A Loveless Liaison or Endemic Dishonesty?

Desta Berhe

April 06, 2008

The Economist published this article on April the 3^rd, 2008 describing the Ethio-US relations as loveless liaison. I am responding to the article’s allegations and claims. All of the points are repetitions of previous relentless distortions by many Western media outlets bashing the Ethiopian peoples. Moreover, the claims demonstrate the shameless, two-faced nature of the people behind those media outlets. It has long been known that Western media outlets rarely serve the interest of the people who deservedly need to be served. The rule of thumb of Western media outlets is: ‘Do not utter anything positive about Ethiopia in particular and Africa in general’. It is not in their interest to do so. Those media outlets are nothing but destructive forces in the affairs of the people of Africa. We have recently watched how a 10 second video clip was played out of a full Sunday morning sermon by a certain reverend for sinister purposes. Every Western media uses the same sinister approach, and the Economist is not an exception. Now, I will expose the distortions and lies packed in the article and refute the absurd claims.

The article begins by stating that the alliance of Ethiopia and the US was born of pragmatism. Then, it foretells that both countries can be enemies at another time. It is true that the Ethio-US relations had been unpleasant during the previous regime. Nevertheless, they have never been enemies. And there is nothing that would suggest anyone to conclude that Ethiopia and the US can be enemies. Such a scenario is only possible in the distorted understanding of the writer of the article. Ethiopia’s foreign relations policy strives to ensure security, through realizing national development and democracy. This shows that the purpose of having relations with other nations is to promote economic development and democracy, which requires Ethiopia to have more friends. It emanates from the notion of reducing vulnerability through building capacity at home in order to reduce external threats. This policy shows that Ethiopia seeks foreign relations based on mutual respect. Incidentally, the foreign policy doctrine of Ethiopia does not clash with the foreign policy of the US. Thus, there is no reason for both of them to be enemies. The prophecy that says ‘Ethiopia and the US may be enemies at another time’ can only come from bounty hunters turn journalists, doomsayers.

The article assures readers that Ethiopians do not like American soldiers tramping on their soil. The presence of the US military in Eastern Ethiopia is known. However, the assertion that Ethiopians dislike the US military presence is bogus. God knows how many Ethiopians were invited for reflections on the US military presence to lead the writer to that conclusion. But, I can certainly say this. The US military presence in Eastern Ethiopia cannot be more of a concern than the US presence at Entoto Avenue.

Any journalist who attempts to say something about what the US dislikes or likes needs to demonstrate some degree of honesty for it is easy to understand the US. Americans dislike anything that could lead to one thing: threatening their self-interest. Let us come to the human right record issue. If the people of Economist believe that the US government has better human right record than the Ethiopian government, it will be hypocrisy. Respecting or violating human right has no boundary. Thus, the US government is neither clean from human right violations nor better than many other nations. If truth is to be told, the US government lacks moral high ground to dislike another nation for human right violations. If that happens, it is hypocrisy. So, if the writer of the article overheard of any American complaining about a bad human right record of the Ethiopian government, s/he must be courageous enough to ask how is the Ethiopian government worse than the US? Or, how is the Ethiopian government worse than many of the US allies?

The article argues that the unfair contest of the upcoming local election is a case in point for Americans to dislike Ethiopia. First, EPRDF (the governing party) has little to be blamed for the problem within the opposition. It can only be blamed for its goodwill to providing the opposition with fair playground to compete, who later got loose to abuse the very rule of the land that allowed them to get into fair political contest. And the US government had the knowledge of where the problems lied. That cannot be genuine basis for the US government to feel uncomfortable about. Such an argument is coming from false premises to support false assertion (Americans dislike Ethiopia). When the opposition parties were tested in real life politics, they proved themselves that they were barely a house of cards. The governing party is not supposed to baby-sit the opposition.

