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

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

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”

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!

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!

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!