For the Defense

U.S. Africa Policy: Empty Words, Emptier Promises

2011-06-28T17:29:00.000-07:00

U.S. Africa Policy: Empty Words, Emptier Promises

(This is the second installment in a series of commentaries I pledged to offer on U.S. policy in Africa under the heading “The Moral Hazard of U.S. Policy in Africa". In Part I, I argued that democracy and human rights in Africa cannot be subordinated to the expediency of “engaging” incorrigible African dictators whose sole interest is in clinging to power to enrich themselves and their cronies.)

African Status Quo Broken

When U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a brief stop at the African Union summit meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia a couple of weeks ago, she was talking my language: human rights, democracy, rule of law, accountability, transparency and the rest of it. She announced to the coterie of African dictators that the “status quo had broken” and she had come to talk to them about how they can regain democracy, achieve economic growth, and maintain peace and security.

Clinton said democracy in Africa is undergoing trial by fire despite a few successes in places like “Botswana, Ghana, and Tanzania.” She told the swarm of jackbooted African dictators that their people are gasping for democracy: “[W]e do know that too many people in Africa still live under longstanding rulers, men who care too much about the longevity of their reign, and too little about the legacy that should be built for their country’s future. Some even claim to believe in democracy – democracy defined as one election, one time.” She said Africa’s youth are sending a “message that is clear to us all: The status quo is broken; the old ways of governing are no longer acceptable; it is time for leaders to lead with accountability, treat their people with dignity, respect their rights, and deliver economic opportunity. And if they will not, then it is time for them to go.” The alternative for Africa’s “long standing rulers who hold on to power at all costs, who suppress dissent, who enrich themselves and their supporters at the expense of their own people” is to face the types of “changes that have recently swept through North Africa and the Middle East. After years of living under dictatorships, people have demanded new leadership; in places where their voices have long been silenced, they are exercising their right to speak, often at the top of their lungs.”

U.S. Sounding Like a Broken Record

For some time now, President Obama, Secretary Clinton and other top U.S. officials have been doing the same song and dance about dictatorship and poor governance in Africa. In July 2009 in Ghana, President Obama declared, “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” Today Secretary Clinton says: “Good governance requires free, fair, and transparent elections, a free media, independent judiciaries, and the protection of minorities.”

Two years ago, President Obama lectured African dictators: “No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.” Today Secretary Clinton sarcastically notes, “Too many people in Africa still live under longstanding rulers… [who] believe in democracy – democracy defined as one election, one time.”

Two years ago, President Obama berated African dictators: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.” Today Secretary Clinton warns the same dictators, “If you do not desire to help your own people work and live with dignity, you are on the wrong side of history.”

Two years ago, President Obama threatened African dictators: “I have directed my administration to give greater attention to corruption… People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t, and that is exactly what America will do.” Today Secretary Clinton pleads with the same dictators: “We are making [corruption] a priority in our diplomatic engagement, and we look to our partners to take concrete actions to stop corruption.”

Last year, President Obama told a delegation of African youths: “Africa's future belongs to its young people… We’re going to keep helping empower African youth, supporting education, increasing educational exchanges… and strengthen grassroots networks of young people…” Today Secretary Clinton laments, “A tiny [African] elite prospers while most of the population struggles, especially young people…”

When it comes to Africa, the Obama Administration is increasingly sounding like a broken record.

Empty Words and Emptier Promises

The U.S. has been talking a good talk in Africa for the last two years, but has not been walk the walk; better yet, walking the talk. Following the May 2010 “elections” in Ethiopia in which dictator Meles Zenawi claimed a 99.6 percent victory, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley said, “We value the cooperation that we have with the Ethiopian government on a range of issues including regional security, including climate change. But we will make clear that there are steps that it needs to take to improve democratic institutions.” The U.S. “clearly” took no action as Ethiopia has become a veritable police state behind a veneer of elections.

Following the rigged elections in Uganda in February 2011, Crowley said, “Democracy requires commitment at all levels of government and society to the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, independent media, and active civil society.” The U.S. promptly congratulated Yoweri Museveni on his election victory and conveniently forgot about the rule of law and all that stuff.

Following the elections in Cote d’Ivoire last November and Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to step down (calling it a “mockery of democracy”) Crowley said, “The U.S. is prepared to impose targeted sanctions on Ivory Coast's incumbent President Gbagbo, his immediate family and his inner circle, should he continue to illegitimately cling to power.” The U.S. imposed a travel ban, but that did not matter much since Gbagbo had no intention of leaving the Ivory Coast. Months later he was collared and dragged out of his palace like a street criminal.

In July 2009, the White House in a press statement said, “The United States is concerned about the recent actions of Niger’s President Mamadou Tandja to rule by ordinance and decree and to dissolve the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court as part of a bid to retain power beyond his constitutionally-limited mandate.” The U.S. took no action against Tandja, but Niger’s military did.

A couple of weeks ago, Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon visited the U.S. and received a warm reception at the White House which put out a press statement applauding the “the important partnership between the United States and Gabon on a range of critical regional and global issues.” Ali is the son of the notorious Omar Bongo who ruled Gabon with an iron fist for 42 years before his death in 2009.

Not long ago, Crowley called Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea a “dictator with a disastrous record on human rights.” Nguema’s son, Teodorin frequently travels to his $35 million-dollar mansion in Malibu, California flying in his $33 million jetliner and tools around town in a fleet of luxury cars. He earned a salary of $6,799 a month as agriculture minister. Forbes estimates his net worth at $600 million.

America Should Stop Subsidizing African Kleptocracies

The U.S. should stop subsidizing African kleptocratic thugtatorships through its aid policy and hit the panhandling thieves in the pocketbook. In one of my weekly commentaries in November 2009 ("Africorruption, Inc."), I argued that the business of African governments is corruption. Most African "leaders" seize political power to operate sophisticated criminal enterprises to loot their national treasuries and resources. As Geroge Ayittey, the distinguished Ghanaian economist and arguably one of the “top 100 public intellectuals worldwide who are shaping the tenor of our time” recently noted, Africa’s “briefcase bandits” run full-fledged criminal enterprises. Sani Abacha of Nigeria amassed $5 billion, and the Swiss Supreme Court in 2005 declared the Abacha family a “criminal enterprise”. Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan has stashed away $7 billion while Hosni Mubarak is reputed to have piled a fortune of $40 billion. In comparison, Ayittey says, “The net worth of 43 U.S. presidents from Washington to Obama amounts to a measly $2.5 billion.”

Foreign aid is known as the perfect breeding ground for corruption in Africa.According to the Brussels Journal (“Voice of Conservatism in Europe”), “Most serious analysts of the failures of development aid [in Africa], including a number of government commissions, not only identified corruption in recipient governments as a reason the aid programs failed but, in fact, found the projects actually fueled additional corruption and increased the plight of the people.” Africa’s thugtators not only siphon off foreign aid targeted for critical school, hospital, road and other public works and community projects to line their pockets, they also use the aid they receive to fortify their regimes and suppress the democratic aspiration of the people. In its October 2010 report on Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch reported:

Foreign aid has become one of the government's most effective tools in suppressing and punishing criticism. Human Rights Watch's research found that local officials often deny assistance to people they perceive as political opponents - including many who are not actually involved in politics at all. Impoverished farmers know they risk losing access to aid which their livelihoods depend on if they speak out against abuses in their communities. Most respond by staying quiet; aid discrimination has made freedom of speech a luxury many Ethiopians quite literally cannot afford.

Simply stated, an endless supply of the hard earned cash of American Joe and Jane Taxpayer is making it possible for African thugtators to cling to power and crush the legitimate aspirations of African peoples. The thugtators know that as long as billions of American taxpayer dollars (free money) keep flowing into their pockets, they do not have to do a darn thing to improve governance, respect human rights or institute accountability and transparency.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a gathering of African dictators in Uganda in 2010 that “the U.S. Department of Justice is launching a new Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative aimed at combating large-scale foreign official corruption and recovering public funds for their intended and proper use.” More power to Holder. It is great to grab the corrupt and thieving African dictators and their cronies in the U.S. as they launder hundreds of millions of dollars every year buying businesses and homes and making "investments". But it is more important to hold them accountable for the billions of aid dollars they receive from U.S. every year.

If the Obama administration is committed to battling corruption as ‘one of the great struggles of our time’, as it has so often declared, it needs to undertake a thorough and complete investigation of aid money given to African dictators. In November 2009, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelley stated that the U.S. is investigating allegations that “$850 million in food and anti-poverty aid from the U.S. is being distributed on the basis of political favoritism by the current [Ethiopian] prime minister's party.” There exists no official report in the public domain today concerning the outcome of that investigation. (If any such report exists, we are prepared to scrutinize it.) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one must logically assume that no one for sure knows what happened to the USD$850 million handed over to Zenawi. Since the State Department does not seem to be up to the job of investigating aid-related corruption allegations in Ethiopia, it is appropriate for the General Accounting Office (the independent nonpartisan Congressional watchdog) to undertake a full investigation of the Human Rights Watch allegations.

When the U.S. hands out billions of dollars of free money to countries like Ethiopia without any meaningful accountability and discernable performance requirements, the effect on governance and observance of human rights is disastrous as evidenced in the fact that Zenawi used American aid money to suppress dissent and steal elections in 2010. In Ethiopia, where aid constitutes more than 90% of the government budget, establishing the scope of corruption in aid is absolutely necessary. Such accountability could have a huge impact not only on improving governance in Ethiopia but also in all other U.S. aid recipient countries on the continent.

Corruption is fundamentally a human rights issue. As Peter Eigen, founder and chairman of Transparency International has argued:

Corruption leads to a violation of human rights in at least three respects: corruption perpetuates discrimination, corruption prevents the full realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights, and corruption leads to the infringement of numerous civil and political rights. Beyond that, corruption undermines the very essence of the rule of law and destroys citizens' trust in political leaders, public officials and political institutions."

By turning a blind eye to endemic aid-related corruption, the U.S. is unintentionally promoting disregard for human rights protections and undermining the growth of democratic institutions and institutionalization of the rule of law and good governance in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa. When foreign aid provides 90 percent of the regime’s budget in Ethiopia, is it any wonder that Zenawi’s regime “won” the May 2010 “elections” by 99.6 percent?

As the old saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I regret to say that aid given to Africa with the best of intentions in the name of the most generous people in the history of the world has made the continent a heaven for bloodthirsty dictators and hell for the vast majority of poor Africans. I wonder if the American people would tolerate and approve of the the crimes that are being committed in Africa using their hard earned dollars year after year if we took it upon ourselves to educate them!

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/

NO GOOD DEED WILL GO UNPUNISHED!

2008-02-25T20:02:00.000-08:00

“Charity begins at home,” goes the old saying. But with the Zenawi regime, it is, “No good deed will go unpunished.” The so-called “Charities and Societies Draft Proclamation No. 00/2007” [hereinafter “Proclamation”] currently under review by the Ethiopian “parliament” is one mean-spirited and uncharitable edict masquerading as a legislative measure. It is an understatement to say the Proclamation is incredibly oppressive, intrusive and arbitrary. It is simply a travesty of law that does not pass the “smell test”, let alone any serious legal analytical scrutiny. It offers a classic case study of law making in a police state — sweeping, stealthy, harsh, heavy-handed and irrational.

Private associations, endowments and trusts have existed in Ethiopia for decades. But modern civil society institutions (that is, domestic and international non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary citizens’ groups that provide humanitarian assistance, communicate citizens’ concerns to governments, advocate and monitor policies, encourage grassroots political participation, promote human rights, environmental protection, health, education, etc.), are a relatively new phenomenon in Ethiopia. Article 31 of the “constitution” of the current regime fully embraces such civil society institutions and provides, “Everyone shall have the right to form associations for whatever purpose.”

The importance of civil society institutions in democratizing Ethiopia has been repeatedly acknowledged by the current regime leader. Zenawi has made public statements declaring his intention to facilitate the establishment and strengthening of professional and popular associations and non-governmental organizations in the country’s development efforts and institution of democratic governance: “The participation of self-organized citizens’ associations is not only the foundation of our development, but also of our democracy.” Various official documents of the ruling regime have emphasized the role of civil society institutions in “building a democratic order in Ethiopia”.

So, what is wrong with Draft Proclamation No. 00/20071? Let’s count the ways.

The Proclamation is a preemptive legal strike aimed at neutralizing and abolishing civil society institutions, and diminishing any threats that may be posed by them against the regime.

An analysis of the totality of the Proclamation shows that the regime, in the absence of a united opposition political force in the country, perceives the greatest threat to its dictatorial powers originating in civil society institutions. The apparent fear of such organizations comes from the inherent potential of civil society organizations to create mass awareness of social and political issues, cultivate a more informed citizenry, mobilize people to make informed voting choices and effectively participate in politics, and equip ordinary citizens with the democratic tools to hold government more accountable.

By imposing an extensive scheme of invasive and suffocating licensing, registration, supervision, compliance and enforcement, and draconian penalty provisions, the regime expects and intends to effectively and “legally” eliminate any potential threats that could emanate from current or future civil society institutions. It is for this reason that the Proclamation sweeps under its regulatory claws all “philanthropic and benevolent” organizations and associations established to aid in poverty and disaster relief, promote economic development and agricultural and environmental amelioration, advance the cause of education, health, art, culture science, sports, enhance access and opportunity to the handicapped, and advocate and defend human rights. Even organizations involved in animal welfare are subject to the Proclamation. In sum, the powers created in this Proclamation to “regulate” all “philanthropic and benevolent” civil society institutions is the unchecked and unlimited power to destroy them. (A partial list of civil society organizations that could be affected by this Proclamation is provided herein.2 )

The Proclamation creates powers that can be exercised arbitrarily and capriciously in the regulation of civil society institutions.

The stated objective of the Proclamation is to “maintain public trust, promote compliance and enhance accountability” as well as “strengthen” and provide “full autonomy” in the operation of civil society institutions. But even a cursory reading of the Proclamation shows that there is no rational connection between the provisions of the Proclamation and its stated objectives. The Proclamation sets no discernable standards for civil society licensing, registration, compliance, investigation and enforcement. It merely creates an elaborate bureaucracy with sweeping and unchallengeable regulatory and administrative powers. Application of the Proclamation, and development of any subsequent enforcement regulations and rules, depends entirely on the whims and fancy of the director of the agency, and any directives he may receive from above. In fact, the director of the agency is a political appointee of the prime minister; and he in turn appoints a brigade of deputy directors, registrars and other bureaucrats. He acts cooperatively with a boatload of sector administrators, charities council and others to police and keep a watchful eye on civil society institutions.

The Proclamation grants unbounded discretionary power to the agency director who has quasi-judicial authority, and the director’s decision is not subject to judicial review.

The Proclamation is unabashed in creating an agency with officials whose powers have no legal bounds or limits. The list of extravagant powers conferred upon the agency and its officials is too numerous to enumerate, but a few glaring examples serve to demonstrate the sweeping powers granted to them. For instance, the agency can deny registration to any civil society group if it feels the internal management “rules of the charity are insufficient for proper management and control”. The agency can demand the membership, financial and any other records of a civil society organization at will, and without probable cause of wrongdoing by the organization, its officers or members. The agency can summarily suspend a civil society organization, its members or officers if it suspects “misconduct and mismanagement”.

A civil society organization could be dissolved if the agency determines on its own that the organization is being “used for unlawful purposes”, or is “contrary to public or the national interest”. The agency alone determines what is “unlawful” “or “contrary to the public or national interest.” The agency has the power to determine the “details of the charitable purposes and public benefits” regardless of the stated mission or objectives of the civil society organization. No action of the agency or its director could be challenged in a court of law with independent judges. There is limited administrative review of adverse agency actions, but ultimately, the agency and its director can do whatever they want in the name of “regulating” civil society institutions. In sum, the proclamation grants such sweeping discretionary regulatory powers, the agency and its director become the policeman, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioners of civil society organizations.

The Proclamation is extremely intrusive in the affairs of civil society.

The proclamation is extremely intrusive in the internal management and operations of civil society organizations. Using its sweeping powers, for instance, the agency and its director can appoint, remove, or suspend officers of civil society organizations, manage or freeze their assets, perform intrusive audits without suspicion of wrongdoing, unduly interfere in their internal decision making processes, scrutinize their operations and work plan, review their budget, order changes in their bylaws, and even force testimonial and documentary disclosure with “respect to any matter in question”. Incredibly, a civil society organization is required to return to the agency any money it has collected but has not spent within 2 years.

The Proclamation is so intrusive that it even compels disclosure of civil society membership lists. To closely track financial support for such organizations and identify supporters, it prohibits “anonymous donations” and requires records of donors to be kept for 5 years. None of this excessive intrusiveness can be challenged in court before an independent judge. It is obvious that under such an intrusive scheme of regulation, no civil society organization could feel confident enough to perform its mission. Few individuals would dare join such organizations under these circumstances; and those who do will be forced to endure the uncertainties of potential future persecution for membership in the “wrong” civil society institution.

The Proclamation provides for no judicial or administrative appellate review.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this Proclamation is the complete absence of provisions for judicial or meaningful administrative appellate review. For instance, there is no way to challenge an agency determination of denial of an application to register, order of dissolution, suspension or dismissal of officers in a court of law before independent judges. There is no way for civil society members who are not suspected of wrongdoing to challenge disclosure of their private records or statements to the agency. There is an administrative review process by which the decision of the agency director could be “appealed” to the Justice Minister. But that is like appealing the decision of Tweedle Dee to Tweedle Dum. In sum, the decision of the agency director and justice minister are final in all cases.

The Proclamation micromanages civil society institutions, is extremely burdensome and demands financial accountability and ethical integrity rarely seen or required of public institutions in Ethiopia.

The Proclamation authorizes the agency and its director to micromanage civil society institutions to a point of denying them any autonomy whatsoever. The financial accounting and record keeping requirements are so burdensome, unreasonable and punitive that a civil society organization must spend as much time preparing paperwork for red tape as it must performing its mission. For instance, the Proclamation requires “accounting records” to show “all sums of money received from day to day”. Civil society organizations are prohibited from receiving anonymous donations, so that a person who just wants to make a one time donation without membership affiliation can not make a contribution. Civil society organizations “shall be examined by a certified auditor or internal auditor or an auditor designated by the agency.” Civil society institutions are not allowed to establish a branch or change their name without agency approval. They are not allowed to use an emblem, logo or badge without agency approval. There are few things, if any, that civil society institutions can do without the approval of Big Brother!

The Proclamation has a chilling effect on civil society membership and participation.

No civil society organization could be effective without membership. By definition, civil society organizations depend upon the good will, charity and generosity of ordinary people in the community. Under the intrusive regulations of this Proclamation, few people in the community or society are likely to participate. The fact that government will have ready access to their personal information, role, participation and financial support of these organizations will dissuade many from joining. There is a real possibility of government retaliation if the civil society group is on a disapproved list, or is viewed with suspicion by the regime. Potential civil society members could reasonably fear that their jobs, businesses and private lives could be at risk by the mere fact of their membership. They could be targeted for persecution, harassment or mistreatment. The ironic thing is that ordinary citizens are likely to avoid joining civil society organizations — and thereby forego the legitimate exercise their “constitutional” and human rights to free association — out of fear of government retaliation.

The Proclamation is extremely punitive.

Failure to comply with the provisions of the Proclamation entails imprisonment, fines and administrative sanctions. For instance, administering or membership in an unregistered or “unlawful” civil society organization fetches a 5 year term, and a fine of 10,000 birr. Any person who is a member of or attends a meeting of an unregistered civil society organization could be imprisoned for 2 years, and fined 5,000 birr. Anyone who donates to an unregistered civil society organization is liable to jail time and fines as an accomplice. Any person who provides a meeting place for an unregistered organization is liable for a 2 year jail sentence, and a fine of 5,000 birr. Any person who “prints, publishes, displays, transits information by any means in the interest” of an unregistered organization is exposed to the same penalties. The agency also has the power to “at any time stop or restrict” fund raising by civil society organizations. In addition to the criminal penalties, there are untold numbers of unspecified but ominous administrative sanctions and penalties that can be taken against civil society organizations, their officers, board members and regular members.

In Art. 125, the Proclamation criminalizes civil society participation or advocacy of issues considered “politically contentious”. For instance, a civil society organization could be criminally charged under this section if it took a “political position” on poverty. Similarly, a civil society organization which promotes human rights, and its officers could be charged for speaking out on the “politically contentious” issue of political prisoners, arbitrary arrests and detentions, or torture of citizens. Such a provision is just plainly mindless and absurd.

The Proclamation is manifestly “unconstitutional”. It is also manifestly silly.

Article 131 of the Proclamation makes the following silly declaration: “Any laws and practices contrary to this Proclamation are hereby repealed.” Technical rules of statutory construction (legal interpretation) instruct that “words in a statute are presumed to have their usual and ordinary meaning”. If this provision is taken at face value, the Proclamation trumps and abrogates the Ethiopian “constitution” and all other human rights conventions incorporated by reference in the “constitution”. (Art. 13 (2).)

But there are specific provisions in the Proclamation that are manifestly violative of the regime’s “constitution”. For instance, the agency has the power to “cause the production of documents and search records” of the civil society organization, and “take possession of any books, documents or papers… required as evidence in proceedings for an offense under the Proclamation” (Art. 102), in violation of the right of privacy set forth in Art. 26, inter alia, of the “constitution”. Broad powers granted to the agency to have “full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents papers of a charity or society” (Arts. 102, 104), are in flagrant violation of Art. 26 as well. Civil society organizations are required to notify the agency of any meetings with a 7 day advance notice (Art. 103), in violation of Arts. 29-32, inter alia, of the “constitution”. The Proclamation authorizes the agency to compel oral testimony from civil society members and officers to obtain “any information which relates to any charity or society” (Art. 102) in violation of the prohibition on coerced statements in Art. 19 (5), inter alia, of the “constitution”. In Art. 125, the Proclamation criminalizes civil society participation or advocacy of issues considered “politically contentious” in violation of Art. 29 (1) (2), inter alia, of the “constitution”. The list goes on and on.

The Proclamation is mean-spirited and discriminatory.

The Proclamation treats civil society organizations, groups and members as enemies of the state, instead of partners in building democracy. It makes no sense to have such a draconian Proclamation in the absence of a demonstrated history of criminality, or convincing proof of abuse of public trust, waste of public funds or fraud in the use of publicly collected funds. In fact, the Proclamation makes no legislative findings whatsoever that civil society institutions in Ethiopia have ever presented law enforcement problems or raised issued of public integrity. In the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing by civil society institutions, one can only conclude that the Proclamation in its totality has no rational relationship to the proper objects of governmental regulation, but rather represents a “legal” assault aimed at abolishing civil society institutions.

On the other hand, the Proclamation irrationally discriminates against foreign civil society organizations, and expatriate civil society workers. It prohibits employment of expatriates in domestic civil society organizations unless justified by the nature of the work or qualification of the individual. Failure to comply with this provision will result in jail time. It is also regrettable that the Proclamation appears to have been patterned in material respects after a similar law in Singapore, a country ranked 141st out of 167 by Reporters Without Borders in the Worlwide Press Freedom Index.

A good charity law should be charitable.

A good charity law should create an environment that enables ordinary citizens to participate in collective activities in their society, and not to fear and avoid civic engagement. Draconian regulatory constraints such as the ones in the Proclamation should only be used preventively if there is a history of criminality, fraud, waste and abuse in civil society organizations. Government should encourage and support citizens who seek to exercise their constitutional rights through organized and active civil society institutions. It is unnecessary and harmful to legislatively presume that ordinary citizens who seek to establish and participate in civil society organizations are criminals intent on defrauding the public. Rather, the presumption should be well-intentioned ordinary citizens who seek to help themselves and others deserve the benefit of the doubt and governmental cooperation through a simple and easy to follow regulatory regime.

An Alternative: The Daniel Bekele Group proposal

The Daniel Bekele Proposal is a compellingly viable alternative to the Proclamation.

There is a viable alternative to the current Proclamation which facilitates “self-organized citizens” to be involved in “development and democracy.”3 It is a proposal that harmonizes constitutional and human rights with the need for accountability and transparency in the operation and management of civil society organizations. This proposal was advanced by the young and dynamic anti-poverty civil society activist Daniel Bekele (who is currently in Kality prison despite a court order to release him and his colleague Netsanet Demessie), and his NGO/CSO Legal Framework Consultative Task Force. A careful analysis of this Proposal shows that it is possible to achieve both civic engagement and effective regulatory regime of civil society organizations in a framework of partnership.

The Bekele Proposal offers numerous advantages over the Proclamation. It provides for a simple registration process unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape. There is no charge for registration, and once registration is obtained it will remain valid for an indefinite time unless good cause exists for revocation. This Proposal does not allow for excessive official interference in the daily management and operation of civil society organizations. It relies on existing Civil Code provisions for reporting and supervision. Civil society organizations will be required to file annual reports, and external audits will be ordered only if there is evidence or good cause to suspect criminal wrongdoing.

Under the Bekele Proposal, if civil society organization are to be suspended or dissolved, such actions will be taken in accordance with the bylaws of the organization, or by court order after a full hearing on the merits. Foreign civil society organizations and expatriates who seek to work in Ethiopia will not be discriminated. Rather, they will be treated equally with domestic groups with respect to rights and obligations. The Bekele proposal also provides for changes in the organization of civil society institution, allowing for expedited mergers, splits and changes from foreign to domestic groups. There are no draconian penalties for violation of the regulations. Any penalties under the Proposal are to be imposed in the sound discretion of independent judges, not political appointees who have an axe to grind. Most importantly, the Bekele Proposal provides for full administrative and judicial appellate review. (The reader can make an independent comparative analysis of the Proclamation and the Bekele Proposal in footnote 3, supra.)

In studying the Proclamation one is reminded of Mr. Bumble, the parish beadle in charge of charity, the workhouse and orphanage in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Informed that “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction,” Mr. Bumble replied, “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot’. Even Mr. Bumble knows a rotten law when he sees one.

Notes

1. The Proclamation in four parts is available at: http://www.ethiomedia.com/abai/highly_restrictive_law.html

2. http://www.ethiopia-emb.or.jp/news_e/list-e.pdf

3. The Bekele Legislative Proposal is available at: http://www.crdaethiopia.org/PolicyDocuments/Alternative%20Draft%20Legislation.pdf;
see also fn. 1 supra.)

TYЯЯANY IN THE ACADEMY

2008-02-03T14:22:00.000-08:00

Alemayehu G. Mariam
February 4, 2008

Academic Unfreedom in Ethiopian Universities
Universities in democratic societies crank out legions of technorati, digerati and literati every year. But what do universities in police states produce? Hordes of ignorati?

Welcome to higher education in the Land of Absurd-istan! In an incisive article posted on the web-based legal research service, Jurist, Abigail Salisbury, a law professor at Mekelle University recently painted a chilling and naked portrait of a university in a police state.[1] She courageously described a dizzying state of intellectual absurdity and moral bankruptcy in the Ethiopian higher educational system, and one of its premier universities. She gave a vividly surreal account of fear and loathing in the classroom and on campus: Students plead with their professors not to snitch on them to the authorities on their studies and class work. Students solicit their professors to distribute their academic papers abroad because they are scared they will be punished or persecuted if they were to do so did so locally. Students starving for knowledge are literally deprived of their daily bread because they dared to voice a complaint. Students scramble to learn in an arid intellectual wasteland where the walls have ears and the light fixtures can talk. And professors are afraid to teach because they have signed loyalty oaths disguised as a contractual terms of employment, which prohibits them from ever saying a single word of criticism against the regime. In her penetrating analysis, Prof. Salisbury depicted a nightmarish educational environment where professors labor under a gag order, and students are paralyzed by the omnipresent threat of academic harassment, or worse.

No one could mistake Prof. Salisbury’s acute resentment and tacit embarrassment over her manifest lack of academic freedom to teach and speak her mind as a law professor, and her heartache over her students’ intellectual desolation and decay. Reading between the lines, one quickly develops empathy for the young American professor and her young Ethiopian students who find themselves trapped in an intellectual wasteland where thought is policed, the very act of thinking criminalized, student complaints punished by deprivation of food for weeks, and intellectual inquisitiveness made a capital offense. In her courageously critical piece, Prof. Salisbury offered a devastating indictment of a higher educational system where professors and students fear their own shadows, and are forced to make an anguished daily choice between the roles of hypocrite to their own education and teaching on the one hand, and professing their faith as true believers in a regime that is determined to keep them in a perpetual state of intellectual trepidation and despair.

But no amount of paraphrasing can capture the sheer intensity and disarming candor of Prof. Salisbury’s analysis of intellectual corruption and enforced political orthodoxy:
…. I sat down to read and grade the mid-term essays of the students in my International Human Rights Law classes. Because all of the instructors at Ethiopian universities are made to sign a contract that we will never say anything against the government or ruling party, I had been very careful in wording my assignment. I asked the students to select a human rights issue in Ethiopia (making sure not to imply that there are any actual problems, just issues) and find another country dealing with that same situation. They were required to then compare the actions of the two nations, discussing them in light of various international human rights instruments which have been covered in class. Then, they were to propose some potential methods they might use to deal with this “issue” they selected. Thinking that this was a sufficiently non-inflammatory prompt, I assumed I would get some rather dry responses, especially given the comments from the H.R. 2003 discussion forum, which all seemed to assert that Ethiopia is doing just fine on the human rights front.

I was absolutely shocked, then, when I started reading my students’ work. Out of the hundred third-year students I teach, probably forty of them had inserted a special section, right after the cover page, warning me of what might happen to them were their paper to leave my hands. A number of students wrote that they would never give their real opinions to an Ethiopian professor because they fear being turned in to the government and punished. Others begged me to take their work back to America with me so that people would know what was going on. Of those who wrote such notes, almost all said that I would probably be surprised to find that many of the students had been afraid to express their true feelings at the H.R. 2003 discussion forum because you never know who is listening.

After my initial shock, I began to wonder if the students weren’t just making exaggerated claims in hopes of getting better grades. I kept trying to figure out whether they were writing these warnings because they were genuine or because they wanted to make me think that they were really putting themselves on the line for this assignment. As I read the papers which had been submitted without the notes about fears, however, I got the sense that the students were just writing in as safe a fashion as possible. They put in long recitations of facts and laws and strove to make the “issue” seem as insignificant as possible within the larger context of Ethiopian government. They were holding back. Their work lacked the color, honesty, and intensity of the writing of the students who had asked me not to show their papers to anyone.

To be fair, I can understand how the students might be afraid to speak their minds, because there have been a number of student protests which have been put down with violence recently, some journalists have been imprisoned, and much of the media is censored. At dinner, some university graduates from Addis Ababa mentioned that they had been without food for weeks at a time on campus but were forbidden by the administrators to ever voice a complaint. My friend tried to learn more about the conditions, but the Ethiopians had quickly changed the subject, telling her that they should not be overheard discussing such things. I even know some expatriate workers here who are hesitant to say anything negative about the country in their e-mails to friends and family at home, because they know that everything goes through a central server and could be read, with possible negative repercussions.
Prof. Salisbury’s analysis of university life in Ethiopia is not the first of its kind. Its importance lies in the fact that it offers solid anecdotal evidence of a long and continuing pattern of political interference in academic freedom in the country’s universities. The 2006 U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices[2] plainly stated:

The [Ethiopian] government restricted academic freedom during the year, maintaining that professors could not espouse political sentiments. Authorities did not permit teachers at any level to deviate from official lesson plans and discouraged political activity and association of any kind on university campuses. Reports continued throughout the year of both uniformed and plainclothes police officers being present on and around university and high school campuses. The government arrested students and teachers during the year. Professors and students were discouraged from taking positions not in accordance with government beliefs or practices. There was a lack of transparency in academic decisions, with numerous complaints from individuals in the academic community of bias based on ethnicity and/or religion. The freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly were frequently restricted on university and high school campuses.

Academic Unfreedom in the “Good Ole Days”
The recent history of academic freedom and free intellectual inquiry in Ethiopian higher education is deeply scarred by political interference, political correctness, arbitrary purges of professors, harassment and persecution of faculty and students, and general intellectual repression. It is a history that makes one think of the “good old days”. The respected and well-known scholar on Ethiopia, Prof. Donald Levine of the University of Chicago, made a poignant observation on academic freedom during the infancy of Ethiopian higher education when he accepted an honorary doctorate from Addis Ababa University on July 24, 2004.[3] He said:

Under the regime of the Derg, the great gains for Ethiopian education which they produced suffered a series of terrible blows from which Ethiopia has not yet fully recovered. When the Derg took power in September 1974, their first act was to impose a rigid ban on freedom of speech, in the form of proclamation forbidding groups of more than five people to assemble anywhere. What was worse, they closed down the university and also the feeder junior and senior grades of secondary schools for two full years. To make matters worse, when the University at last reopened, they subjected faculty and curriculum to severe ideological restraints. They based admissions on criteria of ethnic quotas rather than merit; they tied appointments to political loyalty instead of academic qualifications; they subjected curricular content to ideological scrutiny rather than to defensible educational principles; and they isolated Ethiopian faculty from the international academic community.

With the overthrow of the Derg, Ethiopians inside and outside the university enjoyed a marked increase of freedom of speech and publication. Even so, the pattern of unwarranted governmental intrusion into the university was matched by such destructive actions as the abrupt dismissal of some forty of the most experienced and accomplished members of the University faculty. It has remained difficult to uphold standards of admissions and to hold faculty performance to international academic standards. The government has failed to realize how delicate and vulnerable a university of high quality is.
It is painfully ironic to learn that there was much more academic freedom during the reign of Atse Haile Selassie than at any time in the modern history of Ethiopia! Such irony was evident in Prof. Levine’s remarks on an incident in Ethiopia in 1958 when he served as assistant to the acting vice president of Haile Selassie University, Harold Bentley:

Before the project [Haile Selassie University] had a chance to break ground, however, Addis Ababa was racked by an attempted coup d'etat against the late Emperor. As a friend of one of the coup leaders, Girmame Neway, I was one of the last persons to talk with him before he was captured and killed. Girmame's parting words riveted me: “Don, please tell our story to the world. Even if we are defeated and killed, at least a word of truth will have been spoken in this land of deception.” A few months later, I published an article in accord with Girmame's testament, an article which the Emperor found so offensive that he wanted the U.S. Government to put me in prison. But then, Acting Vice-President Bentley dissuaded him with this memorable argument. “Your Majesty,” he pleaded, “think of yourself for a moment not as head of the Ethiopian State, but as Chancellor of this new University. You want it to be internationally respected. For that, it must be able to guarantee academic freedom. What better proof of your intent could you demonstrate than to invite Dr. Levine to return to help build it?”

The rhetoric worked. Despite the fact that I had written an article that was terribly critical and threatening to him, the Emperor understood that for this university to be a first-class, internationally respected university, it had to guarantee freedom of inquiry, speech, and publication; and so, with grace and generosity, His Majesty approved the idea of inviting me to return…

As I have pondered this episode over the years, I have come to interpret the actions of Girmame Neway and His Majesty in a new light…. [F]or all his upholding of tradition, the Emperor was taking a large step forward by embracing Dr. Bentley's differentiation between the values of political authority and the values of the university. Although my critique of him had upset His Majesty greatly, he apparently glimpsed the significance of that distinction and embraced it. He understood that the university and the state were governed by different norms and pursued different missions, even when reversing his decision about my return on grounds that consideration of State overrode considerations of academic autonomy. And does that reversal not reinforce the point-that university autonomy requires the management of a university to be fully independent of external political authorities? (Italics added.)

Commitment to the values of academic freedom and excellence animated the generation of remarkable young Ethiopians who struggled to establish a first-rate institution of higher learning here….

Strictly for Those Who Have Never Experienced Academic Freedom: What is a University and What do Professors and Students Really Do There Anyway?
Contrary to some silly misconceptions, the university is not an “ivory tower” that is disconnected from “the real world”. Universities are not populated by absent-minded professors and wild-eyed radical students. And what happens in the university is not just of “academic interest”. The university is the intellectual engine of society, that is a democratic society. The greatest inventions in modern science came out of university laboratories. The vast majority of Nobel Prize winners in all areas of knowledge are university professors, scientists and researchers.

The university is a special institution in which an enlightened community of scholars, scientists, researchers and students use their intellect in the search for “Truth”. This pursuit of truth takes place in an environment of “academic freedom” where learning, teaching, research and scholarship are done without political or bureaucratic interference and intrusion. As Albert Einstein explained, academic freedom is “the right to search for the truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true. This right also implies a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. It is evident that any restriction of academic freedom serves to restrain the dissemination of knowledge, thereby impeding rational judgment and action.” In short, academic freedom is to a university what justice is to an independent court system. No academic freedom, no university! No independent court, no justice!

There are some simple ideas underlying the general principle of academic freedom. First, the university is a place of learning, not a place for political indoctrination. In the university setting, there is no such thing as a “false idea” or an “officially approved idea”, or “The Truth”. Acceptance of an idea at a university does not depend on the approval of politicians or party hacks. Acceptance or rejection occurs in a competitive marketplace of ideas where scholars, scientists, researchers, students and others test and debate the validity of ideas that are presented. The method of “Truth” discovery is different in the various academic fields. The physical sciences rely on equations and experiments to determine the “right” answer. In the social sciences, humanities and the law, the concept of truth is normative, and infinitely more elusive. Thus, there is a much greater need for a robust and wide-open debate in the search for truth.

There are a great many social benefits arising from stimulating academic freedom in a university. One major benefit is intellectual diversity which promotes not only the discovery of new knowledge, but is also essential in cultivating young minds to become creative, knowledgeable and productive citizens. Where academic freedom is maximized, students develop the habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry, which is instrumental in their own transformation as enlightened citizens compassionate public servants and professionals. Shielded by the principle of academic freedom, university professors help their students explore not only the outer limits of science and technology but also challenge the core principles of politics, culture and society.

