior to the elections. However, immediately following the elections and throughout the year, the government restricted this right in practice. From May 2005 to year’s end, the government granted only one permit allowing a public demonstration to take place… Although the law provides for freedom of association and the right to engage in unrestricted peaceful political activity, the government in practice limited this right. The Ministry of Justice registers and licenses NGOs, and there was some improvement in transparency of the NGO registration process. The government continued to deny registration to the Human Rights League (see section 4).”
Conclusion
Ethiopia has many problems, including a legacy of repression, corruption and mismanagement. It will not be easy for confront the past, We must start at the right point by embracing the rule of law, human rights and democracy. The time is ripe to develop a direct approach to democratization in Ethiopia. The U.S. can help by using its considerable influence to encourage the government to negotiate with the opposition. Only through dialogue and negotiation will stability and peace be guaranteed, As a long time friend of Ethiopia, I know you will stand by Ethiopia and Ethiopians in the these difficult times.
Bertukan Mideksa at the U.S. Congress
[photo: Abraham Takele/ER]
Statement delivered by Kinijit Vice President Bertukan Mideksa at a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
October 2, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Payne, Distinguished Members of the House Africa Subcommittee, and Committee Staff:
It is a distinct honor and privilege for me to be invited to address you here today on the subject of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Ethiopia.
When I sat in prison for nearly 20 months, until my release in late July, 2007, with many other colleagues accused of unspeakable political crimes, I had no idea that I would be invited to appear in the halls of the Congress of the United States and share my views with American lawmakers. Thank you Mr. Chairman for opening the doors to this great House of the American people, and for inviting me and my colleague, Dr. Berhanu Nega, Mayor-elect of Addis Ababa, to participate in these proceedings.
Mr. Chairman: I want to take this special opportunity to thank you and this subcommittee for standing with me and my fellow political prisoners in our darkest hours in Kality prison. We remember vividly, Mr. Chairman, when you traveled all the way to visit us in Kality prison in 2006. Your words comforted us then, as they did throughout our imprisonment when you called unrelentingly for our immediate and unconditional release. I thank you very much!
Mr. Chairman: You and this distinguished Committee have defended and promoted democracy, freedom and human rights in Ethiopia since the last parliamentary elections in May, 2005. Your recent actions in the consideration of H.R 2003 have demonstrated to the American and Ethiopian people, and indeed the world, that democracy and human rights are of paramount importance in the relations between our two countries. I thank you all deeply for your efforts to promote and sustain democracy, freedom and accountability in Ethiopia.
Mr. Chairman: I am currently Vice Chairperson of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party (CUDP) in Ethiopia. Prior to my election to this position, I served as a Judge on the Federal First Instance Court. I served in that capacity for about seven years, before I resigned. I spent nearly 20 months in prison on various alleged state crimes and was released with 38 of my colleagues on July 20, 2007.
Mr. Chairman: In my opening statement, I will briefly summarize my testimony. I respectfully request the Chairman to include my prepared statement in the official record of these proceedings.
In my testimony today, I would like to provide the Committee with a brief overview of the state of democracy in Ethiopia since the May, 2005 parliamentary elections and outline some ideas that could be helpful in the establishment of democracy and protection of human rights.
The Pre-Election Period in Ethiopia, 2005
To understand the current situation and meaningfully discuss future course of actions it is necessary to consider the birth of democracy in Ethiopia in 2005. As you know very well, the period immediately preceding the May, 2005 elections was an extraordinary time in Ethiopia’s history[1]. For the first time in our history, the seeds of democracy were planted throughout our land, and a time of great hope and expectation for ordinary citizens.
The preparations for the 2005 parliamentary elections were unprecedented in the country’s history. For the first time, genuine political competition by the various political parties in the electoral process was allowed. There was fair access to publicly-controlled media outlets, and the level of public participation and political debate on radio and television between opposition and government leaders and supporters provided a solid background for an open and genuine exchange of views on the important issues affecting Ethiopian society.
Public interest and participation in the electoral process was massive. The European Union Observer team estimated voter registration at no less than 85% of all eligible population, based on voter lists containing 25,605,851 names of registered persons in 2005. The total number of candidates for the House of Peoples’ Representatives was 1,847. a total of 3,762 candidates ran for Regional Councils. The total number of women candidates to the House of Peoples’ Representatives was 253, and 700 in the Regional Councils.
The pre-election process while much more open than any past election it fell short of accepted norms of free and fair election. To its credit the government allowed limited media access, established a Joint Political Party Forum at national and constituency levels, regular consultations with electoral authorities to resolve problems in campaign and election administration, special elections-related training programs for the police and the judiciary, pledges of non-violence between the ruling and opposition parties for election day and invitation of international election observers by the Government of Ethiopia, among others.
As election day approached the government started to use its power to influence the outcome of the election, The problems in the pre-election period also included administrative and bureaucratic problems, wide spread interference by local authorities in the conduct of public gatherings and opposition party rallies, threats and intimidations by some local public officials. In some instances, force was used to disrupt public gatherings and detain opposition supporters throughout the country. There was concern among opposition leaders that the national elections board lacked independence and impartiality because of the dominance of the ruling party in the operation and administration of that board. In the days preceding the elections, there was a spike in negative campaigns on radio and television using images and messages designed to intimidate by associating the genocide in Rwanda with opposition politics.
