About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen – the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.
So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US.
And why did delegates leave the Danish capital without agreement that something significantly stronger should emerge next year?
Our environment correspondent Richard Black looks at eight reasons that might have played a part.
1. KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL
Until the end of this summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention.
Implicit in the convention, though, is the idea that governments take account of each others’ positions and actually negotiate.
That happened at the Kyoto summit. Developed nations arrived arguing for a wide range of desired outcomes; during negotiations, positions converged, and a negotiated deal was done.
In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened.
The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a last-minute deal in a back room as though the nine months of talks leading up to this summit, and the Bali Action Plan to which they had all committed two years previously, did not exist.
Over the last few years, statements on climate change have been made in other bodies such as the G8, Major Economies Forum (MEF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (APEC), which do not have formal negotiations, and where outcomes are not legally binding.
It appears now that this is the arrangement preferred by the big countries (meaning the US and the BASIC group). Language in the “Copenhagen Accord” could have been taken from – indeed, some passages were reportedly taken from, via the mechanism of copying and pasting – G8 and MEF declarations.
The logical conclusion is that this is the arrangement that the big players now prefer – an informal setting, where each country says what it is prepared to do – where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding.
2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM
Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.
Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.
Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other.
Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position – a nightmare for other countries’ negotiators.
3. BAD TIMING
Although the Bali Action Plan was drawn up two years ago, it is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions.
He is also attempting major healthcare reforms; and both measures are proving highly difficult.
If the Copenhagen summit had come a year later, perhaps Mr Obama would have been able to speak from firmer ground, and perhaps offer some indication of further action down the line – indications that might have induced other countries to step up their own offers.
As it is, he was in a position to offer nothing – and other countries responded in kind.
4. THE HOST GOVERNMENT
In many ways, Denmark was an excellent summit host. Copenhagen was a friendly and capable city, transport links worked, Bella Center food outlets remained open through the long negotiating nights.
But the government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong.
Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of “important countries” – thereby annoying every country not on the list, including most of the ones that feel seriously threatened by climate impacts.
The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Becker was sacked just weeks before the summit amid tales of a huge rift between Mr Rasmussen’s office and the climate department of minister Connie Hedegaard. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker.
Procedurally, the summit was a farce, with the Danes trying to hurry things along so that a conclusion could be reached, bringing protest after protest from some of the developing countries that had presumed everything on the table would be properly negotiated. Suspensions of sessions became routine.
Despite the roasting they had received over the first “Danish text”, repeatedly the hosts said they were preparing new documents – which should have been the job of the independent chairs of the various negotiating strands.
China’s chief negotiator was barred by security for the first three days of the meeting – a serious issue that should have been sorted out after day one. This was said to have left the Chinese delegation in high dudgeon.
When Mr Rasmussen took over for the high-level talks, it became quickly evident that he understood neither the climate convention itself nor the politics of the issue. Experienced observers said they had rarely seen a UN summit more ineptly chaired.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prime minister’s office envisaged the summit as an opportunity to cover Denmark and Mr Rasmussen in glory – a “made in Denmark” pact that would solve climate change.
Most of us, I suspect, will remember the city and people of Copenhagen with some affection. But it is likely that history will judge that the government’s political handling of the summit covered the prime minister in something markedly less fragrant than glory.
5. THE WEATHER
Although “climate sceptical” issues made hardly a stir in the plenary sessions, any delegate wavering as to the scientific credibility of the “climate threat” would hardly have been convinced by the freezing weather and – on the last few days – the snow that blanketed routes from city centre to Bella Center.
Reporting that the “noughties” had been the warmest decade since instrumental records began, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) noted “except in parts of North America”.
If the US public had experienced the searing heat and prolonged droughts and seriously perturbed rainfall patterns seen in other corners of the globe, would they have pressed their senators harder on climate action over the past few years?
6. 24-HOUR NEWS CULTURE
The way this deal was concocted and announced was perhaps the logical conclusion of a news culture wherein it is more important to beam a speaking president live into peoples’ homes from the other side of the world than it is to evaluate what has happened and give a balanced account.