Political Dissent and the University
There is a very important aspect of academic freedom that does not necessarily implicate formal classroom learning, research or laboratory experiments. It has to do with expression of political dissent and divergent viewpoints on campus. There is no question that a university is a proper venue to challenge and test the credibility of official government rhetoric and ideology, question the legitimacy of a political party, leader or regime, and openly discuss and criticize official corruption, abuse of power and violations of civil liberties and human rights. As experiences in democratic societies show, the professorait and students are often the tip of the intellectual spear in society not only in the search for truth, but also in demanding change and official accountability. More broadly, universities are the proper venue for all types of dissenting ideas and views and serve as forums for robust debate on issues affecting society. There are few alternatives to a university where such intense intellectual debates can take place in society. When academic freedom is restricted, and students and faculty recoil with fear and horror because they believe telling the truth will expose them to punishment, then the larger society is condemned to suffer in silence.

There is ample evidence to show the dynamic role of universities and dissenting voices in bringing about far reaching social change. In the mid-1960s America, for instance, opposition to the war in Vietnam began at the University of California, Berkeley. The anti-war movement soon evolved into a Free Speech Movement which transformed American universities and the society at large in the decades that followed. Academic freedom in American universities contributed significantly to the debate and policy formulation in civil rights, civil liberties and social justice issues. The Freedom Riders and members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in the 1960s introduced the strategies of nonviolence directly challenging Jim Crow (segregation) laws in the American South. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, American campuses were the epicenters of the debate over terrorism, its causes and cures. In this debate, even those who expressed anti-American and unpatriotic views were tolerated and engaged, and none were censored or denied their right to disagree or dissent with the majority.

Academic freedom is the right of faculty, and to a lesser extent the right of students. Politicians, party leaders or bureaucrats their should understand that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards, and not by loyalty oaths, contractual agreements, intimidation and harassment.

Academic Freedom and Free Inquiry as a Human Right
Article 29 of the “Ethiopian Constitution” provides “1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without any interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression without interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through other media of his choice.” Evidently, this article does not apply to professors and students in Ethiopian universities.

Regardless of Art. 29, academic freedom is a question of human rights.[4] Academic persecution is quintessentially political persecution. Abusing, harassing and imprisoning those faculty and students who do not tow the party line or support the official ideology, censoring what they teach and learn and enforcing silence on dissident voices in the university is as serious a human rights violation as imprisoning journalists, civil society leaders and human rights defenders.

There are various efforts underway to protect academic freedom internationally. Human Rights Watch has formed an Academic Freedom Committee to “monitor, expose, and mobilize concerted action to challenge threats to academic freedom worldwide, and to foster greater scholarly and media attention to the critical role played by institutions of higher education in the promotion of human rights and the development and preservation of civil society.” Others have issued declarations and passed resolutions defending academic freedom. For instance, the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education[5] states:
3. Academic freedom is an essential pre-condition for those education, research, administrative and service functions with which universities and other institutions of higher education are entrusted. All members of the academic community have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of interference or repression from the State or any other source.
The Dar es Salaam Declaration on Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility of Academics similarly provides1:
14. All members of the academic community have the right to fulfill their functions of teaching, researching, writing, learning, exchanging and disseminating information and providing services without fear of interference or repression from the State or any other public authority.
The Earth is Flat, and H.R. 2003 is Bad for the People of Ethiopia?
The university is not a place to tell Platonic “noble lies” (the idea of telling the masses lies to keep them confused and under control). In the university, we do not punish, dismiss or impose a gag order on a professor who may claim that the Earth is flat and is carried through space on the back of a giant beetle. We put his dubious terrestrial claim to an empirical test. By demonstrating that the earth is indeed round in an open forum, we prove the falsity of his idea. Similarly, we should not deprive students of their daily bread or threaten them with expulsion, and intimidate their professors into submission just because they believe H.R. 2003 is a good thing for Ethiopia. We show them (or we let them they show us) the error of their ways by encouraging them to openly and robustly debate the provisions of the bill without fear of retaliation and retribution. In the final analysis the fate of H.R. 2003 should rise or fall in the marketplace of ideas in the universities, (and indeed in the broader society), and not struck down by the heavy hand of untutored and ignorant politicians and bureaucrats.

Professors, Students and Inconvenient Truths
Prof. Salisbury has revealed to us that when university faculty and students in Ethiopia attempt to teach, learn or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to the regime, they will likely find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, harassment or even worse. Prof. Salisbury herself was once forced to suppress her natural instincts for academic freedom and tiptoe around the subject matter of her course, human rights. But in writing her article for Jurist she asserted her academic freedom, in much the same way as any freedom-loving American would, and told those who had inflicted an affront to her intellectual dignity, “Take your job and… ! I ain’t gonna take it no more!” We owe her a great debt of gratitude for marshaling the courage to stand for her students, her colleagues and herself against her contractual obligations and potential risk of dismissal from her position. We should applaud her for standing up for academic freedom in Ethiopian universities.

No doubt, some may argue that the kind of academic freedom defended in the foregoing discussion will not work in Ethiopian universities. Neither Ethiopian university students nor their professors are ready to enjoy such freedom. I say poppycock! If students and faculty can enjoy full academic freedom at Harvard, Berkeley or Minnesota, there is no reason why faculty and students at Addis Ababa, Mekelle or Jimma can not enjoy the same scope of academic freedom. In fact, I shall argue that those at Addis Ababa, Mekelle or Jimma universities need much more academic freedom because they are tiny islands of scholarly fellowship in a sea of censorship and repression.

Professor Salisbury is right when she said “Of those who wrote such notes, almost all said that I would probably be surprised to find that many of the students had been afraid to express their true feelings at the H.R. 2003 discussion forum because you never know who is listening. Prof. Levine is also right when he said, “Commitment to the values of academic freedom and excellence animated the generation of remarkable young Ethiopians who struggled to establish a first-rate institution of higher learning here….” Time will tell if a new generation of remarkable young Ethiopians will rise once again and help establish first-rate institutions of higher learning in Ethiopia where courses, including those on human rights, will be taught freely and without political interference, harassment and intimidation.
_______________
[1] http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/01/linking-rights-and-foreign-aid-for.php [2]http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78734.htm [3] http://www2.bc.edu/~teferra/Honorary%20Doctorate-D-Levine-Speech .html [4] http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/academic/ [5] http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Academic_edu/CAF/academic/?f=academic-freedom.wus (The Sixty-Eighth General Assembly of WORLD UNIVERSITY SERVICE, meeting in Lima from 6 to 10 September 1988, the year of the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) [6] The Dar es Salaam Declaration on Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility of Academics, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/DARDOK.htm

Long Live the King! Long Live the Dream! Long Live H.R. 2003!

2008-01-21T22:33:00.000-08:00

What Would Dr. King Say?
Recently, there was a “tempest in a teapot” between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama over Dr. Martin Luther King’s role and contributions in the civil rights movement. Hilary said, “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a President to get it done.” Her husband Bill views Barack Obama as a gadfly, and an interloper. The upstart Obama has unexpectedly become a major stumbling block to Hilary’s coronation. Bill told talk show host Charlie Rose that his irritation with Obama has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the fact that his wife has paid her dues. Obama has not. He is just a young pretty face. He must wait his turn, as Bill himself did back in 1988. Bill also said the the American people must vote for “the best agent for change”, not merely a “symbol for change… symbol is not as important as substance.” These were fighting words to say the least; and very surprising coming from the “first (former) black president” and his wife, the “first black (former) first lady??).

Many African Americans were troubled, and some even offended, by the apparently patronizing, insensitive and condescending tone of the Clintons’ tag team verbal onslaught against Obama. Was Hilary underrating Dr. King’s long and arduous struggle for equality and justice by giving President Johnson the ultimate credit for the success of the civil rights movement? Was she implying that it took a white president and a white Congress to bring long overdue legal equality to African Americans, and that Dr. King was merely leading the black cheering section? Was Hilary implicitly equating herself with Johnson as the “second great emancipator”, and offering herself as the “third great emancipator”, while Obama like Dr. King plays a stage role as a young dreamer? Do the Clintons really believe that African American leaders including Dr. King and Obama are merely “symbolic” leaders to be manipulated as puppets by liberal white leaders?

Perhaps the brouhaha is just overblown election year political rhetoric. Perhaps not. But there is enough historic precedent to be concerned about the Clintons’ jarring message to Obama. Dr. King was also told to “wait”. He was just rushing things too much. It’s not just time. He must “wait”, just a little longer. That was the reason he issued his monumental “Letter From Birmingham Jail” back in 1963 to tell his critics that he can no longer wait. Dr. King explained:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights…. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim;… when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society…. when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”, then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. (Italics added.)

Had Dr. King “waited” for someone to bring freedom and civil rights to him, he might still be waiting. For Bill and Hilary, and whoever else offers a promise of freedom. Thank God Almighty, he did not. Were he alive today, he would have probably said, “I hope, Hilary and Bill, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”

Martin Luther King as One of the Greatest Human Rights Leaders of the 20th Century
Dr. King is often referred to as a “great black civil rights leader.” But he was really much, much more than that. He was one of the greatest human rights leaders of the 20th Century. A civil rights leader is concerned with the restoration of legal rights to those who are deprived of it. It is true Dr. King sought restoration of civil rights to African Americans who had endured for too long the dehumanizing effects of segregation and discrimination in America. He wanted laws to insure that African Americans were treated fairly and justly, and accorded equal opportunity in American society. But he NEVER asked for special rights or privileges for black people. He never asked for preferential treatment for them. He just wanted African Americans to have the same rights that other Americans enjoyed. Nothing more. Nothing less. And he keenly understood the limitation of the law. He said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” He wanted the law to make sure African Americans were not lynched, discriminated or segregated because of their race and skin color. He wanted African Americans to have what any other ordinary American was guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Dr. King was concerned with more than remedial civil rights legislation. He understood that civil rights laws in and of themselves were hollow unless they were fortified with human rights that included guarantees of basic economic security to every citizen. He knew the problem of poverty and economic security was not a unique problem to African Americans. The majority of the people in his time who were under the poverty line were white, not black. He saw the income inequality in the richest country in the world not through racial or ethnic lenses, but through the lens of structural reform of an uncompassionate economic system that created huge disparities between the rich and the poor. He said, “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

Until his last day, Dr. King was a drum major for poor people. He led the Poor People’s Campaign and traveled the country with people of all races engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. He called for an investment in people by creating government employment programs to rebuild America’s cities and schools and communities. He criticized Congress for appropriating “military funds with alacrity and generosity,” but providing “poverty funds with miserliness.”

Dr. King also understood that the “edifice which produces beggars” also produced untold misery and violence throughout the world. In 1967, Dr. King called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” It was a great moral indictment against leaders of a nation that had committed large numbers of its youth and vast resources to wreak havoc on other societies. He said America was “on the wrong side of a world revolution”, and questioned why America had created an “alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America,” and why it was helping suppress revolutions “of the shirtless and barefoot people” from Vietnam to Africa to Latin America. He saw great injustice in the actions of “capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.”

Dr. King’s Message
Dr. King’s greatness as a leader comes not from his work to get civil rights legislation passed to eliminate lynchings, segregation and discrimination. Rather his universal appeal comes from his message of Love regardless of race, religion, gender or nationality. For this reason, it is important to remember that when we celebrate Martin Luther King Day on the third Monday of January, we are not celebrating a “black” holiday or a “black civil rights leader”. We are celebrating the timeless message of one of the greatest defenders of human rights in the 20th Century.

Like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King was profoundly concerned about the human race, not just the black or brown race. He loved humanity as children of God, not as races, nationalities, ethnicities or gender types. His cause was freedom, justice and equality in America, in Africa, in Vietnam or anywhere else in the world because he deeply understood that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He set out to change America and the world by changing hearts and minds through love, compassion, understanding and knowledge.

Dr. King’s message was that it is possible to change the world without the use of violence. As a Christian minister, he believed in the Christian idea of love. He combined this idea with Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha (truth force, love force). The result was a method of nonviolence that could be an effective tool in the struggle for freedom, equality and human rights in America, or anywhere else. Dr. King initially thought the whole idea of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience was somewhat impractical and counterintuitive. He realized its potential when he used it in the Montgomery bus boycott and successfully desegregated that city’s public transportation system in 1956.

Dr. King learned an essential lesson from the Montgomery boycott experience: Nonviolence and non-cooperation in repressive systems could be important tools of social change. His basic ideas on the use of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience were simple. He categorically rejected violence as a method of change. He cautioned, “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. It seeks to annihilate rather than to convert.”
Dr. King was interested in building and constructing a just society, and in redemption; he was not interested in poking out the eyes of evil doers and piling up the body count of blind people in the community. For this reason, his teachings and message are easily understood. He taught nonviolence is actually a way of life for courageous people, that is, for people who have the courage of their convictions and have a commitment to truth and justice. Practitioners of nonviolent resistance are not interested in vanquishing their enemies; they are interested in converting them to the cause of righteousness. It is necessary to separate those who do evil from the evil they do. They are victims of evil themselves; they need salvation, not destruction. Suffering transforms and instructs the individual. Though suffering it is possible to convert the enemy. One must accept suffering, but never inflict it. Nonviolence avoids hate and upholds love; and one must never sink to the level of the hater. Love is a weapon not only to resist injustice but also restore community. The nonviolent resister always believes the universe and God are on the side of justice. In the end, justice and truth will always prevail. This is the sum and substance of Dr. King’s message.

Dr. King and His Dream of Human Rights
Dr. King’s dream was fundamentally a dream for human rights anchored in the very body and soul of the American credo of freedom, justice and equality so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence. In 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., Dr. King proclaimed his Dream to the world. He said:
“[E]ven though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, … little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope….”

An Impossible Dream?: Carving Out a Stone of Hope From a Mountain of Despair
Nearly 150 years after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, and 44 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dr. King’s dream of human rights still remains unfulfilled. Far too many African Americans are trapped and stranded on the “mountain of despair”, poverty and prison. Young African Americans suffer the brunt of that despair. The statistics are shocking, but not unfamiliar.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are approximately 5 million black men in America between the ages of 20 and 39. But the fate of these young people in American society is bleak. A young black man today has a greater chance of being shot or victimized by violence than going to college. The incarceration rate among black males is mind boggling. Nearly one out of four black males is either in state prison, county jail, on parole, probation or is being sought by law enforcement authorities. Nearly 16 percent of black men between the ages of 20-30 who are not college students are in some form of custodial supervision. Nearly 60 percent of black male high school dropouts in the 20-39 age range have done prison or jail time. African Americans are seven times more likely to go to prison or jail than whites; and the incarceration rate for young black males has continued to rise for the past two decades. There does not seem to be an end to the exodus of young black men to correctional institutions. Even sociologists have invented a new theory to explain the “internal migration” of young urban black males from their communities to prison. The sad truth is that the United States now imprisons more people than any other country in the world; and a disproportionate percentage of these inmates are black men.

Economically, African Americans as a group earn less today than they did fifteen years ago. The jobless rate among black men has remained the highest among all groups in the U.S., and continues to increase. In 2000, approximately 65 percent of black male high school dropouts had no jobs; by 2004, that number had increased to 72 percent. Young African Americans with no criminal records do not seem to do much better in the job market. They have as much chance of getting employed as a white job seeker fresh out of jail. Such is the sad, sad story of young African American males; and it is widely documented in all of the major studies done at Harvard, Princeton and Columbia over the past 2 years.

But there is a human side that some of us see in the trenches. There are real faces behind these statistics. We know them as clients in the state and federal prisons, and county jails. We do our best to defend them in the courtrooms and hearing rooms while they are chained like dangerous wild animals. We listen in muted anger as they are dehumanized and referred to as “bodies”. We are told, “There is one body waiting for you to talk.” Every day we read the same stories written on the faces of these young black men in invisible ink. It is a story of gangs, drugs, poverty and violence. It is a familiar and numbing story. But we have heard it all before. And the criminal justice system has a well-oiled revolving door that spits out young African Americans like widgets in a factory assembly line. From incarceration to parole and probation, and back to incarceration. It is the same story every time.

We also see them, just a very few of them, in the college classrooms. Often we see them for a fleeting moment. A few days, and they are not around anymore. And we wonder. But rarely do we wonder if they had fallen ill or gotten into an accident. No, we worry, and often are resigned to the fact that perhaps they got arrested. It is very sad. Every year, we hope there will be more young African American men in our classes because tens of thousands of them graduate from the high schools all over the State of California; and every year we are disappointed. They don’t come.

In 2006, in Los Angeles County alone 10,487 African American students graduated from high school. Only 210 (2%) were admitted at UCLA! In the same year, the University of California (UC) System admitted 55,242 students. Only 1880 (3.4%) were African American. In 2006, in the California State University System (CSU), there were only 20,000 African American students out of more than 400,000, representing only 6% of the student population system wide. But the admissions percentages are terribly misleading. Among those African Americans admitted, a little over 50 percent actually graduate within 6 years. Among those admitted and graduating, a significant percentage of them are African American women. Imagine: What are the odds of having an African American student in a given course on a UC or CSU campus? An African American male?

MLK’s Human Rights Legacy: Barack Obama Can Lead the People From the Mountain of Despair to the Valley of Hope!
Senator Obama seems ready to pick up Dr. King’s mantle. He uses language that unifies America, not divide it. He appeals to principles of justice, freedom and equality, not to whites or blacks or other races. He declared, “There is no black America. There is no White America. Only the United States of America.” That is in the same spirit of Dr. King’s dream, “a dream deeply rooted in the American dream ‘that all men are created equal.’” It is the same aspiration.

Obama’s message is resonating with people of all races, as did Dr. King’s. Whites, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and others are coming out to vote for him in record numbers. He is revitalizing American democracy, and awakening a new spirit of political participation and involvement among the young. He has struck a chord in the American imagination and spirit. He sounds just like Dr. King when he says, “I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m talking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.” He talks about finding our way out of the wilderness. “That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words — words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white, not just the Gentile but also the Jew, not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.”

Whether Barack Obama becomes president is an important fact. His candidacy and the public support he has generated to date marks a historic milestone in American history. But to many of us, whether he can carry the mantle of Dr. King is equally important. Can he pick up where Dr. King left off? Many of Dr. King’s people are stranded on a mountain of despair. They need someone to lead them out of the wilderness to the valley of hope? Can Obama become the moral conscience and compass for America? He can, if he chooses to become Dr. King’s messenger!

Dr. King Would Have Wholeheartedly Supported Ethiopian Human Rights
Dr. King would have supported H.R. 2003 wholeheartedly. We know this from the fact that he opposed racist violence in Alabama and Mississippi that caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent protesters and imprisonment of thousands more; and from his unflinching opposition to apartheid in South Africa, dictatorships in Latin America and Africa, and in his outrage wherever “injustice threatened justice.” We can still hear the echoes of Dr. King’s words from nearly a half century ago. Back then he spoke out against U.S. support of tyrannical and dictatorial regimes that trampled on human rights in Latin America, Asia and Africa. If he were alive today, he would asked President Bush why America is on the “wrong side” of the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia? Why has America created an “alliance” with a corrupt and dictatorial regime in Ethiopia that tramples on the basic human rights of its citizens? Why is America helping to suppress the freedom aspirations “of the shirtless and barefoot people” of Ethiopia? Why is it that “America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world is not leading the human rights revolution in the world?”

But he would have had a few words for us too. He would have reminded us our obligations: “Every man (and woman) of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his (her) convictions, but we must all protest.” Yes, we must protest against human rights violations. And against tyranny and dictatorships. We must have our voices heard in support of the rule of law, freedom, justice, human rights and democracy. And he would have also taught us the truth about the consequences of our inaction and indifference: “If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”

So today we wish Dr. King a happy birthday! Today we celebrate his message and teachings. Today we recommit ourselves to the cause of truth, justice, freedom, human rights and democracy. Today we join Dr. King in reciting one of his favorite poems written by James Russell Lowell:

Truth forever on the scaffold.
Wrong forever on the throne.
With that scaffold sways the future.
Behind the dim unknown stands God
Within the shadow keeping watch above his own.

Long Live the King! Long Live the Dream! Long Live H. R. 2003!

H.R. Stands for Human Rights: Let's Stand Up for H.R. 2003 in 2008

2008-01-07T12:34:00.000-08:00

H.R. Here, H.R. There, H.R. Everywhere in Ethiopia!The truth is finally out! The H.R. in H.R. 2003 stands for Human Rights! H.R. has become the special code for the Ethiopian people whenever they want to talk about the rule of law and due process and freedom of expression and association. It has become their special lingo to talk about the need for an independent press and an independent judiciary and for clean elections and the rest of it. And human rights were the rage in Ethiopia in the third quarter of 2007. From the barstools of the Sheraton and Hilton hotels to the tattered wooden benches of the tej, tella and katikalla bets, the talk was H.R. Farmers, day laborers and even listros (shoeshiners) wistfully talked about H.R. "This H.R. We need her! If only we had HeR…" they'd pine away.

From the universities to the school yard, it was all about H.R. The mantra of the Grant Run was H.R. "We want H.R. Pass H.R. now!", the multitudes chanted in unison as they pounded the pavement. Sinecured politicians and bureaucrats, and sycophants lined up to condemn H.R. On regime-controlled radio, television and in the "newspapers", it was H.R. H.R. H.R. H.R.!!!! The Ethiopian Diaspora basked in the sunlight of H.R., fresh from a unanimous House vote. In the United States, the epicenter of the H.R. phenomenon, and in Canada, Europe and Australia, and in the Middle East and Africa, they sang the H.R. song. Just like Harry Belafonte sang his freedom song: "If I had a hammer". If we had H.R., we too would hammer for justice, and ring the bell of freedom all over the land. Ah! If we only had H.R…

Let's Thank Our Adversaries!Passage of H.R. 2003 in the U.S. House of Representatives in October, 2007 "rocked their world". They could not believe they would be thumped so decisively so well protected by the Armey of D.L.A. Piper. They frothed at the mouth. They recoiled in cold sweat. They cried foul. But all to no avail. H.R. had captivated the imagination of all Ethiopians. It was embedded deep in their psyche. H.R. had become the symbol of hope for millions who have been forced to endure hopelessness. The very acronym, H.R., had a magical quality of deliverance to it. It was empowering, and inspiring. Every time Ethiopians uttered the H.R. acronym, it was at once an act of defiance and of civil disobedience; and also a muted cry for help, an S.O.S. to America and the world for dignity, for democracy and for the rule of law.

How did H.R. 2003 become a symbol of hope and redemption, and an envelope for the hopes and desires of 76 million people? Well, we must give due credit to our adversaries for this singular achievement. They helped spread the gospel of human rights far and wide in Ethiopia. We could not have done it with them!

Of course, they did not intend to spread our human rights message. They were just victims of the law of unintended consequences. Their sole aim was to disparage and caricature H.R. 2003 and inflame public passions by fabricating nonsensical arguments about the bill. In fact, they pulled out all the stops to malign and distort the simple and unmistakable message of H.R. 2003. The litany of falsehoods and distortions about the bill changed and became more absurd by the day. They said H.R. 2003 will bring "slavery" and "colonialism" to Ethiopia. The people laughed. "The mighty Italian army with its tanks, planes and mustard gas could not enslave and colonize Ethiopia. Could America with a stroke of the legislative pen?"

They even resurrected the Ghost of Wuchale to support the fallacious argument that H.R. 2003 destroys Ethiopian sovereignty and usurps the legislative functions of the Ethiopian "parliament". In the Wuchale Treaty, Menelik supposedly gave Eritrea to the Italians and agreed to have the Italians prosecute Ethiopian foreign policy. But did he really? No doubt, those who now trumpet their unabashed pride in liberating Eritrea could answer that question definitively. Only "parliament" can pass human rights laws, they said. The people chuckled, "Save parliament's time. Just respect, follow and apply your constitution." But why can't they respect and follow their own constitution?

They said H.R. 2003 will undermine the current effort to build democracy in Ethiopia. They forgot they had told everyone for the last 17 years that Ethiopia was a democracy and a republic. Apparently, not. But if they are indeed building democracy now, it must be a democracy without foundation. There is no evidence of the rule of law as a cornerstone of this supposed democratic edifice. No independent press or independent judiciary as a support beam. No due process of law and no clean elections to make this vacant building a home for the people. They said H.R. 2003 is the only one of its kind stirred up by vindictive Diasporans who seek to harm Ethiopia. They seemed to be willfully ignorant of similar bills that are currently pending in Congress for North Korea, Iran and Vietnam, or others that have been recently enacted against Burma and the Sudan, among others. They tried to smear pro-democracy forces who support H.R. 2003. They threatened dire diplomatic consequences should the bill be enacted into law: "America will not have an ally in the war against terror in the Horn of Africa." Sure, everyone knows what happened to the dog that bit the hand that fed it.

For months, our adversaries worked themselves into a frenzy rolling out one lie after another in a futile attempt to discredit H.R. 2003and take the peoples' eyes off the prize. But no amount of propaganda and disinformation could convince the people that H.R. 2003 is a bad thing for them, or for Ethiopia.

The people remained spellbound by the almost magical quality of H.R. 2003, and its promise to promote the rule of law, accountability, democracy and freedom in Ethiopia.
Our adversaries did more to teach the people of Ethiopia about human rights than we ever could in the Diaspora. The more lies they told about H.R. 2003, the more people became convinced of the righteousness of H.R. 2003 and the urgent need for the defense of their human rights. Every word of condemnation and censure of H.R. 2003 became a blessing in disguise to the cause of human rights in Ethiopia. People knew what they knew. They could not speak the truth out loud because the fox is guarding the henhouse. But that does not mean the chickens do not know the truth about the treacherous fox, or that the fox has convinced them into believing that it is necessary to violate their human rights to preserve it for them. Ultimately, H.R. 2003 proved to be a small bill that gave great hope to the Ethiopian people.

But despite the massive official campaign against H.R. 2003, the people did not rise up with righteous indignation and burn the American flag in the streets of Addis or any other city. They did not burn George Bush in effigy. They did not carry placards that said "Yankee go home!". Not a single person said a critical word against H.R. 2003 during the Great Run of 2007. So we must sincerely thank our adversaries for what they have done to spread the message of human rights in Ethiopia, and encourage them to continue to malign, distort and criticize H.R. 2003.

H.R. 2003 in the U.S. Senate and in the American Political Process
The defeat of H.R. 2003 in the Senate has been trumpeted over the past months. Regime leaders and their minions have confidently proclaimed that H.R. 2003 will not be enacted into law because it will not pass the Senate. They arrogantly declared that even if the Senate were to pass it, Bush will certainly veto it since he understands the "bill is wrong and that Ethiopia is a poor country, not a poor dog." But even if Bush were to sign the bill into law, they said "we would reject it" because "our constitution would not allow it as it represents a violation of our sovereignty, and the only people who could make laws are sitting in this parliament." They even threatened American policy makers: "Ethiopian American cooperation will stop if they seek to implement the law". They managed to enlist the huckster Jim Inhofe in the Senate to stonewall H.R. 2003. He obligingly vowed to defeat the bill. All indications are Inhofe will place a "hold" (delay floor action on the bill as much as possible) on the bill, and possibly even filibuster (a special senate procedure that requires the vote of 60 other members to bring a bill to a floor vote) it should it proceed to the Senate floor.

But we should not be discouraged by all the bluster and swagger. The forces of evil will do what they will. It is up to the forces of good to rise up and challenge them by doing good. We did good, damn good, just this past year. Who will forget the dark days of November, 2006, when Speaker Hastert snuffed the lights out of H.R. 5680? True, evil prevailed that November, but not for long. We came back in April; and on the exact anniversary of the defeat of H.R. 5680, we got H.R. 2003 passed in the House, unanimously. We persisted, therefore we prevailed! We prevailed because we learned the same lesson Winston Churchill learned when confronted by the overwhelming might of the Nazi war machine: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." We must persist, again!

The struggle in the Senate will not be an easy one. We face many obstacles — procedural, structural and the adverse effects of partisan bickering from the campaign trail. Senate procedures make it possible for a single senator to obstruct the flow of legislation. "Holds", "filibusters", "unanimous consent" and other arcane senate procedures and traditions afford individual senators extraordinary powers to thwart speedy consideration and action on legislation. Committee hearings, legislative schedules and debates take place at the Senate's (snail's) pace. In the first half of 2008, the Senate will have a full plate. The war in Iraq will remain a contentious issue as will immigration and efforts to mitigate the predicted recessionary effects of the massive mortgage crises. The Senate itself is in a logjam with the balance of power evenly divided between 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. The run up to the November 2008 elections will have its own special effect on the Senate agenda, as both parties try to curry support from voters.

Despite the vicissitudes of election year politics and intricate legislative procedures, we can and we will prevail in the Senate. But we must redouble our efforts. There are many things going in our favor. Tectonic transformations are looming in the American political landscape. Americans want change, desperately and now. Who would have thought just a few weeks ago that a black man could sweep the Iowa caucuses in a rural state with a predominantly "white" population? But race did not matter to Iowans. Change did. Even in New Hampshire, Obama is in dead heat with Clinton. Republican Mike Huckabee, a relative unknown from one of the poorest states in America, trounced multimillionaire Mitt Romney, from one of the richest states in America, who outspent him in Iowa by more than six to one. The bottom line is that Americans are fed up with lies, liars, war mongers, and incompetents running their government and foreign policy.

There is no question that Americans are deeply concerned and are very unhappy about their country's image, role and presence in the international community. They don't want America to be the policeman of the world. They understand that the war on terrorism can not be won simply by bombing and breaking the bones of the enemies of democracy and freedom. They know it is essential to also reach the hearts and minds of those who oppose America. Americans want their troops back from Iraq, and they want an end to the reckless global military adventurism that wastes their hard earned tax dollars. They realize the best weapon to ensure American primacy in woirld affairs is a foreign policy genuinely based on promoting human rights, the rule of law, democratic institutions, independent judiciaries and independent free press isntitutions, among others. Even the republican presidential candidates are now earnestly talking about the vital need to promote human rights in the Islamic world and wherever else dictators dictate. Even the bought-and-paid-for politicians now understand that one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Change in American foreign policy means changing the image of the "ugly American" who wants to dominate the world by brute military force. Change means a recognition of the stark fact that America can reclaim its honored role in the world by upholding its founding principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Americans want a foreign policy that is humane and compassionate, not one that thrives on rabid militarism and the spectre of terrorism. Therein lies our hope and inevitable ultimate victory, despite temporary setbacks, the machinations of hucksters and fat cat lobbyists. Our cause is on the same side of the cause of the American people.

Beware the Ruse of the Adversary
Our adversaries would have you believe that the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia rises or falls with H.R. 2003. If the bill does not pass, they would like to have us believe, we have lost. The cause of human rights in Ethiopia is defeated and lost forever. We should beware the demoralizing propaganda and disinformation campaign of the adversary. We have no illusions about H.R. 2003. We believe it to be an important strategic tool in the struggle for human rights, but none of us believe it to be a cure-all for all human rights violations in Ethiopia. Anyone who has read the bill knows that the certification requirements give the president of the United States considerable discretion in determining statutory compliance. For instance, the president could refuse to apply the law if s/he felt applying it would compromise American national interest. So there are limitations to the bill even if it were enacted into law.

What we should clearly understand is the fact that H.R. 2003 is just one mile marker on the long walk to a free and democratic Ethiopia. That road neither begins nor ends in the U.S. Congress. That journey takes entirely in the hearts and minds of the Ethiopian people. We have always said that we shall win the struggle for human rights by winning hearts and minds of our brothers and sisters, not by breaking their bones and hearts. And how we win hearts and minds is no secret. We tell the truth. Nothing but the truth. So help us God! Of course, we have no choice but to speak truth to power, because as Scripture teaches, the "truth shall set us free."

It is in the nature of human beings to yearn to be free; to be treated with dignity and respect; to be treated fairly and equally before the law. This yearning is the same for the filthy rich as it is for the dirt poor; the same for the young as it is for the old; for men as it is for women; for the educated and the illiterate alike. Human rights are to the human spirit of freedom as religion is to the immortal soul and bread to the mortal body. Man and woman need to be protected from political predators who derive their thrills from oppressing and persecuting the powerless. Humans need their fundamental rights protected and respected, by law. This Truth we must proclaim till Kingdom come!

The Task Ahead: Let's Pass H.R. 2003 in the Senate!H.R. 2003 now sits in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It needs to get committee action and get to the floor for a vote. It can be done, but it requires unceasing effort and unflinching commitment. We must keep doing what we have been doing, but we must do some of it differently. We must be better organized. We must do less freelancing and more concerted and coordinated grassroots action. We must intensify our efforts with individual senators from our respective states. We must educate and develop working relationships with their staffers. We must share with them the truth about human rights abuses on a regular basis. We must win the hearts and minds of our Senators with the Truth if we are to ultimately win.

Above all, we must resolve to stay with H.R. 2003 for the long haul. In the battle between good and evil, evil wins many skirmishes. But good wins in the end, always! That is the history of all dictatorships from time immemorial. They win for a time, but not for all time. Even the soulless tyrant knows he can not oppress forever. But Congress is not the only place we can plead our human rights cause. There is a much higher court than Congress to which we can appeal. It is a court called the Conscience of the American People. There we must plead our cause passionately and relentlessly. In the state legislatures. Before civic and professional organizations. In the churches, and universities and schools, and wherever else we can be heard. We must create awareness among our American friends, neighbors and coworkers. As others enlist hucksters, we must enlist the help of Average Joe American. We must make the American people our natural allies. We must tell them the truth about the massacre of 193 innocent people, and the thousands of nameless souls that have perished at the hands of a ruthless regime. And the thousands more that languish in subhuman jails today. We must speak up about those who abuse their powers and inflict great pain and suffering on their people. We must expose their evil deeds and evil ways. In all we do we must maintain unflagging fidelity to the Truth. And we must "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." Let's join hands and pass H.R. 2003 in 2008.

Monkey Trial in Kangaroo Kourt:Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demessie in the “Lions’ Den”

2007-12-23T15:24:00.000-08:00

The Crime of Innocence
It is often said that truth is stranger than fiction. The grotesque prosecution of Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie is much stranger than the grim and chilling fictional story of Joseph K., in Franz Kafka’s The Trial. The first sentence in Kafka’s book reads, “Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.” K., is ordered to stand trial before judges who do the bidding of their invisible masters. His trial is delayed time and again. He can not defend himself because he is never told what crimes he has committed. He is denied access to the evidence allegedly proving his guilt. His lawyers are incapable of defending him in an irrational and severely crippled legal system that relies on arbitrary and capricious procedures.

Like Joseph K., “Someone must have been telling lies about Daniel B., and Netsanet D., for without having done anything wrong they were arrested one fine morning in November, 2005.” They have no idea what crimes they have committed. Buy they are “charged” with a hodgepodge of nonsensical “crimes” that allege “outrage”, “obstruction”, “incitement”, and “impairment”. They are brought before an all-powerful political “court” with robed political hacks sitting as judges.

Like Joseph K., Daniel B., and Netsanet D., are told they are guilty. But when they protest their innocence, their persecutors relentlessly interrogate them: “Innocent of what? Protestations of innocence are themselves a sign of guilt”, they are lectured. They tried to seduce them, “Confess and you will be pardoned like the others before you. Sign an admission of guilt, and you’ll be set free.” But they refuse to confess to trumped up political charges. Today, for their crime of innocence, Daniel B., and Netsanet D., are languishing in the squalid and overcrowded cells of Kality prison, going into their third year. If “convicted”, they face possible life sentences. The “verdict/judgment” in their case has been postponed repeatedly due to a contrived and unspecified “illness of a judge”.

Even Kafka, the master storyteller of inexplicable guilt, could not have written a more nightmarish story of a totalitarian state that is completely out of control. The story of Daniel B., and Netsanet D., is an account of a police state that criminalizes innocent citizens, and coddles torturers and the killers of 193 unarmed protesters, and many thousands more. It is a microcosmic story of a nation played out in the persecution of two young and innocent captives of a ruthless regime that thrives on the dehumanization of an entire population; and sustains itself by denying its citizens basic human rights, and by crushing their spirit of freedom and liberty.

The Innocents
Daniel B., and Netsanet D., are part of a new and dynamic breed of young Ethiopian patriots. They are in the same honored league as Frehiwot Samuel, Teshome Mitiku, Woldemichael Meshesha and Alemayehu Zemedkun, those great patriots who shone the flashlight of truth on the June and November, 2005 massacres of unarmed protesters in Ethiopia. Daniel B., and Netsanet D., like the others, value principle above expediency. They place duty, honor and country above their own personal advantages. They are not politicians, religious leaders or sycophants with ambitions for power. They are the tip of the spear in an emerging group of Ethiopian social pioneers called “civil society activists”, a fancy phrase used to describe people who stand up for the poor and downtrodden, for democracy, for human rights and the rule of law.

Daniel B., managed a branch of ActionAid International in Ethiopia, an organization committed to fighting poverty and injustice. ActionAid helps poor people in urban slums and rural areas with the basic necessities of life. It also promotes anti-poverty public policies. Netsanet D., founded and directed the Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia. His organization is dedicated to fostering democracy through education and advocacy. Daniel B., and Netsanet D., helped coordinate the Civil Society Election Monitoring Initiative in May, 2005 in the Addis Ababa area. Neither has ever used nor advocated the use of violence or force to bring about social or political change in Ethiopia. Amnesty International has listed both of them as prisoners of conscience, and called for their immediate and unconditional release.

The Persecution of the Innocents
Daniel B., and Netsanet D., were arrested during the ruling regime’s November, 2005 “sweeps”, which resulted in the arbitrary arrest and detention of 131 opposition leaders, journalists, civic society leaders and human rights defenders. The trumped up charges against Daniel B., and Netsanet D., are nonsensical by any civilized legal standard. They are accused of committing the unintelligible and weird crimes of “outrage against the constitution or constitutional order”, “obstruction of the exercise of constitutional powers”, “inciting, organizing and leading armed rebellion”, and “impairing the defensive power of the state.” No one knows what these silly “charges” mean. They mean whatever Zenawi wants them to mean.