Polling Day, May 15, 2005
As documented by various international organizations, there was a very high voter turnout on May 15, 2007, election day. There were international elections observers as well as political party observers who attended the polling stations to ensure the integrity of the outcome of the elections.
Election day was not entirely without its problems. There were significant instances of expulsion and harassment of poll workers and inadequate supply of polling materials. However, the incidents of intimidation, multiple voting, ballot stuffing, and disregard for secret vote was limited.
Post Election Period
The early elections results showed considerable gains for opposition candidates. Opposition parliamentary and municipal candidates swept the seats in the capital, Addis Ababa. Opposition candidates had posted substantial gains in most of the reporting constituencies, and all objective indications were that the winning margins for opposition candidates would expand as more reports came in.
Even though the Board was required to announce the official results on June 8, that requirement was superseded when Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared a state of emergency, outlawed any public gathering, assumed direct command of the security forces, and replaced the capital city police with federal police and special forces drawn from elite army units were deployed. The Elections Board simultaneously ordered the vote tallying process to stop, and on May 27, the Board released its determination that the ruling party, the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front had won 209 seats, and affiliated parties 12 more. The report indicated the opposition parties had won 142 seats. Our party filed complaints in 139 constituencies, the UEDF lodged 89 complaints, while the EPRDF raised concerns over irregularities in more than 50 seats.
The ruling party, faced with the prospect of being swept out of office, and before the votes were fully counted, announced on May 16 that it had won more than 300 seats. It
conceded that opposition parties had won the capital, but claimed victory in the national parliamentary elections. Our party, the CUD and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces, claimed that we had won 185 of the approximately 200 seats for which the National Elections Board had released preliminary results.
By early June, 2005, it was unofficially reported that the ruling party had won the parliamentary elections. This led to spontaneous public protests and demonstrations throughout the country alleging election fraud. Throughout June and subsequent months, such protests continued. The government undertook a program of massive arrests and incarceration of protesters and political opponents. In an attempt to suppress protests, hundred of demonstrators were shot and killed or severely wounded. Our party strongly protested the use of deadly force against unarmed protesters.
Report of the Official Inquiry Commission
On October 18, 2006, the report of a 10-member public inquiry into election-related unrests was released to the Associated Press. The Commission concluded that a total of 193 people were killed and 763 were injured, a number much higher than that was reported by the Ethiopian government. The vice chairman of the Commission, Judge Wolde-Michael Meshesha, told AP that “this was a massacre … these demonstrators were unarmed yet the majority died from shots to the head.” He added that the government attempted to pressure and intimidate members of the inquiry after learning about its controversial finding.
As you will recall, both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission have briefed this Congress in November, 2006.[2] The chief of the European Union Election Observer Team, Ana Gomes, commenting on the Commission’s report stated that the report “only confirms what we have said in our report on the elections,” and “that indeed there were massive human rights violations.”
Post Election Efforts by the CUDP to Create National Political Reconciliation
In light of the unstable political situation in the country following the May, 2005 elections, the CUDP made 8 specific proposals to the government as conditions for it to join parliament. These proposals addressed a number of critical institutional and rights issues, including: restructuring of the Election Board to insure its independent and impartial operation, equal accessability of public media to all political parties, institutional independence for the judiciary and non-interference in judicial matters by political authorities, establishment of an investigative committee to look into killings of unarmed protesters by government security forces, de-politicization and professionalization of the police and armed forces, recission of recently introduced parliamentary procedures that limit the participation of opposition parliamentarians and governance of the City of Addis Ababa, release of all political prisoners and reopening of opposition party offices and establishment of an independent commission, that is acceptable to all parties, to follow up on the various proposals.
Government’s Response to CUDP Proposals
In November 1, 2005, the government responded to the CUDP proposals by arresting, jailing and charging numerous opposition party leaders including myself, human rights advocates, journalists and civic society leaders for various state crimes. For nearly, 20 months these leaders were jailed in Kality prison while their case was being heard. The international press characterized the court as “Kangaroo Court”.
Our Release
As you well know, there were numerous attempts by various groups to secure our release from prison. Discussions with a group of elders to find a common ground between the government and the imprisoned CUDP leaders for negotiation on the future of democracy in our country did not bear fruit because of the belligerence of the government and the ruling party. While in prison and throughout these discussions with the elders, CUDP leaders showed their unflinching commitment to finding a peaceful and negotiated settlement to the political crisis in our country. All our calls for peaceful dialogue have, unfortunately, fallen on deaf ears. Even the most basic agreement we reached with the elders to secure our release was nullified and used by the government for mind numbing propaganda to isolate CUDP from the public and to instill fear in the public so that it will refrain from supporting the party. In so doing, the government once again showed its total preoccupation in gaining temporary political advantage rather than look at the long term interest of peace, democracy and national reconciliation. Our release after 21 months, unfortunately, failed to bring us any closer to a more serious dialogue for national reconciliation.
Restoring Democracy in Ethiopia
Mr. Chairman: Democracy can and must be restored in Ethiopia.
In 2005, we expected the results of the national parliamentary elections as strong foundation for building a temple of democracy in Ethiopia. Our hopes were dashed, and we found ourselves trapped in a burning house of tyranny.
There is no democracy in Ethiopia today, despite empty claims of “recent bold democratic initiatives taken by our government, the immense progress in creating a competitive, pluralistic system of government and a more open civil society.” The fact of the matter is that there is neither pluralism nor commitment to democratic principles and practices in Ethiopia.