The Obama White House mounted a surgical strike of astounding effectiveness (and astounding cynicism) that saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone – even most of the governments involved in the talks – knew a deal had been done.
The news went first to the White House lobby journalists travelling with the president. With due respect, they are not as well equipped to ask critical questions as the environment specialists who had spent the previous two weeks at the Bella Center.
After the event, of course, journalists pored over the details. But the agenda had already been set; by the time those articles emerged, anyone who was not particularly interested in the issue would have come to believe that a deal on climate change had been done, with the US providing leadership to the global community.
The 24-hour live news culture did not make the Copenhagen Accord. But its existence offered the White House a way to keep the accord’s chief architect away from all meaningful scrutiny while telling the world of his triumph.
7. EU POLITICS
For about two hours on Friday night, the EU held the fate of the Obama-BASIC “accord” in its hands, as leaders who had been sideswiped by the afternoon’s diplomatic coup d’etat struggled to make sense of what had happened and decide the appropriate response.
If the EU had declined to endorse the deal at that point, a substantial number of developing countries would have followed suit, and the accord would now be simply an informal agreement between a handful of countries – symbolising the failure of the summit to agree anything close to the EU’s minimum requirements, and putting some beef behind Europe’s insistence that something significant must be achieved next time around.
So why did the EU endorse such an emasculated document, given that several leaders beforehand had declared that no deal would be better than a weak deal?
The answer probably lies in a mixture – in proportions that can only be guessed at – of three factors:
• Politics as usual – ie never go against the US, particularly the Obama US, and always emerge with something to claim as a success
• EU expansion, which has increased the proportion of governments in the bloc that are unconvinced of the arguments for constraining emissions
• The fact that important EU nations, in particular France and the UK, had invested significant political capital in preparing the ground for a deal – tying up a pact on finance with Ethiopia’s President Meles Zenawi, and mounting a major diplomatic push on Thursday when it appeared things might unravel.
Having prepared the bed for US and Chinese leaders and having hoped to share it with them as equal partners, acquiescing to an outcome that it did not want announced in a manner that gave it no respect arguably leaves the EU cast in a role rather less dignified that it might have imagined.
8. CAMPAIGNERS GOT THEIR STRATEGIES WRONG
An incredible amount of messaging and consultation went on behind the scenes in the run-up to this meeting, as vast numbers of campaign groups from all over the planet strived to co-ordinate their “messaging” in order to maximise the chances of achieving their desired outcome.
The messaging had been – in its broadest terms – to praise China, India, Brazil and the other major developing countries that pledged to constrain the growth in their emissions; to go easy on Barack Obama; and to lambast the countries (Canada, Russia, the EU) that campaigners felt could and should do more.
Now, post-mortems are being held, and all those positions are up for review. US groups are still giving Mr Obama more brickbats than bouquets, for fear of wrecking Congressional legislation – but a change of stance is possible.
Having seen the deal emerge that the real leaders of China, India and the other large developing countries evidently wanted, how will those countries now be treated?
How do you campaign in China – or in Saudi Arabia, another influential country that emerged with a favourable outcome?
The situation is especially demanding for those organisations that have traditionally supported the developing world on a range of issues against what they see as the west’s damaging dominance.
After Copenhagen, there is no “developing world” – there are several. Responding to this new world order is a challenge for campaign groups, as it will be for politicians in the old centres of world power.
The United Nations Security Council on Tuesday voted to impose sanctions on Eritrea for supporting the Somali Islamist group Al-Shabab. First of all, the U.S. State Department, which pushed the resolution on behalf of Woyanne — its puppet regime in Ethiopia — is unable to produce any evidence that Eritrea provides support to Al-Shabab. Secondly, even if it does, what is the big deal? Doesn’t the U.S. Government support the Woyanne regime, which is terrorizing the people of Ethiopia, committing war crimes in eastern Ethiopia, blocking food from reaching the people in Ogaden (according to the Red Cross), and has committed genocide in the western Ethiopian region of Gambella? The U.S.-financed Woyanne regime’s crimes against the people of Ethiopia are too many to list here. These crimes against humanity are not mere allegations. They are charges made by all credible international human rights organizations. And yet the U.N. Security Council is totally silent. Let’s also not forget that the U.N. has not uttered one word of concern when Meles Zenawi’s death squads gunned down hundreds of pro-democracy protesters in Ethiopia’s capital following the 2005 elections. Through such nonsensical and hypocritical action, the U.N. once again proved itself to be a joke. For peace to prevail in Somalia, the U.S. and its puppet Woyanne must stop meddling in Somalia’s internal affairs. Let the people of Somalia sort things out for themselves without outside intervention. If there is any sanction needed in the U.N., it should be against the U.S. Government that is creating havoc in Somalia by backing one clan against another. – Elias Kifle
In the following audio Eritrea’s Minister of Information Ato Ali Abdo comments on the U.N. sanction.
