Final Reading and the President’s Signature

Replacing the Ethiopian Constitution with

HR2003

Reading the objectives of HR2003 in Kinijit’s website www.kinijit.com, I came to realize that a few congressmen in the USA are oblivious about Ethiopian culture, social, political, or economic affairs. I strongly believe that they think Ethiopians are backwards and cannot govern themselves. HR2003 is an insult to all Ethiopians. Some may argue that the diasporas who are pushing for the Bill are Ethiopians too. Let’s not be mistaken, many of them are American-Ethiopians. They have nothing to lose if HR2003 comes to effect. The losers will be the poor peasants in Ethiopia and not the ruling party, not the Diaspora politicians, and not the congressmen.

The objectives of HR2003 are

“(1) support human rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;

(2) collaborate with Ethiopia in the Global War on Terror;

(3) seek the release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia;

(4) Foster stability, democracy, and economic development in the region; and

(5) strengthen U.S.-Ethiopian relations.”[i]

Currently, the relationship between the USA and Ethiopia is unquestionably at very healthy stage. Item (2) and (5) will be impacted negatively by the introduction of HR2003. Since the relationship is already strong and since the collaboration to fight terrorism is mutual, HR2003 will not reinvent a magical relationship. Actually, the USA should be very grateful for Ethiopia for destroying the Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Somalia prior to 9/11 and for providing valuable intelligence to its operations. Would the USA spoil its relationship to appease a few disgruntled Diaspora oppositions? I think the USA strategic thinkers would agree with me that threatening Ethiopia with HR2003 will produce a negative impact to item (2) and (5).

The other objective, item (3), I believe is already being done. If there are political prisoners who have not committed serious crimes punishable under the Ethiopian constitution, I agree that they should be released. But the HR2003 is not going to help them released unless the ruling party is convinced otherwise. So, at the end, who gets hurt?

Item (4) is a joke. How could you create stability and democracy in the region by stifling a country that is on the right path to democracy? Congressmen, if you want to create stability and democracy in the region, may I suggest that you start with Eritrea and Sudan; then provide financial, logistic, and expertise to the Transitional Government of Somalia. Once, these problems are fixed then focus on Ethiopia. AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF that Ethiopia’s national interests and international boarders were attacked and violated by Eritrea, ICU and ICU trained terrorists. If you think, regional stability will be gained by stifling Ethiopia, you must be getting the wrong information from the wrong people.

I believe, item (1) is very important whether HR2003 is in effect or not. Certainly, democracy must flourish in Ethiopia, the establishment of independent judiciary is essential, the existence of freedom of press is vital, and the economy is the only way out of poverty. So, what is the magical recipe that HR2003 introduces into the Ethiopian society that will greatly lift her from poverty and lead her to a true democracy? Was this recipe used anywhere else in the world? If it was tested, did it work OR is Ethiopia the guinea pig for congressmen and CUD HR2003 inventors?

Ethiopia is penalized for being a strong ally to the USA. I said “penalized” because the Bill HR2003 should not have passed at the congressional level, in the first place. Though the Bill will not come into effect until it passes the senate and signed by the president, the Congressmen should have realized how important Ethiopia is to the USA and vise versa. Ethiopia is a strong partner to the USA. Ethiopia is not Eritrea, Libya, Iran, Cuba, Sudan, South Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries that vehemently oppose the American foreign policy. If a few Congressmen believe that Ethiopia deserves a slap on the face for introducing democracy at its own pace, what would the other countries that openly criticize America deserve, “a point blank shot on the head.”

I admit that I envy America. I want Ethiopia to have the democracy that fairly entertains freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and freedom of press. I want a country that guards and abides by its constitution. American is a good example of that. How did America become the symbol of democracy, overnight? Is it fair to say that Ethiopia should exercise democracy in full gears right now? Is democracy a commodity or a process that develops over time? Can we separate democracy from its people? The shape of democracy is determined by the people who practiced it. What is democratic in American may be undemocratic in other countries. What works for America may be disaster to others.

American democracy has taken two centuries to develop and still developing. Civil wars and Human rights movements of the 60s have played a significant role in shaping today’s American democracy. Blacks were unjustifiably killed in many states and several Americans have lost their lives during the civil war. Now, after passing those agonizing years, America is enjoying a stable democratic freedom. The first glimpse of democracy in Ethiopia, I believe, is less than ten years old. To compare a 200 years democracy in American with the 10 years old Ethiopian democracy is stupendous. In the process of building democracy, clashes are expected between people who overstep their democratic rights and governments. Even in the Western world, the freedom of assemble and freedom of speech have some limits. I have mentioned examples of Supreme court decisions from Canada and the USA in regard to freedom of speech.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom[ii] Section 2 guarantees the fundamental freedoms: freedom of association, speech, religion, conscience, peaceful assembly, etc; however, section 1 defines a reasonable limit to these freedoms. For instance, in The Queen v. Keegstra[iii] case, Keegstra was a rural high school teacher who thought his pupils by describing Jewish as “revolutionist, treacherous imposters, sneaky, manipulative, money-loving and power hungry”. He has also thought them that the holocaust did not happen. Keegstra argued that he had exercised his freedom of speech as defined in Section 2 of the Charter but the Supreme Court of Canada found him guilty of promoting hatred. The Court said that though Keegstra has the freedom of speech guaranteed under section 2 of the Charter, section 1 limits his freedom as defined in Canadian criminal code of 319 which says that it is “unlawful” to promote hatred. The point is that what is freedom of speech for one can be degrading to the other. In Ethiopia, promoting ethnic hatred can be considered a freedom of speech but at whose expense. If promoting hatred against a specific tribe is a freedom of speech, then I am afraid that Ethiopia may be open for civil war. Unlike Canada, the USA has different take on freedom of speech/expression.

The freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment of 1791.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

for a redress of grievances.”[iv]

The US Supreme court in protection to the first amendment has refused to stop the dissemination of materials promoting racial hatred and hate speech in Collin v. Smith [v] case. The result was that “neo-Nazis were allowed to march through the predominantly Jewish village of Skokie.”[vi]

The Canadian Constitution does not permit the promotion of hatred under the disguise of freedom of speech while the USA allows it because of the first amendment. Now, the question considering how complex our Ethiopian society is, which countries constitution guarantees the peaceful existence of people in Ethiopia? Can you image under the freedom of expression, the Amara marching through Oromo villages promoting hatred? Would that work for Ethiopia considering how protective we are to our culture, language, and ethnicity? The USA legal system is well developed and the people are well aware of their limitations. In Ethiopia, we are just testing democracy, most of us don’t know where our democracy takes us if we exercise it to the max. For sure, we have tested it after the 2005 election.

We need our friends like the USA to assist and share with us their experiences in the establishment of democratic governance. We do not, however, want them to tell us what we must do.

HR2003 is telling Ethiopians what we must and must not do. The congressmen are saying that the consequence of not abiding by HR2003 is drastic. So, should we abolish our Ethiopian Constitution and adopt HR2003?

The objectives of HR2003 are misnomers. These objectives can simply be achieved by working closely with the current Ethiopian government. This government is the only genuine government in the history of Ethiopia that is striving to alleviate poverty. Should poverty be eradicated and should the majority become middle income earners, we do not have to bow to foreign pressures. Having said that, the ruling party, no matter how painful it is, must work harder and smarter whether HR2003 comes to effect. The ruling party is in the right path economically, socially, and politically. I say to the ruling party, STAY THE COURSE.

Haile B.

Oct 4, 2007