The government’s claim of political pluralism has not gone beyond the stage of political sloganeering. If pluralism involves widespread participation and a greater feeling of commitment from society members, it does not exist today in Ethiopia. If pluralism means increased and diverse particiaption in the political deicsion making process and give everyone a stake in the outcome, it does not exist in Ethiopia. If pluralism means a process where every voice is heard, confocit is resolved by dialogue and compromise and an atmposphere of tolerance, understanding and respect is nurtured, it does not exists in Ethiopia today.
Democracy in Ethiopia today must not only refelect the vlaues of pluraim, it must also be participatory, transparent and accountable, equitable and based on the rule of law. The public and its representatives must participate effectively in decision-making at the institutional levels. The government must be accountable to the people, and its administration and governance must be transparent. It must function on the basis of fair rules and procedures applied equitably throughout society minimizing arbitrariness of government actions.
The United States and other countries can help us transition into a democratic society by helping us democratic institutions. There are some who talk about democratic development by merely talking about the ritual of lections that are neither free nor fair. It is far more important to have a democracy built on free civic institutions that are driven by an independent judiciary, vigorous political parties, uncensored media, free trade unions, universities, civic society organizations and transparent and multiparty electoral commissions.
We are all aware that democratization of Ethiopia will not be accomplished overnight. But we must start the process in earnest now. There are a number of pillars of support for democratization in Ethiopia.
Establishment of An Independent Judiciary
For the past two years, I and my colleagues were on the opposite side of the bench. We were prosecuted for various state crimes including treason, outrage against the constitution, inciting, organizing or leading armed rebellion, obstruction of the exercise of constitutional powers, impairing the defensive power of the state, and attempted genocide. Some of these offense are capital crimes.
Our prosecution occurred in a court system that has little institutional independence and subject to political influence and manipulation. It is a judiciary that is used as a tool of political harassment, intimidation and persecution. Judges are selected not for professionalism or legal knowledge but for their loyalty to the government.
It is universally accepted that an independent and professional judiciary is a key element in the institutionalization of the rule of law, the promotion and protection of human rights and even in implementing social and economic reform in society. The Charter of the United Nations declares the determination “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligation arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” (Article 1 (3)) and the aim to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Articles 1 (3), 55 (c)).
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights(4) provides for an independent judiciary in Article 10: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, explicitly states that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” There are many other principles that support an independent judiciary.
Ethiopia, of course, accepts these principles and obligations. In fact, judicial independence is guaranteed by Article 78 of the Ethiopian Constitution. Art. 13 of the Ethiopian constitution states: “The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” And the constitutional “human rights” and “democratic rights” enumerated in Arts. 14 – 43 depend on the vitality and independence of the judiciary for their preservation and protection.
The fact of the matter is that there is no independent judiciary in Ethiopia today; at best there is a court system that is fully dependent on the political authorities for its own institutional existence.
Although judges are supposed to be free of political party politics, many are under the control of the party in power, if not outright members. The judiciary is not perceived as an independent and impartial body accessible by the public to seek justice and protect their legitimate rights. With the judiciary under the effective control of the executive, as it is today, there is little confidence in its institutional powers or the legitimacy of its rulings; and very little public expectation that the judiciary can be the guarantor of individual rights protected by the constitution or the law. As a result, the Ethiopian judiciary has failed to be the guardian of the Constitution and a protector of human rights.
Judicial reform in Ethiopia must begin with the realization that judges must be insulated from external pressure in their duties and must decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reasons. This principle must be accepted by the political authorities as well as the public.
The principal danger to judicial independence comes from parallel institutional forces in the form of executive interference and manipulation and legislative meddling in judicial matters. Impartiality requires that in the discharge of his judicial duty a judge is answerable to the law and his conscience only.
There are various ways judicial independence could be achieved. Institutional and constitutional reforms have to be implemented to ensure the judiciary’s capacity to deal with all matters of a judicial nature. The judiciary should have the exclusive authority to decide whether a matter submitted to it is under its jurisdiction. The final decisions of the judiciary must not be subject to revision of any the legislative or executive powers.
These proposals for reforms are not anything new. In fact, in Arts. 79-84 of the Constitution, all of them are listed one by one.
The Ethiopian judiciary has serious structural problems. As has been said, “A competent and independent judiciary can make a bad law become a good law, while an incompetent and dependent judiciary can make a good law become a bad one.” In Ethiopia, the judiciary is adversely affected by many factors that undermine its performance. It lacks adequate funds for proper performance, public confidence in its institutional process, well-qualified and interested lawyers in judicial service, low morale, merit based system for judicial selection. The status and compensation of judges is very low. Little attention was paid to their education and training.
Institutional guarantees are essential in establishing judicial autonomy and independence. This requires political commitments by those in the executive and legislative branches and public awareness and appreciation of the significance of an independent judiciary.
In addition to structural reforms, there must also be judicial accountability that will establish public confidence in the court system and enhance the quality of the judicial services. Such accountability can not occur unless mechanism are in place to monitor the relationships between those on the bench and those in the political branches and the need to fight judicial corruption which is always a looming threat.
If we can not have serious judicial reforms, not only will we be unable to protect the rights of citizens, but we will always live under the rule of the gun instead of the rule of law. 6
The U.S. can help us establish an independent judiciary by providing support to train judges in procedures that meet international standards. Such support could also be used to monitor political interference in the work of the judiciary..
