A message to President Barack Obama

By Obang Metho

Dear President Obama: I am writing this to you on behalf of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE), a grassroots social justice movement whose mission is to mobilize Ethiopians in the Diaspora and within Ethiopia to unite across ethnic, regional, political and religious lines to confront the current system of injustice, repression and human rights abuses being carried out by the dictatorial regime of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and to bring about a more open, free and reconciled society in Ethiopia.

Our foundational principles are “putting humanity before ethnicity,” or any other distinctions– valuing all humankind—and standing up for the universal values of freedom, justice and respect for the human rights of others for “no one will be free until all are free.”

The looming crisis in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa can no longer be ignored or addressed through “behind-closed-doors” quiet diplomacy. Such diplomacy has essentially covered up the evil actions of one of the most repressive and brutal regimes in Africa. Peace and stability in the Horn will be impossible while he is in power even while millions are spent in its pursuit.

Meles is an “African strongman” and deserves, at least, the same approach as Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The preferential treatment being given to this dictator, while condemning others for doing the same thing, is wrong. It will only further alienate the Ethiopian people and become a repeat of the mistakes of the past administrations.

The “dreams of our fathers” were for Africans to live in peace, harmony and with better opportunity; but unfortunately, American and Western foreign policies are now blocking Ethiopians from realizing these dreams by propping up this regime through huge amounts of financial and military aid as well as by protecting this regime’s “image” by not exposing their real nature. We do not expect your administration to do the work for us, but we do ask that free countries in the West stop being an obstacle to the democratic struggle of the people of Ethiopia.

Mr. President, you must choose between investing in the people or aligning with a so-called “US partner in our War on Terror” who is stirring up deep problems within Ethiopia. The damage being done by this regime within Ethiopia and the antagonism that most Ethiopians feel towards it and its supporters, may come back to undermine longer-term American national interests in the region.

Will your administration speak out loudly and clearly about the lack of democratic process in Ethiopia, about the pervasive politicization of justice and opportunity or about the gross violations of human rights that led to the referral of the case of Ethiopia to the International Criminal Court for investigation into multiple charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes? Will your administration call PM Meles Zenawi exactly what he is, a dictator who is terrorizing and repressing Ethiopia?

There is a short window of opportunity where such open support would make a dramatic difference to future relationships with the people of Ethiopia and that is now, within the next five months leading up to the Ethiopian National election. This is an opportunity to avert a possible crisis in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa by taking concrete steps to support the spread of freedom in the Horn of Africa, one of the most conflicted regions of the world. A free Ethiopia will make as much difference in bringing peace to this inter-related region as a brutal and conniving dictator has brought unrest to the region through  fomenting division, conflict, violence and the radicalization of future terrorists.

Thus far, your administration’s policies, the same as during the Bush administration, have not shown support to this democratic movement of the Ethiopian people; nor has it helped to build democratic institutions like done in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia and other places where the US empowered and funded them in the past. Even funding decisions made by the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC, which are influenced by the US State Department, along with other funders of democracy building, have either ignored Ethiopia or have given their funds to mostly Meles controlled look-alike organizations rather than to genuine democracy building non-governmental organizations and institutions who are truly committed to democratic principles. At the same time, many in the West have justified their alliance with a dictator as resulting from the lack of any other more viable alternative; however, Meles is determined to destroy any such alternatives and the West is unwilling to either condemn him for doing it or to invest in building up any such alternatives.

Instead, we only see a passive approach by your administration and this is the reason we are sending this letter to you. We know you must represent American national interests, but is it not possible to establish a relationship based on mutual respect that does not exploit the freedom, assets or lives of the other? We care about the future of Ethiopian citizens just like you care about the national interests of Americans. Can there not be some kind of mutually beneficial partnerships?