The testimonial “evidence” against Daniel B., and Netsanet D., is simply laughable.[1] The “government” called a total of seven witnesses in its case-in-chief. Four offered eyewitness testimony of the alleged crimes. One woman testified she was present at a civil society training of election observers when Daniel B., and Netsanet D., called EPDRF a “thief” that will rig elections. The two cautioned trainees to be vigilant against EPDRF shenanigans. They even handed out flashlights in case power is mysteriously cut to the location where the trainees were assigned to do the election monitoring. Her major complaint was that she was assigned to a monitoring location far away from her home. She testified that she could not tell apart Daniel from Netsanet.

Another woman testified that during a meeting to discuss whether the elected parliamentarians should take their seats and what civil society groups could do in the post-election period, she heard Daniel B., and Netsanet D., criticize the government for being oppressive, and the election board for not being independent. At this meeting, the two complained that the May, 2005 elections had been rigged and the parliamentary procedures changed to disadvantage opposition members. The two shared their conclusion that under such circumstances it would be difficult for the newly elected candidates to join parliament. This witness testified that she had heated exchanges with Daniel B., but at no time did either one threaten to do anything violent or unlawful.

One man testified that Netsanet D., told him to organize the youth in the neighborhood because the EPDRF had stolen the elections. Netsanet D., gave him flyers to distribute, and directed him to organize anti-government activities. As a result, the witness organized youth to burn tires in the streets, and talked to people in the bars and tea rooms and stopped taxi drivers and buses to tell passengers that the May, 2005 elections had been stolen. The witness also damaged some fencing in the course of his activities. This witness did not tell anyone of his subversive activities, including his family members and friends. Another man testified that Netsanet D., gave him 200 birr and flyers in a tea room, and told him to organize youth. The witness stopped people in the street and tried to organize them. He did not remember the names of any of the persons he met in the streets.

Three other eyewitnesses were called to corroborate the proper execution of search warrants to obtain evidence from the residences of certain individuals supposedly connected to Daniel B. and Netsanet D. None of these witnesses actually saw the so-called search warrant. Their testimony as to what they observed was confused and contradictory. They had more “I don’t recalls/I don’t knows” than Alberto Gonzalez at a Congressional hearing.

The documentary “evidence” is equally laughable. A prime piece of “government” evidence was a doctored email allegedly showing Daniel B., and Netsanet D., as Kinijit contact persons. Other documents admitted into evidence included a civic society conference report, a notice of public meeting and flyers describing the difficult situation in Ethiopia after the May elections. No evidence was presented to show the two participated in any demonstrations or engaged in any violent or potentially violent activity.

This is the corpus delecti, the whole body of the crime, for which Daniel B., and Netsanet D., have been in jail for more than two years now. As a technical matter of law, the critical question is whether the foregoing evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Daniel B., and Netsanet D., committed the alleged “crimes”, or any crimes at all? The obvious answer is: NO! No reasonable person with common sense anywhere in the world, let alone impartial and neutral judges, could possibly find sufficient evidence to convict Daniel B., and Netsanet D., of any crimes on the “evidence” presented against them. The totality of the so-called evidence is perfectly permissible political activity under the ruling regime’s constitution, and other universally recognized human rights conventions.

But beyond the laughable testimonial and documentary evidence, there were numerous not-so-funny and egregious procedural and ethical violations by the so-called prosecutors. The defense was denied important discovery (evidence legally required to be turned over to Daniel B., and Netsanet D's., lawyers to prepare their defense); and illegally obtained evidence was admitted at “trial”, as was fabricated, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial evidence. The prosecution was allowed to call witnesses whose identities were concealed from the defense. Defense lawyers were denied the opportunity to investigate prosecution witnesses and prepare effective cross-examination. Prosecutors were given preferential treatment in court proceedings. But let’s not be sidetracked by real issues of law and procedure. After all, we are talking about a monkey trial in a kangaroo kourt.

The Defense of Innocence
The funny thing about a kangaroo trial is that it’s a judicial circus performed with smoke and mirrors. In “prosecuting” (more accurately, persecuting) Daniel B., and Netsanet D., (and the other 129 victims of arbitrary prosecution), Zenawi sought to put on a “dog-and-pony” show for the international community. He wanted to use the “trials” to project an international image that he is a liberal democrat who believes in the rule of law, and practices due process in his courts. But like the best laid plans of mice and men, his scheme went completely awry over the past two years. His show proved to be a farcical kangaroo court complete with hacks robed to look like judges, sleazy henchmen masquerading as prosecutors, and two innocent young men sitting in the dock facing a low-tech legal lynching for nonsensical crimes based on fabricated evidence.

The fact of the matter is that Daniel B., and Netsanet D., do not have to present a “defense” in kangaroo court. They have committed no crime to defend against, and the ultimate verdict in their illegal prosecution has already been rendered. They have been found innocent (not “not guilty”) of all charges in the hearts and minds of their countrymen and women, and in the court of world opinion. Amnesty International has declared Daniel B., and Netsanet D., are innocent prisoners of conscience. So has Human Rights Watch and the other international human rights organizations.

Even Richard Morgan Chambers, the U.N. official assigned to advise the chairman of Ethiopia's “election board” in 2005, testified to their innocence in kangaroo court. He said Daniel B., and Netsanet D., had “performed in accordance with the constitution and the legal framework of the country... Their report on the election was balanced and contained the negative and positive aspects. They performed an impressive job as election observers despite the difficult situation.”[2] The defense rests!

There is no need for the rest of us to play a game of charade guessing when the “court” will render a “judgment/verdict”. In kangaroo court, there is no fair trial, and no fair judgment/verdict could be expected. “Conviction” is a foregone conclusion in the mistrial of Daniel B., and Netsanet D., as it was for the 129 or so other victims before them. If truth be told, they were all “convicted” long before they committed, or even thought of committing the alleged crimes.

On May 6, 2005, a week and half before the elections, and seven months before the November demonstrations, Reuters quoted Zenawi accusing the CUD leaders and the others of trying to cause a “Rwanda-type genocide” by spreading ethnic hatred and strife, and by organizing a violent uprising aimed at overthrowing the government. Congressman Chris Smith stated during the mark-up of H.R. 2003 a couple of months ago in the House International Relations Committee that in August, 2005, Zenawi told him that he had “big dossiers” on all of the victims and could throw them all in jail at will. He merely used the November, 2005 demonstrations as a pretext to implement his long-hatched plan to incapacitate and intimidate the opposition by incarcerating their leaders.

The Triumph of Innocence
The inevitable “conviction” of Daniel B., and Netsanet D., presents Zenawi with two problems. First, what can he really do after convicting them? He has several options: 1) “sentence” them to the maximum, which would be life in prison, 2) impose a determinate sentence of a term of several years, 3) impose a suspended sentence with probation, 4) release them by giving them “credit for time served”, 5) offer them the same bogus pardon which they rejected back in July, or continue to play the “oh-the-judge-is-sick-today” charade and delay final action. Of course, none of these options give him bragging rights to smugly claim “they admitted their guilt and I pardoned them.” Second, his credibility, if he has any left, will completely evaporate if he does anything other than acquit them outright.

Zenawi probably feels that he is in one of those “damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t” situations. That is, if he sentences Daniel B., and Netsanet D., to a prison term, he will surely make them larger-than-life Heroes of Ethiopian Human Rights. They will be the international “poster boys” for human rights abuses in Ethiopia, and a cause célèbre of the Diaspora. Their cause will galvanize and energize the Ethiopian Diaspora’s human rights struggle in Ethiopia. On the other hand, he may wrongly conclude that that if he just lets them go, he may risk “losing face”.

Zenawi can save himself from his colossal folly and “put his money where his mouth is” by simply acquitting them outright. He could tell the world that he truly believes in the rule of law, and in this case he lost “fair and square” in a real court. He just could not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. There really is nothing shameful in losing a court battle where the ends of justice are served. For instance, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa had his deputy prime minister Jacob Zuma falsely charged with a heinous crime so that he could remove him as a candidate for the next president of South Africa. A real judge acquitted Zuma, and Mbeki accepted the ruling of the court, as he had to accept the ruling of his African National Congress a few weeks ago when it elected Zuma as its leader, ensuring Zuma’s election as the next President of South Africa.

The fact of the matter is that Daniel B., and Netsanet D., are factually innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, and there is nothing wrong in saying to them, “We made a big mistake in making false accusations against you. We are very sorry.” Better yet, make a judicial finding of factual innocence (that is, issue a court order declaring that there is no reasonable cause to believe Daniel B., and Netsanet D., committed any crimes alleged in the charges, and that they are factually innocent of the alleged crimes) and move on! It is never wrong, and never too late, to do the right thing! Zenawi could also take the high road and free the thousands of other political prisoners, and prove to skeptical court of world opinion that he truly believes in the rule of law, and not just enjoy yakking about it in the international media.

But there is a greater lesson to be learned from an outright acquittal of Daniel B., and Netsanet D. Zenawi and his regime should know better than anyone else that the table can one day turn. It did on the Derg. As Scripture teaches, “The arrogant one will stumble and fall with no one about to raise him up.” Scripture admonishes the arrogant: “Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees, depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my peoples’ poor of their rights, making widows their plunder, and orphans their prey.” And those who sit in judgment should heed the Word: “In the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Those who inflict injustice today should beware that they are schooling others who will inflict injustice upon them tomorrow.

Personal Reflections on Innocence and Injustice: We Must Take A Moral Stand
Hannah Arendt in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem used the phrase “banality of evil” to explain how great evils in history, including the Holocaust, were not committed by maniacs and psychopaths, but by ordinary people who believed their actions were normal because the state had legitimized and authorized it. She argued that torture, murder, arbitrary detentions and other inhuman and degrading practices become routine and accepted as “the way things are done” because ordinary people fail to express moral outrage in the face of great evil.

There is, I believe, a “banality of tyranny” in the world today which seeks to justify and normalize tyranny and dictatorship as “the way things are done”. The “banality of tyranny” nurtures the idea that it is necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it; the rule of law must be rooted out of society in order to create a just society; that totalitarianism is morally justified against the threat of terrorism; and state violence, crackdowns, arrests and repression are moral imperatives to save society from itself.

Consider the recent actions of Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharaf. He jailed thousands of lawyers, social, human rights and political activists, independent journalists, union members, opposition party leaders and activists, judges, religious leaders and students throughout Pakistan in an a desperate effort to cling to power. He declared martial law, or Musharraf’s law, to make it all possible. The people of Pakistan are forced to accept this as “the way things are done”.

Robert Mugabe has made Zimbabwe a basket case of poverty and human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch reports as many as 3 million Zimbabwean refugees have fled into South Africa. Zimbabwe has an inflation rate of 7,000 percent! According to the World Health Organization, Zimbabweans have the shortest life expectancy in the world. The average life today is 35 compared to 69 in 2000! The African Human Rights Commission has condemned Mugabe for widespread human rights violations. And the people of Zimbabwe are forced to accept this as “the way things are done”.

In Ethiopia today, Zenawi has banned the political opposition from organizing (or even using the lobby of a private hotel to have a press conference about internal party matters), decimated the independent press and is currently ramming through his rubberstamp parliament a bill to criminalize financial contributions to opposition parties from outside of Ethiopia. All expressive freedoms are suppressed. Thousands of innocent Ethiopians languish in prison. Peaceful protesters are gassed, beaten, arrested and/or shot. Must the people of Ethiopia be forced to accept this as “the way things are done”?

We Must Take A Moral Stand!
As Ethiopians we must all take a moral stand against injustice, and those who victimize the innocent. Laura Bush did. She took a principled moral stand on human rights violations in Burma. On December 10, 2007, on the occasion of International Human Rights Day, Laura Bush said the people of Burma “are denied nearly every right” enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948. “For nearly 20 years, Burma's military regime has crushed peaceful dissent and jailed thousands of political prisoners. President Bush and I call on all nations, especially Burma's neighbors, to use their influence to help bring about a democratic transition. Members of the junta have promised to engage in serious dialogue with democratic representatives of the Burmese people. If Than Shwe and the generals cannot meet these very basic requirements, then it's time for them to move aside and make a clear path for a free and democratic Burma.”

Laura Bush, where art thou? Light the way in Ethiopia, too! Daniel B., and Netsanet D., need you, now! Tell Zenawi that if he “can not meet the very basic democratic requirements, then it’s time for him to move aside and make a clear path for a free and democratic Ethiopia.”

Daniel and Netsanet in the “Lions’ Den”
Scripture teaches that the Prophet Daniel, whose name means “God is my judge”, was thrown into the den of hungry lions because of false accusations by his enemies in the court of the Persian king Darius, and for his refusal to betray his God and worship Darius instead. But the lions did not touch Daniel. Darius asked Daniel in amazement how he had managed to survive the mouths of the hungry lions. Daniel told Darius, “My God sent His angel, and shut the lions’ mouths. They have not hurt me because I was found innocent in His sight. And also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime."

Netsanet is a most unusual name in Ethiopia. It means “freedom/liberty”. Netsanet’s parents must have named him so because of their deep love of freedom and liberty. Perhaps they dreamt that one day their son will become an instrument to bring freedom to Ethiopia. Perhaps they dreamt in the lifetime of their son, all Ethiopians will enjoy freedom of speech, and of religion, and of the press, and association and assembly; and undergo the exhilarating experience of freedom from fear of their government, and from arbitrary arrest, detention and persecution, and ultimately, freedom from dictatorship and tyranny. Perhaps…

Just as the Prophet Daniel was thrown into the lions’ den because he refused to betray God and for refusing to lie and cheat, Daniel and Netsanet are in captivity in the squalid and overcrowded cells of Kality prison because they refused to betray truth, democracy, freedom, human rights, and ultimately, themselves. But no harm will come to them because they are “innocent in His sight. And they have committed no crime” against any earthly king!

Free Daniel B., and Netsanet D., NOW!

_____________________

[1] The defense closing argument in the kangaroo trial of Daniel B. and Netsanet D. is available in Amharic at: http://www.ethiopolitics.com/pdfiles/final%20statmentDanielandNetsanet.pdf

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL31893131

Remember, the Ethiopian Martyrs of June and November, 2005 Forever!

2007-11-16T21:42:00.000-08:00

Note to the reader: It was a year ago today, November 16, 2007, that Frehiwot Samuel, Woldemichael Meshesha and Mitiku Teshome briefed the United States Congress on the findings of their Inquiry Commission. Because of their extraordinary courage in revealing the truth to the world, we are here today to commemorate the victims of the 2005 massacre in Ethiopia. To these three brave sons of Ethiopia, we can only express our eternal debt of gratitude: “Never have so many owed so much to so few. Thank you!”

“For the survivor who chooses to testify, it is clear: his duty is to bear witness for the dead and the living. He has no right to deprive future generations of a past that belongs to our collective memory. To forget would be not only dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time. The witness has forced himself to testify. For the youth of today, for the children who will be born tomorrow. He does not want his past to become their future.” Elie Wiesel (Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor), Night (2006).

Do You Remember the Patriots of June and November?
On March 21, 1960, apartheid security forces in the township of Sharpeville, South Africa fired 705 bullets in two minutes to disperse a crowd of protesting Africans. When the shooting spree stopped, 69 black Africans lay dead, shot in the back; and 186 were severely wounded. The Sharpeville Massacre drew international attention to the plight of Africans in South Africa; and annually, it is commemorated as a watershed event, a turning point in the modern history of South Africa.

In November, 1938, the Nazis burned thousands of Jewish synagogues and businesses throughout Germany, killing nearly 100 and arresting and deporting over 30,000 to concentration camps. That was Krystallnacht (Night of Broken Glass). It was the forerunner to the Jewish Holocaust. Every November, Jews commemorate Krytallnacht.

In June and November, 2005, 193 unarmed men, women and children were massacred by paramilitary police units in Ethiopia as they engaged in ordinary civil protest.[1] Many thousands before them had suffered the same fate. The massacre of these unarmed protesters seared the consciences of Ethiopians, and laid bare to a candid but silent world the utter moral depravity of the ruling regime.

But two years later, the silence of the lambs from their mass graves echoes faintly among us, the living. But our own silence in the Diaspora is deafening. And we have turned mute and deaf. Why aren’t we commemorating the sacrifices of these martyrs? In our churches and mosques? In our homes among our families? At our social gatherings with our friends?

Shouldn’t we remember the martyrs of June and November, 2005?

The Silence of the Lambs
On November 16, 2006, three courageous Ethiopians appointed to an Inquiry Commission by the ruling regime to investigate the post-2005 election massacre of innocent protesters delivered their report in exile in a briefing to the United States Congress. Commission Chairman Frehiwot Samuel, Vice Chairman, Woldemichael Meshsha and member Mitiku Teshome did something that no one with authority and power has ever done in Ethiopia before them: They refused to whitewash government-sponsored crimes and atrocities committed against innocent citizens.

The documented facts of the June and November, 2005 massacres are shocking to the conscience as they are incontrovertible.[1] The Commission examined 16,990 documents, and received testimony form 1,300 witnesses. After analyzing this mountain of evidence, the Commission concluded that none of the protesters possessed, used or attempted to use firearms against the paramilitary forces. None of them possessed, used or attempted to use any type of explosives. No protester was observed carrying a stick or a club to use as a weapon. No protester set or attempted to set fire to public or private property. No protester robbed or attempted to rob a bank.

The paramilitary government forces used firearms, batons and tear gas. Their sharpshooters massacred 193 protestors in cold blood. Almost all of the victims were shot in the head or upper torso. Another 763 protesters suffered severe gunshot wounds. Over 30,000 civilians were arrested without warrant, and held in detention without due process of law. On November 3, 2005, during an alleged disturbance in Kality prison that lasted 15 minutes, prison guards fired more than 1500 bullets. The body count from this shooting spree left 17 detainees dead, and 53 others severely wounded.

Do you Know the Martyrs of June and November?
Who are the martyrs of June and November? Thanks to the Inquiry Commission, they are well known to us, and to the world. There was ShiBire Desalegn, a beautiful young high school graduate shot in the neck and killed as she and her friends tried desperately to block passage to a torture camp in Sendafa. Then there was Tensae Zegeye, age 14. And Debela Guta, age 15. And Habtamu Tola, age 16. Binyam Degefa, age 18. Behailu Tesfaye, age 20. Kasim Ali Rashid, age 21. Teodros Giday Hailu, age 23. Adissu Belachew, age 25; Milion Kebede Robi, age 32; Desta Umma Birru, age 37; Tiruwork G. Tsadik, age 41. Admasu Abebe, age 45. Elfnesh Tekle, age 45. Abebeth Huletu, age 50. Etenesh Yimam, age 50; Regassa Feyessa, age 55. Teshome Addis Kidane, age 65; Victim No. 21762, age 75, female. And there was Victim No.21760, male, age unknown. And there is a complete list of innocent citizens murdered by paramilitary troops.[2] [3]

We will never know for sure why ShiBire, Tensae, Debela, Habtamu, Kasim, Tiruwork, Etenesh, Victim No.21760 and the others went out to protest. Perhaps they felt they had a right to protest, to have their grievances heard. Perhaps they were driven out into the streets by an overpowering passion for liberty. May be they were surfing the tidal wave of the spirit of freedom that swept out the EPDRF and floated in Kinijit. May be they went out to protest as a gesture of defiance, to show the world that they can and will stand by to tyranny. May be it was all of the above and more. Certainly, before they went out to protest, all of them must have felt that they could never live down the shame of standing by idly as the first democratic election in Ethiopia’s history is stolen in a barefaced daylight robbery.

But we know other things for darn sure about these martyrs. They were ordinary people of humble origins and modest means. They did not have political connections. We know they set out to protest because they felt and believed that they owed their country a duty of citizenship to stand up to those who flex their muscles to crush the democratic aspirations of the people and trample upon the people’s civil liberties and human rights. We also know for sure that their motive for protesting was not personal gain or ambition. We know for sure that in their sacrifices, these martyrs scattered the seeds of freedom and democracy in Ethiopia, and the Ethiopian Diaspora. We can testify today that the sacrifices of these champions of liberty and human rights burns like an eternal candle in the hearts of all who believe and struggle for human rights and the rule of law not only in Ethiopia, but also throughout the world where the darkness of tyranny reigns.

In Memoriam of Fallen Patriots
Elie Weisel has taught us that it is our duty to bear witness for the dead and the living so that our past will not be the future of our children. To this end, it is our duty to commemorate formally and solemnly the sacrifices of those men, women and children who gave up their lives in the cause of democracy and liberty in 2005. Though they were massacred in the streets, we must believe in our hearts that they sacrificed their lives at the holy altar of democracy and liberty. They sacrificed their lives out of a sense of duty to country, honor to their countrymen and women, and righteous obligation to God. They died as patriots, heroes and heroines fighting peacefully and nonviolently in the cause of freedom and democracy. We must remember them and honor them, not in sorrow, but with grateful pride and joy.

For future generations, the sacrifices of these martyrs will tell not only a story of personal bravery and courage, it also exemplifies the abiding and unflinching faith they had in democracy and the rule of law. Through their ultimate sacrifices, children yet to be born will gain a deeper understanding of their history, our times and what it means to be Ethiopian.

In commemorating these great martyrs, we must also think of the widowed heart, the father who lost his son or daughter, or the daughter or son who lost a father or mother. We must think of the families of those nameless victims who are known to Man by their numbers, and to God as his own children. We should thank their families. We should HELP them materially, and uplift their spirits. We should tell them we know. We know that when Ethiopia sweltered under the yoke of tyranny, it was your son, your daughter, your husband, father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle who stood up and sacrificed their lives. We should comfort them that their loved ones did not die in vain, and shall forever live in our hearts. We should assure them that they will be immortalized in our collective conscience as Ethiopia’s most honored and virtuous children.

The Stuff of Ethiopian Patriots
There is a tie that binds all patriots and champions of liberty across the ages and cultures. That tie is moral courage. It is courage armored with righteous audacity which sustain them to stand unafraid in the face of oppressive tyranny. The true patriot challenges injustice, despotism, dictatorship, brutality, cruelty and subjugation. We have many great patriots who resisted oppression, occupation and subjugation by force of arms. Alula Aba Nega, Balcha Aba Nefso, Belay Zeleke, Hailemariam Mamo, Abreha Deboch and Moges Asgadom, Takele Welde Hawariat, Abebe Aregai, to name just a few.

But resistance to tyranny and oppression need not be violent or require the use of arms. Civil disobedience is a mighty weapon of patriots everywhere as they confront the repressive state, be it foreign or domestic. Gandhi defeated the mighty British army not by swords or guns, but through peaceful resistance, civil disobedience and non-cooperation. His “Quit India Movement” was the greatest challenge to British colonial rule. Martin King helped America realize the true meaning of its creed that all men are created equal through mass nonviolent civil disobedience.

And if we look back into our own history, we will find a contemporary of Mahatma Gandhi, and Great Soul in his own right, Abuna Petros, who practiced nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. He was executed for no other reason but preaching mass civil disobedience and non-cooperation with the fascist army that had occupied and terrorized Ethiopia. Before his execution in 1936, Abuna Petros exhorted his countrymen to resist the fascists by engaging in the tactic of non-cooperation, and counseled them “never to accept the bandit soldiers who come from far away and violently occupy a weak and peaceful country: our Ethiopia.” His last words were, “May God give the people of Ethiopia the strength to resist and never bow down to the Fascist army and its violence.”

In June and November, 2005, ShiBre, Tensae, Debela, Habtamu, Kasim, Tiruwork, Etenesh, Victim No.21760 and the rest them walked in the footsteps of Abuna Petors. They chose peaceful protest over violent confrontation. They refused to cooperate in the theft of an election. They confronted the agents of tyranny armed with rifles and bayonets, barehanded. Imagine that! Abuna Petors would have been so proud!

In the horrific deaths of the martyrs, we draw some timeless lessons about sacrifices and remembrance. If we had forgotten Abuna Petros, we would also have forgotten about the odious crimes of fascist Italy. If we forget these martyrs, we will not only forget the monstrous crimes that were committed against them, we would have killed them a second time, as Elie Weisel said. By honoring the martyrs, we declare to the world, and to their killers who sneer at justice, that they did not die in vain; and we have not forgotten. We will never forget. Never! Never! Never again will we stand idle in the face of such barbarous crimes.

The Indomitable Spirit of Freedom
In 1982, Ronald Reagan told the following story about the ordinary people’s struggle for freedom in El Salvador. It is instructive in our situation. He said:

And then one day those silent, suffering people [of El Salvador] were offered a chance to vote, to choose the kind of government they wanted. Suddenly the freedom-fighters in the hills were exposed for what they really are — Cuban-backed guerrillas who want power for themselves, and their backers, not democracy for the people. They threatened death to any who voted, and destroyed hundreds of buses and trucks to keep the people from getting to the polling places. But on election day, the people of El Salvador, an unprecedented 1.4 million of them, braved ambush and gunfire, and trudged for miles to vote for freedom.

They stood for hours in the hot sun waiting for their turn to vote. A woman who was wounded by rifle fire on the way to the polls, refused to leave the line to have her wound treated until after she had voted. A grandmother, who had been told by the guerrillas she would be killed when she returned from the polls, told the guerrillas, “You can kill me, you can kill my family, kill my neighbors, but you can’t kill us all.” The real freedom-fighters of El Salvador turned out to be the people of that country — the young, the old, the in-between.

In 1988, Reagan in a speech to the American People summed it all up:
In these last several years, there have been many such times when your support for assistance saved the day for democracy. The story of what has happened in that region is one of the most inspiring in the history of freedom. Today El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, as well as Costa Rica choose their governments in free and open democratic elections. Independent courts protect their human rights, and their people can hope for a better life for themselves and their children.

In 2005, the real freedom-fighters of Ethiopia “turned out to be the people of that country — the young, the old, the in-between.” There will also come a time for them soon “to choose their governments in free and open democratic elections, to have independent courts protect their human rights, and for the people to hope for a better life for themselves and their children.”

Remember, June and November, Forever!
November should be a month of remembrance for all Ethiopians. It should be a month when we take a moment to pause and contemplate, in silent prayer and meditation, the 193 individuals that were massacred in those few days, the thousands of others killed and lost forever without a trace and the hundreds of thousands that remain imprisoned to day. It should be a month when we should reflect on the impact of our actions and inactions today on generations yet to come. November should be our time to bear witness for the dead and the living. Unless we preserve this dark history for future generations and permanently store it in our collective memories and conscience, it will be repeated. It we do not bear witness today, our legacy “for the children who will be born tomorrow will be our past.”

Let Us Do a Few Simple Things in the Month of November to Remember …
Let us do a few simple things to honor the memory of the martyrs in the month of November. Let us have memorial services in every church and mosque.
Let’s have candlelight vigils for them, and light a few candles in our homes in their honor.
Let’s join Amnesty International, U.S.A. and Human Rights Watch, and make contribution to the extent of our financial abilities to these great organizations in the name of one or all of the martyrs.
Let’s write a letter or an opinion piece on human rights abuses in Ethiopia in our local newspaper.
Let’s make presentations on human rights abuses in Ethiopia in our local high schools, college and universities.
Let’s give a talk at the local Rotary Club, Lions Club and women’s clubs.
Let’s get on local radio and TV and talking about human rights in Ethiopia.
Let’s send emails to our friends, relatives, co-workers and others and tell them about the martyrs and their sacrifices.
Let’s visit the district office of our member of Congress, our Senator and tell them about the martyrs.
Let the poets write inspirational poems about the martyrs.
Let the artists depict the passion of the martyrs in their paintings.
Let’s teach our children the meaning of sacrifice.
Let’s think of simple and creative ways of honoring the memory of the martyrs.

How about installing a screensaver of 193 candles with the images of the martyrs blended in the background on our computers. That way we can remember them everyday, forever. [You will find it here.]

The Last Words of the Martyrs
We all know the last words of His Holiness Abuna Petors before his execution:

“May God give the people of Ethiopia the strength to resist and never bow down to the Fascist army and its violence.”

As to the 193 martyrs, I am sure their last words before they touched the Face of God were, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose to save my country from tyranny!”

Will our last words be silence, once again? Will our past be the future of our children yet to be born?
_____________________________
[1] These victims were documented by the Inquiry Commission in its investigation of shootings of unarmed protesters in Addis Ababa on June 8, and November 1-10 and 14-16, 2005 in Oromia, SNNPR and Amhara regional states. For full report, see, http://www.qalitiqalkidan.org/commission/Testimony_Frehiywot_Samuel.pdf

[2] http://www.abbaymedia.com/Remembering_Victims_of_November_2005.htm

[3] http://www.mdhe.org/doc/personskilled%20.pdf

A Farewell to Champions!

2007-10-30T15:30:00.000-07:00

Mission to America
They came on a mission to America. It was mission blessed by the Ethiopian people. It was a simple mission: “Go share the gospel of democracy, freedom and human rights among Ethiopians in America. Thank them for all they have done for us, and tell them to keep hope alive. We shall overcome!”

But the official mission statement was more solemn: “Express Kinijit’s appreciation and gratitude to Ethiopians in America who worked tirelessly to secure the release of the people’s leaders. Engage them in a conversation on the future of democracy in their homeland. Mediate disputes among Kinijit supporters and help bring organizational cohesion and harmony. Engage in conversations with American policy makers and help them understand the urgent need for freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. Ask Ethiopians to lend a helping hand in advancing a democratic agenda in Ethiopia.”

And on September 9, 2007, we received five missionaries of democracy from Ethiopia. Birtukan Midekssa, Berhanu Nega, Hailu Araya, Gizachew Shiferraw and Brook Kebede. For nearly two months now, they have been toiling at their mission, day and night, rain or shine; and without respite. Everyday we piled upon them one set of demands over another; one set of to-do list over another set of requests. We taxed their patience. We consumed their time. We burdened them with our problems. And we even forced them to navigate a perfect storm of controversy along the way.

The facts speak for themselves. For nearly two months, we worked this Delegation to the limits of their human endurance. Never gave them a day off completely free from responsibility. We shuttled them to 12 American cities. In each location, they made themselves available for questioning. No question was off limits. They spent countless hours mediating. They walked the halls of Congress.

In all of this, they never complained. Not once. When we shuttled them from coast to coast, they never protested. When their planes were delayed for hours, they took it in stride. When they were told they’d stay one night here, and another night across the country, they readily agreed. They never asked for a day off. They never asked for time to rest. When they got weary, they made sure it was not obvious. When they did not feel well, they did not make excuses. They showed up at every event. They were always ready to perform their mission. They were on the job. Even when we asked them to be in two places at once, they never objected to the request on the grounds that it violates the laws of physics. They just split into smaller groups and showed up.

Can We Say, “Thank You” to the Delegation? In the ordinary course of things, it would be proper and fitting to say “THANK YOU! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!” But they chastised us when we tried to thank them. They challenged us, “Why should you thank us for doing our duty to our country?” Come to think of it, they are absolutely right! Why should we? We will not thank them for doing their duty to their country and people with dignity, honor and pride.

But we will thank them for what they have done above and beyond the call of duty! That we will! We must.

So, we will thank them for being on the clock exactly 24 hours after they landed at Dulles Airport on September 9, 2007. We thank them for pulling double shift, and often more, during the entire time they stayed in the U.S. We thank them for standing with us in the streets and parks, in the baking summer sun and sweltering humidity, as we made our voices heard. We thank them for hoofing it up and down the halls of Congress with us as sought to build support for democracy, human rights and freedom in Ethiopia. We thank them for lending their voices in the international media, and for telling the truth every time. We thank them for always being ready to perform their duty, day or night. We thank them for so many other things they have done above and beyond the call of duty.

Mission Accomplished?
The bottom line is: Did they succeed in their mission? There is no doubt in our minds they did. They came to spread the gospel of freedom, democracy and human rights among Ethiopians in America. They did that evangelical work dutifully. They were tasked to engage us in a wide ranging conversation on democracy in Ethiopia. Not only did they engage us, they thrilled us. That is the truth.

They challenged us to take our best shots. “Ask any questions you want. We will not leave the meeting hall until every question is answered adequately,” they said. And we obliged. We asked them all sorts of questions, from the silly to the sublime. They answered all of our questions. No evasion. No fabrication. No falsehood. No smooth talk. No B.S. Straight talk. Clear thinking. They gave it to us raw and unadulterated. In the process, they earned our confidence with their honesty and integrity. They earned our respect. They earned our love.

So what did they do in Congress? They did what they had done all along, and even when they were in jail. They talked about the rule of law, the need to build democratic institutions, peaceful resolution of disputes, national reconciliation, democratic liberties and human rights. Everything they said in Congress was what they had been talking about in the 8-point Kinijit principles. No surprise there. They were jailed for defending these principles in 2005. But they were honored in the U.S. Congress with an invitation to tell their story. That their story is the story of all freedom-yearning people merely affirms the fact that they are on the right side of history, and at the center of the universal movement for human rights and justice.

How did the “mediation” go? That was the first order of business when they arrived in the U.S. They met and conferred with the disputing factions. They held private discussions over a period of time. Mostly they listened and asked questions. They remained impartial and neutral. They sought the middle ground where opposing factions could build harmony, trust and unity. And they did their best to replace strife with harmony, restore trust where there is suspicion, and use reason to enhance understanding and achieve clarity. They did their best, but sometimes the best may not be good enough. Time will tell if they succeeded in this endeavor. But as the old saying goes, "Our best success comes after our greatest disappointments."

They were told to explain the financial hardships of the organization, and seek a helping hand from us if possible. They laid the facts before us. Many of us gave to the extent of our desires, if not our abilities. We gave because we believed in a democratic future for our homeland. Whether they are judged a success in their fundraising mission is ultimately a judgment on our generosity, not their efforts or diligence. If they succeeded, it is because we made it happen. If not, it’s because we could not spare that extra dime.

But we believe they succeeded magnificently in their fundraising mission. But opening our wallets on one or two occasions is not as important as opening our hearts and minds permanently. And we have opened our hearts and minds to them. We will support them all the way in their mission to bring democracy to Ethiopia.
They told us they came to thank us and tell us how much they appreciated what we had done for them. And they thanked us profusely. But why should they thank us? Like they said, you don’t thank someone for doing their duty. It was our duty to seek their release during their unjust imprisonment. It was our duty to champion the cause for which they sacrificed their liberties. It is our moral duty to stand up against injustice and to defend the rights of the downtrodden and the dispossessed. But we do understand. As Birtukan said, “Yes, we were imprisoned in body, but you and millions of our supporters were imprisoned with us in spirit.” True. But we all know there is One Spirit that no one can ever imprison!

Bumps in the Road
Like any tour, bumps in the road are unavoidable. This Delegation withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous accusations along the way. But they took it all in stride. They never overreacted. But they reacted with facts, analysis and reason. When some fanned the flames of discord, they held their peace. They never played the blame game. They never cast aspersions on anyone. But they stood their ground. They set the record straight, with the truth. In the end, they arrived at their destination with their heads up high and their spirits uplifted.

What Makes This Delegation Tick?
It is remarkable how much one can learn from just observing. And I tried to figure out what makes this Delegation tick? I think I know.

Team Work. The first thing one notices about these five individuals is that each one of them left one large piece of luggage at Bole Airport, distinctly marked “EGO.” When you see them at work, one thing stands out prominently: team work. They work like fingers on a hand. They work independently of each other, but come together like a fist when they have to. They work as a single unit. They share and discuss ideas, ask each other tough questions, and listen to each other intently and with sincerity. They seem to follow the old adage: “It is amazing how much you can accomplish when it doesn't matter who gets the credit.” No one in this bunch is out for individual glory. One rarely hears them using the nominative singular pronoun “I”. It is really unusual for individuals in the political arena to have so much team spirit and team action. That is why, I think, there is so much trust among themselves.

Collegial Respect. Another obvious fact about this Delegation is the collegial respect they have for each other. They show respect for each other not only in public, but in their private moments as well. They exchange views and ideas while showing respect to each other and the ideas expressed. One does not hear them undercutting each other or trying to outwit one another. The younger members accord the older ones due respect, and the older members respond in kind. The head of the Delegation, though younger in age, is given respect commensurate with her official responsibilities. For the outside observer, such collegial respect is a clear indication of good faith in the intentions of each other, and a prerequisite for effective team work.

Magnanimity. For most of us, it is easy to fall prey to pettiness and to seek revenge for real and imagined wrongs. But it takes a certain cultivation of mind, an elevation of the spirit to see the forest for the trees, to look at the big picture and restrain oneself. When they came to Los Angeles, they were asked why they did not come out and “attack” those who spread vicious rumors and lies about them. Dr. Berhanu said, “What does one gain by calling another a liar. You hold a person in high regard for so long, and then for one reason or another turn around and belittle him. What does anyone gain from that?” That is magnanimity, a principled refusal to be petty and mean-spirited. It is the ability to take the moral high ground when gravity pulls you to the gutter.

Courage. These individuals carve out five profiles in courage. They have a special kind of courage, what one might call civic or moral courage. It is the kind of courage that empowers you to refuse to give in even after 21 months in jail. Because they are armed with such courage, they refuse to abandon their principles or retreat from the truth no matter what. They continue to stand up and speak truth to power. They refuse to be intimidated. They were asked, “What security do you have against the possibility of being thrown in jail when you go back?” They answered matter-of-factly. The only security they have are the Ethiopian people, and the rest us in the Diaspora. They said the alternative is seek asylum. “That will never happen,” they said. They will go back no matter what. Now, that is COURAGE that is borne of moral certitude to do the right thing, every time.

Patience. Most of understand how difficult it is to show tolerance, compassion, understanding, and acceptance toward those who tax our patience. We often respond harshly to those who may not agree with us, or try our coping abilities. It is rare to see these individuals showing impatience with each other, or others. They did not show anger or annoyance to manifestly provocative and falsely-premised questions. They are not upset by unintelligent comments. They plugged along with a great sense of humor.

Honesty. It is said honesty is the best policy. These five individuals practiced this policy very scrupulously. No deception. No evasion. No doubletalk. No mendacity. No lies. Straight talk. That’s the way it ought to be!
Humility. These are five unpretentious and modest individuals. They are quite remarkable. When one expresses sympathy for their prolonged detention, they respond by pointing out the suffering of millions. When they are showered by words of appreciation for their sacrifices, they point out the ultimate price paid by so many others in defense of democracy. When they are congratulated for their efforts in trying to defend democracy, they pass the credit on to the people of Ethiopia. Just ordinary folks with extraordinary love for their country. They show no arrogance or boastful pride. They don’t proclaim themselves to be the “Leaders”. They are just the salt of the earth, ordinary people with deep convictions.

