EVALUATING U.S.
POLICY OBJECTIVES AVD OPTIONS ON THE HORN OF AFRICA
Commentary with
Reference to Ethiopia
By Mathza
03/26/08
On March 11, 2008, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on African Affairs held a hearing on the Horn of Africa. The topic was Evaluating U.S. Policy Objectives and Options on the Horn of Africa. The Committee heard testimonies from the following: Jendayi Frazer (Assistance Secretary for African Affairs), Katherine Almquist (Assistant Administrator for Africa, USAID), Lynn Fredriksson (Advocacy for Africa, Amnesty International), Thomas Dempsey (Professor, Security Sector Reform), Theresa Whelan (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense) and David Shinn (Adjunct Professor).
Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Sub-Committee, chaired the hearing. It now appears that the presentation he made to the Senate on March 3, 2008 “On the Political Crisis in Ethiopia” was a precursor for this hearing, undoubtedly to be followed by another hearing on HR-2003 with probable intention of conducting voice vote without debate as was done by the House of Representatives. In general, most of the content of his statement was a reflection of statements that are repeated ad infinitum made by the oppositions. This is an indication of the intense lobbying that he was exposed to by the vocal minority in the Ethiopian Diaspora.
It
has been about 30 years since the country was liberated from the oppressive
feudal rule which held together the currently over 80 million people comprising
over 80 nations and nationalities against their will, by sheer force. This was,
unfortunately, followed by almost two decades of the Derg communist
regime rule, which proved to be even more
oppressive. The number of national liberation fronts during the fall of the
Derg, determined to liberate their ethnic groups from historical injustices and
oppression threatened the existence of Ethiopia. The condition of the country
would have been worse than that of Somalia, a country with the same people,
language and religion if EPRDF had not instituted the federal system with the
major nations and nationalities administering their respective areas, using
their languages, etc.—thereby equalizing all Ethiopian ethnic groups through
unity in diversity. It should be recalled here that repeated predictions have
been made that Ethiopia would be balkanized like the former Yugoslavia. The
Ethiopian people have regained their dignity and unlike in the past they are
proud to call themselves Ethiopians by choice and not by force. Outside
interference in the internal affairs of the country could undo the successful
political, social and economic development achieved and expose the country to
instability and inter-ethnic conflicts, possibly leading to ethnic cleansing
and genocide that would pale in comparison to what happened in Rwanda, the
Congo and lately in Kenya.
The scathing criticism with respect with human rights came from Lynn
Fredriksson and Senator Russ Feingold. It is practically all
negative. However the U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia, Donald Yamamoto, who is on
the ground to know what goes on in the country, disagrees. In a recent
interview he gave he said “Ethiopian
government’s effort geared toward safeguarding the human rights of its citizens
is quite encouraging. The government is also committed to ensure democratic
system in the country.”
Yes, there are and there will be human rights problems for some time to come in the country as anywhere in the world, including the U.S.—more so in Ethiopia, partly because of the poor quality of the civil service and poor understanding of human rights at the lower and grass root levels—characteristic of backwardness. This situation is exacerbated and complicated by the huge number of ethnic groups in the country some of whom are manipulated by groups and individuals for selfish ends. Traditional conflicts arise within and between ethnic groups because of boundary, land disputes, access to resources, such as water, enmity and feuds between families, clans, etc. Yet, the so-called human rights advocates and oppositions attribute deaths and destruction resulting from such hostilities to the government.
Some of the human rights problems are intentionally perpetrated by the so-called liberation fronts (OLF, ONLF, etc.) and their likes indirectly through their support groups and individual supporters. Their history is replete with bombing hotels, buildings and transport infrastructures, assassinating government officials and supporters, harassing and killing innocent people, etc. Unlike the liberation fronts comprising the EPRDF, the ONLF insurgents kill people who do not accede to their demands for money and food. Like in Somalia, people suffer and get killed in clan confrontations as well. These atrocities are again attributed to the Ethiopian government.
The Eritrean government on its part has been and is engaging in a proxy war with Ethiopia. It plans, organizes, trains, arms and forces the Ethiopian oppositions and fronts as well as the Alliance for Reliberation of Somalia headquartered in Eritrea and the extreme Islamists (al-Shabaab) in Somalia—which the U.S. government recently designated as foreign terrorist organization—to terrorize Ethiopia. The video evidence recently aired on Ethiopian Television featuring Abeba Yoseph, a former Eritrean Television journalist (Editor and News Castor for Oromigna Service)* confirms in no uncertain terms what Ethiopia, most of the panelists and the international community have been observing and saying all along. Among the revelations the journalist made was how news about Ethiopian oppositions’ attacks on Ethiopians were manufactured and televised in Asmara. Another is a multi-pronged proxy war plan in which she was to witness and report from the Oromia region. The plan was for the liberation fronts to attack Ethiopia from the north, west, south and east of the country simultaneously. It was aborted when the Council of Islamic Courts (CIC) in Somalia was defeated. After 19 days of waiting in Assab the journalist who was on her way to Oromia Region returned to Asmara. There was, apparently, no plan B. Eritrea, evidently, thinks that it can—by repeatedly violating agreements related to the Ethio-Eritrean war of 1998-2000—force Ethiopia to abide by the “final and binding” 2002 ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) on the demarcation of the boundary. Contrary to the media parroting Eritrea’s endless accusation, Ethiopia accepted the decision long ago but wants to work out the details through dialogue which is supported by the international community. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to understand why Dr. David Shinn denies Ethiopia’s acceptance of the ruling and puts on equal footing the support given to groups to destabilize the other’s country. Eritrea does not want to end the confrontation as this will deprive the government the excuse to continue to keep the status quo, thereby avoiding any dissent and uprising.