If US support of this TPLF regime is about AFRICOM being built in Ethiopia, the people of Ethiopia need to know. If your administration does this behind the backs of the people and the people are suffering as a result, the foundation will be on sand. If your administration is supporting Meles to root out terrorists while we are victims of internal terrorism, you are in the wrong and such a policy will eventually backfire. You should instead engage the people in this struggle; for we also yearn for peace in Ethiopia and in the Horn of Africa. It is our home and it matters more to us than to anyone that terrorism be stopped.

How can you hope that the Ethiopian regime you are supporting can actually bring about peace to America and the West through someone like Meles? Is Somalia or the Ogaden in southeastern Ethiopia going to be more free of terrorists or will it end up becoming more radicalized because of the tactics used—the alleged killing of some 20,000 or more civilians, the widespread starvation and displacement of the people, the burning of homes and crops, the widespread rape of women, the killing of livestock and the poisoning of their wells?

How does this build a better future for any of us? Meles’ actions, were they to occur here in the United States, could even radicalize farmers in Bismarck, North Dakota, teachers in Chicago, business owners in Dallas, scientists in Nebraska and stay- at- home moms in Oregon.

Your foreign policies in Ethiopia do not reflect the values of most Americans who may end up experiencing more anti-west sentiment because of them; however, few know the real story about what is going on because the press has been mostly silent. Why? Will your administration make a change we can believe in?

The Horn is full of life and people who are extending their hands to you and your administration. Will you reach outward to clasp their hands in yours? If your administration really wants an alliance with partners who can work with you for the improvement of sustainable peace in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, it has to be with the people.

We are speaking as Ethiopian Americans, who desire the same kinds of values, democracy, freedom and rule of law in Ethiopia that many of us have sought by coming to America and other western countries. We want to find peace, safety and security like anyone else and want to be part of the solution of ending terrorism in Ethiopia and the Horn. Most of us want this through peaceful means; using the ballot rather than the bullet; however, our efforts are being sabotaged.

In May of 2005, over a million Ethiopians came out in Addis Ababa to rally for “this change they could believe in.” It was one of the most peaceful rallies in Africa; no one was killed and no windows were broken. When the election took place, 26 millions came out to vote, but the election was stolen by Meles. When the people protested for their God-given rights and universal principles of justice, Meles’ security forces shot and killed 193 unarmed protesters. Over 50,000 protesters were arrested and detained. Opposition leaders were later imprisoned. All of this hardly made the news in America and the previous administration failed to make any public statement condemning the government’s actions. The silence acted as an endorsement, legitimizing and strengthening the unelected prime minister and his TPLF party.

Right now, the first woman to lead a major Ethiopian political party and also one of the most popular opposition leaders in Ethiopia, Ms. Birtukan Mideksa, is a prisoner of conscience. Other opposition leaders are being intimidated and harassed and the media is totally closed to anyone but the government. No one expects this coming election to be free and fair; yet, if Ethiopians are faced with another five years of tyranny, the already simmering anger and tensions may erupt into widespread violence, destabilizing Ethiopia and possibly the entire Horn.

Will your administration or others in the West support a democratic movement in Ethiopia or not? Truthfully, we are not hopeful, as history shows that the strongest countries of this world have repeatedly abused Africa; where they have economically flourished by working through African dictators to secure African resources even if it means trampling on the rights or selling out on the lives and futures of Africans. Some, who believe in the God-given inherent worth of all people, including Africans, have stood against the slavery of the past, but how about new variations of the same?

These are the greatest moral issues of our time. If we use the highest ideals in our rhetoric; yet, in the realpolitik of action, we betray the weaker in our global society simply because we are economically and militarily more powerful and can get away with it, history will judge us. In respect to Ethiopia, this has happened before.

In 1935, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League of Nations to take mandated action against Mussolini’s Italy for military aggression carried out against Ethiopians in an obscure desert region of southeastern Ethiopia.

