By Habtamu Girma
Since the release of the 2008 U.S. Department of State Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices on February 2009, it has been a critical agenda in the local media and newspapers regarding its content and implications, particularly on Ethio-U.S. relations given the new U.S. administration. The objective of this short article is also to add some insights into the discussion by looking at historical and political perspectives and answer if in did the report have any significant implications on the relations between the two countries.
Historical Perspective of the Report
For much of the past half century, the United States was often a driving force behind the strengthening of the human rights law. It took the lead in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, building the international human rights system and lending its voice and influence on behalf of human rights in many parts of the world.
The responsibility of the U.S. to speak out on behalf of international human rights standards was formalized in the early 1970s. Congress has also written formal requirements that U.S. foreign and trade policy take into account countries human rights records. Since 1977, the State Department has been publishing the annual country reports on human rights practices. The assessment contained human rights situation in countries that received aid from the U.S. government. Congress has decreed that the cut of aid to any country that by its actions reveals a consistent patterns of violating human rights. The annual human rights report is also a resource for shaping policy, conducting diplomacy, and making assistance, training and other resource allocations.
In 1974, amendment to a Foreign Assistance Act built the foundation for a system of monitoring and reporting human rights situations in countries receiving U.S. aid. The amendment required the President to reduce or to terminate aid to any government, which is engaged in a consistent pattern of human rights violations of internationally recognized human rights. This legislation was later broadened to the extent of no assistance. In addition to this, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 authorizes a variety of aid including Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and International Military and Education Training (IMET). Section 502B of this act forbids the transfer of assistance to governments that engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, U.S. code, Vol. 22, se. 2151-2430(2), 1994).
On the other hand, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, passed in response to escalating arms sales in the 1970s, sets up clear procedures to regulate FMS and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). It limits the use of U.S. made weapons to self-defense, internal security, and U.N sanctioned actions (Arms Export control Act of 1976, U.S. code, Vol. 22, Secs. 2751-99 (aa-2), 1994). It prohibits the transfer of funds authorized by the act to any foreign security unit of the state has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights. It also prohibits the training of security units that have committed gross violations of human rights (U.S. statutes at large 114 (2001):1900A-b).
Implication from International Perspective in the aftermath of September 11
The U.S. government’s mode of operations since September 11 has not been in line with the above laws mentioned. The response of the U.S. government to the September 11 attacks has had profound implications for the promotion and implementation of human rights standards around the world. A significant number of governments have attempted to cooperate with the war on terrorism, expressing support for U.S. measures while simultaneously labeling domestic opponents members of al-Qaeda or terrorist groups. Leaders who were once criticized and marginalized in the global community for human rights abuses have been embraced as key U.S. allies in the war against terrorism.
In the aftermath of September 11, the nations surrounding Afghanistan soon assumed new significance, and the U.S. moved quickly to improve existing relationships. American aid flowed into the region, mainly to countries such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, despite widespread criticism of their individual human rights records.
Uzbekistan emerged as one of America’s most important new allies given its southern border with Afghanistan. On October 12, 2004, the two countries jointly announced their decision of establishing a new relationship based on a long-term commitment to advance security and regional stability. Accordingly, Uzbekistan allowed the U.S. to use its military bases and deploy troops with in its territory and in return, the U.S. tripled its aid to Uzbekistan. The United States decided to increase military and economic aid to Uzbekistan notwithstanding its longstanding criticism of the government’s human rights record. The U.S. Department of State has been critical of the use of torture in Uzbek prisons as well the repression of its independent Muslim population.
The United States has also developed relationships with Algeria. The U.S. renewed weapons sales and security assistance to Algeria and lifted a ban on U.S. aid that had been in effect since 1992, as a direct consequence of the government’s human rights abuse. During much of this period, the Algerian government has been engaged in violent conflict against militant Islamist groups and more than 100,000 people have been killed since the government canceled the parliamentary elections in 1992. (Human Rights Watch World Report 2006:13-14).
In relation to this, among the most pressing human rights violations recorded in 2005, according to the Human Rights Watch World Report (2006) and even U.S. Department of State Annual Human Rights Report during this period were; the Uzbekistan government’s massacre of hundreds of demonstrators in Andijan in May, Sudanese government’s consolidation of ethnic cleansing in Darfur, in Western Sudan, continued severe repression in Burma, North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and Tibet and Xingiang in China; tight restrictions on civil society in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Vietnam; persistent atrocities in the democratic Republic of Congo and the Russian republic of Chechnya are the most notable once. US government response to several of these atrocities was very insignificant often nothing, more than the state department’s once a year pronouncements in its global human rights report. The administration showed little inclination to confront with front line partner countries that used the fight against terrorism to intensify repression at separatists, dissidents and nationalist movements (Human Rights Watch World Report 2006).