Free Media Institutions
The Committee to Protect Journalists recently ranked Ethiopia at the top of the list of countries where there is little freedom of press. Without a free press, there can be no meaningful democracy. People in Ethiopia, particularly in the rural areas, do not have access to important political information because of exclusive government control of the media. Political parties need to have equal access to media controlled by the government so that they can effectively communicate with the people. The U.S. can help by promoting private electronic media and supporting the emergence of newspapers, weeklies and magazines, and other electronic media to help develop a well-informed informed public.
Independent Electoral Commission The lack of impartiality and transparency of the Ethiopian National Electoral Board was one of the factors that complicated the resolution of the dispute in the 2005 elections. We need an elections board that is representative of all the political parties and enjoys the public trust. People need to have confidence that their votes are counted correctly and there is no elections fraud. The U.S is in the best position to provide technical assistance in establishing an independent electoral commission.
Imrpoving the Human Rights Situation in Ethiopia
Mr. Chairman: You and this committee have worked tirelessly too improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia. The proposals that are currently being deliberated in this House are vital to the revitalization of human rights in Ethiopia, and in many ways reflect the policy postions of the CUDP, and many stated in our 8-point proposals.
We in the CUDP believe that all political prisoners in the country must be released and their democratic rights restored. We support democratic reforms and accountability. We favor protections for human rights and civic society organization and ensure adequate monitoring and reporting processes. We have argued for an independent judicial system with effective monitoring processes to protect judges from political interference. We are committed to bringing to justice all human rights abusers to justice. We have called for improvements in election procedures to ensure fraud free elections. We support the existence of a free press without censorship and restrictive press laws, and programs that seek to strengthen private media in Ethiopia.
We believe human rights and democratic institutions building go hand in hand. We fully support training programs that enhance democratic participation by the people, and enable political parties to do a better job in organization building and campaign management, lawmakers do a better job of legislative crafting, civil society groups become effective facilitators in the democratic process and professionalization of the National Election Board to help it become fair and balanced. We support limiting the use of U.S. security assistance to peacekeeping and counter-terrorism and not against the civilian population.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Chairman: I find it somewhat difficult to tell you and this Committee about human rights abuses and remedial actions to improve the human rights condition there. You have spent over two years studying the human rights situation in Ethiopia. You have come to Ethiopia time and again to take a first hand look, and to talk to political leaders in the government and the opposition, human rights advocates and civic society leaders and ordinary people. You have reviewed the reports and analysis of the numerous international human rights organizations on human rights conditions in Ethiopia. In my view, there are few individuals or institutions more familiar with the human rights situation in Ethiopia today than the Chair and members of this Committee.
All I can say today is highlight the incontrovertible facts about human rights in Ethiopia. It is well known that the current regime has sought to put up a façade of commitment to human and democratic rights. But its practices contravene al of its obligations under the Ethiopian constitution and the human rights conventions that bind Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian constitution under Art. 14 enumerates all of the “human rights” enjoyed by Ethiopian citizens. Arts. 14-28 enumerate these rights and include basic protections and guarantees of due process. Art. 13, sec. 2 states “The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.”
In fact, the ruling regime observes neither its won constitution nor the requirements of well-established international human rights conventions. The government established Inquiry Commission I mentioned above has documented the widespread excessive use of force by government security forces. It has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent people on suspicion of opposition or disloyalty. The human rights violations committed by this government are so numerous in their variety, and nature that it would obviously be too difficult to list them all here. But I wish to cite a few examples documented in the most recent U.S. State Department Human Rights Report for 2006[3].
The report stated that “Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment, there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees.” Massive arrests and detentions are common, and the Report concluded, “are Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, the government frequently did not observe these provisions in practice…. Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in outlying regions… The independent commission of inquiry… found that security officials held over 30,000 civilians incommunicado for up to three months in detention centers located in remote areas… Other estimates placed the number of such detainees at over 50,000.
There is a substantial risk of miscarriage of justic in the judiciary: “While the law provides for an independent judiciary, the judiciary remained weak and overburdened. The judiciary was perceived to be subject to significant political intervention.” Expressive freedoms are severly regulated or punished: “While the [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government continued to harass and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors for publishing allegedly fabricated information and for other violations of the press law. The government continued to control all broadcast media. Private and government journalists routinely practiced self censorship.”
On a matter that I have intimate knowledge: “The 200 political prisoners on trial in the Addis Ababa federal system were held in two separate prisons, Kaliti and Kerchele, often under harsh conditions. In March CUD Secretary General Muluheh Eyoel was placed in solitary confinement at Kerchele prison. In August fellow CUD member Andualem Arage, along with journalists Sisay Agena and Eskinder Nega, were placed in solitary confinement.” Perhaps the word “harsh” is an understatement. Perhaps better words to describe our condition may have been “dehumanizing”, “atrocious” or “barbarous”.
Th right to assembly and association were vilated just the same: “The [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of assembly. Prior to the May 2005 national elections, there were numerous opposition rallies, including one that occurred in Addis Ababa that was attended by nearly one million persons the weekend prior to the elections. However, immediately following the elections and throughout the year, the government restricted this right in practice. From May 2005 to year’s end, the government granted only one permit allowing a public demonstration to take place… Although the law provides for freedom of association and the right to engage in unrestricted peaceful political activity, the government in practice limited this right. The Ministry of Justice registers and licenses NGOs, and there was some improvement in transparency of the NGO registration process. The government continued to deny registration to the Human Rights League (see section 4).”