A Personal Tribute to Champions!
It's been an honor and privilege to meet members of this distinguished Delegation. I have never met anyone of them before their arrival in the U.S. I knew very little about them. But I am mighty glad I had the chance to make their acquaintance and friendship.

And now they must return home after successfully completing their U.S.A. Tour. How do I feel? As Shakespeare wrote, “Parting is such sweet sorrow.” Like most Ethiopians who had the privilege to meet them over the past weeks, I have been enriched and inspired by their passionate commitment to democracy, freedom and human rights. I am thankful for their brief presence in America.

History will remember their tour for a few things. Their presence in our midst validated our basic belief that the power of ideas and truth combined with the courage of ordinary men and women will always triumph in the end. Ronald Reagan said, “No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women”. And Marian Wright Edelman, on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum said, "You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation."

They have proven to all of us that when you get enough committed and courageous fleas biting in the cause truth and justice, no weapon in the arsenal of the world can defeat them. This will be the lasting legacy of this Delegation’s U.S.A. Tour.

This Delegation has also proven to us all that democracy is not about individual personalities or political parties or ideology. It is really about defending and practicing certain principles. It is about the rule of law, and about accountability and keeping government and leaders honest. It is about building institutions to administer justice, and to bring to the bar of justice those who have committed injustice. It is really about giving everyone a chance to be heard, and a chance to make a difference.

The mere presence of the Delegation in America was a lesson in patriotism to many of us. The kind of patriotism which says you can be proud of your Ethiopian heritage, and your American citizenship. You can love America and love Ethiopia too because both countries are bound by the same cord of liberty. Their presence amongst us made a difference. They made us stronger. More determined. More committed. More involved in the destiny of our homeland. We are mighty glad to have them.

When they return home, no doubt they will remember the political discussions and debates, and questions and answers and the long flight delays, the whole life-out-of-a-luggage bit, the bland cuisine and all of the other inconveniences and aggravation. And I secretly hope they will not begrudge us for not giving them time off, for not taking them on the tourist circuits, and for not giving them a break. They want to go home. We understand. They have much business to do there.

I am confident that after they return home and think of the weeks they spent with us, they will remember not only the hard work and the hardships, but also the thousands of people who greeted them at the airports and the meeting halls and in the streets. I am sure that when they think of the overwhelming love, the deep gratitude and genuine appreciation they received from their fellow countrymen and women, their eyes will well up in tears because there is no bigger gift we could give them to take home. We have given them our hearts, and kept theirs with us. It is an even and fair exchange.

Farewell, Champions!
Farewell, Champions! If anyone should ask you, “How was your trip to America?”, just tell them flat out: “We Came! We Saw! We Conquered!” Godspeed! You are all welcome back anytime, Friends!

We Demand an Apology, Senator Inhofe!

2007-10-23T14:43:00.000-07:00

Senator James Inhofe
453 Russell Senate Office Bldg
Washington, D.C. 20510
FAX: (202) 228-0380

Dear Senator Inhofe:

I am writing to demand an apology for the racist, scurrilous, truculent, degrading, offensive and manifestly untruthful statements you made on the floor of the Senate on October 17, 2007.

I. Ethiopians Demand An Apology For Your Racist, Slanderous and Defamatory Statement That They Are Baby Killers, Child Abusers and Immoral People.

In your statement reported in the Congressional Record1, your own website and on Youtube2, you stated,

“Ethiopia takes great pride in being the oldest independent country in Africa.”
But this “old and independent country” should hang its head in shame because, if you are to be believed, it is a land of baby killers, child abusers and immoral people. You boldly stated:

In Addis 6 years ago, we found a little baby. The little baby was 3 days old. The baby was almost dead. It was not unusual. In some countries in Africa, they throw away mostly young baby girls. Then after about 3 days, when they die, the dogs get them. We were there before the dogs got there." (Emphasis added.)
You proceeded to reinforce your outrageous statement by implying that not only are Ethiopian parents savages that throw their baby girls to the dogs, but other African children are monstrous fiends as well. You stated:

You have heard about the children soldiers. Those soldiers are taken over by these people and trained to fight at ages 10, 11, and 12. Then once they learn to be soldiers, they have to go back to their villages and murder their parents and family. If they don’t do that, they dismember them.

Your statements are not only racist, mean-spirited, hurtful and offensive, they are also unsupported by any fact. In your statements masquerading as social concern for Ethiopians, you are spreading racist propaganda from the floor of the United States Senate. Your comments reflect your own deep-seated racist belief that Ethiopians and other Africans are savages who still live in the Dark Continent. Your comments open a window into your soul and lay bare your fundamental belief in the social, if not genetic inferiority of Africans, and of all black people as being animalistic and uncaring for their children. Ultimately, your statements provide a pseudo-cultural rationale for the racist beliefs held by extreme groups in the United States and elsewhere that Ethiopians in particular and Africans in general are a hopeless lot condemned to perpetual savagery and barbarism. Your statements are no different than similarly hurtful and deeply offensive comments made about African American families in the United States.

It is regrettable that you have chosen to use your unique position in the United States Senate to promote your personal vicious brand of racism. Nonetheless, we challenge you to produce a single documented case in Ethiopia where a parent has fed their baby girl to the dogs. ONE SINGLE INSTANCE!

We will not debase ourselves by defending against your racist remarks. Let it be known to you, and to a candid world that Ethiopians, poor or rich, young or old, love their children beyond measure, boys and girls equally, and will do everything, like all other human beings in the world, to protect and care for them.

Human Rights of Children: Convention on the Rights of the Child
We know from your statement that the regime of Zenawi, which you support and defend blindly, observes human rights fully. But did you know that it is a violation of international human rights laws, the Convention on the Rights of Children and the “Ethiopian Constitution” to feed babies to dogs? As a responsible U.S. Senator, and just as a decent God-fearing human being, it is your moral, if not legal, duty to report such outrageous and inhuman action to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which provides under Art. 6:
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Ethiopian Constitution
It is also your moral duty to report to the regime in Ethiopia which you defend so energetically the occurrence of such inhuman practice, and condemn them for failing to protect the lives of Ethiopian children under Article 36 of the “Ethiopian Constitution”:
The Rights of the Child
1. Every child shall be entitled to the rights enumerated here under:-
(a) the right to life

In either case, you had, and continue to have, a moral duty to report such inhuman and illegal conduct to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and to Zenawi’s regime so that the offending parents could be brought to justice for such barbarous acts. Minimally, you have a duty to introduce a Senate Resolution, which will no doubt be supported by 100 per cent of all U.S. Senators, condemning such practices and revealing to the world such unspeakable crimes committed against children. Senator Inhofe: Have you done any of the above? Are you prepared to do any or all of the above? Is there any reason whatsoever why you can not, or will not, do the foregoing at the present time?

Rescuing a Dog or a Baby From the Animal Shelter?
You indicated that 6 years ago your daughter Molly adopted an Ethiopian baby “just before the dogs got there.” We regret that you had to implicate your daughter Molly in your irresponsible statements, but having done so, we must challenge your motives and your daughter’s motives in this adoption. You stated:

I have 20 kids and grandkids of whom I am very proud. My daughter Molly had nothing but boys. She always wanted a girl. So we were able to take this little girl from Ethiopia and nurse her back to health. She had several very close calls. She is healthy and has now been here in the United States and is my adopted granddaughter.
In light of your statements, we are not sure if your daughter Molly adopted Zegita out of a genuine concern for the baby, or if she felt she was on a rescue mission to the dog shelter to pick up a pet dog for the family before it is put to sleep. You even displayed a poster size picture of that child on the Senate floor for reasons we can not comprehend.

Were you trying to show the world the trophy you rescued from the shelter just before it was euthanized?

II. We Demand an Apology From You For Lying and Misrepresenting to the American People That Zenawi, the Regime Leader in Ethiopia, “has taken significant steps again to regain a democratic process that is fair and respectful of human rights.” In your Statement, you told the American people:

In Ethiopia, recently, I met with Prime Minister Meles, his wife. I met with members of the Parliament and with all the individuals there who are trying to do a good job. While there, I saw firsthand their democratic progress and commitment in fighting terrorism. Although I appreciate the increased attention being given to Africa, particularly Ethiopia, I believe the bill is misguided and takes the wrong approach by placing demands on a friend and ally that has made obvious advancements in democracy and human rights. While I continue to agree that the violence and intimidation that took place after the 2005 election was an unnecessary use of excessive force, the Government of Ethiopia has taken significant steps again to regain a democratic process that is fair and respectful of human rights. (Emphasis added.)

In denouncing H.R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007), you stated:
“punitive actions [in the bill] could damage the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Government of Ethiopia, as well as derail progress Ethiopia has made in furtherance of democracy and supporting human rights. I fully support the State Department’s assessment. Quite often I am criticized for coming down here and opposing the State Department. More often than not, that is the case. But in this case they are exactly right.” (Emphasis added.)

Senator Inhofe: Are you aware that your claim that the Ethiopian regime has taken “significant steps again to regain a democratic process that is fair and respectful of human rights” is contradicted by U.S. State Department and every other international human rights organization in the world?

In your Statement, you made a special point to underscore your general disagreements with the State Department on most issues but that you “fully support the State Department’s assessment [that punitive actions in H.R. 2003 could damage the bilateral relationship]. Quite often I am criticized for coming down here and opposing the State Department. More often than not, that is the case. But in this case they are exactly right.” (Emphasis added.)

Do you also agree with the following State Department assessments and conclusions set forth in the most recent human rights report on Ethiopia (April 5, 2007):
The [Ethiopian] government’s human rights record remained poor in many areas. Human rights abuses reported during the year included the following: unlawful killings; beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens’ privacy rights; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly and of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation; exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and against religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities.

Do you further agree with the following specific findings on Ethiopia in the same State Department report?:
On torture, infliction of cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment/ punishmentAlthough the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment, there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees. On arbitrary arrest and detention Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, the government frequently did not observe these provisions in practice…. Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in outlying regions… The independent commission of inquiry… found that security officials held over 30,000 civilians incommunicado for up to three months in detention centers located in remote areas… Other estimates placed the number of such detainees at over 50,000.

On the denial of fair trialWhile the law provides for an independent judiciary, the judiciary remained weak and overburdened. The judiciary was perceived to be subject to significant political intervention.

On the lack of freedom of speech and press
While the [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government continued to harass and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors for publishing allegedly fabricated information and for other violations of the press law. The government continued to control all broadcast media. Private and government journalists routinely practiced self censorship.

On condition of Political Prisoners
The 200 political prisoners on trial in the Addis Ababa federal system were held in two separate prisons, Kaliti and Kerchele, often under harsh conditions. In March CUD Secretary General Muluheh Eyoel was placed in solitary confinement at Kerchele prison. In August fellow CUD member Andualem Arage, along with journalists Sisay Agena and Eskinder Nega, were placed in solitary confinement.

On Freedom of Assembly
The constitution and law provide for freedom of assembly. Prior to the May 2005 national elections, there were numerous opposition rallies, including one that occurred in Addis Ababa that was attended by nearly one million persons the weekend prior to the elections. However, immediately following the elections and throughout the year, the government restricted this right in practice. From May 2005 to year’s end, the government granted only one permit allowing a public demonstration to take place.

On Freedom of AssociationAlthough the law provides for freedom of association and the right to engage in unrestricted peaceful political activity, the government in practice limited this right. The Ministry of Justice registers and licenses NGOs, and there was some improvement in transparency of the NGO registration process. The government continued to deny registration to the Human Rights League (see section 4).

III. With All Due Respect, Have You Read H.R. 2003?We find it remarkable that your statements in substantial part recapitulate verbatim statements found in the public relations and lobbying materials disseminated by the D.L.A. Piper lobbying firm, and in the press releases of the Ethiopian Embassy. You lift so many phrases from such materials that we are left to wonder if you have actually read the bill itself in making your statement. Therefore, we respectfully question your reading, understanding and veracity of statements you made concerning H.R. 2003.

False Statement #1: H.R. 2003 undermines and threatens U.S. counter-terrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa.You made the same argument in your Senate statement that D.L.A. Piper has repeatedly made in its lobbying materials, namely that H.R. 2003 threatens U.S. national interests by undermining the strategic counter-terrorism partnership with Ethiopia by imposing onerous sanctions and limiting U.S. security assistance. You stated that terrorist activity that has taken place in the Middle East and how it is now coming down through the Horn of Africa, through Djibouti and that area into the Uganda-Ethiopia area, it is a very significant area right now… Our country’s strong support of Ethiopia during this significant time is imperative… These punitive actions [in H.R. 2003] could damage the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Government of Ethiopia…

Your statement is patently false and contradicted by Section 5 of H.R. 2003, which makes a major exception on counter-terrorism efforts in the Horn:
SEC. 5. ENSURING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ETHIOPIA.
(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to peacekeeping assistance, counter-terrorism assistance, or international military education and training for civilian personnel under section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (commonly referred to as `Expanded IMET’). (Emphasis added.)

False Statement #2: H.R. 2003 is misguided and takes the wrong approach by placing demands on a friend and ally that has made obvious advancements in democracy and human rights.

The “demands” that H.R. 2003 “places” on a “friend and an ally” involve compliance with the following provisions under Sec. 5 (3) of H.R. 2003, which shall remain inoperative unless:
(A) all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia have been released, their civil and political rights restored, and their property returned;
(B) prisoners held without charge or kept in detention without fair trial in violation of the Constitution of Ethiopia are released or receive a fair and speedy trial, and prisoners whose charges have been dismissed or acquitted and are still being held are released without delay;

(C) the Ethiopian judiciary is able to function independently and allowed to uphold the Ethiopian Constitution and international human rights standards;

(D) security personnel involved in the unlawful killings of demonstrators and others, including Etenesh Yemam, and Kaliti prisoners are held accountable;

(E) family members, friends, legal counsel, medical personnel, human rights advocates, and others have access, consistent with international law, to visit detainees in Ethiopian prisons;

(F) print and broadcast media in Ethiopia are able to operate free from undue interference and laws restricting media freedom, including sections of the Ethiopian Federal Criminal Code, are revised;

(G) licensing of independent radio and television in Ethiopia is open and transparent;

(H) Internet access is not restricted by the government and the ability of citizens to freely send and receive electronic mail and otherwise obtain information is guaranteed;

(I) the National Election Board (NEB) includes representatives of political parties with seats in the Ethiopian Parliament and the NEB functions independently in its decision-making;

(J) representatives of international human rights organizations engaged in human rights monitoring work, humanitarian aid work, or investigations into human rights abuses in Ethiopia are admitted to Ethiopia and allowed to undertake their work in all regions of the country without undue restriction; and (K) Ethiopian human rights organizations are able to operate in an environment free of harassment, intimidation, and persecution.

HR 2003 further provides $40 million to strengthen democratic institutions and promote respect for human rights.

Senator Inhofe: What is “misguided” about these “demands”? What is so unreasonable and “wrong” about them? Are these “demands” not based on the very same timeless principles and ideas in the American Constitution?

Your claim of “obvious advancements in democracy and human rights” in Ethiopia is contradicted by the U.S. State Department as shown above, and by ALL other international human rights organizations.

False Statement #3: “These punitive actions [in H.R. 2003] could damage the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Government of Ethiopia, as well as derail progress Ethiopia has made in furtherance of democracy and supporting human rights.” (Emphasis added.)

You stated that H.R. 2003 will “derail progress Ethiopia has made in furtherance of democracy and supporting human rights”. You produce no evidence to support this false claim. You point to the fact that “on July 20, 2007, following convictions and sentencing, 38 opposition leaders were granted full pardons. All remaining members of the opposition were pardoned and released on August 18, 2007.”

Your statement suggests that Ethiopia’s problems are limited to the imprisonment of a few dozen opposition leaders. You ignore entirely the massive human rights violations in the country, the brutal repression of dissent, the tens of thousands of innocent political prisoners still in detention the ruthless suppression of democratic liberties and institutions, among others. Indeed, you seem satisfied that the release of 38 opposition leaders addresses all of the political issues in the country.

Senator Inhofe: Are you aware that there are tens of thousands of prisoners still in detention in Ethiopia by the regime you so blindly defend? Are you aware that hundreds of individuals are detained every day on suspicion of political opposition? Are you aware that there is no independent free press in Ethiopia? Are you aware that human rights organizations are not allowed to function? Human rights violators, including the those who caused the deaths of unarmed citizens (whose deaths you said you regretted) are not prosecuted and still walk the streets free? That there is no independent judiciary? And so on…

You further stated that “reforms have been made to the election process.” Could you tell us exactly what reforms have been made to the elections process? Have you spoken to the Delegation of opposition leaders currently touring the U.S. about the so-called elections reforms and their opinions on it? They can certainly tell you about “elections reforms”. After all they served 21 months in prison defending the integrity of the electoral system. They are still in town. Would you like to meet them and learn the truth about “elections reform” first hand?

We challenge you to produce a shred of evidence to support your false claim of “electoral reforms” that actually promote democratic participation by ensuring free, fair and competitive elections with a level playing field, good governance based on representative, transparent and accountable institutions, independent courts and legislative bodies operating under the rule of law, that promote robust civil society institutions, and above all, ensure the existence of an independent media that can keep government honest and citizens engaged and involved in the democratic process.

Assuming that the regime you defend so blindly has made “reforms to the election process”, there is no logical, financial or legal reason for it to oppose H.R. 2003 because the bill reward the regime with $40 million to help strengthen the democratic reforms they are allegedly implementing!

False Statement #4: “A lot of people [lawmakers in Congress] couldn’t find Ethiopia on a map.”You stated: “I think we have to oppose H.R. 2003. I have talked to several people who didn’t know any differently. They didn’t object to this. I think it went through on a UC over there. But a lot of people couldn’t find Ethiopia on a map.” Your demeaning remarks towards your colleagues are not only patently false and vulgar, they are also disrespectful of the institution of Congress and irreconcilable with rules of Senate decorum. Senate Rules of Order, Rule 6.2 provides:
Decorous language
Every member shall confine himself to decorous language in addressing the Senate and shall make no personal or derogatory remark to or about any member.

Obviously, you do not appear to be familiar with Senate Rule 6.2, or you would not have insulted the intelligence of members of Congress in such a mean and contemptuous manner. Nonetheless, we will defend all members of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Affairs, House Foreign Relations Committee that unanimously passed H.R. 2003, the entire membership of the Black Caucus, and all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate against your scandalous statement. We affirmatively state, without reservation, that ALL members of Congress, save one, can place Ethiopia on the map, and intelligently discuss U.S. foreign policy in the Horn of Africa. If knowledge and facts are important in public policy discussions, as you seem to suggest, perhaps you should look at your own Senate record before you point an accusatory finger at others.

False Statement #5: American Troops are Fighting Alongside 100,000 Ethiopian troops in Somalia.
You made the following patently false statement:
We need to understand the significance of what is going on right now. We made a decision about 6 years ago to help the Africans establish five African brigades… It happens that Ethiopia is the headquarters for the East African Brigade…. Our idea is, as I mentioned, there is a squeeze in the Middle East. As terrorism starts going down through Djibouti and the Horn of Africa into northeastern Africa, this is an area where if they are prepared to take care of themselves, we would not be sending our troops there… [Ethiopia] is helping us, fighting with us side by side, sending 100,000 troops with American troops down to Somalia and working on our side.

It is obvious that you have confused the number of refugees that left Moqadishu and the surrounding areas (in excess of 100,000 persons) with the number of Ethiopian soldiers stationed in Somalia. Additional fact checking on your part would show that the regime in Ethiopia has never stated that it has 100,000 soldiers in Somalia. In fact, it has never given an estimate of more than several thousand troops in Somalia; and those troops were supposed to have been withdrawn within less than 6 months of the initial date of intervention. On March 12, 2007, Zenawi stated that all Ethiopian troops would be withdrawn from Somalia within weeks. But Zenawi’s troops are still bogged down in Somalia. Your statement that there are currently 100,000 Ethiopian troops fighting in Somalia is a manifestation of your own ignorance and reckless disregard of the facts, or an extraordinary piece of intelligence unknown to any person or government in the world.

The other allegation in your statement that “American troops are fighting side by side” with Ethiopian troops is not a matter to be taken lightly. As you may know, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 ( Public Law 93-148) is very particular about introduction of U.S. troops into hostilities or combat. Section 3 of this Resolution provides:
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

You have presented no evidence to support your claim that American troops are fighting in Somalia side by side with Ethiopian troops. If your claim is true, the President would be in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution; and you and the other Senators would in dereliction of your constitutional duties for not acting to bring him into compliance with the law. We challenge you to prove the truth of your statement that American troops are fighting in Somalia by themselves or in support of Ethiopian troops!

You stated further that the U.S. has “helpe[d] the Africans establish five African brigades” in the fight against terrorism. That is a patently false statement. The only U.S. “African brigade” (or American military base) that exists in sub-Sahara Africa is in Djbouti at Camp Lemonier, a former French Foreign Legion base outside the capital, and houses approximately 1,800 American personnel. Again, it is important for you to check your facts before you state them in public.

III. “I have been to Africa more than any Senator in the history of America.”
In proclaiming your special concern and commitment to Africa you stated:
I think I am safe to say that I have been to Africa more than any Senator in the history of America. I have been really tied to that continent and recognize the significance in the future of our country as well as their country. It is an area of strategic importance globally to this Nation.

You claim that you “have been to Africa more than any U.S. Senator in the history of America.” Though that may be a fact, it is also true that you have done very little, if anything, to help Ethiopia or Africa despite your boastful claim of concern. You served in the House of Representatives from 1987 until 1994, and in the Senate from 1994 to present. For a Senator who claims to have “been to Africa more than any Senator in the history of America,” have you sponsored a single piece of legislation that is relevant to Africa? Ethiopia?

Have you ever served, or requested to serve on the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs? Have you made any efforts to establish a Senate Caucus on Ethiopia, comparable to the House Caucus on Ethiopia?

Have you ever contacted Donald Payne, Chairman, House subcommittee on Africa and Global health, to discuss H.R. 2003, or any matters or issues affecting Africa? Have you ever contacted Republican Christopher Smith, the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Africa who introduced an earlier version of H.R. 2003 (H.R. 5680) to discuss any matters affecting Africa or Ethiopia?

Of course, you have done nothing for Ethiopia or Africa when you were in the private sector. When you became president of the Quaker Life Insurance Company, and before that company went into receivership and liquidation in 1986 under your leadership and management, you had done nothing to help the people of Ethiopia or Africa.

The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that you have as much interest in helping the people of Ethiopia or Africa as you do in protecting the people of America from the scientifically-establsihed negative effects of global warming.

Senator Inhofe: You pontificate, moralize and preach about Ethiopia and Africa but you have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the suffering of Africans. In fact, you have come out to champion the very tyrants and dictators who have inflicted great suffering and pain on the people of Ethiopia. You have become the mouthpiece of oppression, and you have demonstrated that you will lie, cheat and deceive the American people to accomplish your ignominious defense of tyranny in Ethiopia.

FOR THE LIES, SLANDEROUS AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST ETHIOPIANS AND THE PEOPLE OF AFRICA, WE DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE APOLOGY!

Sincerely,

-----
Alemayehu G. Mariam, Ph.D., J.D.
Professor and Attorney at Law
Coalition for H.R. 2003
E-mail: passhr2003@hr2003.org
Phone: 323-988-5688 Fax: 323-924-5563

Cc: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
U.S. Senate Leadership
House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
House Foreign Relations Committee
House of Representatives, Black Caucus
House Leadership
Oklahoma, Print and Electronic Media, seriatim
NAACP, national and Oklahoma
Oklahoma Faith-based Institutions, seriatim
Network and Cable News Outlets, seriatim
Full list available at www.hr2003.org

One Small Step for the U.S. Congress, One Giant Leap for Ethiopian Human Rights

2007-10-15T14:29:00.000-07:00

“It is a great day for America! It’s a great day for Ethiopia!” Congressman Donald Payne

Passage of H.R. 2003 on October 2, 2007 in the U.S. House of Representatives marked a great day for Ethiopia as did the lunar landing of Apollo 11 for humanity on July 20, 1969. When astronaut Neil Armstrong first stepped on the lunar surface, he said: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” That was the spirit of Payne’s message when he stepped out of the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing room on September 26, 2007and said, “It is a great day for America. It is a great day for Ethiopia”. But we all know what he meant: “H.R. 2003 is one small step for the U.S. Congress, one giant leap for Ethiopians on their long walk to freedom, democracy and human rights.”

Two dates in Anno Domini 2007 shall forever live in glory in the history of Ethiopia: September 26 and October 2. On these dates, the American Congress sent a message of hope, redemption and salvation to the Ethiopian people, “Hold on! Hold fast! Hold tight! Your Freedom Train is coming!”

The U.S Congress also addressed another stern message to the ironfisted, cruel and pitiless dictators in Ethiopia: “America will not give you guns, tanks and bombs to wipe out the people of the Ogaden. America will not be your partner in crime as you slaughter unarmed demonstrators in the streets. America will not stand with you by your prison gates as you keep hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens behind bars. The American tax payer will not bankroll your wicked decimation of the democratic liberties and human rights of your citizens. Americans will not allow their tax dollars to oppress the Ethiopian people, massacre, maim and mistreat them. No, America will not befriend tyrants who pervert and corrupt justice for private gain and disfigure it in the pursuit of partisan politics. America will not conspire with election thieves and rob the Ethiopian people of their democratic voices.”

On October 2, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives made its final declaration, unanimously and without objection: “Enough is enough!” In the pithy words of Congressman Chris Smith, “No more American tax dollars to support a vicious dictator and his henchmen!” And Congressman Dana Rorabacher could barely contain his fury when he said: “No military aid to the thugs and gangsters that are running Ethiopia today and profiteering from the confiscated property of American citizens of Ethiopian descent!” But the imperturbable Donald Payne just laid out the plain case to a candid world: “Our aim in H.R. 2003 is to foster accountability and transparency in Ethiopia, and strengthen its institutions of democracy.”

Donald Payne’s Long Road to Deliver a Gift of Freedom to Ethiopians

On October 2, 2007, at precisely 12:58 p.m., Donald Payne stood in the well of the House of Representatives as the Speaker Pro Tem thundered: “H.R. 2003 is passed by the House without objection.” Many of us had waited to hear those words for a mighty long time. And those words resonated in our ears like sweet musical lyrics, and reverberated across the globe wherever Ethiopians live scattered by the winds of tyranny. And all freedom-loving Ethiopians the world over let out a crescendo of joyful noises for God to hear!

But on that fateful day, Don Payne stood in the well of the House like a captain standing on the bridge of a ship that had just emerged on the horizon after a long night on the savage sea. There he stood calm, collected, deliberate and with an air of quiet dignity and self-assuredness. That brief moment masked the years of hard work and toil he had exerted to get this bill to the floor. But how many of us really know the trials and tribulations of the lone captain of the H.R. 2003 in getting the bill to the House floor?

Encircled by 3,500 ferocious predator sharks from the lobbying firm of D.L.A. Piper, our captain did not flinch. When Armey’s Army marched on the Hill to lay siege to his office, he held his ground. And when D.L.A. Piper, engorged by millions of lobbying dollars, bombarded members of Congress with the slings and arrows of falsehoods, half truths and distortions in an effort to defeat H.R. 2003, Payne stood there and said, “I shall not be moved!” When he saw Ethiopian brokers of tyranny skulking in the halls of Congress to spread their lies and mislead lawmakers, he must have shaken his head in dismay: “How can men sell their souls and their people for thirty pieces of silver?” In the end, he was told, “You will never make it against the mighty D.L.A. Piper. You are up against George Mitchell, Richard Gephart, Richard Klien, Richard Armey and 3,500 of the cleverest and most cunning lawyers in the world. There is no way you can win against a regime that has mined the legislative sea with millions of dollars. Back off Payne! Give it up!”

But Captain Payne would have none of it. He called out: “All hands on deck. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

On that glorious October day, Don Payne pried open the locked jaws and serrated teeth of the D.L.A. Piper sharks and snatched H.R. 2003 to safety. As he had promised long ago, on October 2, 2007, Payne delivered to us on a golden platter the most precious gift any human being can offer another — the gift of freedom, democracy and human rights.

Donald Payne and the Struggle for Human Rights and Democracy in Ethiopia

Why did Donald Payne toil so much for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia? Why did he put up with those insufferable and provocative ignoramuses? Why did he say passage of H.R. 2003 marked a great day in the history of America and Ethiopia?

Payne’s concern for human rights is nothing new, and certainly, his commitment to human rights in Ethiopia is above and beyond the call of duty. For the past two years, he toiled relentlessly to pass a bill that sought to improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia. He had traveled to Ethiopia on a number of occasions, and he spoke with regime officials, opposition leaders, independent journalists and just common folks. He visited Kality jail and uplifted the spirit of the prisoners of conscience. He welcomed the Inquiry Commission members, and invited them to brief Congress on the massacre and wholesale incarceration of innocent citizens. He met and spoke with hundreds of Ethiopians in his office, at community events, panel discussions, on radio and television. Payne has been there for us, the whole time! But how many of us really know that?

Payne, like all of the other members of Congress who support H.R. 2003, did not get involved in Ethiopia human rights to get recognition, credit or applause. No, he got involved because of the outrageous abuses of human rights. “The people of Ethiopia have suffered for decades,” he said “and millions live in abject poverty.” He reminded everyone, “Human rights have been abused not only in the capital, but in other part of the country such as the Somali and Ogaden regions.” He got involved because he felt he ought to do something to alleviate the suffering of the Ethiopian people both as a ranking member and later as Chairman of the Africa subcommittee. His colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee recognized his efforts at the mark-up hearing and commended him for his tenacity and hard work in trying to improve human rights in Ethiopia.

None of this should come to us as a surprise. Payne is no stranger to human rights advocacy or promotion of democratic institution-building in Africa. In 2004, he authored the resolution that condemned the genocide in Darfur, the Sudan. He has traveled to Chad and other locations in the region time and again to learn first hand the conditions of refugees. In 1994, President Clinton appointed him to head a delegation to Rwanda to bring the warring parties to a negotiated settlement of that country’s humanitarian and political crises. He has served on the board of directors of the National Endowment for Democracy (the premier NGO that supports pro-democracy forces throughout the world) and TransAfrica (the premier African American lobbying group that made decisive contributions to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa). He has worked actively to support the Northern Ireland peace process.

But Why Is It a Great Day for America?

In the general scheme of Congressional legislation, H.R. 2003 is not an earthshaking bill. It is by no means a bill that “locks the horns” of the great institutions of American government in policy conflict. It is not a bill that weighs heavily in the debate between the great powers of the world. It is just a little human rights bill that aims to help a small and very poor country in the northeast corner of Africa. In the words of Donald Payne, H.R. 2003 is a simple bill with “strong bipartisan support” intended to “send a clear message that transparency, accountability, rule of law and respect for human rights are paramount for the United States.”

H.R. 2003 marks a great day for America because it shows America does strive to live out the true meaning of its founding principles. As the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor aptly put it:

The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States understands that the existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises.

The pursuit of human rights in U.S. foreign policy remains paramount. For three decades, the U.S. Congress has legislatively mandated human rights certification for recipients of U.S. aid. In section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act (1976, as amended), the American Secretary of State is required to transmit to Congress “a full and complete report” every year concerning “respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country proposed as a recipient” of U.S. security assistance. Specifically, this section requires accountability information on specific areas such as: torture, arbitrary arrest, denial of fair trial and invasion of the home and extra-judicial killings. The Leahy Amendment (2001) prohibited funding to the security forces of any country involved in gross violations of human rights.

Why Is It a Great Day for Ethiopia?

The history of Ethiopia has been a history of a long train of abuses of its people by a motley syndicate of autocrats, despots, dictators and tyrants. It is great day for Ethiopia because in H.R. 2003, for the first time since the elections of 2005, we have an opportunity to purge the miasma of tyranny and dictatorship that envelopes Ethiopia today. It is an effective tool to promote and institutionalize freedom, democracy, human rights, accountability and transparency in Ethiopia. H.R. 2003 helps Ethiopia live up to the true meaning of its own constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.

Passion of Don Payne, Chris Smith, Dana Rorabacher and…: Is it “Vendetta” or Passion That Gave Birth to H.R. 2003?

The Vendetta?
On the occasion of the state visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Zenawi
accused Donald Payne and the U.S. Congress of exacting a “vendetta” against him in passing H.R. 2003. Zenawi said, “If this man [Payne] is really concerned about human rights issues, he should talk about human rights violations in Eritrea, not Ethiopia.” He complained, “It is an unfair decision. It is the result of a vendetta… If it was about the human rights situation, they should have looked at Eritrea first.”

Why would Payne wage a personal vendetta against Zenawi? Where is the evidence of a vendetta?

But here is conclusive proof that H.R. 2003 is NOT a vendetta. The bill was co-sponsored on a bipartisan basis by 85 members of the House of Representatives. It first passed unanimously in the Africa subcommittee (11 members), then passed unanimously again in the Foreign Affairs Committee (50 members) and finally passed unanimously on the floor of the House of Representatives (435 members). It was not passed by one man. Does Zenawi mean to suggest that 435 democrats and republicans were assembled by Don Payne in a secret location, and conspired to exact a vendetta on him and his regime when they passed H.R. 2003?

Assuming, arguendo, H.R. 2003 is an act of vendetta, what is the harm done? What harm is done by requiring observance of the rule of law in Ethiopia? Or establishing independent and professional judicial institutions? Or allowing an independent and free press to function? Or guaranteeing democratic liberties such as freedom of speech, association, assembly and due process of law? Or… Or…

But even more wacky is Zenawi’s claim that Payne and the U.S. Congress should have scrutinized Eritrea before turning their attention to his regime. By why begin with Eritrea? Why not clean up Burma, the Sudan, Chad, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Algeria, Sierra Leone, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, East Timor, Uzbekistan, Kazakhistan, Kyrghistan…. before knocking on the doors of Ethiopia. Zenawi says, “There are worse guys than me out there. Deal with them first before you train your flashlight on me. Turn a blind eye and deaf ears to what I do because I am helping you fight Al-Qaeda.”

This is the kind of reasoning logicians call ignoratio elenchi; or in common vernacular, the argument that misses the point. The point is that there are massive human rights violations in Ethiopia, not that more massive or severe violations of human rights are not occurring in neighboring countries or elsewhere in the world. The fact that other countries violate the human rights of their citizens at a greater level offers neither moral absolution nor legal immunity for human rights violations or other criminal acts by the regime in Ethiopia. It certainly does not preclude accountability to a legislature that shells out $500 million a year to support that regime!

While we are on the subject of “vendetta”, let’s ask a few of our own: Was vendetta the cause of the massacre of the 193 unarmed protesters and shooting of 763 others in 2005? Or the mass incarceration of 30,000 innocent persons? Or the 20-month imprisonment of opposition leaders? Or jailing of independent journalists? Or continued detention of thousands of ordinary citizens? Or…. Or…

The Passion
Why are House democrats and republicans familiar with the human rights situation in Ethiopia so passionate about doing something to improve it? What would drive ordinarily genteel members of Congress — who rarely, if ever, use abrasive language in their proceedings — use such word and phrases as “thugs”, “gangsters”, “vicious dictators”, “petty tyrants” to describe Zenawi’s regime? Surely, anyone who has viewed the video stream of the mark-up proceedings will attest to the passionate and bipartisan advocacy on behalf of human rights and democracy in Ethiopia.

Why should any of them care about Ethiopia? Don Payne does not have relatives in Ethiopia. It is doubtful that any other member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has an extended network of family, friends and relatives in Ethiopia to care so passionately about Ethiopia. The answer is simple. They love Ethiopia and its people. They care about their Ethiopian American constituents. Talk to any member of Congress who is familiar with the human rights situation in Ethiopia and you will understand what I mean. Talk to Payne, Smith, Honda, Rorabacher, Royce, Jackson-Lee, Lantos, the whole bunch. Ask them how they feel about Ethiopia and Ethiopians. Only then will you truly appreciate the passion behind the words.

But behind the passion stand great principles. “The protection of fundamental human
rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. A central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” In the memorable words of Jimmy Carter, “America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America.” Exhibit A: The Declaration of Independence.

What Can We Learn From Members of Congress in Advancing Ethiopian Human Rights?
Passion, More Passion
What we saw in the Committee room on September 26 is something that we rarely see in our community: deep, passionate commitment to a cause which forces us to overflow with the truth. If members of Congress can be so passionate about human rights in Ethiopia, why can’t we? When these members of Congress and other supporters advocate on behalf of the cause of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia they do not hide their emotions or hide behind cute pseudonyms and fearsome-sounding pen names. Unlike many of our invisible, nameless and faceless cyber-warriors, they do not launch missiles of barbed words comfortably ensconced behind their keyboards. They don’t conceal their message in scholastic arguments or pedantry. They stand up in public and say what they mean, and mean what they say! That is what we should learn from our members of Congress. Saying it like it is!

But why can’t we say it like it is? Could it be because we really do not believe in what we say, and say what we believe. How can anyone expect to offer an intellectually respectable view or analysis when that person is afraid to reveal his/her identity? Who would accept a soulless message or believe in it? If one is afraid of public scrutiny, ridicule or castigation, then one ought to remain silent. We must not be paper tigers willing to shout and criticize the adversary only when he is not looking, or when he does not know our names. If the people for whom we struggle can risk their lives and liberties everyday and put everything o the line, we must not fear standing up in public for them in our own names, in our own persons, and say it like it is.

Infuse Your Passion With the First Amendment

Living in America and as American citizens, we have something that few people on earth have, and the vast majority would kill to have: The right to free speech. This most precious of our civil liberties was placed for safekeeping in the Constitution so that we, the people, will NEVER fear anyone, any official or any government, when we want to say our peace.