[podcast]http://www.ethiopianreview.info/audio/23dec2009amha1800a.mp3[/podcast]
(Forward to 13:15:00)
African diplomats, most of whom had brashly stood by Ethiopia’s tyrant Meles Zenawi when he violently crushed a pro-democracy movement in 2005, naively expressed shock and incredulity at his betrayal of their trust at the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference [1,2].
As heralded by this[3] and numerous other authors [see, e.g., 4,5] before the ill-fated conference, Zenawi had a sinister agenda when he successfully lobbied corrupt African diplomats in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa to get the nomination as a spokesperson for Africa.
The dictator has been in serious desperation to get the attention of the West after he lost the cover of “War on Terror” that he had successfully exploited to enjoy the full support of the Bush Administration and other Western powers. Despite his atrocious records of crimes against humanity, corruption and suppression of basic human rights, these powers looked the other way when the dictator massacred peaceful demonstrators in the aftermath of his humiliating defeat in the elections of 2005, and propped up his tyrannical rule with billions of dollars in aid that he plundered with no accountability and squandered on expensive lobbying campaigns to thwart congressional measures intended to promote democracy and good governance in Ethiopia[6].
To the furtively resourceful tyrant, a visible position at the Climate Conference was hence the only hope of getting the attention the West, and especially that of the Obama administration, whose rhetoric of democracy and social justice had sent terrifying signals to the despot.
With the specter of the 2005 massacre still haunting him, Zenawi saw the position endowed upon him by African diplomats as a valuable tool to earn legitimacy among Western powers and to ensure their tacit assent as he prepares to violently thwart again the aspirations of the Ethiopian people for democracy in the upcoming May 2010 elections.
In view of the mounting evidence pointing at his atrocities[7], he has also been frantically seeking means of garnering the sympathy of the West in the likely eventuality of charges for his crimes against humanity. Betrayal of members of the African Union, an institution that has proven a loyal subservient to him, was therefore an effective measure toward that end without any adverse consequence.
With the dwindling financial aid, thanks in part to the irrelevance of his ploy as an ally in the War on Terror, and, more generally, to the impact of the global economic downturn on the capacity of donor nations to squander money on the dictator, a quick source of hard-currency, however meager, was also a matter of great urgency for the dictator. The lofty goals of the nations of Africa, in whose names he earned visibility, were therefore expendable in the eyes of a dictator, whose track records as a leader are characterized by myopic self-interest, ethnocentrism, poor governance, corruption and environmental degradation.
It was thus a foregone conclusion that Zenawi would forgo any viable long-term international accord for a short-term gain, and that he would easily agree, as he has reprehensibly and egoistically done so, to the reduction of the billions of dollars from what African leaders had agreed or to the 2°C commitment that many campaigners claim would threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people in Africa[8].
If the Obama administration engages in the discredited Bush-era diplomacy, sacrificing its hallmarks of social justice and democracy for short-term diplomatic expediency, then it has not learned the bitter lessons of its predecessors. To the chagrin of many Ethiopian supporters, the White House confirmed, as reported in the Los Angeles Times[9]:
… He [President Obama] expressed his appreciation for the leadership role the Prime Minister [Zenawi] was playing in work with African countries on climate change, and urged him to help reach agreement at the Leaders summit later this week in Copenhagen. For his part, Prime Minister Meles stressed the importance of success in Copenhagen, and the need to find ways to make suitable progress on the mitigation, adaptation, and the provision of finance for the developing countries.