The argument that the upcoming local elections are unfair would make sense to uninvited guests who have no clue or are not accustomed to tell the truth at the ground. If there is anything unfair about it, it is because the contest is going to be between fulltime politicians of three and half decade old party with solid and realistic political programs and clueless turncoats specialized in demonizing the governing party. There is no opposition capable of taking power to lead any of the local districts. If the writer met a Western diplomat who believes that the government is holding down [a capable] opposition because ‘Control is what this government is all about’, the diplomat must be advised to go fishing and reminded that the size of the catch depends on the depth of the waters.

The article portrays Ethiopia as an invader of Somalia. Here there are so many things that are certain. (1) Somalia has been without government for a decade and half. (2) Somali elites established the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in January 2005, which was recognized by the UN and other international communities. (3) The TFG moved to Baidoa in August 2005. (4) In 2006, a group of Somalis established the Union of Islamic Courts to takeover the internationally recognized TFG, and declared war against Ethiopia. (5) The TFG sought Ethiopia’s help and formally asked the Ethiopian government to get rid of UIC. (6) The Ethiopian government met with the UIC eight times to help them make peace with TFG, which they refused. (7) Ethiopia later accepted the call of the TFG and annihilated the UIC in December 2006. There is nothing invasion here. Would the Kuwaitis regard the Americans as occupiers/invaders when Sadam Hussein was in power? Would the S. Koreans regard the Americans as invaders/occupiers when their country was at crisis with its neighbor?

In line with this, the claim that most Somalis see the Ethiopian army as occupiers is unwarranted. Any rational person would ask: ‘how many Somalis of this clan, that clan, this age, that age, in this place, in that place, this gender, that gender, this profession, that profession, etc see Ethiopians as occupiers or as peace keeping brothers from next door?’ And layperson knows where journalists look for dissents to backup their preconceived lies. The truth of the matter is that Ethiopians always extend helping hands to their Somali brothers and sisters even when they were least expected to do so. It is true that the last Somali regime was at war with Ethiopia, but the Somalis as a people did not, are not, and will not see their Ethiopian compatriots as enemies. After the culmination of WWII and the defeat of the Axis Powers, Ethiopia engaged itself in fierce diplomatic battle to help the Somali people reclaim their freedom. Likewise, after the fall of Somalia in 1991, so many Somalis left their home to their second home, Ethiopia and lived in peace and harmony. It would require a journalist a 10-minute ride to Little Mogadishu in Addis Ababa and seek for genuine information instead of hunting for dissents to backup preconceived repetitive lies.

Another bogus claim of the article is the existence of a difference between leftist hardliners and PM Meles Zenawi in dealing with the situation in Somalia and Ethiopia’s relations with the US. Only God knows if indeed leftist hardliners really exist within EPRDF. Everybody knows, though, that there is no meaningful ideological difference among the EPRDF party elites. It is even hardly possible to come up with any sort of significant ideological difference between the EPRDF party elites and those who left the party in 2000. To whisper that there is ideological difference between PM Meles Zenawi and his colleagues in dealing with the situation in Somalia and Ethio-US relations, as well as anything else is laughable. There is nothing left or right in EPRDF. There is fine-tuning in response to changing scenarios.

Despite the article claims that the Ethio-US relation is a loveless liaison, it declares that the Pentagon wants Ethiopia to be a bulwark in a volatile region. If the US wants Ethiopia to be a bulwark in an unstable region, there is less reason for the US to dislike Ethiopia. An observation that Ethiopia is reliable alley of the US in a dangerous region followed by a claim depicting the alliance as loveless liaison (because of Ethiopia’s bad human right record—another hypocritical claim) demonstrates the lack of understanding of the yardstick of US foreign policy relations or sincerity. The other side of the truth is that Ethiopia has more reasons to be strong (as its history proves) in this volatile region. The need to be strong is not a matter of conforming to the foreign relations interests of other nations. Ethiopia has historical reasons of over 3000 years to be strong. Moreover, despite the blemish of the last few decades in her long and proud history, Ethiopia is very dependable for any nation to establish a trustworthy relationship of equals.