Since 1791, the First Amendment has served as the peoples’ impregnable shield against censorship. Many great Americans have stood up and exercised their right to free speech in times of peace and war, in hard times and good times. Paul Robeson stood against the withering persecution of McCarthy’s communist witch hunt. Thousands of ordinary American youth challenged their government and brought an end to the Vietnam War exercising their First Amendment rights. Even the brash young man, Gregory Johnson, could feel wholly confident in his right to freedom of speech that he burned Old Glory, the American flag, with impunity in a public place as thousands of patriots looked on heartsick.

Let us use our right to free speech to hold government accountable, to demand answers from public officials, to challenge them and to keep them honest. Let’s use our powers as American taxpayers to make sure “vicious dictators” do not use weapons of war which paid for by our tax dollars to be used against civilians, our brothers and sisters. IF WE DOT NOT SPEAK OUT AND SPEAK UP AS TAXPAYERS AND ALLOW AMERICAN HUMVEES AND MACHINE GUNS TO BE USED AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IN ETHIOPIA, WE ARE GUILTY OF MORAL COMPLICITY IN ANY CRIMES COMMITTED. On this question, there is no opportunity for fence sitting, and for indifference. You have to take a stand, or stand trial in the court of your own conscience.

But let us not misuse our constitutional right to free expression. When we misuse the First Amendment to insult, demean, belittle, dishonor, disrespect and humiliate each other, not only do we squander and dishonor our precious right, in our verbal slugfest, we let those tyrants and dictators off the hook. We end up becoming their laughing stock.

We Must Act Out of A Sense of Duty, No Place For Moral Indifference

Members of Congress passed H.R. 2003 out of constitutional duty under Art. I, sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution and in exercise of their “power of the purse”. Of course, we do not have a constitutional duty to help our people, but we do have an equally compelling moral duty to act. That moral duty arises from the moral imperative to stand up against evil. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Let’s not forget, the good women as well.

Why do we have a moral duty? Many reasons, but let’s start with Zenawi’s recent statement in Time Magazine. He said, “We represent the greatness of Africa’s past. We also represent the worst of Africa’s present, in terms of poverty.” Both statements are absolutely true, and the latter is supported by independent economic assessments. On the Corruption Index, Ethiopia ranks 138/179 countries in the world. The prestigious Committee to Protect Journalists ranked Zenawi’s regime as the most repressive in the world in terms of press freedoms. In its Special Report 2007, the CPJ stated, “Ethiopia, where the government launched a massive crackdown on the private press by shutting newspapers and jailing editors, leads CPJ’s dishonor roll.” And on and on…

There is no question that Ethiopians need help, big time. It is our duty to do what we can to ease suffering, spread freedom, and to lay the foundations for a robust democracy for generations yet unborn. When our homeland is filled with despair, resentment, violence, repression and there is no place for moral indifference that paralyzes us from taking affirmative action to help.

Commitment to Democracy, Human Rights Principles and Advocacy

Advocates of human rights are driven by an unshakeable belief in the fundamental dignity of the individual. They are distrustful of government – any government – that is not restrained by law. They believe government must be under the constant watch of the people. Even when the people sleep, they must do so with eyes wide open, because government, if given the opportunity, will snatch liberty from the people at the blink of an eye. That is why the universal motto of human rights advocates is, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” That’s why human rights advocates believe in the principle of the rule of law – a rule that binds the naughty hands of government tightly enough so that the people can sleep in peace, talk to each other without fear, walk the streets without looking over their shoulders and live in their homes without dread of the midnight knock.

Every Man, Every Woman A Human Rights Leader

Human rights advocacy is one area of human struggle where anyone, whether educated or uneducated, rich or poor, man or woman, can play a decisive role. Every man and every woman can be a leader — a leader to enlighten the people on the rule of law, to help them assert their God-given rights, to help them realize the greatness in themselves. These leadership qualities do not require a Ph.D., an M.D., of some other badge of formal learning. One does one have to be a professor or a lawyer, a democrat, republican or anything else to stand up for human rights. All you have to be is YOU. All you need is a sincere belief in the dignity of the individual, a healthy distrust of government, an uncompromising commitment to the rule of law, and unwaivering commitment to democratic principles. The key to effective Ethiopian human rights advocacy is to make every Ethiopian man and woman a a human rights leader in his/her own right. No power on earth can defeat a human rights movement built on these simple principles.

Improving American Foreign Policy While Improving Human Rights in Ethiopia

From time to time, some people ask how H.R. 2003 helps America. “It is just an Ethiopian human rights bill,” they say. It does not really help America.” But they are mistaken. In advocating for human rights in Ethiopia and in passing H.R. 2003, we are transforming, albeit in a small way, the basic structure of American foreign policy itself.

The U.S. is often criticized for being hypocritical in its foreign policy, for being inconsistent on its basic values by supporting dictatorships out of political expediency. H.R. 2003 helps America reconnect to its founding principles, and reaffirm a basic tenet that human rights define the core of American foreign policy. We are helping shape a foreign policy that is familiar to the American people, a policy they thoroughly understand because it is a thread pulled from the very fabric of their cultural ethos and the pathos of their everyday experience. America as the land of immigrants is as diverse as the world. But what draws Americans together, more than anything else, is a universal belief in human freedom. That is exactly what H.R. 2003 does: Spread freedom to the arid political landscape of Ethiopia.

One Giant Leap for Ethiopian Human Rights, And Many Bold Strokes

In less than a generation, it is possible to bring about dramatic transformations in Ethiopia. It is possible to heal a society besieged by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — war, famine, pestilence and death — and divided by manufactured ethnic conflict. It is possible to address sincerely felt historical grievances and rebuild a new national identity based on a robust human rights ideology and principles of social justice. As we begin the New Millennium, we must develop a new paradigm, a new way of looking at ourselves and the world; new approaches to old problems and new methodologies and strategies to navigate the brave new world of the New Millennium. But we must start with a new unshakeable confidence in the future, in the dignity of the human being, in freedom and liberty and in timeless democratic principles. We must accept some basic truths:

I. Make a Clean Break With the Politics of the Old Millennium. We should avoid preoccupation with the failures of the past Millennium not only because we do not want to be prisoners of history but also because such preoccupation prevents new ideas from appearing. Such preoccupation makes the task of changing to a new paradigm of government, politics and society more difficult and less unattainable. The old political culture of ethnic antagonism and fragmentation and distrust must be replaced by a new one that emphasizes respect for the rule of law, observance of human rights and acceptance of democratic principles.

II. The New Millennium Requires a New Paradigm, New Strategies and New Methods of Governance. We must resolve and accept the fact that the old methods and strategies of “governance” are unworkable in the New Millennium. It is no longer possible to beat, intimidate and terrorize a population into submission. People know their rights, as demonstrated in the 2005 elections, and they will NEVER accept a government based on coercion or force. In the New Millennium, there can only be a government based on consent of the governed. To be successful, such a government must harmonize issues of good governance, accountability and transparency with issues of justice, equity, fairness and human rights. In advancing these values, there is no place for violence. Consent necessarily implies the absence of coercion, and withdrawal of consent when government no longer serves its just ends should require nothing more that the electoral judgment of the people.

III. Lead by Inspiration, not Deception and Recrimination. We must demand of our leaders to lead by inspiration, not by deception and recrimination. Leaders need to inspire by the democratic principles and values they uphold and practice, and their boundless optimism and clear vision of a better future. Of late, we have suffered the prevailing winds of recrimination and acrimony, and this has pushed some of us to the verge of despair. Many discouraging words are uttered by those we respect the most. We seek uplifting words, but we do not get them. We ask for a vision, but are left to feel our way in the dark. We ask for direction to the future, and we are told any road will get us there. We ask for a message of unity, we receive words of rancor and acrimony. Our confidence has eroded and our faith in the future shaken. If they are listening, they should know: “We need leaders who can empower us with the truth, convince us with the cogency of their logic and persuade us by the power of their arguments.” Lead by inspiration!

IV. Believe in the Power of Ideas. Ideas Always Defeat Guns, Always. We must believe in the power of ideas. The power of ideas will always, always overcome the power of gunpowder. Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas of nonviolence led to the liberation of 350 million Indians from colonialism. He opposed violence because it created more problems than it solved, and often left a legacy of hatred and bitterness that made genuine reconciliation and long term harmony nearly impossible. He said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Martin Luther King transformed the arid American political landscape pockmarked with segregation, discrimination and injustice after 350 years, without firing a single shot. Read his “Letter From Birmingham Jail” to understand the power of his ideas. As Victor Hugo observed, “One can resist the invasion of an army, but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas whose time has come.” The time has come for the ideas of freedom, democracy, human rights and accountability in Ethiopia. We must believe in the power of ideas!

V. Change Human Hearts and Minds Before Changing Human Actions. Before we change human actions, we must change human hearts and minds to rekindle the divine. Gandhi, saddened by the bloody carnage of WW II said, “Because these acts of terror and bloodshed appall man’s conscience; because he knows that they are evil; because, in his innermost heart and mind, he deplores them. And because, when he is not misled, deceived, and corrupted by false leaders and false arguments, man has in his breast an impulse of kindness and compassion, which is the spark of the divine, and which one day, I believe, will be brought forth to the full flowering that is inherent in it.” If we clear our hearts and minds of hatred, fear and distrust and hold onto the Truth (satyagraha), we will also be able to experience the “spark of the divine.”

VI. Act Out of a Sense of Duty, Not Craving for Credit. In whatever political act we engage in, we should act out of a sense of duty and not out of craving for credit or acclaim. We should undertake human rights advocacy to make a practical difference, not to posture for fleeting credit and public recognition. Human rights advocacy and activism means just that: We should actively advocate for the cause of human rights because as human beings it is our moral duty to do so. It is immoral and illegal to imprison, torture, maim or kill another because of political differences, ideology or perspectives. We all have a moral duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations, and to use all available means to speak out against such violations, to identify those responsible whenever we can and to seek justice for victims of human rights abuses.

VII. Never be Afraid to Lose. In October, 2006, a year ago, we were licking our wounds after House Speaker Dennis Hastert stonewalled H.R. 5680 from getting to the House floorafter it had passed the International Relations Committee. D.L.A. Piper and Dennis Hastert knocked us to the ground, and thought we were down for the count. The enemies of freedom threw a party and wrote the epitaph to an Ethiopia human rights bill in the U.S. Congress. But we got right up and took the fight to Hastert’s congressional district in Illinois. We were welcomed on the airwaves, newspaper editorial boards, in the churches, civic organizations, colleges and universities in his district. But it took only two weeks when Hastert himself found out that he was down for the count. He was knocked out permanently by a left hook delivered by the American voters. A year later, D.L.A. Piper was out for the count as H.R. 2003 passed the House unanimously. We know D.L.A. Piper is working triple overtime in the Senate today, but we will fight them tooth and nail, day and night. We know we will win in the end. How can we lose when God and Truth are on our side? Because we are certain of the righteousness of our cause, we are never afraid to lose!

VIII. Learn to Say, “We Messed Up! We Sincerely Apologize!” As the old Ethiopian saying goes, “One will always find rust on iron and mistakes from Man.” There are some who say that in Ethiopian culture it is considered a sign of weakness, an admission of shame, to say, “I am sorry. I messed up. I was wrong.” There is a kernel of truth in that opinion. But it is actually an act of courage to say, “I am sorry. I made a mistake.” We should publicly acknowledge our faults and shortcomings. The average person is more compassionate and understanding when we admit our mistakes; but there is nothing that destroys the confidence of fellow human beings than calculated deceit and deception.

IX. Believe, “This Too Shall Pass.” We must always reaffirm our basic optimism in the future of the democratic system. We should always work to spread our spirit of confidence in the democratic process and conviction in our cause of freedom, democracy, human rights and accountability. It is written that, “The righteous shall never be removed, but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.” This too shall pass.

With Malice Towards None… Let’s Finish the Job
Abe Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address said: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” With malice towards none, let’s keep our eyes on the prize and finish the job of H.R. 2003. Let’s join hands and sing the old civil rights song:

Keep Your Eyes on the Prize

The only thing that we did wrong,
Stayed in the wilderness a day too long.

Hold on, hold on,
Keep your eyes on the prize,
Hold on, Hold on.

But the one thing we did right,
Was the day we started to fight.
Hold on, hold on,
Keep your eyes on the prize.

Hold on y’all! Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!!!

1) http://www.abugidainfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/press_release_paayne.pdf
2) See Art. 13 of the “Ethiopian Constitution”; Ethiopia has ratified, is a signatory to or has adopted the following major human rights conventions, among others: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1977), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1992), Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1994) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1980) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1995). 3) http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL049165020071004?pageNumber=1
4) http://addisvoice.com/news/german_chancellor.htm
5) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1659420,00.html
6) http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2006/afr/et.html
7) http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2007/cpi2007/cpi_2007_table
http://www.cpj.org/backsliders/index.html

Truth Fest In L.A.

2007-10-11T19:31:00.000-07:00

They said Ethio-Angelinos are apolitical, depoliticized and disengaged from politics. It stings a little when it is said by former Ethio-Angelinos: “When it comes to Ethiopian politics, Los Angeles is rarely mentioned. It is a city with the second or third largest number of Ethiopians, but it is a place where the least political activity goes on. South Dakota is mentioned more often than Los Angeles when it comes to Ethiopian politics.” Ouch, ouch, ouch!

“A place where the least political activity goes on.” May be. Of course, they were not in L.A. with us on October 7 when we had our Revival Meeting, like the ones they have down South. They did not join us in fellowship to hear the 5 missionaries from Ethiopia preaching the gospel of freedom, democracy and human rights. And they did not see the hundreds of holy rollers of human rights and democracy rocking the house at Hollywood Park. No, they did not see us going through the ecstasy of the Second Great Awakening when Truth was spoken to power. Nor did they see us stomping our feet on the ground and waiving our hands in the air enraptured by hymns of freedom. No, they were not there to see green/yellow/red flag-waiving, V-signing and Ethiopia Hagere-singing Ethio-Angelinos swaying side to side. Too bad, they were not there to witness a Truth Fest in L.A. for 6 hours straight! And now they have to eat their words, or eat boiled crow because we raised the roof in L.A. on October 7. And
here comes the judge! Birtukan laid down the law. “Yes, we were imprisoned in body,” she opened her remarks, “but you and millions of our supporters were imprisoned with us in spirit.”

But there were no imprisoned spirits in that hall that afternoon. Only free spirits celebrating freedom and democracy. And you could feel the spirit of joy, and of brotherhood and sisterhood everywhere. You could see the spirit in the faces and smiles of the young and old. And all of us made joyful noises to express our love, respect and appreciation for those who have traveled from the hellish dungeons of Kality prison to the City of Angles.

“We thank you our compatriots (yager lejoch) who have been the voice of the voiceless, for carrying the torch of freedom and for the warm welcome you have shown us. The respect and love you have shown us reflects your love and respect for democratic liberties and the rule of law. We promise you we will continue the peaceful struggle for democracy.” These awesome words of gratitude, appreciation and determination filled the hall effusively. These were words spoken with judicial authority by a young woman barely in her thirties. When the judge spoke, everybody was listening. Court was in session. No doubt many thought, “Such humble words of gratitude, such steely determination coming from a young lady. We really have hope after all.” I just wanted to bust out and shout, “More power to the young people!” But I restrained myself. “It’s not going to look too cool,” so I just muttered it to myself.

Birtukan preached on: “The Ethiopian people have decided they want change, and there is no power that can stop them from having change.” I wanted to chime in, “Preach on Sister!” She pressed on, “It is the peoples’ voice that matters ultimately. Our peaceful struggle is for a pluralist democracy where we can discuss our differences peacefully and come to terms on issues that divide us.” She was not mincing words. She was telling it like it is, no embellishments. Just the raw message.

She argued forcefully that democracy is the key to political and social viability of Ethiopian society. “We need democracy to get us out of the problems we face today.” We can’t expect to overcome famine, poverty, disease or ignorance unless we manage to build a pluralist democratic system. There can be no human rights without a democratic foundation. Then she talked about the spirit that moves her: “No amount of repression can stamp out Kinijit because Kinijt lives in the hearts and minds of the people. We hate no one, even those who hate and revile us,” said Birtukan unapologetically.

But she was not about to preach democracy to others only. She brought it straight home. “Kinijit itself must practice what it preaches,” she declared with judicial authority. “There are differences of opinion in Kinijit, and that’s healthy. We resolve our differences through open discussion and dialogue, not in the rumor mills.” She hammered the theme of vigorous debate as an essential element of organizational growth and maturity. She reiterated her basic tenet, “Every Kinijit member and leader has the right to ask questions, comment and make suggestions on what happens in the organization. If we can’t practice democracy within our own organization, how can we expect to practice it in the country,” she asked rhetorically to a thunderous applause. She pleaded with those rumor mongers who spread misinformation and fan the flames of discord to refrain from their hurtful practices. She warned, “If we insist on engaging in recriminations and accusations, the train will leave the station without us.”

Ato Gizachew Shiferaw, the featured speaker, focused his remarks on the relationship between peace and development. “If there is no peace, there is no development,” declared Ato Gizachew. Peace is not just the absence of war. He said there are two types of war that afflict our society today: a war of arms and a battle of ideas. Losing the battle of ideas is a far greater loss that losing the war of arms. “If we lose the battle of ideas, we’d have also lost our peace of mind,” he asserted.

He explained the destructive force of insidious ideas that are used as part of the psychological warfare to deny ordinary citizens peace of mind. The war mongers will take advantage of the embattled mind and plant the seeds of hatred, suspicion, distrust and fear. The person whose mind is possessed by such evil is not at peace with himself or others. He is at war with himself and his community. That person loses his confidence and begins to doubt himself and those around him. He becomes scared and reacts violently.

He explained that even the most privileged and educated members of our society have become tools in this battle of ideas. Instead of enlightening the people and bringing them hope while they float precariously on a sea of despair, the best and brightest are often found doing their best to sink the boat by becoming tools of repression and apologists for tyrants. “We heard that!”

This warfare of the mind keeps Ethiopians in a state of perpetual poverty. “Life is very hard in the countryside. The average farmer wears the same piece of tattered clothing year in and year out. He toils everyday but remains in abject poverty. This fact is sad not only for Ethiopians but for all of humanity,” he lamented.

“There is no peace in Ethiopia because there is no democracy in Ethiopia,” declared Ato Gizachew. The country is heading towards disaster.” He recounted the fact that people are rising up in all parts of the country, in Oromia, Tigray, Afar, Gambella and Ogaden regions and elsewhere. They are rising up because there is no justice and equality in Ethiopia. The regime’s answer to the demand for justice is more guns and bullets. That is no answer. “You can not kill everyone into submission. Killing people who disagree with you can never be the answer.” So what is the answer?

“The answer,” said Ato Gizachew definitively, “lies in a negotiated settlement of political disputes, not in waging war on people. Negotiated settlements are the only options left for individuals and organizations in the country.” He reaffirmed that Kinijit is always ready for negotiations. He said Kinijit tried every avenue to reach a negotiated settlement with the government but its efforts have been unsuccessful. Kinijit still abides by its 8-point program as a basis for a negotiated settlement of disputes. (The 8-points include demands for an independent election board, free press accessible to all political parties, release of all political prisoners, professionalization of the police and military forces, rescission of undemocratic parliamentary procedures, an independent judiciary, investigation of post-election killings by government forces and establishment of a follow-up commission.)

The crowd was not bashful in asking questions. The leaders were peppered with questions of every sort.

“Why did Kinijit send a delegation to America? Why did you bring your organizational problems with you to America? What is your agenda for Ethiopia? What do you mean by national reconciliation? Why don’t you respond to all of the charges and accusations that are being leveled against you? How is the Kinijit organization run? What have you done to help the families of the victims of the post election massacres? What do you mean by peaceful struggle? Why did you leave the country without resolving the issue of political prisoners? Did Kinijit authorize the establishment of AFD? Why did you give up after the election so easily without forcefully confronting the regime? If you are thrown in jail in the future, how do you want the Diaspora to react? And on and on…

Each one of the delegation members took turns to answer questions from the audience.
Why did Kinijit send a delegation to America? Dr. Berhanu explained that their mission to America was multifold. He said it was important for Kinijit to express its gratitude and appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians in the Diaspora for all of their efforts and sacrifices in supporting democracy in Ethiopia and for supporting them during their 21 months of imprisonment. He said the organization felt it was important to engage Diaspora Ethiopians in a conversation on the future of democracy in Ethiopia. The lack of cohesion and harmony in the support groups was an issue of special concern for the organization, and the delegation was given instructions to study and impartially seek ways and means to bring about harmony and cooperation among them. (Other delegations have been sent to Europe, Canada and elsewhere.)

He said they were also expected to engage in conversation with American policy makers and assist in anyway they can to promote freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. The Kinijit 8 point principles (accountability, transparency, rule of law, independent judiciary, free and fair elections, free press, release of all political prisoners) and other elements are very similar, if not identical, to the core provisions of H.R. 2003. He said they responded to Congressional invitations to testify on the current political situation in Ethiopia. He added that Kinijit needs funds to do its basic organizational work and has considerable difficulties raising funds internally given the dire economic situation in Ethiopia, an done of their important missions is to raise sufficient funds to re-energize the organization.

Why did you bring your organizational problems with you to America? Birtukan challenged the premise of the question. She said the alleged problems Kinijit has as an organization are not structural or fundamental problems of ideology, policy or vision. Differences in opinion, diversity of views and perspectives should not be magnified and raised to a level of insurmountable problems. The organization has its own bylaws, rules and internal procedures for decision making and dispute resolution. She suggested that the internal mechanisms will be used to iron out differences.

Dr. Berhanu added that Kinijit is a democratic organization and administers its affairs by democratic rules. “Kinijit will lose its relevance and vitality when it stops being a democratic organization. It becomes undemocratic when any one entity has the unbridled power to appoint or remove institutional officers and members, and dictates to all without submitting to the will of the majority.” He said that would not happen in Kinijit’s governance because the organization by its own bylaws and the overwhelming sentiment of its members will aspire to act consistent with democratic principles.

Ato Brook Kebede added that Diaspora support groups must be in a position to resolve their problems through open democratic dialogue and exchange. “The problems among those the support groups must be solved by them in a structure of democratic governance.” As independent entities, the support groups must aim to work together to advance the struggle and avoid internal conflict.

Will Kinijit participate in the election of 2010? Birtukan explained that Kinijit has not taken an official position on whether to participate in the 2010 elections because such participation depends on the objective situation of the time. If the circumstances set forth in Kinijit’s 8-point plan are met, she did not foresee any problems in electoral participation.

Dr. Hailu added that Kinijit’s 8-point plan offers a fair process for electoral democratic participation. Based on those principles, Kinijit could participate in any competitive political campaigns.

Dr. Berhanu expanded on his colleagues’ comments. He pointed out the historic significance of Kinijit’s accomplishments in 2005. For the first time in Ethiopian history, “Kinijit set a truly democratic agenda for Ethiopia for the first time.” That in itself is “significant because it showed the people that there is a democratic way of resolving social and political problems without resorting to war and violence.” He said they knew the 2005 elections will be stolen, but pointed out that “if we hadn’t participated in that election, we would not be here to talk about democracy today.” He said there are no guarantees the 2010 elections will be any fairer or cleaner than the 2005. But “Kinijit’s efforts to date have permanently established a democratic agenda for future political change and reform in Ethiopia.” He indicated that Kinijit’s 8-point principles represent the basic foundation for a democratic system in Ethiopia.

What does Kinijit mean by national reconciliation? Dr. Berhanu explained with professorial clarity that national reconciliation is the only mechanism by which we can repair the damaged body and wounded spirit of Ethiopians. He pointed out that Ethiopians have been traumatized by unspeakable violence. Ethiopia is a country where ‘parents have seen their children taken out and murdered right before their eyes by government forces. Everyday they are denied their simple humanity and are forced to undergo the indignity of identifying themselves by their ethnicity,” he elaborated. “We are an afflicted society, a country in need of healing. We need a permanent solution that comes only from national reconciliation.” He said he understood that such reconciliation may be difficult to accept by those who have committed crimes and are afraid of accountability. But it is time to bury the hatchet and beat the swords into ploughshares. “It is time to extend an olive branch to all who seek peaceful resolution,” he said.

The alternative to national reconciliation is more of the same. More wars, more destruction, more discord. He said they were jailed not because they committed any crimes but because they waged a peaceful struggle for their cause. “Our right to peaceful dissent and protest is secured in the Ethiopian Constitution,” Dr. Berhanu said. He added, “you can never trust anyone who takes power at the barrel of a gun.” He gave as an example the current regime that took power by force of arms and promised democracy, but now uses the very same guns to stay in power and prevent democracy from taking root. “Kinijit as an organization does not believe in using guns to bring democracy,” he declared.

Ato Gizachew added that the lack of national reconciliation is reflected in the fear that has caused an incredible concentration of military force around the capital, and the country has been reduce to a police state. The people and the regime have separated ways, and the only way to bring them together is to have a meaningful dialogue of national reconciliation. He said that is inevitable. “The Derg delayed negotiations until the very last, but it did come to the negotiating table. By then it was too late,” he added.

What do you mean by peaceful struggle? Dr. Berhanu said Kinijit does not believe in using guns to bring about democracy, but admitted there are others who do and are prepared to use force to oppose the regime. “If the government does not accept peaceful negotiations with us, their only option will be to fight the millions who will rise up in arms.” He recounted a story he heard from a former Derg regime official who told him that “Derg members simply did not understand that war and violence was not the solution, and believed they could beat and subdue their opposition by brute force. It did not work. In the end their efforts failed completely. But they did not know any better. They did not have an example to follow. But the regime today should learn from their experience. War, violence and force is never a solution to political and social problems.”

What plan does Kinijt have to support the victims of post-election government violence and their families? Dr. Hailu Araya explained that beginning from the time of their release until their departure for the U.S., the Kinijit leadership had discussed extensively the issue of support for the families of the victims of the post-election government violence. They had established various committees and task forces to study the issue. They had even discussed proposals for the establishment of a non-governmental organization that would provide for long term support of victims and their families. The matter is still under consideration by the remaining leadership in Ethiopia. The fact is that Kinijit does not have the resources to provide for the long term care of these victims and their families.

(In all fairness, support for the victims of post-election government violence is a responsibility all of us in the Diaspora must shoulder. I don’t believe it is fair to ask any particular party or political organization to carry that responsibility alone. The martyrs died and suffered grievous bodily injury not for a political party, but for the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights. They died and suffered for OUR cause. It should be OUR privilege and responsibility to help them and their families.)

Why did you leave the country without resolving the issue of the political prisoners throughout the country? Birtukan explained that the issue of the release of all political prisoners was a top issue for the Kinijt leadership. It was part of the discussion leading up to their release from captivity. The Kinijit leadership in the country continues to work hard for the release of political prisoners. But the government’s intransigence on the issue makes their work exceedingly difficult.

Why don’t you respond to the accusations that are leveled against you? Dr. Berhanu said engaging in recriminations is counterproductive. “What does one gain by calling another a liar. You hold a person in high regard for so long, and then for one reason or another turn around and belittle him. What does anyone gain from that? We should all focus on the real issues of freedom, democracy and human rights. We are here to do specific things. We will respond appropriately when there are major issues, but we will not engage in tit-for-tat recrimination. Doing so will divert us from our main mission and we will waste too much valuable time responding to every rumor, innuendo and allegation.” He added philosophically, “To take the low road of your adversary is to become like your adversary and accept defeat.” Dr. Berhanu pledged not to engage in the politics of recrimination personal destruction in the media.

Ato Gizachew added that reacting to every false charge and accusation in the media will only make the situation worse. He asked the media not to fan the flames of discord.

Why did you give up after the election so easily, you should have confronted the regime? Dr. Hailu Araya was philosophical in his answer. “Sometimes accepting defeat to avoid a greater evil is a better part of valor.” The regime was bent on using violence to suppress the true outcome of the elections. They would use any amount of force to stay in power. To insist on confrontation with such a regime could have resulted in a great loss of life and destruction of property. Kinijit does not want to become the cause of such tragedy, said Dr. Hailu.

What is the future direction of Kinijt? All of the delegates agreed that Kiniji’s future direction is based on its 8-point principles. For true democracy to prevail in Ethiopia, there must be accountability, transparency, independent judiciary, free and fair elections, free press, release of all political prisoners and one-man one-vote (and one-woman, one-vote).

Light Moments… There were many light moments. Dr. Berhanu was asked to comment on the efforts of some individuals who had campaigned to prevent sales of his best-seller “Nesanet Goh Seked”. Dr. Berhanu said, “I don’t understand anyone who says “Don’t read books.’ Only an ignoramus would say that. In the 15th Century during the Inquisition people used to burn books so that others will not get knowledge and enlightenment. They burned the books of Gallileo to keep the truth from being known.” The audience shared his amazement that such prehistoric troglodytes still exist in the 21st Century.

The incomparable Abebe Belew, master of ceremonies, provided comic relief as he exhorted the audience to open their wallets and make a donation. He combined humor, wit, wisecracks and banter to keep the audience entertained and opening their billfold time and again.

Abebe came on stage and told the crowd, “We will not leave this place until every question you have is answered by these leaders. No question is off limits. Ask them what you want, and if you run out of questions, I will give you some.” Abebe jokingly taunted, pleaded and appealed to the audience to fork up more money to support the organization. He pointed out that they must back up their commands with cash. “You can’t order these leaders to build democracy in Ethiopia without giving them the means to buy the bricks and mortar to do the construction,” Abebe instructed. He cracked up the crowd when he cautioned everybody that they “should all watch out, do what they are told (show me the money), and be on their best behavior because the Judge and the Mayor were in the House!” Abebe’s improvisational stage techniques are simply dazzling!

The delegation members were given gold-embossed Certificates of Recognition issued by Karen Bass, the Majority Leader of the California Assembly. Each delegate was also given a specially commissioned Amharic poem (a limerick or humorous verse) written in their honor. And they got tons of hugs and kisses and “thank you for everything” from everybody!

The turnout for the delegation was phenomenal. The place was packed to the limits. The Ethiopians community came out in full force, and even those who rarely show up for political meetings came out in droves. As usual, the vast majority of the attendees were men, but the women who were in attendance were second to none in their passion and commitment to freedom, democracy and human rights. When it came to responding to the fund raising calls, few men could match them.

The L.A. Kinijit Support and Development Association for Democracy and its leadership did a fantastic job organizing the event. They did a great job publicizing the event, and they packed the house to the brim! They maintained an orderly flow of activities and kept everything running smoothly. They are to be commended particularly for maintaining a friendly and welcoming atmosphere where everyone felt free to participate and have fun. Kudos to Kinijit’s Los Angeles Support and Development Association for Democracy.

A Brief Personal Reflection…
We are very fortunate to have these five delegates criss-cross the United States to bring us the good news that opposition politics and democracy are very much alive in the hearts and minds of the Ethiopian people. But we must remember that opposition leaders and the hundreds of thousands who were jailed or still remain jailed stood up for their beliefs at an extraordinary cost and sacrifice -- time with their families, loss of their professional lives, dispossession of their properties, and the ultimate sacrifice, giving up their liberty for the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

These delegates and their colleagues in Ethiopia could have done it like the rest of us. But they chose not to. As their brief biographies were being read out, one can not but be overawed by the scope of their formal education and extensive work experience: Advanced training in economics, chemistry, linguistics, law, business; work experience as university professors, service on the bench, top level management experience in business and the public sector. Yet one does not detect a trace of elitism in their speech or conduct. Each one without pretentiousness or arrogance. Each one straight-talking and direct. No B.S. Each one uncompromisingly committed to truth.

None of them complained about their personal situation, or how life has been unfair or hard on them. They never directed a single harsh word or hurled a vile accusation against anyone, friend or adversary. They were just throbbing with “positive vibration,” as the great Bob Marley would say. Simple and ordinary people, exemplary people, who have risen to extraordinary heights.

Some may feel the flames of liberty died out in Ethiopia in 2005, but they would be wrong. There is a volcano smoldering beneath the surface. As James Baldwin wrote in The Fire Next Time, “The very time I thought I was lost, my dungeon shook and my chains fell off.”

As I reflected on the events of that day, I remembered two verses form the Bible. In Proverbs 11:29 is written, “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” In Psalms 37:11 is written, “But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

I have no doubts whatsoever who “shall inherit the wind” and who “shall delight in the abundance of peace”.

There really was magic in the air on October 7, at Hollywood Park. And don’t take my word for it. Ask anyone who was there. Ask them one question only: “Did you get up from your seat even once during the entire 6-hour truth fest?" I will wager my bottom dollar none of them did! That says it all!

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL

2007-09-21T16:25:00.000-07:00

Thank you all for coming this afternoon. And thank you Seattle Ethiopian Millennium Celebration Committee for inviting us to join you here today. And Happy Ethiopian New Year to all of you!
It is a great honor and privilege for me to be here with you today. This is my third time to be back in Seattle this year. The last time I was here, we celebrated the prodigious achievements of the Inquiry Commission in the cause of truth and justice. Judge Frehiwot Samuel, Attorney Teshome Mitiku, and Judge Wolde Michael Meshesha, and the former deputy attorney general, Alemayehu Zemedkun, were here with us.

You will recall the Commissioners spent months traveling from one prison to another dungeon, from one hospital morgue to another graveyard in search of the truth about the citizens who were massacred and imprisoned following the May 2005 elections. They documented and revealed to the world the monstrous crimes of Zenawi’s regime: 30,000 political prisoners held without due process of law, 193 innocent men, women and children massacred in the streets, and 763 individuals shot and grievously injured. That was just the tip of the iceberg!

And every time I think of Seattle, I think of these courageous young men and the heroic welcome you gave them; and the love, honor and respect you showed them. They remember it all, very fondly even today.

I mention these individuals not only because of their heroic deeds in exposing the truth about Zenawi’s killing machine and killing fields, but also because they brought us a strong and unified message of legal accountability. That message was pretty straightforward: The killers of innocent citizens and abusers of human rights must be held to account before the bar of justice. Today, these murderers walk the streets as free men; and the souls of the martyrs cry out for justice!

The Commissioners urged us in the Diaspora to be united and to make sure the lives of those victims of human rights abuses will live in history as a glorious testament of the Ethiopian peoples’ yearning for democracy and freedom. They asked us to work tirelessly to find ways of institutionalizing human rights safeguards in Ethiopia so that no man, no official however high, no government, however powerful, will ever have the arrogant confidence to go out into the streets and mow down its people like blades of grass; or sweep innocent citizens off the streets and dump them in corrals that pass off for prisons and jails.

Just this past week, we celebrated the arrival of the official Kinijit Delgation in the United States. W/zt Birtukan Midekssa, Dr. Berhanu Nega, Eng. Gizachew Shiferaw, Dr. Hailu Araya and Ato Brook Kebede received a welcome unprecedented in the history of Ethiopians in America. Yesterday, Eng. Hailu Shawul arrived in Washington to a very warm welcome. We are truly blessed to have them all here, together. And we should do everything in our power to keep them together.

And in a couple of weeks or so, I believe, you will have an opportunity to meet and greet the Delegation.

Like the members of the Inquiry Commission, the Delegation, I believe, will bring you a unified message of political accountability, national unity and reconciliation, and peace.

We should all rejoice in the message of the Delegation. All Ethiopians of goodwill, like yourselves, want to hear a message of hope, accountability, reconciliation, unity and peace in Ethiopia. We all believe those who hold the reins of power should be held accountable for their malfeasance and crimes in office.

All of us want to hear a message about the end of the era of tyranny, and the beginning of the epoch of democracy in Ethiopia. We want to know how we can overcome artificially created divisions in our society, and strengthen our common bonds of family, culture, religion and tradition. We want democracy and human rights to reign supreme in Ethiopia so that we may pass on to the next generation a legacy of hope and harmony. These are the things that are on the minds of the good people of the Ethiopian Diaspora. And the Delegation is prepared to have a conversation with you.

I should let you know that everywhere I go, people tell me they want to see the House of Kinijit become a Light House that guides the Ethiopian ship of state away from the dangerous shoals of ethnic strife and political instability in the New Millennium, and help the people find their way out of the House of Darkness that Ethiopia has become today. We shall all gaze at the Light House with great expectation!

So get ready to welcome the Delegation! It is a very long way from Kality jail to Seattle.

Welcome them, and make them feel at home, away from home.

But please, don’t welcome them into a divided house. Because as Abe Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself can not stand.”

Ethiopia’s Children in America

This a good place for me to segue to my brief remarks. I was asked to reflect on Ethiopian Diaspora politics in America, and suggest ideas about what we can do better or differently. I will try to do that in the next few minutes by touching upon some of the main issues.

I have been in this country now for over three decades; and if you were to believe my daughter, she’d tell you that I arrived at Plymouth Rock with the first pilgrims on the Mayflower. That’s not quite true, but most Ethiopians like myself came to the United States over the past three decades.

Though we have lived in America for years, many of us still show the equivalent of a post traumatic shock syndrome, which could be called Ethiopia Separation Shock Syndrome. Far too many of us remain preoccupied, traumatized and tormented by politics in our homeland. When we meet each other on the streets, we talk about Ethiopia. We talk about Ethiopia in the restaurants. We organize panel discussions such as this one, and talk about Ethiopia. And every day we spend hours circumnavigating the internet for information about Ethiopia. For so many of us, neither the narcotic of materialism and consumerism nor the comforts and amenities we enjoy in America have succeeded in severing our primal attachment to our homeland; and we are wistfully nostalgic about our birthplace.

This may appear rather odd to the outside observer because many of us came to America fleeing political persecution. We found refuge in America, and we managed to avoid not only the grinding daily realty of poverty, disease and repression that challenge so many of our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia, we also achieved a good measure of material prosperity and success.

Many of us acquired American citizenship; and as citizens our rights are protected by the American Constitution. Our liberties in America are, by and large, secure. But we do not live in a perfect society. Not by a long shot. But, thank God, we thrive in a society where none of us lives in fear and loathing of our government; and none of us is afraid to speak truth to power.