The people of Africa in general, and of Ethiopia in particular, hailed President Obama, when he declared[10]:
America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation – the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance – on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hotlines, and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.”
If good governance, transparency and accountability are the guiding principles of American foreign aid under Obama, then it is hard to envisage that the President has not digressed from the path of justice when he initiated a dialogue with a dictator who has some of the worst records of any leader in each of the stated parameters.
We do agree with the President’s affirmation[11]: “We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning…” Accordingly, it is high time for the Obama administration to live up to its professed ideals and to make a new beginning in dealing with dictators. We trust the Obama administration would have the courage and wisdom to depart from the discredited policies of yesteryear when long-term stability took backseat to short-term diplomatic pragmatism.
As widely reported, no sooner had Zeanwi received the nod of the West, at the expense of the trust of Africa, than he ordered his kangaroo court to sentence to death potential opponents on trumped up charges [12]. He has intensified his attacks on the free press, as evidenced by the recent flights of respected journalists out of the country [see, e.g.,13,14], and has effectively silenced all political dissent. He has kept credible political opponents, like Birtukan Mideksa, in prison[15], and is using mafia-like tactics to intimidate and frustrate opposition groups[16]. To avoid another humiliating defeat in the capital and other cities and towns in the May 2010 elections, every eligible voter employed by the government or runs a major private enterprise is under duress to sign up as a card-holding member of Zenawi’s party. In the rural areas, where farmers are at the absolute mercy of the dictator to till the land or get access to fertilizers, opposition groups are completely shut out to rule out any credible threats to the despot.
Ethiopians in the Diaspora have a historic responsibility to ensure that Zenawi does not use his newly-earned notoriety to garner Western support and tacit acquiescence as he embarks on his vicious campaign to violently thwart once again the aspiration of the Ethiopian people for democracy in the upcoming elections. They should continue to mobilize their resources and influence the Obama administration and other Western powers from becoming accomplices in the evil gambits of the tyrant.
Opposition leaders should come to the realization that there is no more pressing matter, or nobler cause, or greater party agenda than the need to stand in unison and salvage Ethiopia from the cancerous tyranny of Meles Zenawi and his repressive machinery. The deliverance of the people can become a reality only when the leaders are prepared to forfeit egotism, party loyalty and petty bickering, and are determined to fight to the end, paying the ultimate consequences, with an enemy that may project vacuous invincibility and power, but has in essence no longevity or resilience.
A resident of the Dutch town of Haarlem was sentenced to death by an Ethiopian court on Tuesday. He was found guilty of disrespect for the Ethiopian constitution and, along with four other people, for attempting a coup. But Mesfin Aman is not worried about his safety. “I have an official refugee status, and the Dutch government knows what’s going on in my home country.”
Four of the five people charged have been convicted in absentia after fleeing abroad. Melaku Teffera, however, is being held in Ethiopia. “I am very sorry to say that he will have to face his sentence,” Mesfin Aman told Radio Netherlands. “I’ve talked to the other four convicts. They are safe, like me, because they have the same refugee status. One of them is in the UK, the other three are in the US.”
Mesfin has lived in the Netherlands as a fugitive since 2006. He is currently finishing his MBA at the Amsterdam Business School. “After the 2005 election protests, in which I took part, the UN High Commissioner invited me to stay in the Netherlands as a political refugee. I have an invited refugee status and a residence permit. I do not have the Dutch nationality yet. For that I’ll have to wait for another two years.”
The 30-year-old student heard the news on Tuesday when he was called by Andargachew Tsige, one of his fellow defendants. He then checked the news on-line and realized it was true. Aman is confident that he won’t have to face his sentence: “The Dutch government follows the standard international rules and would never extradite me. They know what’s going on in Ethiopia.”
Aman has been politically active since he was a teenager. He chose to study political science and fight for democracy, despite the obvious dangers. “The government considers all opinions different from their own as disrespect for the constitution and a threat to their existence. They use phrases like ‘attempted coup’ to justify their killing of opposition members.”
In 2001, he spent several months in solitary confinement after he took part in a protest against the regime of the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi. In the aftermath of the elections in 2005, he again spent several weeks in solitary confinement, after which he was released on bail. He escaped to Kenya, and then to the Netherlands.
