By Adugnaw Worku
Ethiopians have been confused and puzzled by America’s indifference to the on-going political crisis in their homeland. During the 2005 Ethiopian election and after, conventional wisdom among Ethiopians assumed that The United States would stand with them in their fight for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. They underestimated the power of national economic interest and national security issues on the part of the United States. While America’s rhetorical support for democracy, human rights, and rule of law around the world is eloquent and impressive, its foreign policy practice falls far short of its rhetorical ideals. And this in turn has angered and disappointed those who took America’s promised support seriously and literally.
The United States of America has the distinction of being the longest enduring democracy in the world, which is still strong, vibrant, and inspiring. Americans believe in their democracy and freedom and they also believe that the world would greatly benefit from it. Many Americans further believe that “the American nation has been chosen by god or by history to promote democracy”. President George W. Bush put it this way. “Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass on”. And he goes on to say that “Americans are a free people who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to humanity.” According to Robert Jervis, “The hope of spreading democracy and liberalism throughout the world has been an American goal.” It is a fact that Americans see themselves as champions of human rights and they have inspired billions of oppressed people around the world.
But the problem comes when American political leaders try to integrate democratic values into foreign policy practices. Unfortunately, the devil is always in the detail. There has been an ongoing debate between two American foreign policy camps on this issue and it still goes on. There are those who argue that American foreign policy should be ethical, moral, and universal and that what is good for America is also good for the world. Americans who represent this view further believe that the United States should be consistent with her values at home and abroad. This camp strongly believes that American foreign policy should be as good as the American people. Besides, promoting democracy and freedom and banishing tyranny will be good for America’s long term security and economic interests.
It is an observed fact that “democracies rarely attack other democracies”. In addition, democracies ensure better stability and that in turn promotes economic growth at home and trading partnerships abroad. This camp claims that capitalism and democracy have been good for America and they will also be good for the world. Spreading democracy can also relieve the United States of the constant worry about the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and rouge states. For example, America is more worried about “nuclear weapon in the hands of autocracies like China, Iran, North Korea” and others like them. But “no American loses sleep that the UK or France has deadly missiles”. It is a documented fact that 70% of terrorists come from authoritarian societies because such societies both breed and shelter them. And that may explain “why those who blow up Americans are rarely Indian or Turkish Muslims, (but are) more likely (to be) Saudis or Egyptians”.
Terrorists will be exposed in open and free societies sooner than later because there is transparency. People in democratic countries are national stake holders and would not protect or shelter those that disturb the peace and destroy their way of life. Liberal foreign policy proponents further argue that the promotion of democracy abroad would bring consistency and coherence between what America says at home and what she does abroad. Charles Pena says that “People love what we are; but they often hate what we do”. The one question asked by many Americans after September 11 was, “Why do they hate us?” Liberals say it is because of the inconsistency of America’s foreign policy and her support of those regimes that abuse their citizens with impunity.
The realist camp of American foreign policy on the other hand believes that the world is a complex and dangerous place. And moralistic and universal approaches are impractical, ineffective, misguided, and unwise. And they insist that “No responsible U.S. decision maker can allow our foreign policy to be driven by a single imperative, no matter how important”. Realists seem to agree with the great British statesman, Lord Salisbury, who once said “It has generally been acknowledged to be madness to go to war for an idea”. Unfortunately, democracy, freedom, and human rights are often considered good ideas but are rarely acted on when it comes to foreign policy decisions. The realist camp further argues that “different circumstances require different methods and sound foreign policy must be calculating and particular by necessity, because success depends on decisions other nations make and that their cooperation is necessary to achieve foreign policy goals”.
These foreign policy hardliners believe that in the world of realpolitik the essence of foreign policy is deciding between two or more difficult choices when dealing with nations whose values and practices are different and undemocratic. This is further complicated by internal political pressures coming from lobbyists and campaign contributors who have their agendas and self-interests in some foreign policy decisions. Furthermore, national security and economic interests overshadow democratic ideals. These factors in turn create a serious disconnect between deeply held American democratic ideals and foreign policy practices. Consequently, what America says at home and what she does abroad create serious confusion and disappointment and anger.
More often than not, deals are made with the devil to achieve short term goals at the expense of deeply held ideals and long term interests. In reality, American foreign policy as practiced creates hypocrisy and vulnerability instead of security and stability. Without minimizing or oversimplifying foreign policy challenges, one can conclude that consistency between democratic ideals and foreign policy practices is far than undemocratic shortcuts. That is the way to win friends and influence people around the world with lasting effect. As the old saying goes, “action speaks louder than words” and the world sees, hears, and remembers what America says and what America does.
Unfortunately, Ian Williams is correct in saying that “A constant element in American foreign policy for decades has been that it is reactive to perceived threats rather than agenda-setting in support of any positive value such as humanitarianism or democracy”.
He goes on to say that “In practice, American governments have found it difficult to separate words and actions”. And Robert Jurvis adds to this by saying, “No American government has been willing to sacrifice stability and support of U.S. policy to honor democracy”. The truth is that the “United States has had close, even intimate, relationships with many undemocratic regimes for the sake of American security and economic interests”. Through the years, America has had many unsavory and fair weather friends around the world who make the United States look bad and vulnerable.