But therein lie some big questions. When life is such a bowl of cherries for many of us here in America, why should we be concerned with the pits in Ethiopia?

Who are we really in America? Are we Americans in America? Or Ethiopians who happen to be living in America? Are we Ethiopian Americans? Or are we Diaspora Ethiopians who are living in the U.S. until it is time to pack up and go back home?

I would like to touch upon these questions because the answers may help us better understand our place in America, define our identity, crystallize our political attitude and focus our activism so that we can become effective political participants and advocates of the Ethiopian cause in the American policy process.

Ethiopian Diaspora Identity

First, let me say that many of us feel a bit uncomfortable about our identity in America. I know some people shy away from labeling themselves as “Ethiopian Americans” even though they have acquired U.S. citizenship and have lived here for decades. I guess they feel a sense of betrayal in accepting such a “hybrid” identity, Ethiopian by birth and American by citizenship. The fact of the matter is that we are both Ethiopians and Americans. And in the Land of Immigrants, the Land of the Melting Pot, that’s just the way it is!

But linked to our dual sense of identity is our adjustment to the American landscape, the American reality.

Many of us, I believe, have fully embraced the American Dream, and made it part of our dream. We toil everyday to maintain that dream. Some of us have had difficulty becoming part of that dream, and we keep chasing it as it recedes and fades over the distant horizon. But we struggle mightily to keep up with the faint signal of that dream. And some of us, unfortunately, are barely aware that there is such a thing as the American Dream. We maintain a bare existence on the outer fringes of American society. But we do not lose hope. We keep on keeping on because we believe, in the Land of Opportunity, that someday we can rise up above our circumstances and become part of the great American Dream.

What is a bit disappointing about most of us who have adjusted reasonably well to American life is the fact that we live and work in America, but we don’t really understand how America works.

We don’t know very much about the inner workings of American political institutions, the essential nature of its great Constitution, the Bill of Rights that guarantees our individual liberties, the processes of national government or the role of political and civic organizations in American democracy.

As a result, for a very long time, we have excluded ourselves from becoming part of the mainstream of American life. Many of us do not vote regularly even though we are citizens; few of us participate in party politics, and even fewer engage in grassroots political advocacy. The effect of this self-imposed detachment has been self-marginalization, political fragmentation, and self-consignment to immigrant life on the periphery of American society.

By default, we have sought support and comfort in our own small communities where we speak our own language, eat our ethnic foods and enjoy our own entertainment. Of course, there is nothing wrong with any of these except for the fact that by wrapping ourselves tightly in an ethnic band, we have been unable to develop the skills and attitudes that will enable us to impact mainstream American institutions to help ourselves in America, and our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia.

Stranded and Fragmented?

There are a few facts that are noteworthy in our social and political adaptation in the U.S. The vast majority of us who came to America in the early 1970s and did not expect to be around much beyond the completion of our educational pursuits. Indeed, we were very eager to go back and serve our country.

We maintained our Ethiopian identity, and we were convinced that our stay in America would be short and sweet. And to that end, it did not matter much to us if we had to wait tables, wash dishes, park cars, drive cabs or whatever was necessary to complete our education and return home.

But political changes in Ethiopia in the mid-1970s turned the world upside down for most of us here, and in Ethiopia. The so-called Red Terror campaign and the massive and indiscriminate political violence and persecution in the country led to the creation of a large refugee population. Many Ethiopians managed to gain admission into the U.S. as refugees.

This created an interesting dichotomy in the Ethiopian community in America: the “elites” who wanted to return but were afraid for their lives, and those who barely escaped with their lives by the skin of their teeth and wanted to stay away at any cost. There was a division between those baptized in the fires of the Red Terror, and those who could imagine the fire from a safe distance in America.

This dichotomy, I believe, aggravated the underlying marginalization process, and for the most part, we ended up doing politics with like-minded individuals and groups in the Diaspora Ethiopian community. Ethiopian students jumped on the Marxist bandwagon, and preached the dogma of socialism to other Ethiopians. Those who had escaped Marxist repression knew better, and avoided political entanglements altogether.

Until recently, I do not believe there has been a unifying message to bring Ethiopians of all stripes together. Indeed, in the past the political message in the Ethiopian Diaspora has been more divisive than cohesive. There was greater emphasis on ideological, ethnic, political and class differences. There were many shrill voices that magnified narrow differences, and few tempered voices that sought to appeal to the broader Diaspora community on the basis of the common bonds of history, culture and tradition.

Awakening of the Ethiopian Diaspora Giant: Human Rights Becomes the Message

Over the past three years or so, there has been a distinct change in political attitude and activism among Diaspora Ethiopians in America. It was as though the Ethiopian Diaspora Giant had awakened from a 30-year slumber. Much to our surprise, we have recently discovered that we have formidable political muscle to organize and promote human rights, democracy and freedom in Ethiopia. We found out the doors to the offices of the highest elected officials in the U.S. were open to us. We could even propose ideas, and demand action.

But there was a slight problem. Though the halls of government were wide open to us, we were not well equipped to take advantage of the opportunities. One of the shocking facts about our newly discovered political power was that most of us lacked an elementary understanding of the American political system and rules that govern it. Most of us did not have a clue about the legislative process. Many of us struggled to understand what a bill is and how it becomes law. We could not articulate our message effectively to policy makers, or work effectively as grassroots advocates for policy change. We could not appreciate the importance of local politics in impacting the national political process.

As a result, we flailed all over the political landscape. Individuals and groups purportedly supporting the same cause would visit American policy makers and legislators time and again, and undercut each other. They would ignore good counsel from policymakers’ offices that they can be more effective if they banded together and articulated the same position. But the “credit instinct” -- that irrepressible feeling to grab credit and make headlines-- was far too overpowering for many of us, and so the same mistakes were made over and over.

Revolt of the Ethiopian American Tax Payer and the Battles of H.R. 2003/5680/4423

But for novices in the American political process, we have done a magnificent job. We were able to clear a human rights bill from a major committee in less than 18 months, and have it ready for floor action. But our efforts were intercepted by one of the most powerful lobbying firms in the world. But we did not put our tails between our legs and run; we came back in blazing glory to confront the wicked army of lobbyist arrayed against us in Congress. In H.R. 2003, we declared the revolt of the Ethiopian American taxpayer.

Every year Zenawi gets $500 million courtesy of American Joe (Yosef) Taxpayer. Instead of saying, “Thank you”, Zenawi insolently complains that America is trying to run him like a banana republic. He wants American money, but he does not want any strings attached to it. But human rights is the heart string of America. America was built on the idea of individual freedom, liberty and democracy. He can never understand or appreciate that because he has never lived in America, in a free country. But he has no problems panhandling the American taxpayer, and receiving billions in handouts.

But now as Ethiopian American taxpayers, we are revolting against the misuse of our tax dollars. What we are saying in H.R. 2003 is that we work very hard in America -- washing dishes, driving cabs, working in the halls of government and academia, in the boardroom, the classroom, the courtroom, the operating room, the boiler room and other places -- and we pay taxes. We are proud and privileged to pay our fair share into the general treasury. But we’d damned if we are going to send our tax dollars to Zenawi so that he can kill, torture, maim, imprison and mistreat our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia!

The Message and Our Credo

So, in H.R. 2003, Ethiopians American taxpayers are speaking directly to Zenawi, and sending him a clear message.

If you want American tax dollars, Ethiopian American tax dollars,

Release all political prisoners in the country, NOW.

Leave the judges and courts alone to administer justice. You can not dress up your party hacks in judicial robes and pretend they are administering justice.

Arrest and prosecute those cold-blooded cutthroats you call security personnel who massacred citizens by the thousands before and after the 2005 elections, NOW!

Leave the print and electronic media alone. Freedom of the press means just that -- an independent press free from official censorship, prior restraint and restrictive laws. License independent radio and television to the public on a competitive basis, not just deliver it to your buddies and cronies on a silver platter. Leave the internet alone so that citizens can freely communicate with free peoples throughout the world.

Restore the democratic rights of the people so that they can speak freely, protest peaceably, and associate with each other without fear of official harassment.

Reconstitute the National Election Board so that it represents all political parties, not just your buddies and cronies.

Let international human rights organizations monitor human rights in Ethiopia. Let local human rights advocates do their work in an environment free of harassment, intimidation, and persecution.

So, if Zenawi wants our tax dollars, these are the conditions he must meet. But there will be no American tax dollars for him as long as he coddles killers of peaceful demonstrators. No tax dollars for him as long as he sneers at the rule of law and tramples upon the democratic liberties of the people. No American tax dollars for him as long as he jails and exiles journalists, reporters and editors. No tax dollars if he insists on rigging elections. And absolutely no American tax dollars for him to buy bullets to kill our Ethiopians brothers and sisters. This is the deal: Take it or leave it!

And this Message is our credo, the consensus of the Ethiopian Diaspora the world over. It is a unifying credo which emanates from the gospel of human rights. We regard H.R. 2003 as a statement of faith based on the dignity of Man and Woman. It is our reaffirmation that Ethiopians deserve what other human beings in civilized societies enjoy -- the right to free speech, free press, free association and peaceable assembly, petition for grievance, and guarantees of due process of law before any person is deprived of life, liberty or property.

Ethiopian Diaspora Politics and the Special Role of Intellectuals

I recently read a thoughtful analysis by an author who made some very perceptive points about the role of Ethiopian Diaspora intellectuals. The author argued that Diaspora Ethiopian intellectuals historically have played a profoundly negative role in domestic Ethiopian politics. He alleged that these intellectuals facilitated the rise of dictatorship under the guise of advancing equality and social justice under a communist system. He blamed them for spreading ideas about secessionism and self-determination, which he claims have resulted in the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia, chronic political instability and long-term economic decline. He condemned Ethiopian intellectuals for being Oreo cookies -- liberal democrats on the outside, and on the inside, intolerant, authoritarian, undemocratic, power-hungry and incapable of uniting Diaspora Ethiopians. The author concluded ominously that “if these people were to get the opportunity to hold real power in Ethiopia, they would not be any different from the current dictators of our country.”

This analysis can not be easily dismissed. There is a real question on the role of Ethiopian Diaspora intellectuals in the struggle for democracy, freedom, equality, human rights, economic and social justice and other issues. Are they playing their part educating Ethiopians? What is their vision for the future of Ethiopia? Or will they remain a permanent part of the problem driving other Ethiopians deeper into political disillusionment?

I can admit, with great embarrassment, that many of us in the legal profession and academia have failed to play a significant part in the search for justice or in articulating a vision for justice in Ethiopia. There are criminals who have engaged in gross abuses of human rights in Ethiopia walking the streets of America today. You see them in the streets of Seattle, and Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, and Dallas…

We have done nothing. There are avenues of legal redress under American law, but we have not used them effectively. We are aware of remedies against those who commit crimes against humanity under international law, but we have yet to stretch out the long arm of the law to hold them accountable.

And as we speak here today, a full-blown genocide is taking place in the Ogaden. The population is slowly being starved to death, and indiscriminate violence continues to be unleashed against the people of the Ogaden. It is a shame that we hear more about this “new African genocide” from Amnesty International and the other human rights organizations than Ethiopian lawyers and political scientists.

As intellectuals, we have failed. And as I point an accusatory finger outward, be mindful the other fingers are pointing to me.

But Ethiopian intellectuals, whether trained in the liberal democracy of the West or elsewhere, have a duty to promote democracy, freedom and human rights in Ethiopia, to educate the people about the objective conditions there, to unite Diaspora Ethiopians with a unifying message, to help those in leadership positions with professional expertise, to counter the false propaganda of the practitioners of tyranny, to become bridges towards greater understanding, to teach and practice democratic tolerance, and to accept our shortcomings and correct the errors of our ways.

There is one questions we can not avoid: If we do not take a leading role in championing the cause of democracy, freedom, human rights and accountability in Ethiopia, who will?

When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, God told him to gather the 70 elders of Israel to help him guide the Jews out of slavery. Let us be those 70 elders for Ethiopia, multiplied a thousand fold, so that we can help free Ethiopia from the clutches of tyranny and deliver her into a new Millennium of freedom, democracy and human rights.

The Ultimate Message -- United We stand, Divided We Fall!

The upshot of all of my remarks here today is simple: We must all unite to bring about positive and lasting change in our homeland. Whether we came to the U.S. as students, tourists or refugees, and even if we are visiting the U.S. for just a few weeks, we must band together in the holy cause of human rights and march into the New Millennium to the drumbeat of democracy.

In as much as we were an Awakening Giant in America, we face other formidable giants in their own right -- the Cyclops known as D.L.A. Piper and its master Tyrannosaurus Zenawi. We face the power of Big Money in the halls of Congress. They will outspend us by a thousand-to-one any day of the week to defeat H.R. 2003.

But our adversary can not defeat us or our cause if we stand together as one, united in one cause, for one indivisible nation. His millions of dollars will be no match for our collective resolve and determination to forge ahead with an agenda of democracy, accountability and human rights in Ethiopia in the New Millennium.

But our strength is also our weakness. And that’s where our adversary will try to strike a hard blow. He will scheme day and night to divide us, weaken our resolve and create great discord amongst us. We should not help him by becoming unwitting allies in our own undoing. We must fight him back tooth and nail. Where he sows discord, we should plant harmony; where he seeks to divide us, we must fight him back with unflinching unity in a common cause; where he tries to provoke us into anger against each other, we should fight back with tolerance and understanding. It is time to close ranks!

I can imagine that over the past week or so our adversary has been belly-aching with laughter, listening to us as we engage in frivolous recriminations and pointing accusatory fingers at each other. He is probably telling his public relations people to take advantage of the spectacle of our self-inflicted humiliation to make the point that we can not even talk to each other let alone assume the responsibility of governance.

And no doubt he will try to capitalize on recent events and tell members of Congress and other U.S. policy makers, “See! See! What did I tell you? There is no responsible opposition in the country. They are divided and at each other’s throats. I am the only choice. I am! I am! There is no leader to keep the country together, but me. Without ME the country will go to hell in a hand basket!”

If we continue to magnify our minor differences and forget to see the big picture -- democracy, freedom, human rights, accountability and so on-- we would have delivered the biggest victory to the adversary on a silver platter. Is that what we want?

That is why we should all pledge to do our part to bridge the divide that seems to be looming in the horizon. Now, more than ever, with the fate of Ethiopian democracy in the balance, we must stand together, act together, work together and pray together to root out tyranny and plant the seeds of democracy.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

Thank you very much.

Remember, Remember the 9th of September!

2007-09-13T18:08:00.000-07:00

I wish you were there! How I wish you were there!

It was the 9th of September. A day I will always remember. A glorious day when Dulles Airport became Bole Airport, for 3 hours. Dulles was awash in the green, yellow and red. It was a day of joyous celebration. It was a day of pride. It was a day of triumph. It was a day unlike any other in the history of Dulles Airport. In the history of Ethiopians in America. No dignitary of any country, no rock superstar, no one but no one, had ever received such a massive reception in the history of that airport, so said the airport policeman on security detail. They were baffled. They had never seen so many people at the terminal waiting to receive passengers. Never!

A burly police officer asked me, “Who are the people waiting for? Some kind of African kings?”

I chuckled. “No, they are no kings,” I said. “They are the truly elected leaders of Ethiopia.”

“What is it? All of you guys haven’t seen’em for a while or something?” he followed up.

“No, we haven’t. They have been in jail for the last two years,” I explained.

“Didn’t you just tell me they were some kinda elected leaders. Why were they in jail,” he asked logically.

“Because democracy is a crime in Ethiopia,” I replied. “If you win elections fair and square, you go to jail,” I warned him.

“Man, that’s really messed up!” he said as he turned around to attend to his security duties.

He really has a point. It really is messed up!

I wish they were there too. You know who “they” are. They were probably there. Skulking behind doorways and support beams. Stealing a glance here and there. I wish they could come out in the crowd and feel how it feels to be loved by the people. How it feels to be respected. How it feels to be honored. I wish they were there to see and feel the power of popular love, the respect and admiration of ordinary citizens — raw, uncensored and irrepressible.

There was electricity in the air. Ethiopians — younger ones, older ones, of all backgrounds, together in one place — waiting anxiously for their heroes and their heroine. Men and women screaming in joy. Sitting. Standing. Walking. Talking, Singing. Taking pictures. saw a young man who stood alone in the corner sobbing by himself as he clutched the Ethiopian flag close to his heart. I felt I should try and comfort him. “Steady, man. Steady. (Ay zoh, berta.) Get a hold of yourself,” I said, to distract him. “But I am trying,” he answered. “I am really trying. I just can’t stop my tears.” I knew exactly how he felt. I left him alone.

We waited anxiously and the minutes lapsed with hopeful anticipation. And people kept on pouring into the terminal. I was so proud. The crowd was disciplined, very well behaved. People followed the instructions of the police officers who were a bit nervous at the beginning facing such a huge crowed. I chatted with the cops, and they were very accommodating. Mostly, they observed from a distance with studied curiosity.

I spotted an elderly lady in the crowd. I did not know her, but decided to congratulate her anyhow. “Emama, enkwan des a lot (Mother, congratulations). “Well, my son. There is no end to the miracle to God’s work. They are here today,” she said. Indeed, they are here today by the grace of God, I thought to myself.

As passengers trickled out from the rear of the terminal, people in the crowd would crane their neck to see if THEY were coming out. (Wetu, wetu!) Some would break out in spontaneous applause, but THEY were not to be seen. The anticipation was building up, and people were besides themselves by the minute, by the second.

A reception line was formed at the passenger exit door. And we waited somewhat nervously. There were six children holding flowers for our honored guests. I started a little conversation with them. “So, how do you feel,” I asked. “I am happy. I am excited,” replied a little girl. “But why are you happy and exited,” I followed up. “Because we love them,” she said. That was good enough for me. No further questions.

As I stood in the reception line and looked into the countless hopeful eyes in the crowd, I thought about the day. “What a glorious day the Lord has made!”, I thought to myself. I was overjoyed. A lot of things were racing through my mind. I tried to read the mood of the huge crowd, in a sort of detached way. But I couldn’t. The atmosphere was too electrifying. People hugging, kissing, embracing, singing and congratulating each other, unstoppably.

I felt like I was at huge family reunion. And there were the relatives I knew, and a whole boatload of distant cousins, and relatives and neighbors and their uncles and grandmothers I did not know. But they had all showed up for the reunion. It did not matter.

Then I thought of all the people in the crowd. I asked myself how many of them knew these leaders. I have never met them any one of them before, at least in person. But I did know them. Really. I knew them through the story of their suffering. I spoke to them while they sat in the Zenawi’s dingy Kality prison. Oh, yes, I knew them as I followed their story in Kangaroo court. I knew them when they faced bogus criminal charges brought against them by a bogus prosecutor in front of bogus judges. No doubt about it, I knew them well. We just hadn’t met in person.

And in minutes we were about to meet. I thought to myself how I would feel when I first see the faces of TRUTH. And courage. And valor. And defiance. And fortitude. I thought about how it would feel to stand by the side of real heroes and a heroine. Just how does it feel?

Then I had a flashback to May, 2005. I wondered, if democracy had not been stillborn in May, 2005, would I have been at standing at Dulles Airport to receive them? Would any of us? If the people’s voice had not been stolen then, where would Ethiopia be today?” Such fleeting thoughts criss-crossed my mind.

But I was overtaken by a mood of sullenness for just a moment. I thought about the 193 innocent men, women and children that were mowed down like grass by Zenawi’s security men in 2005. The photos of their mangled faces, their bullet-riddled bodies, the sun baked blood on the dirt, all of it, flashed hauntingly before my eyes. I will admit it, my eyes welled up in tears.

I wondered what may happened to the thousands that were shot, but lived through the grace of God. The thousands more that were imprisoned, and continue to be imprisoned. And the millions of dollars that were being spent for a bogus Millennium at a time when people could not afford to buy a kilogram of beef or berbere or sugar. I even thought about Marie Antoinette who, upon being told the peasants did not have bread to eat, muttered, “Then let them eat cake.” I suppose, those who have organized the Millennium party would be saying, “If they can’t eat chicken or beef or mutton or berbere, let them eat grass or something.” We’ve got a party to attend!

A sudden burst of applause and ululation jolted me out of my “blues”, and as I looked up I could see the smiling face of Birtukan standing tall and elegant in a grey striped suit flashing a broad smile. For a moment, just for a moment, I wondered if Birtukan had just stepped off a plane or the centerfold in Vogue Magazine. There she stood beaming a smile at the crowd. The crowd went wild. Engineer Gizachew, Dr. Hailu and Ato Brook followed as the flower girls handed them their bouquets. And suddenly Dr.Berhanu joined in from the crowd as people chanted his name. It was a free for all after that. Everybody wanted to kiss them, hug them, embrace them. Touch them. You had to be there to feel it!

They took it all in stride. They were happy, but I think they had the surprise of their lives. I doubt they could have imagined such a huge crowd, such an outpouring of love, respect and honor waiting for them. In America. At Dulles Airport.

But the crowd would not leave them alone. They followed them outside the terminal. They sang for them. They assembled in the parking lot. They sang some more. They followed them on the highways, miles and miles of cars lined up in two lanes. Young people flashing the “V” sign as they sped down the highway, calling out their names and thanking them. “We love you Birtukan. Thanks Bre. Thanks, Dr. Hailu, Eng. Gizachew, Ato Brook. They followed them to the Washington Mall. And to the Mayflower Hotel. They just couldn’t get enough of them. I am sure by the end of the day “their cups must have runneth over.”

As we headed down the highway to the hotel, we started chatting. I felt like I had known them for a long time. They were people of humility. So soft spoken. So thoughtful. And what a sense of humor they have!

They were amazing. They showed no bitterness towards those who had caused them so much misery for the past two years. Not a harsh word against their tormentors. As we continued to talk, I began to sense what kind of people they were: ordinary people with extraordinary courage. Simple people with a big message. Common people with uncommon valor. Unpretentious people with rock-solid principles.

I joked with them. I asked them if they were surprised by the enormous turnout of Ethiopians at the airport. They said they had no idea that so many people would come out to receive them this early on a Sunday morning. Perhaps they felt they had caused people inconvenience by arriving so early. But I was quick to reply, “Well, if you could sleep on the dirt floor of Kality prison for two years, wake up and come to America to see us, we’d be damned if we could not get out of our comfortable beds on a glorious Sunday morning and say, “Welcome friends and thank you for everything!” We laughed, but that was the truth.

But thank them we must, Again and again. As they travel this great land to visit with us. We must thank them for suffering the indignities in Kality prison with grace. For sitting in Kangaroo court month after month and listening to perjurers and liars. For never getting down into the sewers to argue their cause with those who make a living there. For maintaining their honor and dignity against those who have neither. For their sacrifices — the love of their families, their professions, their friends– in the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights. For saying “NO!” to tyranny, and “YES” to democracy. For not selling out for thirty pieces of silver. For not copping out. For maintaining their sense of humor when the jerks jerk them around. For showing grace under fire. For sacrificing their freedom, and putting everything on the line, so that their countrymen and women can be free. And for maintaining a cheerful attitude about the whole thing.

So Birtukan, Berhanu, Gizachew, Hailu, Brook, Welcome to America. The land of the free and home of the brave. Breath the fresh air of liberty. Renew your spirit while you are with US, for America nurtures all who yearn to breath free. Feel at home here in America, for you can not feel home, at home.

What a glorious day! What a historic day!

Remember, Remember the 9th of September!

What in the World is the World’s Oldest Woman Doing in Houston?

2007-09-05T10:39:00.000-07:00

Dinkenesh (Lucy) in Houston with Diamonds?

We call her Dinkenesh. They call her “Lucy”. But what’s in a name? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” said Shakespeare. But Lucy is one of a kind. She is unlike any other hominid fossil ever found. She is the most complete hominid skeleton of the Pliocene Epoch [1.8-5.3 million years ago]. And she is in terrible danger in Houston, if you believe the foremost paleontologists in the world.

But what in the world is she doing in Houston, Texas?

Officials of the ruling regime “made no bones” about Lucy’s reasons for coming to America. (No pun intended.) National Public Radio quoting these officials reported that Old Lucy is in America to squeeze a few bucks out of American pockets for the folks back home, and snag some tourists: “Officials there [Addis Ababa] have said there are two reasons for sending Lucy on an American tour. The first is to raise the profile of Ethiopia and attract international tourists. The second reason is to raise money for the impoverished African country.”

The Houston Museum has dubbed the exhibition “Lucy’s Legacy: The Hidden Treasures of Ethiopia”. It is not an accurate caption. A more appropriate caption would have been: “Lucy’s Legacy: Hidden Deals Over the Treasures of Ethiopia”. Everything about the deal that brought Lucy to Houston remains hidden, from public view. Like the pirates of old, only Houston Museum and regime officials know the value of the treasures and where they are hidden. If you think they will share the loot, abandon all hope, now.

The negotiations to sneak Lucy into America were done in classic cloak-and-dagger style, with scheming museum officials strutting in the foreground, and nameless and faceless “Ethiopian government officials” skulking in the background. The details of the financial arrangements around Lucy are shrouded in more secrecy than the Holy Mysteries. Mum is the word for both Houston Museum and regime officials. They are sticking by the old Code of Silence. Just like in the Godfather movies. Except Don Corleone’s boys from Sicily call it Omerta. Houston calls it “confidential”. It’s all the same, ain’t nobody talking!

Get a load of this! Few in Ethiopia knew Lucy was splitting town. There was no official public announcement, discussion or information on her U.S. trip. She was whisked away stealthily under cover of darkness. The usual M.O. (modus operandi), snatched in the middle of the night. That’s what the reports said. MSNBC quoted a young lawyer in Addis who was thunderstruck at the news that Lucy has been spirited to America for 6 years, as a guest worker. He was appalled: “This is a national treasure. How come the [Ethiopian] public has no inkling about this? It’s amazing that we didn’t even get to say goodbye.” He is going to be dumbstruck when he finds out what kind of work Lucy will be doing for the next 6 years.

The whole deal is disgusting. I’d like to say, “Houston, we’ve got a problem!” Just like Apollo 13 said when its oxygen tank exploded en route to the Moon. I’d like to add, “Houston, your attitude about the Lucy affair stinks!”

“Lucy’s Legacy” or no, Professor Richard Leaky, the famed African paleoanthro- pologist, is pissed off and hopping mad about the whole deal that delivered Lucy to the grubby hands of Houston Museum curators. He does not disagree that Lucy was brought to America to make money. He just objects to the fact that she is being used to make money like a prostitute makes money for her pimp. An irate Leakey protested in the international media that the Mother of All Humanity was being forced into white slavery: “Dispatching of the Lucy skeleton on a six-year-tour of the United States is akin to prostituting the fragile, 3.2 million year-old fossil. It's a form of prostitution, its gross exploitation of the ancestors of humanity and it should not be permitted,” fumed Leakey.

How tragically ironic! The world’s oldest woman working in the world’s oldest profession! What a low-down crying shame!

But if Leaky is right about his prostitution accusation, then we would have to put out an APB (all points bulletin) for her pimps. We’ve got to nab the “Superfly” in this prostitution racket? Track down Lucy’s Iceberg Slim. If Leaky is right, we’d have to wonder if the Houston Museum is a cultural center or a brothel.
But the outrage expressed over this “fossilxploitation” is not limited to Leaky. A large number of the world’s leading paleontologists and many of the top-tier American museums have also blasted the “Legacy Tour”. They share Leakey’s concern that “these specimens will get damaged no matter how careful you are and every time she is moved there is a risk. The point is what is the benefit of taking one of the most iconic examples of the human story from Africa to parade it around in second-level museums in the United States?”

The Smithsonian Institution has declined to exhibit Lucy, and publicly condemned the underhanded vulgarity of the secret deal that brought Lucy out of Ethiopia. The American Museum of Natural History in New York has also declined. So has the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Lucy’s first home. The Field Museum in Chicago, aware of the international condemnation, has expressed deep reservations about exhibiting Lucy.

Rick Potts, one of the foremost researchers on East African fossils and director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian pointed an accusatory finger at the Houston Museum and the Ethiopian “government” for flagrantly disregarding a 1988 Resolution passed by the UNESCO-affiliated International Association for the Study of Human Paleontology. In that Resolution, Ethiopia agreed not to move fossils outside of its territory, and display replicas only in public exhibitions. Rick is missing the point. Outlaws don’t give a damn about international agreements or law.

Prof. Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who has extensive experience working with fossils, says it is irresponsible to rent out the “extremely fragile” fossil: “If Lucy is removed from a box and then put on display, and put back in a box and then put on display again, as sure as night follows day, it will be damaged. It's not something that might happen. It's something that most certainly will happen.” If Wood is right, it’s time to say “So long, Lucy. It’s been nice knowing you, almost.”
Perhaps few can speak on Lucy more authoritatively than Yohannes Haile Selassie, anthropology curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History: "There is a lot of damage you can't see with the naked eyes, caused just by touching her and handling her. I'm just sitting and praying that she comes back safe." Amen! That kind of damage is not difficult to imagine. If you pack and unpack her dozens of times as she is shuttled between bush-league museums for six years, it is not rocket science to figure out that her brittle bones could be damaged beyond repair. Haile Selassie knows what he talking about. After all, it was the Cleveland team that studied Lucy for 6 years back in 1974 and put her together.

But Joel Bartsch, the president of the “second-level” Houston Museum of Natural Science, says phooey to the outcry in the scientific community. He does not give a hoot about the concerns of scientists who have spent their entire professional lives excavating, analyzing, restoring and curating such fossils. He says: “The fossil [Lucy] was examined by a group of curators who pronounced her hardy and robust, he says. Is she rare? Is she unique? Is she important to all mankind? Absolutely. But she's not too fragile to travel.”

Bartsch attitude is that Lucy has been stuck in the mud for the last 3.2 million years. She needs to get out and get around.

Dirk Van Tuerenhout, one of Bartsch’s lieutenants says: “If you are able to showcase an original fossil, then you have a story, then you have a point of attraction that will bring in the most number of people, and then you can tell them that story.”
Nonsense! Whatever story you can tell with the real fossil, you can tell the replica. It’s not like Lucy can talk and tell us how her life has been for the past 3.2. million years. Her replica will do just fine. Of course, you won’t be able to snag $20 a pop if you use the replica. What can I say? That’s the way the world’s oldest profession is practiced in Houston, I reckon.

World’s Oldest “Hardy and Robust” Woman Forced to Work in the World’s Oldest Profession for Six Years?
According to reports, Lucy has been viewed by the Ethiopian public only twice since her discovery in 1974. A replica is said to be on display at the Ethiopian Natural History Museum in Addis Ababa. For the last 34 years, she was kept away from public view in a climate-controlled vault. “Too fragile”, they said, for those big prying Ethiopian eyes. May be they were afraid she will be seen by the “evil eye” (buda).
Now Lucy is unchained from her vault to satisfy the scientific and cultural curiosities of “good ole” Houstonians.

But Leaky and his colleagues say, “scientific and cultural curiosities, my foot!” Her ladyship has been shanghaied into indentured servitude for prostitution for 6 years. Just get a load of that!

Is the Houston Museum pimping Lucy, or using her to tell a “story” as Bartsch and Van Tuerenhout claim? The Houston duo’s story about retailing Lucy is as audacious as it is knavish. It is not unlike the rap a pimp would lay on his lady to get her to go out into the street and ply her trade. “You are strong and tough, baby. You can handle it. There ain’t nobody like you. You are the only one I care about. Now, go out and bring me my money!” Bartsch, Van Tuerenhout and Iceberg Slim, they are all the same!

So, Old Lucy will be turning $20 “tricks” for the Houston Museum and all of the other third-rate wannbe museums for the next six years. Like the gaudy prostitute in the red light district beckoning her customers to come in, Lucy’s fossilized remains will be splattered all over the billboards by the side of Texas highways. She will beckon “all them Texan cowboys and cowgirls to come to the museum for a little bit o’ culture and learnin’”, for $20 a pop, that is. Yeah, Houston patricians will be squeezed for few more bucks to support this “once-in-human-history” event. Everybody will make beaucoup bucks. There will be NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the money collected on Lucy’s skin, or more appropriately, her fossilized bones. What a sweet deal! What a low-down dirty shame!

Could Lucy be in America on a Secret Mission?

According to National Public Radio, one of the two reasons for Lucy’s trip to America is “to raise the profile of Ethiopia and attract international tourists.” Perhaps Old Lucy is here on a special secret mission, code named: “Raise the Profile: Mission Distraction!”

Naturally, she’d make for a perfect foil. She does not have to say anything, just look pretty while her handlers adorn her showcased fossil with “over 100 artifacts such as ancient manuscripts and royal artifacts” dating back to the “biblical King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba”. And museum spin doctors will yak about Ethiopia “as the origin of mankind… the cradle of civilization… the birthplace of coffee…the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant…the first Christian African nation in the 4th century A.D…” Blah, blah, blah!

Stop! Why is it necessary to “raise the profile of Ethiopia and attract international tourists” now? Would it have anything to do with the recent conclusions of the U.S. State Department?

The [Ethiopian] government's human rights record remained poor in many areas. Human rights abuses reported during the year included the following: unlawful killings; beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens'
privacy rights; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly and of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation; exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and against religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities.

Well, if the aim is to “put a spotlight on Ethiopia as the cradle of civilization,” as the Houston Museum claimed, and spruce up the regime’s image along the way, I am afraid there are just too many blood spots on that image for Lucy’s skirt to cover. Nothing can overwrite the indelible facts of gross human rights abuses seared into the consciences of all freedom-loving people. Please, don’t insult the intelligence of the American people. No amount of hoopla around Lucy’s “diminutive bag of bones” can beguile the American tourist into visiting Orwellian (Zenawian) Ethiopia.

Is Dinkenesh’s (Lucy’s) Story an Allegory of “Modern” Ethiopia?
So, what is the lesson to be learned from the sordid Lucy deal? Sell the most priceless fossil of the human origin for the best offer! Rent out Lucy to an escort service? Everything has a price on it, just bring me the money!

Some say this is the standard way of doing business in Ethiopia today. Everything is for sale. Sell me your honor, and I will give you a scrap of land. Bow before me, and I will give you an office and title. Incriminate your neighbor, I will let you go free. Everybody has a price; you just have to find out the right price point. It all sounds so Mephistophelian: “Give me your soul in exchange for riches and power.”

Well, there are some things that money just can’t buy, such as rare, priceless and irreplaceable objects -- Dinkenesh (Lucy) of Ethiopia. There are other simple things that you can’t buy either, for any amount of money. One is Love of Country. It comes bundled with such things as pride in your cultural heritage and the sacrifices of your ancestors, uncompromising allegiance to individual liberty, tenacious commitment to truth, compassion for the poor and downtrodden, self-dignity, honor and courage in the face of overwhelming odds, and most of all, enduring faith in the Almighty.

But without Love of Country, everything is up for sale, just like the prostitute your soul, honor, dignity, heritage, country…. Everything! So, where can one buy this “Love of Country”? Like I said, you don’t. You’ve got to be born with it. Either you got it, or you ain’t. But how do you know when you ain’t got it? For starters, if you start prostituting your cultural heritage, you know you ain’t got it!

Can Lucy be Rescued From White Slavery? Can we save Lucy from white slavery? I don’t know, but we can try a few things. First, we must speak out and plead her cause before the American people, every chance we get. In the newspapers. On TV. On radio. We need to have chats with those Houston Museum patrons. We’ve got to tell them what’s happening to Lucy. Give them a flyer to take home. Ask them to help you send Lucy home. Like Speilberg’s E.T., Lucy has got to go home!

We must inform American policy makers -- federal, state, local-- that Lucy has been smuggled into America for an illicit purpose by panderers, and demand that she be returned back to her country, pronto. We’ve got to tell them what Prof. Leakey, Dr. Haile Selassie and all of the other scientists have said. They will understand.

But it is not enough to condemn the pimps and argue Lucy’s cause in the court of American public opinion. We must also praise and thank those scientists who exposed the truth about the secret deal that now threatens Lucy, and the museums that refused to join the prostitution ring. A special debt of gratitude should go to Prof. Richard Leakey, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Prof. Bernard Wood of George Washington University, Dr. Rick Potts of the Smithsonian Institution, and many others scientists. We should express our special appreciation and thanks to the Smithsonian Institution, the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and all of the other museums that have declined to be part of the this sleazy museum escort service.

But there is more to be done. We should register our profound disappointment and disapproval of the actions of those corporations and institutions in Houston that funded this disgraceful enterprise: The Smith Foundation, METRORail, British Petroleum, The Hamill Foundation, the Albert and Ethel Herzstein Charitable Foundation and Texas Monthly. They need to be told that they did the wrong thing by bankrolling the deal that brought Lucy to Houston. Now, they should now do the right thing and get Lucy back home, ASAP.

I have heard Ethiopians in Houston are planning to boycott the exhibit. Ain’t it great to live in a country where you have a constitutional right to boycott whatever you want. There is a lesson Lucy can take home for the folks, in six years. That is if she can “hang in there” (no pun intended) that long!

I Love Lucy, But I Don’t Like Her Pimps
There is ample evidence to support Prof. Leakey’s “fossil prostitution” accusations. Both Houston Museum and Ethiopian officials have confirmed Lucy is here to make a few bucks. All the other cultural stuff is just fluff around her “employment contract”.
But pimping fossils should be a concern not only to Ethiopians, but also Americans and all peoples of the world. Fossils are part of the world culture heritage. That is why they are protected by international law: The 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage , and the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. These Conventions were designed to prevent endangerment and impoverishment of world cultural heritage through illicit import, export and transfer of ownership. Ethiopia has ratified both conventions. But neither the Houston Museum nor regime officials seem to care much for international law. Big surprise there!

The Houston deal really sets a bad precedent. Now, other countries with priceless fossil collections can use the Houston example to engage a little bit of “prostitution” themselves. They will likely argue, “Ethiopia cut a deal with the Houston Museum, why can’t we do the same with Po Dunk Museum on the left bank of the Rio Grande? What’s good for Ethiopia is good for us too. Now, hurry up! Show me the money, and you can have whatever bone collection you want.” It’s all downhill from there.