Conclusion
Ethiopia has many problems, including a legacy of repression, corruption and mismanagement. It will not be easy for confront the past, We must start at the right point by embracing the rule of law, human rights and democracy. The time is ripe to develop a direct approach to democratization in Ethiopia. The U.S. can help by using its considerable influence to encourage the government to negotiate with the opposition. Only through dialogue and negotiation will stability and peace be guaranteed, As a long time friend of Ethiopia, I know you will stand by Ethiopia and Ethiopians in the these difficult times.
As PINR forecast on September 19, the failures of the two national conferences aimed at devising a political
formula for Somalia — the National Reconciliation Conference (N.R.C.) sponsored by the country’s
internationally-recognized Transitional Federal Government (T.F.G.), and the Somali Congress for
Liberation and Reconstitution (S.C.L.R.) organized by the political opposition based in Eritrea — have led
to a continuation of Somalia’s spiral into political fragmentation and conflict. As an armed insurgency
against the T.F.G. ratcheted up significantly in Somalia’s official capital Mogadishu, rifts opened up in the transitional institutions, with conflict surfacing between the T.F.G.’s president, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, and its prime minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi; parliament demanding accountability from Gedi’s government; and the arrest of Somalia’s chief supreme court justice, Yusuf Ali Harun, followed by the sacking of the public prosecutor who initiated the case by Gedi and the prosecutor’s refusal to leave his post.
As the drama of the T.F.G. played out, forces loyal to the self-declared independent republic of Somaliland
and the semi-autonomous regional state of Puntland in the north of post-independence Somalia engaged in
military conflict in the disputed Sool region. For the first time, Puntland — President Yusuf’s power base
— seemed threatened with losing its integrity, and a war between Somaliland and Puntland became a genuine
possibility.
Implosion of the T.F.G.
Determining the present moment of Somalia’s political history is the fate of the T.F.G. Unpopular, weak and
dependent on an Ethiopian occupation force for survival, the T.F.G. is nonetheless backed by the Western donor powers that sustain it, and the international and regional organizations that follow their lead, as the sole means of achieving stability in Somalia.
In PINR’s judgment, the T.F.G. has now become too divided to be the vehicle of a coherent transition to
permanent institutions scheduled to be in place for elections in 2009. There are signs that the international community has also reached that judgment, but that it cannot act on it because it has given itself no other option than support of the T.F.G. If the T.F.G. implodes, the external actors will be left without a policy.
With a clan-based structure dominated by clan warlords, the T.F.G. has been weak and divided from
its inception in 2004. If there is a central figure in the transitional institutions, it is Yusuf, who is backed by Ethiopia, was the president of Puntland and retains a power base there, has militias from his Majerteen sub-clan at his disposal, and is a crafty political tactician. It is difficult to imagine a T.F.G. with any coherence without Yusuf; the fate of the T.F.G. is synonymous with Yusuf’s fate, and he has succeeded thus far in trapping and finessing the external actors.
Yusuf’s current embattlement, which has a high probability of breaking his grip on the tenuous power
that he exerts, can be understood by putting his position in the context of the political systems of
the three other states in the Horn of Africa — Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti — all of which share
the common formula of a political machine run by a strongman or boss under the cover of a constitution.
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, President Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea and President Ismail Omar Guelleh of Djibouti were all able to lead sectoral movements into control of the state and then to build machines based on their core support and to extend them outside that base to include just enough other political forces to maintain their rule. Successful bosses take care of their bases and avoid marginalizing outside groups sufficiently to provoke effective resistance from them.
At the root of Somalia’s condition as a failed state was the absence of a movement that could take over
power after the overthrow of dictator Siad Barre in 1991, rendering the emergence of a machine impossible.
The successful resistance against Barre was popular, but it was also regional and clan based, and none of
its components were strong enough — as was Zenawi’s Tigray People’s Liberation Front, for example — to
form the nucleus of a machine. From then on, Somalia devolved into statelessness and power drained to local
and regional warlords, despite 14 attempts by external actors to broker power-sharing agreements.
In 2006, after a successful insurrection against Washington-backed warlords in Mogadishu, the Islamic Courts movement quickly gained control of most of Somalia south of Puntland in an effort to create an Islamic state based on Shari’a law. Ethiopia, which is satisfied with a devolved Somalia — after having fought two wars with irredentist Somali regimes over its ethnic-Somali Ogaden region — and Washington, which seeks to prevent the emergence of Islamic states, moved to defeat the Courts militarily through an Ethiopian intervention in December 2006, leaving the T.F.G. formally in political control, but in fact powerless to prevent the devolutionary cycle from taking hold once again. Yusuf was in a better position than ever before, but he had no movement — he had been placed in power by foreign occupiers and donors, and presided over a fragmented clan-based government, not a machine of his own making. Yusuf aspires to be a boss, but he does not have the resources to become one.
Through the period of the rise of the Islamic Courts and the immediate aftermath of the Ethiopian intervention, the T.F.G. executive spoke with one voice, as both Yusuf, representing the Darod clan family, and Gedi, representing the Hawiye clan family, but lacking strong support within it, made common cause first in resisting the Courts and then in attempting to gain a foothold for the transitional institutions and sponsoring the N.R.C., which had been imposed upon them by donor pressure.