In the past, the United States supported and continues to support “tyrannical governments prone to disregard agreements and coerce their neighbors just as they mistreat their own citizens”. There is a long list of unsavory and tyrannical friends around the globe stretching from Latin America to Africa and Asia that successive American governments supported. . Trojillo of the Dominical Republic, Marcos of the Philippines, Mobuto of Zaire, the Batistas of Cuba, the Somozas of Nicaragua, Salazar of Portugal, Franco of Spain, and Pinochet of Chile are just a few examples of a very long list of tyrants supported by the United States. These tyrants and others like them got away with murder until their people got fed up and threw them out of power.
Cold War politics and foreign policy interests made it possible for tyrants of the past to enjoy the support of the United States and Western Europe. And now, the War on Terrorism has spawned support for new tyrants around the world. The latest addition to this foreign policy laundry list is Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia. Shortly after Meles Zenawi’s EPRDF shot itself to the presidential palace and took power in Ethiopia, Mr. Herman Cohen, who was Assistant Secretary of State for East Africa, came to California to address Ethiopians about the situation in their homeland. In a speech he gave to an Ethiopian audience in the city of Oakland in California, Mr. Cohen made it clear that His Administration had informed the new Ethiopian leaders that the United States would only cooperate with them and assist them if they committed themselves to democratic governance. And the catch phrase he used over and over was during his speech was, “No democracy no cooperation”.
But in an interview with Voice of America soon after Ethiopia’s first democratic election in 2005 and its bloody aftermath, the same Herman Cohen said that democracy in Ethiopia is not as mission critical for the United States as the war on terrorism is. He admitted that Meles Zenawi is as dictatorial and as ruthless as Mengistu Hailemariam, and then added in the same breath that Meles Zenawi is an important ally of the United States in the war against terrorism. And once again, Ethiopia has become a pawn in the chase game of geopolitical expediency. Meles Zenawi got away with murder and the United States got a loyal partner in the troubled region of the Horn of Africa. Meles Zenawi’s current involvement is Somalia has further endeared him to the American government.
Meles Zenawi is a smart man and a survivor and he read the international political chase board correctly relative to the likely positions of Europe and North America. He knew that the war on terrorism has overshadowed all other foreign policy considerations in Europe and North America and he carefully calculated their likely response to his cruel and undemocratic actions against innocent and unarmed Ethiopian demonstrators and duly and fairly elected opponents. First, he stole the election. Next, he banned demonstrations. Then, he managed to stall the momentum of the opposition and confuse the diplomatic community in Addis Ababa. He took actions step by step and measured the diplomatic rhetoric of Europe and North America accurately. He stripped elected members of parliament of their constitutional immunity and eventually struck hard at the core of the opposition by jailing the entire leadership on trumped up charges of genocide and treason.
The democratic world simply shook its head with mild and diplomatically sugar coded concerns for the situation in Ethiopia. There was no outrage like there was on behalf the Ukraine and Georgia under similar circumstances. And financial aid was not withheld significantly from the Ethiopian government. The rational was and still is that withholding aid would end up hurting poor Ethiopians and therefore must continue. The truth of the matter is that Ethiopians have become poorer despite the large donations and financial aids to the tune of billions in the last sixteen years. Where did it all go? The aid does not reach the people and that is a documented fact. For the record, Great Britain and the European Union have withheld some financial aid from Ethiopia but not enough to pressure Meles Zenawi to change his ways. Besides, what Europe withheld has been made up by generous handouts from the World Bank and the United States.
What happened to President George Bush’s promise? Didn’t he say to a national and international audience that “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know—the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors”? Didn’t he also say that “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you”? These eloquent promises were conveniently side stepped in the Ethiopian situation. And once again, American foreign policy hardliners have carried the day arguing apparently convincingly that stability in a troubled region and the war on terrorism are more critical than democracy in Ethiopia. But in so doing, they have undermined the long term stability of the region that a democratic Ethiopia would have contributed to.
This is not to say that all is lost. No, all is not lost. The struggle for democracy in Ethiopia will continue until both the oppressed and the oppressors are free to live peacefully. And Ethiopians are not alone in their struggle. There are influential allies on both sides of the Atlantic represented by Chrstopher Smith, Donald Payne, Tom Lantos, and Mike Honda in the United States and the indefatigable Ana Gomez and company in Europe. For now, North America and Western Europe have chosen stability over democracy and human rights when it comes to Ethiopia, and they consider Meles Zenawi the winner of the political fight in Ethiopia. As the saying goes, “Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan”. American and European foreign policy makers and diplomats know the intimate details of Meles Zenawi’s actions and intentions against his real and imagined political opponents. Election observers sent to Ethiopia from both sides of the Atlantic have fully documented the events prior to and during and after the 2005 Ethiopian election and its aftermath. The diplomatic core in Addis Ababa has also watched the goings-on from very close range. And there is a general consensus that Meles Zenawi’s government committed gross violations after an otherwise peaceful and profoundly historic election and continues to do so to this day. Meles Zenawi got away with murder for the same reason others like him past and present have gotten away with. Ethiopians must realize that the United States and Western Europe are not going to liberate them from the tyranny they are suffering under. Ethiopians must liberate themselves once and for all. Ethiopians must also remember that the international community will inevitably side with the winner for its own national security and economic interests.
Eventually, the truth will prevail; the dictators will fail; the prisoners of conscience will be freed; and a new day of freedom, peace, and prosperity will dawn in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian political genie is out of the bottle and the day is soon coming when democracy, human rights, and the rule law shall prevail for all Ethiopians. And to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the children of political oppressors and the children of the oppressed will be able to live as brothers and sisters bound together by a common destiny in a beautiful land called Ethiopia. That is a dream worth fighting for. So, cheer up and continue the democratic struggle until victory is won!
Prof. Adugnaw Worku resides in California.