So, what’s next for Lucy, Joel Bartsch? Dirk Van Tuerenhout? How about “The Lucy Fossil Freak Show,” in Barnum and Bailey’s “Greatest Show on Earth”? May be Lucy can join up with other snake oil salesmen and travel the back country in a wagon trail. Hey, can you “hook” her up at the Grand Ole Opry for a one night stand with an Elvis look-alike. (No pun intended.) America is a land of opportunity; and the possibilities are endless in the world’s oldest profession.

But Why Do We Love Lucy?
We love Lucy because she gives us a chance to talk about Ethiopia not as a land of famine, pestilence, poverty, HIV infections, political prisoners, human rights abuses and brutal dictators, but as the place where humankind could have originated. She gives us a chance to brag a little bit about the homeland. We can hold our heads up high and engage our friends in good conversation about human origins. May be chat about “baby Lucy” (the 3.3-million-year-old fossilized remains of a human-like child unearthed in the same region in 2000), and the trailblazing work of Cleveland Museum’s Dr. Haile Selassie, and paleoanthropologist Dr. Zeresenay Alemseged at the world renowned Max Plank Institute . Yes, Lucy could offer a welcome distraction from all of the gloom and doom that envelopes Ethiopia today. But for God’s sake, keep her home and send her replica on tour.

Lucy is fundamentally about what it means to be human, and preserving the fossil records of the origins of humanity. That’s the reason for the massive outcry from the scientific community. But a fossil does not a human make. There is another deafening outcry for humans in Ethiopia today. It is an outcry for human rights. It is an outcry for official accountability. It is an outcry for democracy and freedom. After all, it would not make much sense to worry about human origins 3.2 million years ago if we are not concerned about human rights today!

“I Love Lucy. Let’s pitch in and get her a plane ticket home.”

“Help pass H.R. 2003 “Ethiopia Freedom and Accountability Act of 2007.”

Letter to DLA Piper

2007-09-05T09:56:00.000-07:00

August 22, 2007

Mr. Gary Klein, Esq.
DLA Piper
Federal Affairs and Legislative
Practice Group
1200 Nineteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-2412
BY E-MAIL AND FAX
Dear Mr. Klein:
I write this letter to challenge recent statements that you have personally made in a radio interview, and other statements made by your firm on behalf of your client the “Government of Ethiopia”. In these statements you and your firm make certain factual assertions about political conditions in Ethiopia, and inaccurately characterize the legislative intent of H.R. 2003 (“Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007”. I believe a number of statements that you and your firm have made concerning political conditions in Ethiopia and H.R. 2003 are grossly inaccurate; and other statements reflect a reckless disregard for the truth. I am a member of the Coalition for H.R. 2003, eponymously named after the bill. (See http://www.hr5680.org/)

Your Interview on Deutsche Welle
In your Deutsche Welle (German Radio Amharic program) interview on August 14, 2007, you made the following assertions, among others: There are no political prisoners in Ethiopia today, or at any time following the 2005 election. No one in Ethiopia has been jailed because of his/her political views or stand. The recently freed opposition political leaders were jailed because of their criminal role in the post-2005 election-related violence. The reports of human rights abuses by international human rights organizations are mere allegations without factual foundation. The current ruling regime (your client) allows full and unrestricted exercise of basic freedoms including free speech, free press and free electoral participation in Ethiopia. H.R. 2003 is fundamentally inimical to democratic progress in Ethiopia. You interview comments reflect your Firm’s stated positions.

Statements Made by Your Firm on Behalf of Your Client, and Against H.R. 2003

I. H.R. 2003 “Threatens U.S. National Security Interests”
You have asserted that H.R. 2003 “threatens U.S. national interests” and therefore should not be enacted because it 1) “compromises the national security interests of the United States” by vitiating the partnership “with a vital ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism and efforts to promote regional stability in the Horn of Africa and the regional military task force”, 2) undermines the strategic cooperation between Ethiopia and the United States “by cutting off critical security assistance to Ethiopia unless the President makes a complex 11-part certification, 3) imposes a “a sanction on all forms of security assistance other than peacekeeping and counter-terrorism,” and further makes “impractical require[ments] that peacekeeping or counter-terrorism assistance not be used for any other security-related purpose”, and 4) limits one of the central purposes of U.S. security assistance which is to “influence the development of military institutions and their role in democratic societies” and “equip military leaders with the professional development required to lead and maintain effective military forces under democratic civilian control, while enhancing their capacity to respond quickly and effectively to humanitarian crises on the continent.”

This multipart argument misrepresents and mischaracterizes the plain language and legislative intent of H.R. 2003, and shows utter disregard for human rights as one of the indispensable pillars of U.S. foreign policy.

First, I challenge your claim that H.R. 2003 undermines the strategic cooperation between Ethiopia and the United States “by cutting off critical security assistance to Ethiopia unless the President makes a complex 11-part certification.” What exactly are the elements of this “certification” to which you strenuously object on behalf of your client?
Sec. 6, (a) (3) (A-K) of H.R. 2003 enumerates the specific certification conditions your client must meet before the suspension provisions of the bill are triggered. These terms are not ironclad, but are based on an ongoing and flexible evaluation of whether your client is making credible and quantifiable efforts under the bill to ensure that (A) all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia have been released, their civil and political rights restored, and their property returned; (B) prisoners held without charge or kept in detention without fair trial in violation of the Constitution of Ethiopia are released or receive a fair and speedy trial, and prisoners whose charges have been dismissed or acquitted and are still being held are released without delay; (C) the Ethiopian judiciary is able to function independently and allowed to uphold the Ethiopian Constitution and international human rights standards; (D) security personnel involved in the unlawful killings of demonstrators, Etenesh Yemam, and Kaliti prisoners are punished; (E) family members, legal counsel, and others have unfettered access to visit detainees in Ethiopian prisons; (F) print and broadcast media in Ethiopia are able to operate free from undue interference and laws restricting media freedom, including sections of the Ethiopian Federal Criminal Code, are revised; (G) licensing of independent radio and television in Ethiopia is open and transparent; (H) access in Ethiopia is provided to the Internet and the ability of citizens to freely send and receive electronic mail and otherwise obtain information is guaranteed; (I) the National Election Board (NEB) includes representatives of political parties with seats in the Ethiopian Parliament and guarantees independence for the NEB in its decision-making; (J) representatives of international human rights organizations engaged in human rights monitoring work in Ethiopia are admitted to Ethiopia without undue restriction; and (K) Ethiopian human rights organizations are able to operate in an environment free of harassment, intimidation, and persecution.
These certification standards are reasonably flexible under sec. 4 (A) (ii), which grants the U.S. President full authority to waive application of the law if he “determines that… the Government of Ethiopia has met the requirements [A-K] of paragraph (3); and…such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States.”
Is the certification issue really as onerous (“complex’) as you allege it to be?
As you know, presidential certification is a very common practice and requirement in the administration of not only U.S. foreign aid and defense policy, but also international counter-terrorism and -narcotics control policy. The certification process required by Congress in H.R. 2003 is not rigid and unyielding.

The President has various certification options for Ethiopia under the bill: full certification, denial of certification, or a "vital national interests" certification. He may choose to “fully” certify Ethiopia should he determine that the regime in power has fully met the certification requirements, or has taken adequate steps to achieve full compliance with the goals and objectives of H.R. 2003. If so, no aid will be withheld. He may choose to deny certification if the regime makes no or inadequate progress in meeting the statutory objectives, triggering the suspension of aid. He may also make “partial certification” under certain circumstances which would allow your client more time for compliance. But most importantly, even if your client fails to meet the standards for full certification, the President may nevertheless issue certification by determining that it is in the U.S. “vital national interest” to do so, which will allow uninterrupted delivery of aid to your client as though it had been given full certification.

As you know, regardless of the certification provisions of H.R. 2003, the U.S. has ratified, is a signatory to or has adopted the following major human rights conventions, among others: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1977), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1992), Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1994) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1980) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1995).

The certification requirements of H.R. 2003 are not only consistent with U.S. international human rights obligations, they also complement existing federal law. 22 U.S.C. 2304 provides:

The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world… (2) Except under circum-stances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” (Emphasis added.)

To be sure, the certification requirements of H.R. 2003 are fully consistent with Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act (1976, as amended) which underscores the essential nature of human rights in U.S. foreign policy by requiring the secretary of state to transmit to Congress "a full and complete report" every year concerning "respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country proposed as a recipient" of U.S. security assistance. Specifically, this section requires information on specific areas such as: torture, arbitrary arrest, denial of fair trial and invasion of the home, extra-judicial killings or "arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life, freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly, and freedom of movement and ability to participate in the political process. This section imposes restrictions on U.S. assistance to foreign governments that violate internationally recognized human rights. The certification provisions are necessary because of your client’s extremely poor human rights record over the past decade and half.
I challenge your claim that H.R. 2003 imposes “a sanction on all forms of security assistance other than peacekeeping and counter-terrorism,” and further makes “impractical require[ments] that peacekeeping or counter-terrorism assistance not be used for any other security-related purpose”, while undermining the professionalization of the military in Ethiopia. Indeed, this claim is inconsistent with existing federal law.

Limitations on use of U.S. military aid to suppress internal opposition is quite common. In fact, Sec. 6 (A) (1) (a) (Limitation on Security Assistance) of H.R. 2003 restates a fundamental aspect of the Leahy Amendments to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (2001), which provide human rights-based controls on military assistance to recipient countries:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice. (Emphasis added.)

The complementary language to the Leahy Amendments in H.R. 2003 provides, under Sec. 6 (a) (1) (B), that security assistance provided to Ethiopia “shall not be used for any other security-related purpose or to provide training to security personnel or units accused of human rights violations against civilians.” (Emphasis added.)

Manifestly, the “limiting” language in H.R. 2003 is in conformity with existing federal law. It does not invent hitherto unknown limitations or restrictions to be imposed on Ethiopia. (See also 22 U.S.C. 2304, supra.) Nonetheless, under both the Leahy Amendments and H.R. 2003 (Sec. 4 (A) (i), (ii)), there are adequate waiver provisions to mitigate the effects of the law in the discretion of the U.S. President.

I could not disagree with you more in your contention that H.R. 2003, a human rights bill, is harmful to American national interests. The pursuit of human rights as part of American foreign policy can NEVER threaten U.S. national security interests. Indeed, the centrality of human rights in American foreign policy is described in unambiguous language by the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor as follows :

The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States understands that the existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises.

President Carter, whose eponymous Center’s findings you have cited as authority to legitimize the victory of your client’s party in the 2005 elections, in his augural speech stated:

“The world itself is now dominated by a new spirit. Peoples more numerous and more politically aware are craving and now demanding their place in the sun -- not just for the benefit of their own physical condition, but for basic human rights.” Today, Ethiopia “itself is dominated by a new spirit” of democracy, and its people yearn for “basic human rights.”

Enforcement of human rights anywhere in the world can never be a threat to
American national interests!

While you may believe limitation on use of American security assistance can cause your client inconvenience and hardship (or “impractical requirements”), it is in the “vital interest” of the United States not to allow American weapons and military aid to be used to kill, maim, and suppress civilian populations in aid recipient countries. Such legislative restrictions are employed to deny dictators in recipient countries the military means to suppress peaceful dissent and opposition, and perpetuate wars and violence against their civilian population.

In light of the foregoing, your categorical claim in support of your client that H.R. 2003, a human rights bill, “threatens U.S. national security interests” is grossly inaccurate and unsupported by facts.

II. H.R. 2003 “Overlooks Progress Toward Democracy and Reconciliation”
You have asserted that H.R. 2003 “overlooks” the “immense progress made in Ethiopia since the May 2005 elections in creating a competitive, pluralistic democratic system of government.”
In support of this purported inexorable march towards democracy, you have enumerated the following propositions with supporting authorities: 1) The U.S. Department of State has made findings that “[t]hese elections [2005] stand out as a milestone in creating a new, more competitive multiparty political system in one of Africa’s largest and most important countries.” 2) The Carter Center has concluded “the majority of the constituency results based on the May 15 polling and tabulation are credible and reflect competitive conditions.” 3) Former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz’s has observed that the Bank will resume aid to Ethiopia because “there is more reason to feel confident that people are learning the right lessons from the experiences of last year…” 4) That despite calls to boycott Parliament following the 2005 elections, “eighty-seven percent (150 out of 172) of the elected opposition representatives have joined the Parliament.” You have further concluded that “the post election difficulties were largely caused by the decision of certain opposition parties (the “CUD”) to reject legal means, including the judicial process, to challenge the election results and instead take to the streets”.

I find your claims about “progress towards democracy and reconciliation” in Ethiopia quite incredible; and your citation of U.S. State Department human rights findings in support of this claim is artful and disingenuous.

First, you need to be aware that your client does not share your confidence in any U.S. State Department findings. In an interview he gave to Andrew Simmons (“Talk to Al-Jazeera”, March 24, 2007”), Zenawi, commenting on critical State Department assessments on “progress towards” democracy in Ethiopia and wide-ranging abuses of human rights, stated:

“That’s not the case… [denying human rights violations]. I have not read [the 2007 State Department Human Rights Report] it, but I know having read the department of state reports on human rights for over a decade now that they do tend to get things wrong, that what they write is not always the last word in the Bible.”

It appears your contentions based on the State Department’s reports are at odds with the publicly stated position of you client.

Second, in criticizing H.R. 2003 for “overlooking” progress towards democracy and reconciliation, you did a little bit of your own “overlooking” by failing to disclose the full extent of the State Department findings and conclusions on the human rights record of your client in the latest reporting period. In summary, the State Department has concluded:

The [Ethiopian] government's human rights record remained poor in many areas. Human rights abuses reported during the year included the following: unlawful killings; beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens' privacy rights; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly and of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation; exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and against religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities.

Third, contrary to your claims of “progress towards democracy”, the details of your client’s human rights record over the past two years as documented by the U.S. State Department are reminiscent of the totalitarianism of the bygone Communist Era. The facts in your client’s human rights record are shocking to the conscience. Here is a sampling :

On torture, infliction of cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment/punishment:
Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment, there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees.

On arbitrary arrest and detention:
Although the [Ethiopian] constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, the government frequently did not observe these provisions in practice…. Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in outlying regions... The independent commission of inquiry… found that security officials held over 30,000 civilians incommunicado for up to three months in detention centers located in remote areas… Other estimates placed the number of such detainees at over 50,000.

On the denial of fair trial:
While the law provides for an independent judiciary, the judiciary remained weak and overburdened. The judiciary was perceived to be subject to significant political intervention.

On the lack of freedom of speech and press:
While the [Ethiopian] constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government continued to harass and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors for publishing allegedly fabricated information and for other violations of the press law. The government continued to control all broadcast media. Private and government journalists routinely practiced self censorship.

On Condition of Political Prisoners
The 200 political prisoners on trial in the Addis Ababa federal system were held in two separate prisons, Kaliti and Kerchele, often under harsh conditions. In March CUD Secretary General Muluheh Eyoel was placed in solitary confinement at Kerchele prison. In August fellow CUD member Andualem Arage, along with journalists Sisay Agena and Eskinder Nega, were placed in solitary confinement.

On Freedom of Assembly
The constitution and law provide for freedom of assembly. Prior to the May 2005 national elections, there were numerous opposition rallies, including one that occurred in Addis Ababa that was attended by nearly one million persons the weekend prior to the elections. However, immediately following the elections and throughout the year, the government restricted this right in practice. From May 2005 to year's end, the government granted only one permit allowing a public demonstration to take place.

On Freedom of Association
Although the law provides for freedom of association and the right to engage in unrestricted peaceful political activity, the government in practice limited this right. The Ministry of Justice registers and licenses NGOs, and there was some improvement in transparency of the NGO registration process. The government continued to deny registration to the Human Rights League (see section 4).

I will limit my review of the facts on “the immense progress towards democracy” to the findings of the U.S. State Department Reports, since you have cited it as your principal authority in support of your claim. But the findings I have enumerated above are extensively corroborated and documented by Amnesty International , Human Rights Watch , The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders , among others.

In your radio interview, you stated that you “have no knowledge whatsoever” about the situation of journalists in Ethiopia. Perhaps, I can help.

On May 2, 2007, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the independent and prestigious free press organization in the world, identified Ethiopia as the leader of its “Dishonor Roll” among the places worldwide where press freedom has deteriorated the most over the last five years. The report stated: “In [Ethiopia] 2006 alone, authorities ban[ned] eight newspapers, expel[led] two foreign reporters, and block[ed] critical Web sites. Key fact: Only a handful of private newspapers now publish, all under intense self-censorship.”

You may find useful a report in the Washington Post on August 21, 2007, which details the harrowing experiences of Ethiopian journalists who were cleared of all changes and released this past Spring after spending two years in prison:
In lengthy interviews here in the Kenyan capital, the journalists also described being subjected to psychological torture during their confinement with other political prisoners in a stifling cell on the outskirts of the Ethiopian capital. They said that after their release they had had high hopes of starting a new life, but government agents almost immediately began hounding them, harassing them with phone calls and otherwise terrorizing them into fleeing their country for Kenya.

However, if you really want to know about the situation of journalists in Ethiopia, I should be glad to arrange a meeting for you with any number of them living in exile in the U.S., including the former president of the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association. All of them will be more than glad to answer any questions you may have on censorship and the repression of independent journalists in Ethiopia.

Regarding your claim that “eighty-seven percent (150 out of 172) of the elected opposition representatives have joined the Parliament,” as supporting evidence of “progress towards democracy”, let me refer you to the resignation statement of parliamentarian Dr. Getachew Jigi Demeksa, Chairman of Oromo Parliamentary Group:

Under the circumstances my conscience could not allow me to continue to be a member of parliament when I cannot speak with and for the people who elected me and cannot spare them from the daily harassment, intimidation, repression, extra-judicial killing, torture and displacement. Hence I have chosen to desist myself from the EPRDF regime and its rubber-stamp parliament.

It is ironic that you should refer to former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz as authority for improved political conditions and the spread of democracy in Ethiopia. Mr. Wolfowitz’s ascended to his position in the Bank as an anti-corruption advocate. Unfortunately, he could not resist the temptation to engage in a little bit of corruption himself, and was forced out over a scandal involving a large salary raise he authorized for his girlfriend. Suffice it to say that a man incapable of making obvious ethical judgments could hardly be relied upon as a source of sound and informed judgment on political conditions of a country that is itself in the throes of corruption, strife and instability.

III. H.R. 2003 “Impedes Further Democratic Progress”
You have argued that H.R. 2003 “impedes further democratic progress towards human rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia and prohibit new and
ongoing democracy, human rights, trade promotion, and agriculture assistance programs.”

You have offered no facts to support this speculative contention. I disagree with your categorical assertions. I argue the opposite: Defeating H.R. 2003 will definitely “impede further democratic progress” in Ethiopia. I will concede that there is no single formula for advancing democracy or human rights in Ethiopia or anywhere else. But there are essential elements that must be present if there is to be an effectively functioning democracy in Ethiopia that places a premium on individual liberty and safeguards the exercise of basic human rights. Among the most important pre-requisites for “democratic progress” are such things as free, fair and competitive elections with a level playing field, good governance based on representative, transparent and accountable institutions and the rule of law, independent judicial and legislative bodies, robust and independent media institutions that operate without censorship and energetic civil society institutions that engage citizens and keep government honest. These are the values that H.R. 2003 (Sec. 6, (a) (3) (A-K)) seeks to promote in Ethiopia.

IV. H.R. 2003 “Presents a One-Sided View of the Facts”
You have argued that H.R. 2003 “presents a one-sided view of the facts and does not reflect careful, objective and impartial investigation.” Specifically, you have asserted that the “Findings” in the bill are based on “opposition claims and accusations more often than not are taken at face value.” You condemn the bill for “ignor[ing’] the “reconciliation process, led by a council of elders, that has been taking place for the last 18 months and that, most recently, led to the full pardon of 38 convicted opposition leaders.”

I challenge this assertion for its truthfulness. Let’s take a closer look at the legislative “Findings” of which you complain. Under Sec. 3 of H.R. 2003, 20 specific findings are made, beginning with an acknowledgement, as a first finding, of the suffering the Ethiopian people have undergone during the “brutal dictatorship and murderous regime of the military junta under Mengistu Haile Mariam.” In the second finding, the bill acknowledges the end of the “the brutal dictatorship of the Mengistu regime” in 1991 by your client’s political party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF).

In the third and fourth findings, the bill commends your client’s party for instituting “a multiparty system and organiz[ing] regional and national elections”, applauds your client “for conducting the [2005] elections in Ethiopia [that] were seen by observers to be transparent, competitive, and relatively free and fair, although there were a number of problems reported.”

In the fifth through seventh findings, the bill presents a balanced view on the claims and counter-claims of the ruling regime and opposition parties concerning the outcomes of the May, 2005 elections. In the eighth through the twentieth findings the bill documents facts concerning human rights abuses and violations in Ethiopia in the post-election period, including the fact that “The Department of State, in its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, noted a myriad of human rights abuses by the Government of Ethiopia”, the killings of dozens of demonstrators and detention of thousands of people, arrest and imprisonment of “an estimated 112 political leaders, human rights activists, community leaders, and journalists, including the chairman of the CUD (Hailu Shawel), the newly elected Mayor of Addis Ababa (Berhanu Nega), and the founder of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam), were imprisoned and charged with treason and genocide”, findings of the “11-member Commission of Inquiry to investigate the disorder and report to the House of People's Representatives in order to take the necessary measure, and other related findings.

In light of the foregoing findings, I am at a loss to understand your claim that “H.R. 2003 presents a one-sided view of the facts”. What is so “one-sided” about these legislative findings?

But while we are on the subject of “one-sided view of facts,” I would like to ask you a few questions: How many CUD leaders or members did you talk to in your frequent visits to Ethiopia? How many opposition independent journalists did you interview to find out the problems of censorship? How many “political prisoners” (using the phrase as used in the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Ethiopia) did you speak with in developing your facts? Did you bother to speak with members of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHRCO)? Did you ever get a chance to hear the stories of torture victims during your visits to Ethiopia to consult with your client?

Regarding your claim that the work of a council of elders “led to the full pardon of 38 convicted opposition leaders”, I must point out again that your position is diametrically opposed to your client’s.

Your client in a report to his parliament a few weeks ago stated that the matter of the Kality prisoners was properly before the court, and that the government could not interfere in the adjudicatory process out of respect for the independence of the judiciary. He unequivocally asserted that the prisoners’ matter was not in the hands of mediators or outside intermeddlers. Following the release of the prisoners, he reinforced this view by affirming in public statements that the conviction and pardon of the prisoners was pursuant to processes authorized by the country’s constitution and laws.

In a press conference on the release of the political prisoners, your client reaffirmed his position by stating that the pardon granted should signify the absence of a “sense of revenge and vendetta on the part of the government as long as people recognize that the rules of the game are to be respected by everyone, [and] everyone is given a fair chance to participate". He indicated that the pardon was an act of compassion and charity intended to overcome bitterness and discord, and that it should signal a return to a normal political process. Your claim that the prisoners were released on the basis of a “reconciliation process led by a council of elders” is manifestly inconsistent with your client’s.

My analysis of the facts is that the prisoners of conscience were released not because of the efforts of a “council of elders” or any “court” process. Rather, they were released because of intense State Department pressure and, undoubtedly, Congressional pressure emanating from H.R. 2003 and the intense work of Diaspora Ethiopians. There is also little doubt that the direct and indirect pressure applied by human rights organizations, condemnation and censure by European governments and exposés of gross human rights abuses by international media outlets played a critical role in persuading your client to release of the prisoners.

V. H.R. 2003 “Promotes Further Deterioration of the Situation in Somalia”
You have argued that H.R. 2003 “promotes further deterioration of the situation in Somalia by preventing the spread of Islamic fundamentalism” and the “the region from becoming a radical Islamist state that harbors and encourages jihadist-terrorist elements allied with al-Qaeda”, and undermining support for the UN-backed interim government in Baidoa (sic)”. You have further argued that the bill will unravel the “cooperative security arrangements between Ethiopia and the United States” in the counterterrorism area in the Horn region.

Let me point out again that your analysis of the Somali situation is diametrically opposed to you client’s stated policy positions.

In a recent speech to his parliament, your client stated that he sent his troops to Somalia to give the Somalis peace at the “request made by the government of Somalia”. He said peace remains elusive because of “threats posed by extremists who have taken refuge in Somalia”. He explained that he “was forced to revise plans for [troop withdrawal in] the third and final phase because terrorists were regrouping and coordinating their efforts with Eritrea.” He reported progress in disarming Somali militia members and “re-integrating them into the police and defence forces as part of the drive to build the forces” of the Transitional Federal Government” (TFG). He declared: “[T]he situation in Mogadishu is one in which the TFG is in control of the whole city making it impossible for terrorists or non-government militia to control any part of the city.” He noted that he is working “whole-heartedly to convene a National Reconciliation Congress in Somalia.”

Your client further cautioned that withdrawal from Somalia under the current circumstances would “prevent deployment of AU (African Union) peacekeepers”, and lead to a “reversal of the process of stabilization of Somalia”. He reassured his parliament that he will “completely pull out” his troops “upon the successful conduct of the reconciliation conference and the consolidation of the TFG…”

You client has never mentioned or alluded to H.R. 2003 as a problem in his Somalia policy. The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that H.R. 2003 has nothing to do with events in Somalia. Nothing! The solution to the Somalia “situation” is to expedite the arrival of the AU forces as indicated by your client, not prevent the enactment of H.R. 2003.

While we are on the subject of Somalia and the “deteriorating” situation there, let me share some hard facts with you. For the past 16 years, Somalia has been a polarized and fragmented society. It is regarded as a “failed state” because it has no legitimate national government, among other things. It has become the battleground for warlords and militiamen. Your client believed that he could outmaneuver and outwit the Somali clan leaders into accepting Ali Mohammed Gedi, as transitional federal government prime minister. He tried to sell the Somalis his brand of peace (a Pax Zenawi, if you will) in the name of national reconciliation and power sharing. But no one in Somalia would buy it. So, your client now finds himself in the cauldron of Somali clan politics, and he can’t get out!

Manifestly, the “deterioration” of the political situation in Somalia has nothing to do with H.R. 2003. It has to do with 1) the presence of Ethiopian occupation forces in Somalia, and 2) your client’s support of Gedi’s regime. Until these two issues are resolved, the principal political problem of Somalia -- clan polarization and fragmentation -- can not be effectively addressed. By his own admission, your client miscalculated the intentions and integrity of the clan leaders, and underestimated the complexity and severity of Somali clan politics.

So, how does H.R. 2003 “promote further deterioration of the situation in Somalia”? The answer is it does not. H.R. 2003 has nothing to do with the “situation in Somalia”!

Ethical Issues for You and Your Firm
After listening to your radio interview and considering the other public statements made by your firm, I was left wondering whether your statements reflected an advocacy position of your client, or whether you were in fact making verified public statements on behalf of your client.

For instance, in your German Radio (Amharic program) on August 14, 2007, following your blanket assertions about the “dramatic improvements in human rights in Ethiopia” and the flourishing democracy there complete with free speech and press rights and multiparty democracy, you made a sweeping declaration of ignorance on the status of imprisoned and exiled journalists in the country. Asked if you knew how many Ethiopian journalists have been imprisoned or exiled, you responded: “I wouldn’t have any knowledge of that whatsoever.”

Your categorical response to the situation of Ethiopian journalists suggested to me that your other responses concerning the political situation in the country are based on your personal knowledge, or reasonable inquiry and ascertainment of the facts before you communicated them to the public on behalf of your client. Regardless, as a lawyer you have a special ethical obligation to provide truthful and accurate information in your communication to the public (third parties) on behalf of your client. This obligation is clearly stated in Rule 4.1 of the District of Columbia Bar Rules. Though you have “no affirmative duty to inform” third parties, it is an ethical obligation of all lawyers not to engage in “misrepresentation” of facts. I am concerned that your public statements on behalf of your client straddle the ethical lines which lawyers must never cross.

Concluding Remarks:
In the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia we realize that our grassroots efforts are no match to your mighty army of lobbyists and lawyers that march on Capitol Hill everyday with an overwhelming sense of assured victory. DLA Piper is the third largest law firm in the entire world, with over 3500 lawyers! You have Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt, two titans in recent American Congressional history. You have George Mitchell, and many other extraordinarily influential former members of Congress from both major political parties in your firm.

We are just a bunch of not-so-well-organized mass of grassroots advocates who do our best to plead our cause before the U.S. Congress. We do not have millions of dollars to spend on lobbyists, and do not have ready access to the great earthly officers of men.

We know we are no match for DLA Piper as David was no match for Goliath. But what we lack in money and influence, we more than make up in passion and unflagging commitment to the holy cause of democracy, freedom and human rights in our homeland. In the final analysis, all we have are TRUTH and the God of David on our side. We are convinced that our cause of democracy, freedom and human rights shall be triumphant in the end as David was victorious over Goliath.
We respect your public advocacy efforts on behalf of your client, and we do not question your duty of zealous representation in all forums. Though we may disagree, we believe you are entitled to your opinion; but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The facts about the human rights situation in Ethiopia cry out from the pages of the reports of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Genocide Watch, The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and many others. Please do not make a travesty of these hallowed facts in your public statements!

Sincerely,
Al Mariam
Alemayehu G. Mariam, Ph.D. J.D.
Coalition for H.R. 2003

Of Lies, Promised Joy, “Shimagles”, Pardons and Bananas

2007-08-10T07:43:00.000-07:00

“If they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.”

Note to the reader: The following analysis may appear be a bit long for the casual reader of internet (blog) literature. I am told that “people do not read long political analysis” (and perhaps even short ones as Prof. Ephraim Isaac has proven to us). But I have been overwhelmed, as many have been, by a systematic and clever disinformation campaign calculated to mislead and deceive us about recent events in Ethiopia. We must fight back lies with Truth, and I hope the reader will take the time to read and consider my defense of the Truth against an avalanche of lies and deception that have been unleashed against us recently.

Fall from Grace: From New Breed of African Leader to “Vicious Dictator”

Zenawi was once the darling of Tony Bliar and Bill Clinton. He was lionized as one of the “new breed of African leaders”. There was boundless hope that Zenawi and a menagerie of other anointed African “new breeders” would lead the continent out of the darkness of authoritarian rule into the sunshine of freedom, democracy and human rights.

But something went terribly wrong with the Blair/Clinton “African Renaissance”. In the poetic words of Robert Burns: “The best laid schemes of mice and men/Go often astray,/And leaves us nothing but grief and pain,/ For promised joy!”

The “promised joy” of democracy and freedom in Ethiopia in May, 2005 soon turned to “nothing but grief and pain”. Like Gregor Samsa who changed from a man into a monstrous and repulsive insect in Kafka’s Metamorphosis, Zenawi, the New Breed Leader had transformed from a “Benevolent” Democrat into a “Vicious Dictator”; and in the process spawned a new breed of evil in Ethiopia.

The story of Ethiopia today is a tragic tale of woe. Just in the past couple of weeks, some of the most influential world newspapers and leaders had this to say:

On July 18, 2007, a report in the Wall Street Journal concluded: “In just over a decade, Ethiopia went from military rule to a parliamentary system. But this democracy is on paper only.”

In an editorial on July 21, the Washington Post described the embarrassing quandary of U.S. foreign policy in Ethiopia in terms of “the moral hazards of dealing with Ethiopia's Meles Zenawi.”

On July 22, the New York Times reported that Zenawi’s regime was using “a starve-out-the-population strategy” to suppress rebellion in the Ogaden region. “If something isn’t done on the diplomatic front soon, we’re going to have a government-caused famine on our hands”, the Times reported. On August 5, The Guardian Unlimited, arguably the leading online newspaper in the world, reporting on Ethiopian intervention in Somalia stated:

In less than two months, Ethiopia’s military campaign has triggered a serious humanitarian crisis. Human Rights Watch has learned that dozens of civilians have been killed in what appears to be a deliberate effort to mete out collective punishment against a civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the rebels…. Now there are reliable reports that, as a result of Ethiopian military pressure inside Somalia, Somali insurgents including members the militant Islamist al-Shabaab have sought refuge in Ogaden where they could be regrouping. Thus instead of containing and calming the situation in Somalia, the actions of Ethiopia’s forces there may well be exacerbating the conflict and regionalizing it.

On July 23, U.S. Congressman Christopher Smith who authored H.R. 4423 (Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005), and former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, in his mark-up statement on H.R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007) described Zenawi as “a vicious dictator”.

On August 2, 2007, 10 United States Senators sent a letter to Secretary Condoleeza Rice stating:

For years, the State Department's own Human Rights Country Reports have cited unlawful killings and arbitrary detentions by Ethiopian security forces and police, most of which have never been investigated or resolved… We urge you to intensify pressure on the Ethiopian government to respect fundamental human rights norms even as it pursues critical security objectives.

Such has been the recent “life and times” of country that swelters under the rule of the most barbarous and monstrous regime in Africa in the past four decades.

Cranking up the International Propaganda Machine

Following the release of the Kality prisoners of conscience, Zenawi cranked up his propaganda machine in a desperate attempt to erase the shameful signature of his dictatorial regime -- the Kality prisoners of conscience -- and resurrect his battered international image, and reinvent himself. He has been doing everything he can to palm himself off as a consensus-seeker, compassionate peacemaker, upholder of the rule of law, a humble man who listens to the voices of the elders, and a crusader for peace and national reconciliation. But a wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf; and the sheep can smell his stench from miles away.

In a statement on “Pardons Granted to Leaders of Violent Demonstrations”, Zenawi’s ambassador to the U.S., Samuel Assefa said:

This decision [the release of the Kality prisoners] was the result of an independent process conducted in accordance with the democratic Constitution and laws of Ethiopia. It was carried out by Ethiopians, through our own national institutions, and without the need for international intervention.

Assefa also announced to a startled world an extraordinary discovery by his government:

This decision is an important opportunity for healing based on democratic values and the rule of law. It underscores the commitment of the Ethiopian government to human rights, the rule of law and the advancement of democracy.

Eureka! Gobez! Finally, after 16 years Zenawi’s regime has discovered human rights, democratic values and the rule of law!

Of the Four Big Lies

There is a mystifying magic in boldly lying, that is telling the Big Lie, repeatedly and with a straight face, and with confidence and authority. One of history’s greatest liars, Adolf Hitler, taught his commanders that the bigger the lie they tell the people, the more believable it became. “People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe the big lie."

Following the release of the prisoners of conscience, Zenawi cranked up the propaganda machine and rolled out the Big Lies. For the past two weeks or so, it’s been all about spin control:

The prisoners were released in the interest of national reconciliation, consensus-building, dialogue and compromise. They admitted criminal wrongdoing and begged for pardon. The courts performed their judicial functions properly in the prosecution of the prisoners, and their conviction was just and according to law. We resolved our problems using ‘our own national institutions, and without the need for international intervention.’ The pardon was made possible by ‘shimagles’ (elders) who worked tirelessly in the interest of national reconciliation, and to put an end to the ongoing strife and instability in the country. H.R. 2003 is an effort by the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of Ethiopia, and ‘enslave’ and ‘colonize’ it.

It is really hard to listen to this crock of nonsense, to substitute for a better word! For the past 16 years, the same wise guy has been telling us that tyranny is democracy, oppression is freedom, falsehood is truth, innocence is guilt, injustice is fairness, immorality is righteousness, ignorance is enlightenment, villainy is goodness, and as we shall see below, “mistakes” are pardonable “crimes against the state”.

And so Zenawi’s spin in the international and local media about peace, reconciliation, harmony, “shimagles” and all of the other good stuff keeps on spinning, but unsurprisingly, it has managed to grab very little traction. Gandhi was right: “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” A lie does not become truth merely because it is repeated by an army of spin-meisters, or lobbyists, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And all of us have a moral duty to shine the bright light of Truth on the Big Lies…

Big Lie #1:
The Kality Prisoners of Conscience Were Convicted of Crimes Against the State by a Competent Court of Law.

The “court” that “adjudicated” the case of the Kality prisoners of conscience is to courts what military music is to music. No one with an elementary appreciation of music would regard the street parade music of a military brass band as “real” music. By the same token, no one familiar with principles of elementary justice would regard the proceedings of the Kality “court” as anything but macabre dance and theatre in a Kangaroo Kourt.

As I have demonstrated in a previous analysis, the Kality prisoners of conscience were victims of an orchestrated low-tech legal lynching by a pseudo-court whose principal aim was to neutralize opposition leaders and stamp out all political opposition and dissent in Ethiopia. Zenawi used his judicial stooges as hatchet men to systematically and craftily cripple and gradually eliminate his opposition, and damn near succeed, but for the deafening crescendo of international condemnation and censure.

Zenawi would like to have us believe now that the release of the prisoners “was carried out by Ethiopians, through our own national institutions, and without the need for international intervention." Really? Why did he take members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee hostage and threatened to prolong the detention of the political prisoners if H.R. 2003 was marked-up? (Just curious: Why did it take the exalted “shimagles” (elders) 20 months to get the prisoners released? If it took them 20 months to get 38 prisoners released, how many centuries will it take for them to free 50,000 political prisoners?)

I will not dwell much on the obvious. The Kality prisoners of conscience committed no crimes against the state or anybody else. I invite my reader to check out my 32-page analysis of the ludicrous and asinine Kality Kangaroo Kourt proceedings at:
http://almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com/2006/12/kestone-cops-prosecutors-and-judges-in.html
http://www.addisvoice.com/article/keystone.pdf

Big Lie #2:
The Kality Prisoners of Conscience Were Pardoned After They Admitted Criminal Wrongdoing for Acts of Treason, Inciting Violence and Attempt to Overthrow the Government.

The assertion that the prisoners of conscience were pardoned after admitting criminal wrongdoing is patently false. They never admitted criminal wrongdoing for anything.