Ironically, both Ethiopia and Italy were members of the League, formed with the explicit mission of protecting its membership against such aggression; first with sanctions and then with military intervention; however, at the first challenge, the League caved in to its ideals, showing that the interests of the most powerful came first. [1]

Fearing they would antagonize the Italian dictator when they felt they needed his support against Hitler, they sacrificed Ethiopia; only making superficial and toothless attempts to stop Italy. Their betrayal of the League of Nation’s expressed ideals emboldened Hitler to advance against them.

While the international community lost their political will to intervene in Ethiopia, in a Times magazine article from July 22, 1935 [2], it was reported that many African-Americans joined in the fight against Mussolini; even boycotting Italian gin in the cities of America, connecting “…every shorty [nip] of gin bought from Italian saloon-keepers” with “bullets bought by Mussolini to slaughter our brothers in Africa!”As the League of Nations chose their own national interests over their commitment to collective security of each other, they lifted even the very weak sanctions from Italy.

In response to this betrayal, Emperor Haile Selassie spoke these words;
“I pray to Almighty God that he shall spare to the nations the terrible sufferings that have just been inflicted on my people…It is international morality that is at stake…should it happen that a strong government finds that it may with impunity destroy a small people, then the hour strikes for that weak people to appeal to the League to give its judgment in all freedom. God and history will remember your judgment…I must still hold on until my tardy allies appear. If they never come, then I say prophetically and without bitterness: “the West will perish.”
Mr. President, the “fierce urgency of the now” is a moral crisis which will define the identity of who America is; not only in 2010, but in the future. Ethiopia is one of the arenas where this moral struggle is being played out. Will the US choose to follow the ideals upon which America and the West were founded or will America and the West desert its moral convictions, emboldening new terrorists as the entire world loses some of its strongest proponents for humankind? Weakened convictions make for weakened moral resolve and such resolve is the glue that holds in place a more secure global future.

The betrayal of Ethiopia in 1936 may not have seemed significant at the time, but it helped weaken the forces of good, forces that needed all their strength to face the onslaught of the coming years. Which side will your administration and others in the West choose—dictators or the people? What it at stake now may be more than we realize!

We look forward to your response and hope that we Ethiopians can build a true partnership based on mutual values, trust and respect.

Respectfully yours,

Obang Metho
Executive Director
Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia
PO Box 50561
Arlington, VA 22205
Phone: (202) 725-1616
Email: [email protected]
www.solidaritymovement.org

This Letter has been CC to:
Vice President, Mr. Joseph Biden
Secretary Hilary Clinton, Department of State
Secretary Robert Gates, Department of Defense
General James Jones, National Security Advisor
Senator John Kerry, Chairman on Foreign Relations
Senator Richard G. Lugar, Ranking Member
House of Representatives, Donald Payne, Chairman on Africa

_______

CAIRO (apa) — Egypt announced on Tuesday preparations to invest on 20,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia, with a multimillion-dollar investment.

The announcement was made by the visiting Egyptian Prime Minister, Dr.Ahmed Nazif who is on a working visit to Ethiopia starting on Tuesday.

The Egyptian delegation assured the Ethiopian officials that Egypt was keen to be involved in various investment opportunities in the country.

The Egyptian PM said that the National Bank of Egypt will initially develop 20,000 hectares of land of agricultural products as from 2010.

According to state media reports, Egypt will invest the undisclosed amount of agricultural investment in the Afar regional state of Ethiopia, known for its livestock resources.

The two countries prime ministers held talks late on Tuesday on how to boost their trade and investment cooperation, which in the past few years was poor.

The Egyptian delegation also showed interest to invest in other areas such as drug manufacturing.

It was also reported that Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan are expected to reach an agreement on installation of electricity connectivity in the near future to link the three countries with hydroelectric power supply from Ethiopia, which is currently undertaking a multi-billion investment on hydroelectric projects.

Ethiopian Prime Minister tribal dictator Meles Zenawi and his Egyptian counterpart Dr. Ahmed Nazif also expressed their commitment to work together in the efforts to ensure benefits for the peoples of the two countries.

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.

(Source: BBC)