In late July, with the N.R.C. still in session, open rifts began to surface in the T.F.G., when 100 members of the transitional parliament sought to hold Gedi’s administration accountable for management of finances and a deteriorating security situation. Apparently an assertion of constitutional checks and balances by the legislature, the demand for accountability has proven to be the opening shot in a campaign by Yusuf to
undermine Gedi.
At the heart of the struggle at the upper echelons of the T.F.G. is control over Somalia’s unproven oil reserves. Yusuf had reportedly signed an exploration deal with China National Offshore Oil Corporation and then Gedi floated a national oil law that would void all previous agreements and give exploration rights to an Indonesian-Kuwaiti partnership. With the conflict out in the open, the power plays within the T.F.G.
began in earnest. [See: “China Invests in Somalia Despite Instability”]
On September 20, Somalia’s chief supreme court justice, Yusuf Ali Harun, and another judge, Mohamed
Nur, were arrested at their homes under the orders of the T.F.G.’s attorney general, Abdullahi Dahir Barre,
on charges of corruption. Harun was accused of embezzling US$800,000 of United Nations Development
Fund aid allocated to building the judiciary, among other counts of self-dealing. The arrests split parliament, with pro-Yusuf deputies backing the prosecutor and pro-Gedi deputies asserting that the attorney general’s action was illegal.
On September 23, the T.F.G.’s Council of Ministers removed Barre from office, but he refused to resign. The transitional parliament’s deputy speaker, Mohamed Omar Dalha, reported “hopeless disagreement between
the top government officials,” with Gedi backing Harun and Yusuf supporting Barre.
With the stalemate unbroken, local observers reported that the Harun affair was only a symptom of a deeper
conflict between the president and prime minister, in which Yusuf was seeking to use a provision of the
agreement issuing from the N.R.C. — that would allow non-members of parliament to be appointed to ministerial positions in the T.F.G. — to replace Gedi. That provision had been urged upon the N.R.C. by donor powers in order to bring technocrats into the T.F.G., but Yusuf has become a past master at finessing his patrons.
On September 25, Gedi, who had been attempting to mobilize support among the Hawiye, and Yusuf
reportedly met and failed to reconcile, setting off reports that Ethiopia’s foreign minister, Seyoum Mesfin, and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer were preparing to go to Somalia’s provisional capital Baidoa to attempt to mediate the dispute. Parliamentary speaker, Adan Madobe Mohamed, who is allied with Yusuf, announced that Gedi and Yusuf would be summoned to appear before parliament.
As the crisis in the T.F.G. deepened, the insurgency in Mogadishu led by the jihadist Youth Mujahideen
Movement (Y.M.M.) spiked, with groups of several dozen fighters attacking police stations and T.F.G. and
Ethiopian military bases with heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, and fighting pitched battles with government and occupation forces. The attacks peaked on September 29 when three police stations and two Ethiopian bases came under fire, resulting, according to some reports, in the deaths of 100 insurgents and 45 government forces, and the arrests of 700 people supporting the insurgency.
In response to conditions on the ground, Yusuf met with the T.F.G.’s Council of Ministers, with national police commander and former warlord Abdi Qeybdid, and Mogadishu’s mayor and former warlord, Mohamed Dheere, in attendance, and Gedi chairing the session. Reuters reported that Yusuf expressed displeasure at the performance of government forces and demanded a census of troops and an accounting of their pay.
The meeting reportedly broke down in acrimony when the issue of appointing non-members of parliament to
ministerial positions was raised and no consensus could be reached.
As reconciliation eluded the T.F.G.’s leading figures, the transitional parliament revived the accountability issue, demanding that Gedi, who had been accused of embezzling aid funds from Saudi Arabia, present a budget for parliamentary review, on pain of “legal consequences” — no budget had been submitted to the transitional parliament since the T.F.G.’s inception. Local media reported that the budget issue was serving as a “path” to a vote of confidence on Gedi.
With Yusuf’s and Gedi’s marriage of convenience at an end and the warlords whom Yusuf co-opted into the
T.F.G. asserting their independence, his power play appears to be likely to fail and the T.F.G. — rather
than healing or even papering over clan divisions — is poised to be riven by clan conflict fueled by the
desire of its officials for personal gain.
Puntland Begins to Fragment
As Yusuf loses his grip on the T.F.G., his power base in Puntland has begun to be threatened by weakness of
the sub-state’s machine coupled with pressure from Somaliland. Puntland, on which Yusuf has relied for
military forces to back his position in the T.F.G., now faces severe security threats of its own.
With Puntland having already suffered the secession of the disputed Sanaag region in late summer with the
formation of the self-declared autonomous Makhir state, the disputed Sool region has now also come into
play. On September 17, forces loyal to Puntland’s government clashed with local pro-Somaliland militias near the Sool region’s capital Los Anod. The insurgents were reportedly linked to the former Puntland security minister, Ahmed Abdi Habsade, who had been fired in July by the sub-state’s president, Mohamud Adde Muse, in an effort to consolidate his machine. Habsade distanced himself from the conflict, but admitted that forces from his sub-clan were involved in the fighting. In the aftermath of the incident, both Puntland and Somaliland were reported to be reinforcing their positions in Sool.