The allegation of the article that suggests Ethiopia’s history, resources, and potentials are cheap tradable commodities (selling points) to maintain a loveless liaison with the US is appalling. Ethiopia’s proud history, resources, and potentials are always appealing to the US to maintain a dependable and sustainable relationship. Thus, there is less reason to be unhappy about Ethiopia. In fact, Ethiopia had been attracting so many nations for so ago. How is Ethiopia less dependable than China, Egypt, England, India, Pakistan, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia?

The article further demonizes Ethiopia as too poor to be rated as A-list client State for US’s arms market. This claim displays the lack of common sense. One. Ethiopia is not a terribly weak and poor nation as the article is trying to make the world believe. Ethiopia is one of the strong nations on the planet. No other nation in the world has proven itself to be as strong as Ethiopia. A sane and professional journalist can go and open a history book and see how many nations disappeared because of minor shocks Ethiopia has endured so many times like normal. It is not surprising if a bounty hunter turn journalist failed to see that. Two. Only stupid folks would solicit for expensive guns from expensive markets in faraway lands while they could acquire cheap ones from unwavering, long time allies next door. Three. There is one last important point the writer didn’t like to explain (most likely doesn’t understand). Despite Ethiopia becomes an A-client state (i.e. capable of buying big guns from the US) tomorrow; there is no reason for anybody to believe that She will enter into such kind of transaction. But, let us assume Ethiopia will go for the purchase top guns from the US. And yet, anybody who tempts to believe that the US will get into such kind of a deal must be downright naïve. The likely scenario to follow would be like this. Ethiopia’s purchase of top weaponry triggers Egypt to acquire even more top weaponry, which in turn triggers Israel, to go far more. This chain of events trigger the Ayatollahs in Iran to strongly peruse their nuclear ambition, which can be more reason for someone in the Western hemisphere to sing Bum-Bum-Bum, Bum-Bum, Bum-Bum-Bum. Am I getting into Newton’s Third Law?

Another claim of the article suggesting many of the [1.2 million?] Diaspora in the US to have lobbied their congressional representative to condom PM Meles Zenawi government as tyrannical is flimsy. How many are the many? It is known that there are few fulltime, noisy political elites from the previous regimes and outlaws who work with some US belly-politicians (lobbyists) against Ethiopia. But, the claim that suggests the existence of many Diaspora Ethiopians who are at odds with the governments is simply untrue. The astounding investment worthy of several billion Eth. Birr by the Diasporas at home shows that the ordinary, law abiding, and respectful Ethiopians have little doubts in the sincerity and determination of the government to pull Ethiopia back into Her right position.

In line with this, the sense that Republicans and Democrats in the US differ in relation to Ethiopia has nothing to do with Ethiopia’s business. We all know that the Democrats lost the Presidency, the House, and the Senate because of their own problem. We also know that they approved the invasion of Iraq. Once they started to learn that they are getting screwed by the day even after they regain the House and the Senate, they started to discredit the very invasion they approved. They started to play another version of President Bush’s: ‘either you are with us or against us’ rant against nations that befriended their own country. Any government, which had healthy relationship with the US, was reduced to be a promoter of President Bush’s agenda, thus the Republicans’. Democrats relentlessly demonized Ethiopia for having a usual and dependable relationship with their own country. They went as far as digging 100 years historical scar in Turkey, because that nation happened to be the ally of the US in the war against terrorism they approved, while suppressing their own several centuries dirt and its effects. A hypocrite from New Jersey could not be ashamed of himself to visit a brutal beast who incarcerates people because they chose to pray to God. To make human right defenders out of those people is outright hypocritical.

The article completes its distortions by putting the likely scenario of Ethiopia’s future. One thing must be clear here. The flow of aid and other support from those who can afford to those of us who need it should not be played beyond it should be played. The big deal in this affair is that if the support is not delivered without strings in a meaningful way. Trickling support to Ethiopia and other African nations to make them look terribly dependent on the handouts of the West for too long, despite the source of the wealth of the West is Africa, is not acceptable. Europe as well as Japan and its allies had recovered from the ashes by none other than the support of the US through the Marshal Plan. The fact that the EU will trickle or pump their support to Ethiopia is for their benefit. No one is getting free lunch.