“That same year, the Ethiopian government sentenced me for life along with several other opposition leaders. The others were later pardoned and were asked to sign a pardon letter. Because I was in the Netherlands, I didn’t know of the letter and couldn’t sign. That’s why I have now been given this death sentence. It’s a bizarre story.”
The refugee has not yet spoken to the Dutch government about his death sentence, but he is planning to contact the Foreign Affairs Ministry to inform them.
The most important factor in the Ethiopian government’s behaviour, he says, is “ethnic domination”.
“In Ethiopia, we have 80 million people from five ethnic groups. Political power is concentrated in the hands of one ethnic group, which accounts for around 6 percent of the population. That causes a huge political imbalance.”
ADDIS ABABA (BBC) — An Ethiopian court has sentenced five people to death and 33 others to life in prison for planning to assassinate government officials.
Prosecutors had said the convicted were part of the Ginbot 7 (15 May) group led by Berhanu Nega, a US-based dissident.
He was among those sentenced to death, as was opposition leader Melaku Tefera.
Mr Melaku was present in the Addis Ababa courtroom with 27 other accused. Some of the defendants have said they were tortured into confessing.
Convicting the men in November, Judge Adem Ibrahim said the court had not been convinced of the torture allegations.
The authorities have said they found weapons, including land mines, at the men’s homes when they were arrested in April.
Army officers sentenced
“The… five have committed grave offences and four of them have not learnt from their previous sentences,” said Judge Adem passing down the sentences.
“Therefore, we have been been obliged to give the most severe sentences.”
Relatives of the men broke down in the courtroom as the sentences were read out, says the BBC’s Uduak Amimo in Addis Ababa.
The death sentences were reserved for what the court called the political leaders of the plot, while those sentenced to life imprisonment were active or former military officers, AFP news agency said.
Lawyers for the defence said they would appeal.
Andergachew Tsege, secretary general of Ginbot 7 and one of those sentenced to death in absentia, told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme the ruling was not unexpected.
“It is not surprising to us and probably to the people of Ethiopia,” he said.
“We know the price of freedom – the preservation of rights always forces us to pay sacrifice and if that sacrifice means to be sentenced to death, so be it.”
‘Ethnic apartheid’
The authorities have long accused Mr Berhanu of spearheading opposition plots.
He was arrested after being elected mayor of Addis Ababa in 2005 and jailed for treason.
He was pardoned in 2007 and left for the United States, where he began teaching economics at a university.
Ginbot 7 was named after the date of the 2005 elections, which Meles Zenawi’s party won, but which the opposition said was rigged.
Mr Berhanu denies engaging in armed struggle against the government, but Mr Andergachew said attempts to engage in peaceful politics had failed to deliver.
“The political space in Ethiopia for peaceful struggle has been killed by Meles, so we have no choice,” Mr Andergachew said.
“As long as they [the government] refuse to listen, we will use any means possible to force them to listen or to force them out of office.”
Rights groups have expressed concern that the government is trying to silence dissent before Ethiopia holds its next national election in June 2010.
Mr Andergachew said Ginbot 7 was angered that political and economic life in Ethiopia was dominated by Mr Meles’s Tigrean ethnic group.
“They are building what we call an ethnic apartheid in Ethiopia,” he said.
It was a remarkable display of raw machismo: “My way or the highway… or jail!” It was a one-man political theatre, a monologue about absolute power, domination, toughness, brawn and pugnacity. It was a demonstration of sang froid machismo calculated to taunt and sneer at the opposition, and bombard them with contempt and derision. It was an ostentatious public vindication of the ignoble principle “might makes right.”
In a recent two-minute and forty-three second video[1] of an exchange in Ethiopia’s rubberstamp parliament, Meles Zenawi, African dictator extraordinaire, ridiculed and lambasted his political opponents. He unsparingly tongue-lashed Birtukan Midekssa, the iconic Ethiopian political prisoner and first female political party leader in Ethiopia’s 3,000-year history. He caricatured the imprisoned leader of the Unity, Democracy and Justice opposition party as a faddish hen that hanged herself.