On September 20, new fighting was reported, between Puntland forces and regular Somaliland troops, with
each side blaming the other for initiating hostilities, and each accusing the other of working with the anti-Ethiopian opposition to the T.F.G. Responding to the tensions and to the possibility that Somaliland would retake control of Sool, which Puntland occupied in 2003, the T.F.G., through its information minister, Madobe Nunow, took its hardest line toward Somaliland since the inception of the transitional institutions, stating that Somaliland has no right to create regional borders and that its independence “is not something possible.”
Heavier fighting broke out on September 24, and by September 28 the situation had become so fraught that
the Coordination of International Support for Somalia, which is composed of representatives of the World Bank
and United Nations, called for a pullback of forces and for dialogue between the antagonists.
On September 29, force build-ups were reported on both sides and clan elders had reportedly appealed to Yusuf
to ask Muse to reinstate Habsade in a bid to defuse the local conflict and to deprive Somaliland of a local support base. On September 30, families were reported to be fleeing from Los Anod, as militias loyal to Habsade entered the city to confront Puntland forces already stationed there. On October 1, fighting broke out in Los Anod with up to 15 people reported killed.
With many of its forces tied up supporting Yusuf in Somalia’s south and soldiers having mutinied over pay
in Puntland’s capital Garowe in mid-September, the sub-state has become militarily vulnerable and appears
to be shedding the regions claimed by Somaliland.
Although it is too early to forecast whether or not the clashes in Sool will escalate into full-scale war,
it is clear that Puntland has come fully into play and that Yusuf’s power base there is rapidly eroding. His
alliance with Muse, a former adversary, is tenuous at best, and Muse, in any case, has been weakened by
conflicts with Puntland’s parliament that resemble those in the transitional institutions. Should Puntland plunge into a cycle of devolution, Somalia will be further destabilized and chances of a regional war in the Horn of Africa will increase.
Conclusion
With the T.F.G. currently in shambles and Puntland and Somaliland moving toward war, external actors, led by
Washington, have continued calling for the T.F.G. to engage in outreach to the political opposition, which
has already committed itself to militant resistance to the Ethiopian occupation and has organized a
counter-government under the rubric of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (A.R.S.). Washington
is also urging the T.F.G. to get to work on writing a constitution for Somalia in preparation for 2009 elections. At the same time, Washington donated $97 million to Ethiopia in development aid — in excess of its five-year plan — in explicit recognition of the country’s “strategic importance.”
As PINR stated in its September 19 report, the distance between the position of the external actors, with the exception of Eritrea, and events on the ground has widened to a gulf. There are signs, however, that the external actors are losing patience with the T.F.G.; Washington’s envoy to Somalia, John Yates, said in a Newsweek interview that confidence among Somalis in the competence of the T.F.G. is not on a “deep up-slope,” and the new U.N. envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould Abdullah, announced that having spoken with the T.F.G., he would have “no problem seeing any other Somali officials, whether they are in Somalia, in Asmara, or in Jeddah.”
The new twist in Somalia’s devolutionary cycle is the erosion of the scant power that Yusuf had. Without
him, the external actors have no one with whom to turn to anchor their policy. The inherent weakness of
Yusuf’s position as a boss in search of a machine who survives only by virtue of foreign military and financial support has now become obvious, as determined opposition to him mounts inside and outside the transitional institutions. He is a wasting asset for the external actors, but he has maneuvered himself into a corner and drawn them into it, and they have nowhere to go. Meanwhile, Somalia’s devolutionary cycle accelerates.
____________ The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source
intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of [email protected]. PINR reprints do not qualify under Fair-Use Statute Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All comments should be directed to [email protected].
The U.S. Department of State informed ER’s Intelligence Unit that dictator Meles Zenawi is on his way back to Ethiopia after failing to convince the U.S. Congress not to pass H.R. 2003.
According to ER sources, Meles had planned to come to Washington DC on Monday to meet with State Department officials and members of Congress in a last minute effort to stop the bill. Instead he met with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on Thursday and headed to Ethiopia. It is not clear if Dr. Rice had told him not to waste his time?
Woyannes and their lobbyists are now turning their attention to the United States Senate to stop H.R. 2003. But Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already made it know that Meles must be held accountable for the on going atrocities in Ethiopia. The bill is thus expected to easily sail through the Senate land on President Bush’s desk soon as a veto-proof legislation.
It is with much trepidation that the people of Ethiopia are awaiting your reported visit to their country, which is ruled by a brutal regime that has lost the people’s vote of confidence in the elections of 15 May 2005 and has been terrorizing the citizens in violation of fundamental human rights principles.
As the Honorable Ana Gomes, the EU observer of the May 2005 elections affirmed, “… the current regime in Ethiopia is repressing the people because it lacks democratic legitimacy.”
Ethiopians are concerned that your visit will give the illegitimate regime undeserved recognition, and will further embolden it to continue to terrorize the people, squander their meager resources, and thwart their fight for freedom, democracy and social justice.
As holder of the European Union Presidency during 2007, you have enormous responsibility and influence on the world stage to ensure that brutal and illegitimate regimes do not oppress their people while projecting a false image of democracy to the outside world.
You have said, “….Africa now has more economic growth, more democratic governments and less conflicts.” Regrettably, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has mismanaged the country’s economy, suppressed the people’s democratic rights, and has caused instability in the region by attacking a neighboring country.
In an editorial of July 18, 2007, The Wall Street Journal declared, “… [Zenawi’s] democracy is on paper only.” In a recent statement, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy stated, “…the 2005 election was not the turning point many had hoped for.” 3 On July 23, U.S. Congressman Christopher Smith called Zenawi “a vicious dictator.”