In their terse letter request to Zenawi, they: 1) acknowledged their attempt to change the constitutionally authorized governmental bodies was a mistake, 2) took individual and collective responsibility for those mistakes, 3) confirmed that they will not engage in similar (mistaken) activities in the future, 4) affirmed their acceptance of the lawful authority of governmental bodies, and 5) asked the forgiveness (ye-kirta ይቅርታ) of the government and people of Ethiopia for the mistakes they had committed. In the short letter, the word “mistake” (seh-tet ስህተት) is mentioned 4 times, obviously to underscore the fact that they were making no admissions of any criminal wrongdoing.

It should be underscored that for their mistakes (not crimes), they asked “forgiveness”. They never asked for a pardon (meh-ret ምህረት). “Forgiveness” is an act of absolution, a way of excusing a mistake. “Pardon” is a political act that mitigates criminal culpability and abates the punishment.

There are a number of incontrovertible legal defects in the alleged admission of criminal wrongdoing. First, if the prisoners’ letter request is deemed to be the equivalent of a confession of criminal culpability, as is suggested by Zenawi and company, then the admitted “mistakes” are the legal equivalents of crimes; and the prisoners were convicted and pardoned for making “mistakes”. We can obtain this result from mere semantic analysis of Art. 229 (Pardons) of the Ethiopian Criminal Code, which authorizes pardons only for “criminals” and criminal wrongdoing, and not for making mistakes. (See discussion below.)

This presents an interesting legal question: Whether Zenawi or his president could legally pardon a “mistake” (however egregious) under their law? And if they did pardon someone for a “mistake”, whether that pardon has any legal effect or consequence? And if the answer to the preceding two questions is negative, whether they have indeed acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of their legal authority) and violated their own constitution. (I will leave these somewhat esoteric questions of law for other Ethiopian lawyers and legal scholars to sort out.)

Second, if we accept, for the sake of argument that “mistakes are crimes”, then the Kality prisoners of conscience could not possibly have voluntarily admitted these “mistakes-are-crimes” crimes because they are factually innocent. After a thorough and exhaustive investigation, the Inquiry Commission, established by Zenawi and his parliament, concluded that none of the killings or destruction of property in the post-2005 election was caused directly or indirectly by any acts or omissions of the prisoners of conscience.

As Commission Chair Judge Frehiwot Samuel stated in his Congressional presentation:

[T]there was no property destroyed by the protestors. There was not a single protester who was armed with a gun or a hand grenade (as reported by the government-controlled media that some of the protesters were armed with guns and bombs). The Commission members agreed that the shots fired by government forces were not to disperse the crowd of protesters but to kill by targeting the head and chest of the protester. For this reason, it was clear that the law was violated, and government forces had used excessive force.

In light of the Commission’s findings, is it possible to “pardon” persons who are factually innocent of criminal wrongdoing?

Third, assuming the prisoners of conscience were guilty of “mistakes-as-crimes”, the letter statement they signed collectively could not possibly be competent proof of legal admission of criminal wrongdoing because it lacks any indicia of reliability. There is little doubt that they signed the letter under “oppression”, a legal term which indicates the existence of various coercive circumstances at the time of the admission or signing of the incriminatory statement, such as “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, intimidation, inducements, prolonged confinement, deprivation, the use of or threat of violence and burdensome and harsh exercise of authority”. No one can argue with a straight face that the prisoners signed the statement of admission (letter of “forgiveness” to Zenawi) of mistakes freely, voluntarily and without physical or mental duress. It was unquestionably an involuntary act on their part.

The preposterous nature of the this so-called admission of wrongdoing could best be understood in light of the universal rule of confessions in civilized justice systems, which requires the prosecution (government) to prove proving beyond a reasonable doubt that “oppressive” conditions did NOT exist at the time of the signing or admission of the incriminating statement by a suspect or defendant. Can Zenawi prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the letter admission signed by the 38 prisoners was without legal “oppression” or other heavy-handed means? Suffice it to say that Ato Hailu Shawul dismissed the whole charade shortly after he left the gates of Kality prison stating that there was no reason to apologize (or admit wrongdoing) for “normal political protest”.

Fourth, there is a discrepancy in the application of the correct legal remedy. The issue of clemency for criminal offenses is addressed under two successive sections of the Ethiopian Criminal Code, namely Art. 229 (pardon) and 230 (amnesty). Assuming that the prisoners of conscience had genuinely admitted guilt for whatever offenses, the proper instrument of clemency should have been amnesty under Article 230, instead of pardon under Article 229. Simple semantic analysis of the code sections shows an article 229 pardon is appropriate in individual criminal cases, as clearly indicated in subsection (2). Amnesty under Article 230, subsection (1) is appropriate for “certain crimes or certain classes of criminals”.

The Kality prisoners were allegedly a certain class of “political criminals” who had committed “certain (political) crimes” against the state. These “criminals” took individual and collective responsibility for their “crimes” on a single document. They should have been granted amnesty. But it appears neither Zenawi nor his lawyers seem to have the legal sophistication to discern the constructional differences between Articles 229 and 230. The foregoing obtains regardless of other superseding legislative acts.

On a technical point, the amnesty provision of Art. 230 would be meaningless and superfluously redundant if it meant exactly the same thing as Article 229. Simply stated, there is (ought to be) a legal distinction between pardon (Art. 229) and amnesty (Art. 230). This would be consistent with the principle of in pari materia, a basic canon of statutory construction in the laws of all civilized governments.

Fifth, since the legal basis for the pardon is the prisoners’ admission of mistakes, as demonstrated above, then the entire set of charges, the 20-month prosecution and conviction are illegal and unconstitutional because there are no such crimes as “mistake to overthrow government, commit treason or incite violence” under the Criminal Code.

Sixth, and most importantly, the “evidence” of criminal wrongdoing presented in the Kangaroo Kourt against the prisoners of conscience consisted of perjured testimony, fabricated evidence, doctored audio and video tapes and documents. It can not be the basis for a just and lawful conviction, nor can that “evidence” be the basis for a legally valid confession and the factual predicate for the grant of “pardon”. (See my previous analysis of the so-called evidence against the Kality defendants fabricated in the “EPDRF Dirty Tricks Department” at:
http://almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com/2006/12/kestone-cops-prosecutors-and-judges-in.html
http://www.addisvoice.com/article/keystone.pdf

Big Lie #3: The Kality Prisoners of Conscience Were Released Because of Mediation and Intervention by Elders (shimagles), and Not International Pressure.

Shuttle “shimagle” diplomat extraordinaire and chairman of the “shimagle” committee, Prof. Ephraim Isaac, in an interview posted online stated, “when problems arise among people, the ‘shimagles’ of the community join up to resolve the problems.” The magical intervention of the “shimagles” in the release of the prisoners presumably offers a classic example of the application of this traditional principle and practice.

Prof. Isaac’s theory of elderly intervention in societal and political disputes in Ethiopia not-so-strangely echoes the nauseating “party line” incantation of Zenawi and his officialdom. (More on “shimagles” later.) But there is something fundamentally fallacious with the assertion that the release of the Kality prisoners was the handiwork of the “shimagles”.

Anyone familiar with elementary principles of logic knows Aristotle’s law of contradiction, which simply states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true. In other words, the color red can not be red and blue simultaneously. Or a tree can not be a tree and be a tree at the same time.

There are two mutually exclusive propositions on the question of the release of the Kality prisoners: Proposition 1 articulated by Zenawi is that the Kality prisoners were lawfully convicted by a court, further admitted their guilt, and petitioned and received a pardon which resulted in their release.

Proposition 2 derives from Prof. Isaac’s assertions that the release of the Kality prisoners was the result of the diligent and skilful negotiation by his “shimagle” group which employed traditional mediation methods and techniques to secure their release. Proposition 1 and proposition 2 can not be true at the same time.

Under proposition 1, the necessary and sufficient condition(s) for the release of the prisoners by executive clemency (pardon) is either 1) a return of a guilty verdict by the Kourt and imposition of sentence, and/or 2) a guilty verdict combined with an admission of guilt by the prisoners of conscience, and a pardon. Assuming for the sake of argument that either of the foregoing conditions is true, the release of the prisoners by pardon was purely an act of executive clemency motivated by a desire to serve the greater public good, and perhaps temper justice with mercy.

Zenawi explained in his press conference that the pardon should signify “there is no sense of revenge and vendetta on the part of the government as long as people recognize that the rules of the game are to be respected by everyone, [and] everyone is given a fair chance to participate". In other words, the pardon was an act of compassion and charity intended to overcome bitterness and discord, and serve as a signal of a return to a normal political process.

Curiously, however, he reported to his parliament a few weeks ago that the matter of the Kality prisoners was properly before the court, and the government could not interfere in the adjudicatory process out of respect for the independence of the judiciary. He unequivocally asserted that the prisoners’ matter was not in the hands of mediators or outside intermeddlers, but the courts. He subsequently reinforced this view by affirming in public statements that the conviction of the prisoners was valid under the country’s constitutions and laws. Anyway you look at it, if one follows Zenawi’s argument and analysis, the “pardon” granted the prisoners was a mere exercise of constitutional and legal authority in the interest of the greater public good. Or is it?

Under proposition 2, Prof. Isaac claims that the release of the prisoners was the product of “shimagle” intervention. In his statement following the release of the Kality prisoners, he went to great lengths to describe how “shimagles” have traditionally resolved social and political problems. He pontificated greatly about the great Ethiopian traditions of “respect, patience, tolerance, courtesy and love” which uniquely facilitate dispute resolution. He boldly implied the technologically advanced Western societies lacked these values (which in my view is pure blather, and malignantly demeaning of Western culture and tradition).

If the “shimagles” are indeed the emancipators of the prisoners, then the court process Zenawi clucked about to his parliamentarians and the world has no real meaning. It was all window-dressing. In other words, to use lawyers’ lingo, the case was settled out of court. There is no need to pretend that a judicial process was used to determine guilt, grant pardon, release the prisoners and all of the other nonsense.

The prisoners of conscience were released because of intense American pressure (read between the diplomatic phraseology in Ambassador Yamamoto’s public statements) and, undoubtedly, Congressional pressure emanating from H.R. 2003 and the intense work of Diaspora Ethiopians. There is absolutely no question about this fact! Of course, the indirect pressure applied by human rights organizations, the condemnation by European governments and exposés of gross human rights abuses by international media outlets played a critical role in the release the prisoners.

Big Lie#4: H.R. 2003 is intended to bring slavery and colonialism to Ethiopia, enable America to punish Ethiopia, create strife in the country that will set brother against brother.

Prof. Isaac stated in a radio interview: “I never read H.R. 2003, but I was told that it was intended to bring slavery and colonialism to Ethiopia, enable America to punish Ethiopia, create strife in the country that will set brother against brother.” (VOA Interview, Amharic Program, 7/30/2007) Such a monumental stroke of ignorance could not be expected from a one-time Harvard professor. No reasonable person, and certainly not a respected professor, would characterize a piece of legislation in such outrageous terms unless he had carefully studied it and has proof to support the claim.

Incredibly, Prof. Isaac, without reading the bill and familiarizing himself with its provisions was spearheading opposition to it in Congress. He had satisfied himself with official gossip, street rumor, idle talk and hearsay about the bill. In so doing, Prof. Isaac had become the archetype, the personification of Goethe’s admonition that “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”

To his credit, however, Prof. Isaac literally changed his mind overnight after reading the bill. He publicly admitted that the bill had “very many good ideas in it.” He has my admiration for having the courage to freely admit his mistakes and speak the truth. Though one may find Prof. Isaac’s comments on H.R. 2003 thoughtless, it echoes the official line of the regime. Without resorting to hyperbolic words like “slavery” and “colonialism”, the regime representatives and sympathizers have argued the bill offensively encroaches upon Ethiopian sovereignty, and improperly interferes in its internal affairs.

This simple-minded and deceptive argument on sovereignty and the allegedly ruinous consequences of H.R. 2003 may have great appeal among those who have not read the bill, or are willfully ignorant of its provisions. But anyone who is marginally familiar with the bill knows the government’s arguments are embarrassingly phony and laughable. No reasonable person could read the bill and come to that conclusion.

As the Coalition for H.R. 2003 has enumerated time and again, the aim of H.R. 2003 in Ethiopia is to:

1) facilitate the unconditional release of ALL political and prisoners of
conscience.
2) institute democratic reforms and accountability.
3) help restore the democratic rights of the people.
4) strengthen human rights and civic society organizations.
5) establish permanent human rights monitoring and reporting
processes.
6) increase the independence of the judiciary.
7) create and support a judicial monitoring process, with special focus
on unwarranted government intervention in strictly judicial matters.
8) prosecute human rights abusers, torturers and murderers,
and bring to justice the killers of 193 innocent men, women and
children and those who wounded 763 others in the post-2005 election period.
9) improve election procedures and insuring fraud free elections.
10) remove press censorship and ensure full freedom of the press.
11) repeal specific restrictive press laws.
12) establish a program to strengthen private media in Ethiopia.
13) offer training programs for democratic participation.
14) limit the use of U.S. security assistance to peacekeeping and
counter-terrorism and NOT against the civilian population.
15) foster economic development.
16) help establish a program to provide legal support for political prisoners
and prisoners of conscience.
17) provide assistance to strengthen local, regional, and national
parliaments and governments, political parties, and civil society groups.
18) strengthen training for political parties in the areas of organization
building and campaign management;
19) provide training for civil society groups in election monitoring.
20) promote dispute resolution by means of dialogue, negotiations and
compromise, and
21) professionalize the National Election Board to help it address certain issues, e.g. issues delimitation of constituencies, voter and candidate registration,
political party registration, voting irregularities and challenges, etc.,

Critical Provision of H.R. 2003: Waiver and Certification

The one central fact about H.R. 2003 that needs to be underscored and understood by everyone is that the only time the law will apply to suspend U.S. aid to Ethiopia is if the regime fails to meet specific human rights provisions, or does not make adequate general progress in their pursuit and achievement (e.g. release of all political prisoners, establishment and operation of an independent judiciary, prosecution of human rights abusers, operation of media without censorship, establishment of an independent national elections board, free operation of human rights organizations, etc.,). The law is very lenient and accommodating. If the regime fails to comply, the President of the United States could waive application of the law completely, regardless of the human rights situation in the country, if he deems it appropriate in the national interest of the United States. In other words, the bill has built-in grace period for compliance with its provisions.

H.R. 2003 is a Mirror Image of the Ethiopian “Constitution”

H.R. 2003 in reality is a mirror image of the Ethiopian “constitution”. Article 13, section 2 provides: “The fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights covenants and conventions ratified by Ethiopia.” Articles 14-32 enumerate a panoply of constitutional rights and liberties.

The Universal Declaration of Human (UDHR) Rights provides, among other things, that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (Art. 3) “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Art. 5) All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. (Art. 7.) “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” (Art. 8.) “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” (Art. 9.) “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” (Art. 10) “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.” (Art. 11.) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. (Art. 17.) If H.R. 2003 interferes with Ethiopia’s sovereignty, then so do the UDHR and the Ethiopian “Constitution”.

In all candor, if Zenawi’s regime truly believes the bill is harmful to Ethiopia, it has a duty to come out in public and demonstrate the harm specifically or generally. In fact, I challenge the regime to publish an official document that proves the outrageous and silly assertions that H.R. 2003 will bring “slavery” and “colonialism” to Ethiopia, or that it interferes with its sovereignty. I doubt they will accept the challenge because the bill is NOT harmful to Ethiopia in any way; indeed it is very helpful. No doubt, they will continue to throw up a lot of dust to confuse the public without ever producing proof that could be publicly scrutinized. The bottom line on all of the “sovereignty”, “slavery”, “colonialism” issue is: “Put up, or shut up!”

Of Pardons

The letter request asking “forgiveness” (not pardon) was signed by 38 prisoners of conscience and sent to Zenawi. As shown above, (see Big Lie #2) the signatories make certain acknowledgements about “mistakes” they have made, and ask “forgiveness”.

To understand the institution of “pardon” in a balanced context, it may be instructive to consider the American experience. In the U.S., the President has unlimited constitutionally-granted pardon powers over federal (not state) crimes (not civil judgments). Recently, for instance, President Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, following his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice. He explained, “I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.” In Libby’s case, Bush sought to “temper justice with compassion”.

Historically, American presidents have exercised clemency powers in various circumstances. President George Washington granted amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion (uprising of angry farmers resisting liquor tax) in 1794. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson issued amnesty to those involved with the Confederates (Southern rebels that sought to secede [break away] from the United States of America) during the American Civil War in the 1860s. President Gerald R. Ford granted amnesty to Vietnam-era draft resisters in the mid-1970s. But he pardoned President Richard Nixon, who resigned following the Watergate scandal, for all offenses he “has committed or may have committed” while in office. The American experience shows the distinctive application of pardons and amnesty.

Of Shimagles (Elders) and Snake Oil Salesmen

The idea of (shimagles) elders getting involved in conflict and dispute resolution impresses me as wholesome and desirable. Even in advanced societies, the trend today is increasingly away from hard-nosed litigation to mediation, arbitration and other forms of non-adversarial dispute resolution. Before we opt to take the “shimagle” road, we must know what it is and where it could possibly take us.

In my view, the current articulation of the “shimagle” institution by Prof. Isaac is incoherent, superficial and contemptuously exclusionary of non-Ethiopians (almost to the point of being xenophobic); at best, it is hopelessly romantic and anachronistic. He exaggerates the value of indigenous Ethiopian traditions and lifestyles and illegitimatizes Western culture and technology. He contrives an exotic morally superior Ethiopian tradition of dispute resolution, and condescendingly patronizes Western society and traditions.

His notions of the “shimagle” institution and process seem to be rather simplistic and folkloric. He appears to suggest that there is a body of conventional Ethiopian wisdom in the “shimagle” institution in which sagacious, judicious, insightful, prudent, tactful and understanding community figures angelically intervene to resolve disputes, which could not be resolved by modern constitutional, legal or other political means.

In one of his seminal pieces on the institution of the elders “Only An ‘Elder’s Council’ Can Lead the Way,” (Harvard African Law Association, February 11, 2006), Prof. Isaac wrote: “The road that could lead us to lasting peace and democracy is in our own hands, the Ethiopian peoples, not in the hands of mediators from outside. Outside mediators can be well-meaning but often add confusion to conflict in the process.” He cited a prime example of the negative role of foreigners:

Competing foreign negotiators from every corner of the world converged on the respective capitals of Ethiopia and Eritrea trying to solve what they said to be a border dispute [1998-2000]. What have they achieved?... The result was what amounted to an African World War... In the recent clash between the Ethiopian Government and the opposition groups, several international organizations such as the European Union and other foreign governments rushed in to solve the problems. The result has again been a dismal failure.

Prof. Isaac explained that “councils of trusted native elders” are “superior modes” to Western-style mediation because

elders profoundly understand the human dimension or the psychology and history, not just the ideology, of the combatants or political party contestants. Elders feel personally the blood of their own kin on both sides that will flow if they fail. The warring peoples or political parties generally consider them venerable moral guides (Saint Kristos Samra would agree and witness the conciliation between the 19th century rulers Yohannes and Menelik.) When all things are considered, it is with the native local elders that in the end the warring parties have to live as fellow citizens/ neighbors.

Many Ethiopians have conceptual and practical problems with Prof. Isaac’s formulation and articulation of the “shimagle” institution, and his recent operation of the “shimgelena” process. While I bear no personal malice towards Prof. Isaac (as I have never met or spoken with him except for the radio interviews over the past week), it is undeniable that his role and intentions in the “shimgelena” process is viewed with considerable suspicion by many Ethiopians.

Here are some of the reasons for his lack of credibility: First, he is viewed as a snake oil salesman peddling the “shimagle” institution inside and outside Ethiopia as a special remedy for all kinds of political and social ills and conflicts. Regrettably, to many Ethiopians in the U.S., he conjures up the image of that old stock character in Western movies who travels as a “doctor” from town to town selling some cure-all medicine (snake oil) with marketing hype and pseudo-scientific evidence to back up his claims.

Second, a great many Ethiopians who have followed the professor’s efforts believe the whole “shimgelena” idea at this stage of the political debate smacks of “pulling a rabbit out of a hat”. They feel Zenawi backed himself into a corner with the Kality prisoners of conscience and needed a graceful way out; so he pulled the “shimgelena” thing out of the hat and saddled Prof. Isaac with it. They doubt Zenawi’s sincerity in the “shimagle” institution, and suspect that he is merely using it to deflect the enormous international pressure that has been exerted against him lately, and buy more time to pull out more tricks from his hat.

Third, neither Prof. Isaac nor the other “shimagles” are viewed as neutral, impartial and fair mediators. They are regarded, at best, as Zenawi’s unwitting and hapless stooges who perform on the domestic and international stage like puppets on a string. They do and say what they are told. They have no institutional independence or integrity; and Prof. Isaac is viewed as Zenawi’s lackey and “go-fetch-it guy”.

Fourth, many Ethiopians believe the “shimgelena” efforts are disingenuous because there are more efficacious mechanisms readily available to resolve the political and legal disputes, if Zenawi is really interested in serious dispute resolution. For instance, they question why the country’s “constitution” and criminal laws and procedure are not being applied fairly to resolve the issue of the prisoners before jumping on the “shimagle” bandwagon.

Fifth, there is a widely-shared belief that Zenawi is trying to use the “shimagle” institution to distract and disarm his opponents, and hoodwink the international community into thinking that there are special homespun mysterious remedies to the political and social problems of Ethiopians that Westerners do not know about. As Prof. Isaac stated, there are traditional Ethiopian methods that are “superior modes” of dispute resolution. (Of course, this pure nonsense. Ethiopians have no monopoly on some secret wisdom for dispute resolution that no other society has, least of all Westerners.)

Sixth, many Ethiopians believe that Zenawi is trying to hoodwink the people and opposition elements by outwardly trying to appear traditional and reasonable, and someone who listens and follows the voices of the elders. They believe he does not give a hoot about “shimagles” or peaceful resolution of disputes. Listen to every word he says in his public statements, they say. His lips drip with words of malice and scorn for his opposition, bravado for his followers and deceit and deception for the international community. He will clutch on to the “shimagle” business like a man holds to a branch in a flooding river, they say. It is ironic that not so long ago Zenawi rejected the “shimgelina” institution as applicable only to disputes between a husband and wife, and not fit for national dispute resolution.

Seventh, many Ethiopians believe the “shimagle” process as initiated and conducted by Prof. Isaac is doomed to failure because it is not genuine, and only a window-dressing version of the real “shimagle” institution. In a real “shimagle” process, they say, all parties get a fair hearing, are given opportunities to explain their grievances and positions, respond to and ask questions, come to terms on the basis of a clear understanding and agreement on the issues, ask forgiveness of each other and seek to formulate a balanced and even-handed resolution. Such is not the view shared of the “shimgelena” process undertaken and led by Prof. Isaac.

Real “Shimgelena” Has Its Place: Elected or Appointed “Shimagles”?

I do not claim to know much about the formal institution of “shimgelena” in the Ethiopian context. There does not appear to be much scholarship on the subject, at least I have not been able to identify any (and I would appreciate receiving a bibliography if anyone is willing to share). I have more experience in the hard-nosed adversarial system of the American legal system where lawyers battle in the courtroom before an impartial fact-finder and obtain desirable results for their clients. But I have had some experience in mediation and arbitration in various simple and complex civil matters. I suspect there are some basic similarities between the American mediation and Ethiopian “shimgelena” institutions.

Let me also add that I have had limited opportunities to observe the application of the “shimgelena” process at the family, neighborhood, church and community levels. I believe it could be an effective dispute resolution mechanism provided it operates on certain universal mediation principles such as neutrality, impartiality, nonpartisanship, independence, spirit of conciliation, honesty, fairness, directness, sincerity, integrity, truthfulness, even-handedness, balance, candor, equitableness, open-mindedness and so on.
I thought it was rather quaint and amusing for Prof. Isaac to roll out 19th Century Ethiopian kings to demonstrate his notions of the effectiveness of the “shimagle” institution. Ironically, not long ago, Ethiopian kings were vilified as oppressive, militaristic and feudal leaders who forcefully forged the modern Ethiopian state through successive wars. Today, they are being lionized as peacemakers in whose faint footsteps we are urged to walk. Yohannes, Menelik and Haile Selassie must be rolling in their graves!

In my view, a modernized version of the “shimagle” institution would reflect the broad diversity of the Ethiopian mosaic. For instance, I strongly believe that there is a vital need for a substantial number of women (instead of tokens) to be included among the “shimagles”. The traditional “shimagle” institution that Prof. Isaac talks about is really a bastion of male chauvinism where women may be seen, but not heard. I do not recall any instances in the public statements of Prof. Isaac where women (queens or otherwise) have played a decisive “shimgelena” role in Ethiopian history.

In my experience, whether is in the family, the neighborhood or the larger community, women generally tend to be the peace-makers. They have a natural impulse for conciliation, harmony and peacemaking. At the risk of sounding sexist, when men act from “machismo”, women reason from compassion and empathy. Right or wrong, as a generalization, I have a lot of confidence in the uncanny ability of women to peacefully resolve disputes. Suffice it to say that if women were represented in social institution proportional to their numbers in society, we would not be in the mess that we are in today. But we will leave that for another day.

The same argument can be made for increased participation of youth in any “shimagle” institution. Though the word “shimagle” indicates the attainment of “elderly” status, I do not think the institution is necessarily reflective of chronological age as it is indicative of the wisdom of the ages. I have known many young people of wisdom, and learned a great deal from them. But there is a compelling case to be made for the increased representation of young people in such an institution.

First, young people have fresh ideas. This may come as a surprise to members of the older generation like myself, but the vast majority of the young Ethiopians I have been fortunate enough to interact with are dynamos bursting with ideas. Second, they have critical minds, unburdened by old and tired ideas. Third, they ask sharp and relevant questions, and will not accept evasive answers in “wax and gold.” Fourth, they are direct in their approaches and cut to the chase. Their real wisdom comes from not accepting the opaque and even discredited wisdom of the older generation; and from rigorously applying logical analysis and critical thinking. They are resolute in rejecting the worn out dogmas of their elders. That is why I think young people can be excellent “shimagles”. Let’s include them, and in large numbers in future “shimagle” institutions.

Now, to the forgotten people of God. I don’t see a lot of poor people (the wretched of the earth) among the “shimagles” that have been assembled by Prof. Isaac. Why is that? Have they no wisdom? Are the people with wisdom and understanding only college professors, lawyers, sports figures, businessmen and religious and political leaders? Have poor people nothing to contribute in resolving disputes in society. In Psalms 37: 11-15 is written

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace…but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.

It is hypocritical to talk about a “shimgelena” institution that does not include poor people. They must be represented equally in all “shimagle” forums.

So, what kind of a “shimagle” institution is needed? I am not really sure at this time. I am, however, very sure that “shimagles” should not be appointed or self-appointed. I am suspicious of “shimagles” who are tools for one side or another, or are guided by their own agenda and self-interests. Such “shimagles” have every incentive to distort the process to obtain politically convenient results, instead of pursuing the truth and seeking a lasting solution.

I venture to say that if we were to institutionalize a real “shimagle” institution” in Ethiopia, we might be able to make the most significant and qualitative improvement on the institution of democracy in 2500 years. Imagine a new form of democracy in Ethiopia based on the “shimagle” institution where women, young people and the poor participate equally in their self-government and actively participate to resolve disputes at the local, regional and national levels! Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Just imagine that!

“Go and Gather the Elders”

Prof. Isaac, a practicing Jew, and a man once obsessed with the potential consequences of H.R 2003 to usher “slavery” and “colonialism” in Ethiopia disserves us by not teaching us about the true message and tradition of the original elders appointed by God to help take the tribes of Israel out of slavery in Egypt. In Exodus 3:16-17 is written:

Go and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, “I have observed you and what has been done to you in Egypt, and I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, a land flowing with milk and honey.

In Numbers 11:16-17, the Lord said to Moses:

Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.

Prof. Ephriam should have taught us that the true calling of “shimagles” is to “bear the burden of the people” and to lead them to a “land flowing with milk and honey.” Sadly, he has proven to us that the role of the elders is to be a messenger, an emissary, an errand boy and flag bearer for Pharaoh who holds the people in bondage.

Let the Elders of Ethiopia “bear the burden of the people”. Like Moses and the “seventy men of the elders of Israel”, let them take the Ethiopian people out of 16 years of darkness into a bright millennium overflowing with freedom, democracy and human rights.

“A Way Out!”

In December, 2006, in my piece “Keystone Cops, Judges and Prosecutors” (see citation above), I wrote the following on my conception of global elders as potential peacemakers in Ethiopia. I quote the entire text below:

Episode 9: “A Way Out! The New Ethiopian Century!”

One of the greatest political leaders of the 20th Century, Nelson (Madiba) Mandela, despite 27 years of imprisonment, was able to heal the deep wounds inflicted on South African society by the inhuman system of apartheid. In his inaugural speech in 1994, Madiba said:

The time for the healing of the wounds has come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come. The time to build is upon us..., we enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity - a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.

No one knows more than the great Madiba what it means to be a political prisoner, or has more experience dealing with prison wardens. During the 1970s, Madiba refused the offer of a release from prison if he’d only recognize Transkei and live out his life there. In the 1980s, he rejected P.W. Botha’s offer of freedom if he agreed to renounce violence. In his memorable words, he said “prisoners can not make contracts.” He cautioned that while it is possible to begin negotiations when one party is in prison, it impossible to conclude an agreement when the very condition of release depends on the outcome of the negotiation. Only free people can agree to agree. But shortly after his release, on February 11, 1990, Madiba agreed to the suspension of armed struggle, a strategic principle that the African Congress had held for decades.

No one understands better than Madiba what is negotiable and what is not when the ruling regime has political prisoners under its thumb. But Madiba was able to reach an agreement with de Klerk as South Africa was seething with fear, political violence, and divisions within both the white and black communities. On the first day of free voting for all South Africans, Madiba said: “Today is like no other before it. Voting in our first free and fair election has begun. Today marks the dawn of our freedom.”

May 15, 2005, was a day like no other in Ethiopia’s 3000-year history. The Ethiopian people voted by the tens of millions -- 26 million to be sure -- and unambiguously resolved: “15 years is enough! We now choose the opposition.”
May 15, 2005, was a “day like no other before it”. It was the dawn of freedom in Ethiopia; and yes, Dr. Berhanu was absolutely right in titling his fascinating and must-read book Dawn of Freedom in Ethiopia. The irony of history is that Mandela was able to use democratic elections to free South Africa from decades of apartheid rule and the clutches of white supremacists. Zenawi was able to take May 15, 2005 -- a day like no other in Ethiopian history -- and plunge Ethiopia into an era of darkness and oppression.

At his presidential inauguration on May 10, 1994 (almost 11 years to the week of the May 2005 Ethiopian elections), Madiba pleaded for unity and reconciliation of his people: “We understand there is no easy road to freedom. We must therefore act together as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world.”

Zenawi, follow in Madiba’s footpath. Instead of sending college professors, consular officials and politicians to talk to the Kality political prisoners, take the bold step of asking Nelson Mandela to mediate their release. He has the experience, the stature and moral authority to bring about an understanding between yourself and the prisoners. If he can bring black and white South Africans together after apartheid, he could help us all achieve national reconciliation in the new Ethiopian Millennium.

There is also Archbishop Desmond Tutu who could mediate. The Archbishop brought all South Africans together using his ubuntu (community and humaness) theology, which “seeks to restore the oppressor's humanity by releasing and enabling the oppressed to see their oppressors as peers under God.” Archbishop Tutu has taught that human beings are defined not by their race, ethnicity, nationality, region, political affiliation, language, etc., but by their createdness in God’s image (imago Die), which brings value and dignity to all people. He says, “we can be human only in ... community, in koinonia, in peace.”

When the Archbishop delivered the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he said: “We…have looked the beast in the eye. We…. have come to terms with our horrendous past and it will no longer keep us hostage. We will cast off its shackles and, holding hands together, black and white will stride into the future, the glorious future God holds out before us - we who are the Rainbow people of God - and looking at our past we will commit ourselves…” He reminded his people: “Dear fellow South Africans, accept this Report as a way, an indispensable way to healing. Let the waters of healing flow from Pretoria today as they flowed from the altar in Ezekiel’s vision to cleanse our land, its people, and to bring unity and reconciliation.” (Emphasis in bold added.)

A Genuine Model of Elders (“Shimagles”): Mandela’s Elders and the Global Village

On July 19, 2007, Nelson Mandela (affectionately known as Madiba) on the occasion of his 89th birthday announced the formation of a global elderly body consisting of former heads of state, Nobel laureates, leading entrepreneurs and philanthropists who will "contribute their wisdom, independent leadership and integrity to tackle some of the world's toughest problems". Among them were Archbishop Desmond Tutu, philanthropist Graca Machel, former United Nations chief Kofi Annan, former US President Jimmy Carter, former Irish Prime Minister Mary Robinson and Bangladeshi social banker (micro-lending pioneer) Muhammad Yunus. Madiba’s ideas about mediatory Elders is based on the notion that we live in a burgeoning global village, but we have no global elders. It is an idea which blends the values and methods of traditional societies with the positivist (scientific) tradition of the West.

Madiba explained: "This group can speak freely and boldly, working both publicly and behind the scenes on whatever actions need to be taken. Together we will work to support courage where there is fear, foster agreement where there is conflict, and inspire hope where there is despair."

Global Elders Chair Tutu noted, "Despite all of the ghastliness that is around, human beings are made for goodness. The ones who ought to be held in high regard are not the ones who are militarily powerful, nor even economically prosperous. They are the ones who have a commitment to try and make the world a better place."

President Carter added, “I see The Elders as a small but independent group that may fill an existing void in the world community. Almost impervious to the consequences of outside criticism, the group will conduct unrestrained analyses of important and complex issues and share our ideas with the general public and with others who might take action to resolve problems." Machel expanded, "The Elders can play a role in amplifying the voices of the millions of citizens of the world."

I respectfully disagree with Prof. Isaac on the role of so-called outsiders to play a constructive peacemaking role in Ethiopia. Global village elders can play important mediatory roles, particularly as conceptualized by the Great Madiba himself. I still believe Madiba, or Archbishop Tutu or President Clinton, PM Robinson, Kofi Anan and the others could help us get out of the impasse and predicament we find ourselves in.

Of Bananas (and Coffee)

In his news conference on the release of the political prisoners, Zenawi said: “The Ethiopian government isn't willing and is unable to be run like a banana republic from Capitol Hill." Congressman Donald Payne aptly responded, “The U.S. Congress is not in the business of running banana republics. American taxpayers are providing hundreds of millions of dollars every year to help Ethiopia in education, health care, and humanitarian assistance.” I think Payne is saying, “A dog should not bite the hand that feeds it.”

But Zenawi’s insolent and leaden attempt at sarcasm invites a more basic and rather droll question: Is Zenawi’s Ethiopia a “Banana Republic”? To answer this question, we must understand what a "Banana Republic" is. The phrase was originally coined to describe Honduras, and now applies generically to refer to the poorer economically backward Latin (Central) American countries (including Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.,) that rely on a single cash crop, namely bananas, and are ruled by corrupt governments.

“Banana Republics” share certain common characteristics. Politically, they are ruled by a small self-selected, wealthy and corrupt clique. The government is often dominated by a dictatorial military junta or civilians dictators supported by a brutal military. Human rights of citizens are grossly abused by civilian government and military officials with impunity. Arbitrary arrests of citizens, torture, imprisonment and disappearances of political opponents and dissidents are common. The civilian population is held in check by intimidation and fear, elections are rigged and stolen, independent press institutions are stamped out, corruption is the lifeblood of government, competing political parties are banned and their leaders killed, imprisoned or exiled, and U.S. military and security assistance is used to suppress the civilian population in the name of fighting communist insurgents (terrorists?), and kangaroo courts and prosecutors administer justice on behalf of the ruling class. Leaders of these “Banana Republics” have an exaggerated sense of self-importance and often try to project themselves as defenders of democracy and protectors of the rule of law.

Economically, “Banana Republics” have extraordinary income inequalities (poor people) with a tiny ruling class of extraordinary wealth sitting atop a large poor and uneducated peasant population squeezing out a bare survival on the land. They have an agrarian economy which wobbles on the price fluctuations of a single cash crop (bananas), and dismally poor infrastructure. They have low capital spending and rely on foreign aid to cover budget deficits and a weak currency. The most profitable sectors of the economy are in the hands of regime cronies, and government public contracts are siphoned off by the ruling elites and their parasitical supporters that are in bed with the regimes in power.

All “Banana Republics” receive the largest proportion of their economic and military aid from the United States, and rarely bite the hand that feeds them!

Now, back to the big question: Is Zenawi’s Ethiopia a “Banana Republic”? Ok, Ok, let me rephrase the question: “Is Zenawi’s Ethiopia a “Coffee Republic”?

Of Politicians, Diapers and Democracy

The old saying is true: “Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”

In olden times, kings were considered earthly gods accountable only to a higher god. Along came something called democracy and changed the divine formula. The essential meaning of Democracy was simplified for all humans to understand: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” (Vox populi, vox Dei.)
In May, 2005, these Voices of God in Ethiopia said, “We have chosen our own leaders. We have hired a brand new set of servants. We have given them a mandate to govern and lead us wisely, sustain and guide us through thick and thin. For 16 years, we have been sick and tired of corruption, mismanagement and gross abuses of our civil liberties and human rights. Today, we are just sick and tired of being sick and tired.”

So the people of Ethiopia today want the simple things that all free people in the world want. They want to speak freely, elect their own leaders and hold them accountable. They want due process of law. They want judges who administer justice, not factional politicians in judicial robes. They want to live under the rule of law, not by the will of one man. They want to have a government of the majority, not a minority government of the wealthy that rules the majority of poor people. They want leaders elected by the people, to serve ALL of the people, not dictators who rule like kings without publicly wearing a crown. Just the simple things all free people want!

Let me conclude by quoting Adlai Stevenson, “I offer my opponents a bargain:
if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.” I offer Zenawi the same bargain!

GIVE DEMOCRACY A CHANCE IN ETHIOPIA!
PASS H.R. 2003!