In the 103 seconds, Zenawi lectured with the sternness of school martinet. He berated with the coarseness of a drill sergeant. He taunted with the polish of a schoolyard bully. He explained why he had jailed Birtukan with the warped logic of a kangaroo kourt judge. His words and phrases were measured and calculated like those of a crooked accountant. His demeanor was armored in stone-cold arrogance and hubris. It was a study in political psychology, a glimpse of the cognitive process and personality of a dictator and the pathos that drives him.
As Zenawi deftly switched the topic to speak about Birtukan as an object lesson to his parliament, he could barely conceal his loathing for her. In a calculated act of public humiliation, he began talking about her in the form of a silly chicken who ultimately did herself in because she did not know the limits of her modest abilities and his overwhelming and boundless might. He sermonized:
As our parents say, ‘A hen once heard of a fad and hanged herself trying to follow it.’ They [the opposition] heard about the Kenya and Zimbabwe [“orange revolution”] model and decided to try it in our country. By doing so, they were exposing themselves to harm. But it was not only they who will suffer from harm, but unavoidably, all Ethiopians will suffer from it at different levels also. The bad thing is that many of our folks who got into this way of thinking were not ready to learn from their mistakes.
If we take Ms. Birtukan as an example, she said she did not ask for a pardon. We sent elders, ambassadors [to plead with her]. She said, ‘I will not listen to them. I will not change what I have said outside of the country. I will not take it back.’ She said that thinking the chaos created by her supporters or through external pressure she will get out of prison in a short time. She had a strong position on that.
At the time, she was repeatedly told that it was a mistake [for her to deny having received a pardon]; and that once she is put back in prison, she will not get out. So the main thing is it would be better before she got in. So the main thing is that it would have been better for all that she did not have to go back to prison. She was told this repeatedly. It would have been good for all of us. For one month the government begged her in direct and indirect ways. If we ask why, who will benefit from this? The government does not get five cents profit from this. So the harm goes beyond the individuals to everyone. I suggest that one ought not choose to dream of such things. But as I think of their experiences, their ability to learn from their mistakes is very limited.
Zenawi’s choice of a hen to caricature Birtukan Midekksa was dastardly and plain wrong. Birtukan ain’t no chicken. She is the Lioness of Ethiopia! She is a woman of conviction and principle. In “Q’ale” (My Testimony), a public statement she released two days before Zenawi imprisoned her on December 29, 2009, Birtukan boldly declared, “Lawlessness and arrogance are things that I will never get used to, nor will cooperate with.” Only a lioness would say something like that facing overwhelming odds. Birtukan is a woman of extraordinary intellect, dignity and honor. She does not lie, cheat or rob. She does what she does not out of expediency or in the eternal pursuit of self-enrichment on the public coffers. Rather her actions are guided by a commitment to the advancement of the causes of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. After all, what greater sacrifice could this young single mother make to her people and country than leave her precious four-year old child in the custody of her aging mother while serving out a life term? Birtukan shows the quintessential trait of a proud lioness, not a clucking frightened hen. (For the record, the proverbial reference to the “hen that hanged herself” is misstated. The adage properly rendered is: “Silu semta, doro motech chis wust gebta.” Roughly translated, “A hen having heard that others have walked through thick smoke tried to do the same and died.” Chickens are believed to have low pulmonary tolerance for smoke.)
Zenawi repeatedly slammed Birtukan for refusing to acknowledge her “mistakes” and publicly declare that she had indeed been granted a pardon. The indisputable fact is that she never denied receiving a pardon. She merely explained the legal and political circumstances under which she received it. She wrote in Q’ale. “I have not denied signing the document which the elders persuaded us to sign on June 22, 2006 for the sake of national reconciliation. How could it be said that I denied a pardon document I signed, and whose content I accepted? How is that a crime? Where is the mistake?”