Even by the accounts of the U.S. State Department Country Report,5 Ethiopia is a police state. The situation in that country today evokes an atmosphere of life under siege.
On the tragic days following Zenawi’s defeat in the 15 May 2005 elections, his special forces, the Agazi, mowed down 193 unarmed civilians, and maimed thousands of hapless city residents. Young college kids were inhumanly bayoneted;6 and unarmed civilians were brutally shot in the back as they ran for shelter. When the indiscriminate killings subsided, hospitals in Addis were crowded with mutilated bodies and gruesome pictures of the disfigured bodies of the victims filled the airwaves. The world watched in disbelief that such atrocities and brutality could be happening in these days and ages. A commission set up by his own government found Zenawi guilty of the massacre,10 and international human rights organizations roundly condemned the action as barbaric.
Several times earlier, the campuses of the country’s universities had also been scenes of experimentation for indiscriminate killings. On April 18, 2001 the Special Forces police opened fire12 on a peaceful protest organized by students of Addis Ababa University and killed at least 41 people and wounded 250. In January of 1993, hundreds of students were shot and mutilated by Zenawi’s police for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression.
Zenawi’s other crimes have also been fully documented. In the Gambella area, the Anuaks have been subjected to a government-sponsored genocide, and many more have been displaced from their homes. The Oromo people have been targeted for constant harassment, killings and torture for refusing to submit to Zenawi’s ethnic policy of divide and rule. In the Ogaden region, he has continued to commit war crimes, “… burning homes and property, including the recent harvest and other food stocks intended for the civilian population, confiscating livestock and, …, firing upon and killing fleeing civilians.” [HRW]
Zenawi has suppressed freedom of speech and the press, while projecting an image of an open society to donor countries. In a recent report, the Committee to Protect Journalists found Ethiopia at the top of a list of 10 countries where press freedom has deteriorated over the past five years.[IHT] In 2006 alone, eight newspapers were banned, two foreign reporters were expelled and several websites were blocked.
The government has used education and health as stealth weapons of oppression. According to the 2007 World Economic Forum report, Zenawi’s government occupies the dismal position of 124th out of 128 countries in terms of health and primary education. In a 2006 Human Development finding, Ethiopia is ranked 170th out of 177 countries with respect to a composite measure of life-expectancy, education and standard of living.20 The tuberculosis death rate per 100,000 population has doubled since Zenawi snatched the reigns of power from the previous dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam.
Added to the specter of terror is the grinding poverty that has gripped the populace, thanks to the widely publicized corruption of Zenawi’s government. According to the 2006 Global Transparency Corruption report Ethiopia had a Corruption Perception Index score of 2.4 out of a clean score of 10. Zenawi and his cronies continue to plunder, launder and squander the scarce resources of the country and the billions of dollars in aid money, through an elaborate financial, military and legal network. The government is run through a highly secretive and mafia-like clique that controls all the vital economic activities of that poor country through shadow corporations. As a consequence, the great majority of the people of Ethiopia are experiencing unprecedented economic hardships. Inflation has sky-rocketed,[CIA] and based on a recent World Economic Forum report, Ethiopia has slid to the rank of 123rd out of 128 countries in 2007 in the Global Competitive Index. Despite the grim economic figures, Zenawi and his cronies are laundering money in foreign bank accounts, and their spending spree on expensive lobbying is running high unbridled.[Harpers]
Chancellor Merkel,
In an eerie reminder of Stalin’s Great Purge, Zenawi recently coerced the opposition leaders he had illegally imprisoned into accepting responsibility for his own crimes, and mendaciously announced to the world his magnanimity in granting amnesty. Goethe said, “There is nothing in the world more shameful than establishing one’s self on lies and fables.” Prime Minister Zenawi has cunningly hoodwinked Western leaders into believing he was a “new breed” of African leader. In its June 2nd, 2007 issue, The Economist summed up as follows the bitter lesson Zenawi taught Mr. Blair:
“… If he [Blair] had left office a couple of years ago, his farewell safari might well have included Ethiopia. Meles Zenawi, …, was the most prominent African member of Mr Blair’s Commission for Africa but he repaid the compliment by allowing his police to shoot scores of protesters dead and arrest hundreds more in the wake of flawed elections in 2005. So now it is back to the old game of figuring out how to help people whose leaders are mainly interested in helping themselves.”
Fortunately, the world is now beginning to recognize Zenawi’s lies and viciousness, and newspapers all over the world are generously reporting his crimes against humanity. However, as Goethe also counseled, “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” The people of Ethiopia are, therefore, pleading with you to exercise your enormous influence in the promotion of democracy and affirmation of the values that your government and the European Union uphold in the fight against tyranny and totalitarianism. In particular, they request that you stand on their side and support their demands for the:
1. Return of power to the legitimate winners of the 15 May 2005 elections.
2. Prosecution of those in power who are responsible for crimes against humanity.
3. Suspension of direct aid to the brutal and corrupt regime, so that donors’ money is not used for the purpose of oppressing the very people it is intended to help.
Cc:
Deutsche Welle, Amharische Redaktion, 53110 Bonn, Deutschland
E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Günter Nooke, Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid at the Federal Foreign Office, Auswärtiges Amt, Werderscher Markt 1, 10117 Berlin