Many
of the alleged human rights abuses are fabrications, exaggerations and
innuendos. The
sources of some of the information repeated over and over by the media and
organizations are individual supporters of the fronts and oppositions as well
as individuals under threat with no grievances at all. They are instructed to
complain of atrocities allegedly committed by the government. All these and
other human rights abuses are attributed to the government. What is amazing is
that the atrocities committed by the fronts and their likes, the perpetrators,
are, for all intents and purposes, not subject of criticism. Let us not forget
that the fronts and even some oppositions side with and serve the interest of
other countries which want to destabilize Ethiopia for their own ends. The
government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, the country and the
constitution. It has to take action when fronts and their likes terrorize and
kill innocent people as happened in the Somali State last year. Sometimes it
may be difficult for the government during counterterrorism operations to avoid collateral damage, especially when the terrorists use the people as shields
or force them to join them in killing and destruction.
One
of the reasons why Ethiopia is poor and backward is because such countries make
sure that the country is always immersed in fighting for its very existence and
therefore has no peace and resources to develop. Obviously, the critics have no
idea as to what it takes to prevent abuses from taking place and/or do not want
to admit or understand the complex and difficult nature of the situation on the
ground.
Changes,
especially those that have wide ramifications in a society, are not expected to
be welcomed by each and every individual or group—depending on perceived
consequences. As would be anticipated there
are those compatriots who are unhappy with the federal system of government.
They include remnants of the feudal and Derg regimes that exploited the people
and benefited from the systems. The former migrated to the United States and
other countries during the Derg regime and the latter when the EPRDF took over
the government. They constitute the vociferous elements in the Diaspora. They
say and do anything against the incumbent government, including creating
inflation (sharp
rise in the cost of living) through their bodies in Ethiopia (salt price per kg
increased overnight from 2 Birr to 10-28 Birr). They lie, exaggerate, deny,
beg, etc. to see their dream come true, taking over the government.
The
agenda of some of the oppositions and their Diaspora manipulators is to return
to a centralized government system that would enable them to exploit the people
as their fathers and mothers did. This is hallucination. The liberated people
will not allow it. The people have witnessed how power hungry remnants of the
feudal and Derg regimes are. They have seen the fight between Dr. Berhanu
(rumored not likely to return to Ethiopia) and Engineer Hailu (denied
Canadian entry visa) for power. They have observed they do not practice
democracy and therefore cannot bring democracy. The former CUD is fragmented
into three irreconcilable units. In brief, these are the Diaspora vocal
elements that have been and continue to hoodwink the U.S. Administration and
Congress. It is a pity that the House of Representatives fell pray to the
machinations of the Diaspora and passed HR-2003 by voice vote without
debate. What is surprising is the so-called
unanimous vote did not take into account of changes and events, such as the
release of political prisoners, the new structure of the Ethiopian Election
Board and the new working procedure of the Parliament, that have been passed by parliament prior to
the vote. These examples were among the outdated issues and yet figure in
HR-2003.
Good
governance is an essential precondition for respect for human rights. Good
governance requires civil service that is capable of providing adequate and
timely services to the people. Developing countries lack qualified, dedicated
and well remunerated civil servants as in developed countries. It will, obviously,
take time for them to improve their governance and therefore their respect for
human rights. This being the case, one wonders why governments and critics in
developed countries insist on and impose copy cut adoption (not adaptation) of
their standards in developing countries, it being well knowing that it is
impractical to do so in such a short time and under such dire economic
conditions. Have they forgotten that it took them centuries to attain good
governance they now enjoy in their respective countries? In Ethiopia, despite
the constraints touched upon above, governance is improving by the day and so
is respect for human rights. A genuine person will not fail to notice that such
is the case, particularly after the 2005 elections.
I close by posing some questions. Despite the fact that Ethiopia faces all kinds of internal and external problems and that democratic institutions are in the process of formation, what makes Ethiopia the target? Why make aid to Ethiopia conditional to good governance, human rights and democracy when the country is making progress in all fronts? Why are countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not targeted? Why is the rogue state of Eritrea, the architect of instability in the Horn of Africa, exempted from such treatment? Given the human rights abuses perpetrated in the U.S., on what moral ground do the critics come with such human rights accusations? Why these double standards? What will the loss of Ethiopia, a staunch ally, mean to U.S.’s fighting terrorism in Africa and the Middle East? What country in the Horn of Africa, other than Ethiopia, could contribute to and bring peace and stability to Eastern Africa, Africa and the world? Why defeat the win-win cooperation between the US and Ethiopia? Who will gain from the passing of HR-2003 as Ethiopia is not likely to accept it?
* http://www.waltainfo.com/Interview/2008/Mar/Abeba.htm