Zenawi also tried to portray Birtukan as a stubborn, ill-tempered and quarrelsome woman. He speculated that she acted foolishly believing that the “the chaos created by her supporters” or others exerting “external pressure” could get her released from prison quickly. Birtukan knew exactly what Zenawi was likely to do regardless of what she may or may not do. She told the “federal police commissioner” as much days before she was imprisoned. She summarized that conversation in Q’ale: “But what they found to be funny and perplexing is something great that I will forever live for, stand for, and sometimes get jailed and released for – it is the rule of law and abiding by the constitution.” In other words, Birtukan did not risk prison because she was stubborn. She was imprisoned because she stood up for her constitutional rights and in defense of the rule of law.
Zenawi argued that Birtukan was under some sort of fantasy about leading an “orange revolution” modeled after Kenya or Zimbabwe. He used the opportunity to warn his opposition that they too will fail and suffer the same fate should they try to bring about political change through acts of peaceful civil disobedience. His unambiguous message to everyone is clear: Peaceful resistance to his dictatorship is futile. But Birtukan did not try to launch any kind of revolution. She registered her party and overcame numerous political roadblocks placed in her way by the regime so that she could have an opportunity to engage and participate in the political process “abiding by the country’s constitution.” She was under no illusions that the regime will play fair; in fact, she expected they would play dirty and incapacitate her somewhere along the line, as they in fact did. In Q’ale, the former judge made it crystal clear: “The message [of the government] is clear and this message is not only for me but also for all who are active in the peaceful struggle. A peaceful and law-abiding political struggle can be conducted only within the limits the ruling party and individuals set and not according to what the constitution allows. And for me it is extremely difficult to accept this.” Zenawi thinks this is a “mistake”. No, this is telling it like it is!
The 103-minute video monologue offers insight into Zenawi’s thought process. He repeatedly insisted that his opposition is simply incapable of learning from their experiences and have a bad habit of compounding their mistakes. But what exactly are their mistakes? He seems to believe that his opposition’s challenge of the stolen 2005 election was a mistake. The independent press’ insistence on offering an alternative medium of communication is a mistake. Insisting on observance of the “Constitution of Ethiopia” is a mistake. Demanding compliance with international human rights treaty obligations is a mistake. Having free and fair elections is a mistake. The gathering of opposition political parties under one umbrella is a mistake. Insisting on accountability is a mistake. Exposing corruption is a mistake. Anything that challenges dictatorship is a mistake!
The wages of making mistakes is rotting in jail. Zenawi did not mince words. Birtukan will rot in jail; and he has already thrown away the key to her cell. That does not surprise anyone. For nearly two decades, he has been doing just that. His own official Inquiry Commission in 2006 documented that over 30,000 individuals were rounded up and jailed following the stolen elections in 2005. An additional 196 individuals were massacred and nearly 700 wounded by security thugs. International human rights organizations and others have documented the cases of countless political prisoners rotting in the regular and secret jails.
It is also clear that Zenawi has little familiarity with the concept of the rule of law. His understanding of that principle is that he makes the rule and that is the law. Everyone must follow his rules or they will rot in jail. Simple zero-sum game everyone can understand!
The unvarnished truth about Birtukan’s incarceration is that Zenawi was afraid she could easily win in a free and fair election in May 2010. All of the chaff about denying a pardon, mistakes and the other nonsense are part of a smoke screen designed to distract attention from the real issue. It is a classic case of the Ethiopian proverb, “Aya jibo satamehagn belagn. (“Mr. Hyena, if you must eat me, do so without giving too many excuses.) He will keep Birtukan in jail just until he makes his victory lap at his already-won May 2010 “election”. He would have no logical reason to keep her in prison thereafter. Should he keep her jailed after the “election”, it would be to satisfy some deep-seated sadistic pleasure that comes from seeing her suffer, or because of a repressed psychological need to dominate strong-willed women.
The machismo of power is that it gives the one who has it a sense of exhilarated and exaggerated sense of strength and self-confidence. Machismo makes a man a compulsive bully who, because of an inner fear of looking weak, must dominate everything around him. The macho man in any potential conflict situation overreacts, swaggers, boasts and rushes to destructive action as proof of his intelligence, audacity and courage. He rarely stops to think things through; that would be dithering and flip-flopping to his way of thinking. He will stay the course even though that course is manifestly perilous, silly or absurd.
Real men don’t whine. They debate real women in the court of public opinion and challenge them in the voting booths.
FREE BIRTUKAN AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.)