Implication on Ethiopia
U.S. Department of State Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices released on February 2004 and 2005 respectively stipulated the human right situations that occurred in Ethiopia during the two years as follows:
…the Government’s human rights record remained poor… serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of unlawful killings and at times beat, tortured, and mistreated detainees. The Government continued to arrest and detain persons arbitrarily, particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the OLF. Thousands of suspects remained in detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem…the Government restricted freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly, particularly of opposition party members; security forces at times used excessive force to disperse demonstrations. The Government limited freedom of association… on occasion, local authorities infringed on freedom of religion. The Government restricted freedom of movement…
Similarly, The U.S. Department of State Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices released on March 2006 manifested the number of human rights violations that occurred following the May 2005 elections as follows:
After the May elections, serious human rights abuses occurred, when the opposition parties refused to accept the announced results, and in November after the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) called for civil disobedience, which resulted in widespread riots and excessive use of force by the police and military…., the government’s human rights record remained poor…. in the period following the elections, authorities arbitrarily detained, beat, and killed opposition members, ethnic minorities, NGO workers, and members of the press. Authorities also imposed additional restrictions on civil liberties, including freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
U.S. Department of State Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices released on February 25, 2009 (2008 Annual Report), is also not different from the report of the previous five years. It reported the following human right deficiencies’:
“Human rights abuses reported during the year included limitations on citizens’ right to change their government in local and by-elections; unlawful killings, torture, beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces, usually with impunity; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of suspected sympathizers or members of opposition or insurgent groups; police and judicial corruption; detention without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens’ privacy rights including illegal searches; use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counterinsurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists; restrictions on freedom of assembly and association…”
The continuously challenging human rights situation of Ethiopia has been clearly manifested by the State Departments annual human rights assessment reports mentioned above. However, no matter the restrictions mentioned above, the U.S. government has been determined to strengthen its relationship and provide aid to the Ethiopian government in continuous bases as a result of geopolitical and strategic objectives.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Ethiopia’s international standing grew as a strategic location and become a “front line state” in the U.S.-led war against terrorism. As a result, Ethiopia is considered an essential partner of the United States in its war on terrorism, and Washington has generally been unwilling to apply meaningful pressure on the Ethiopian government over its human rights records. The U.S. suspects Islamic extremist groups are hiding in bordering areas of Somalia, and sometimes inside Ethiopia itself. The U.S. military, operating primarily out of a base in Djibouti, cooperates closely with the Ethiopian armed forces in counterterrorism efforts and capacity building work (Human Rights Watch, 2006: 108).
In this regard, the record of U.S. administration aid to Ethiopia shows a marked increase since 2001. Among other things, Ethiopia has been a beneficiary of International Military Education and Training Program, a program which are given to foreign governments to pay for professional education in military management and technical training on the U.S. weapons system. From 1995-2000, the U.S. provided some $1,835,000 in International Military and Education Training (IMET) deliveries to Ethiopia. Some 115 Ethiopian officers were trained under the IMET program from 1991-2001. For 2002 and 2003, Ethiopia received some $2,817,000 through the IMET and Foreign Military Sales and Deliveries programs. Since 2003 however, despite some increases, it shows some stability. Ethiopia has remained a participant of the IMET program from until the end of 2006 and is expected to increase.
Ethiopia is also a beneficiary of U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Economic Support Fund (ESF) programs. FMF program is a congressionally appropriated grant given to governments to finance the purchase of American made weapons, services and training. On the other hand, ESF is an economic support fund established to promote economic and political stability in strategically important regions where the U.S. has a special security interest. ESF aid is also helping strategic partners in the war on terrorism, through cooperation on border control, freezing terrorist assets, and other activities. In both regards, Ethiopia is getting an increasing support from the U.S.
As a result, since September 11, 2001, U.S. Governments attentions about human rights and determination to act against Ethiopia has been very rare, often nothing, more than the State Departments once a year pronouncement in its human right reports. But the question is will this picture change with the change in the US new administration. Off course, there is a high determination in the new US administration to take human right issues as a fare front agenda in the foreign policy discussion with poor countries like Ethiopia. But, Ethiopia’s critical geopolitical role in the horn of Africa, the continued war against terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the global economic crisis will still reduce the foreign policy implication of the State Department’s annual human rights report. It will be therefore difficult to see any significant change in policy, conducting of diplomacy, and making assistance, training and other resource allocations and in general relationship between Ethiopia and the US in the coming several months.
(The writer can be reached at [email protected])