The Human Rights Ledger of the Obama Administration

President Obama has been sharply criticized for his “inability” to deliver on his human rights “promises.” Some say his support for the cause of human rights and those struggling against oppression has been rhetorical, and lukewarm at that. He has been unable to translate lofty words into concrete actions to improve human rights. They say his basic approach is flawed because he is trying to reform and rehabilitate nasty dictators into wholesome democrats. A few have suggested that in the post-9/11 world, President Obama has made it his mission “to atone for America’s sins” instead of re-asserting a strong leadership role for the U.S., particularly in the area of human rights. He has been charged with “hypocrisy” for not speaking out against China, Hosni Mubark’s three-decade rule of Egypt under a state of emergency, the fizzling of human rights activism in Iran following the elections last year and the military coup in Honduras. His critics say that he has gone out of his way to accommodate the bloodthirsty Burmese military dictators despite the fact that the democratically elected leader of that country, Aung San Su Kii, has remained in detention for two decades. The vast majority of Ethiopians are disappointed in President Obama’s silence over the unjust imprisonment of Birtukan Midekssa, the first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history, and arguably the most important political prisoner on the African continent today.

Although President Obama and his administration could have done a lot more in the field of global human rights, I am not inclined to join the ranks of his critics and blame him for everything that has gone wrong in human rights worldwide during his eighteen months as president for two reasons. First, his administration has been weighted down by a domestic agenda of epic proportions and distracted by a variety of policy crises of unprecedented severity. Moreover, he had to manage two major ground wars and the global war on terror. Second, I do not expect decades of official neglect of human rights to be addressed in a span of eighteen months. Rather, I am inclined to telescope his overall involvement in the human rights field and make some inferences on his potential to make a great “human rights president” in his first term. I find some encouraging evidence that he could play an extraordinary role in global human rights.

Few would argue the fact that over the past eighteen months, President Obama has restored considerable credibility to U.S. global human rights leadership following gross abuses of human rights in Iraq. He banned the use of torture (or “enhanced interrogation techniques”) immediately after taking office. His speeches and public statements in Ghana, Egypt and Turkey and other places promoting human rights and accountability have given hope to millions. His Administration has fully supported the work and activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and even Kenya where the prosecutor acting on his own initiative for the first time is investigating that country’s 2007 post-election violence. (A similar ICC investigation into the massacres of hundreds of people in Ethiopia after the 2005 elections is overdue and fully warranted.) In a symbolic but unprecedented act, President Obama in a special White House ceremony honored women human rights activists from Zimbabwe by awarding them the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award for their struggle against the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. He has thrust human rights as a central part of the debate on U.S. policy around the world. These facts in my view are significant in light of his predecessor’s ritualistic obsession with elections regardless of whether they were rigged or stolen. As Secretary Clinton’s recent human rights speeches demonstrate, the Obama administration is emphatic on the issues of free expression, free press, clean elections and civil society. Overall, the evidence from diverse opinion surveys worldwide suggest that that in numerous countries opinions about the United States are about as positive today as they were before 9/11, principally because of the emphasis on human rights.

I am also mindful of Senator Obama’s successful sponsorship of the “Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act” in 2006. That Act aims to help promote and reinvigorate the political process in the Congo and meet the basic needs of Congolese citizens and targets the elimination of sexual violence against women and children. I recall the fact that Senator Obama would have fully supported H.R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act) had it been brought for a vote on the Senate floor following its passage in the House of Representatives in 2007. On a personal level, I have confidence in Mr. Obama that he will stand up for human rights not because he is president but because he is first and foremost a constitutional lawyer. Challenging those who abuse power, flout the rule of law, sneer at justice and thumb their noses at due process are encoded in the DNA of every genuine American constitutional lawyer. None of the foregoing should be viewed as an “apology” for any failures on the part of President Obama or his administration. I will not hesitate to challenge the Administration’s human rights policy in Ethiopia (or elsewhere) as I have done in these series of commentaries.

The Insanity of Doing Nothing

It was Albert Eisnsten who said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It could equally be said of U.S. human rights policy in Ethiopia over the past decade that doing NOTHING over and over again and expecting results is insanity, sheer madness. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. for all of the billions it has given to the dictatorship of Meles Zenawi over the past two decades has been unable to curb his gross human rights violations. Indeed, the U.S. has shied away from strong and sustained criticism of Zenawi’s dismal human rights record. The Obama Administration must realize, if it has not already, that the current status quo – rigged and stolen elections, warehousing of large numbers of political prisoners, intimidation of opposition parties and leaders, decimation of the independent press, the climate of fear and loathing for the citizenry, denial of expressive freedoms, enactment of repressive anti-civil society laws, jamming of Voice of America broadcasts, provocative accusations of the U.S. Government as the soul mates of the genocidal thugs of Rwanda’s interhamwe — cannot and must not go on so long as American tax dollars are being used to bankroll Zenawi’s dictatorship. It should also be crystal clear to the Obama Administration that quiet diplomacy, soft-pedaling on human rights and attaching human rights as an afterthought to negotiations on counterterrorism, security, etc., will not work. The status quo will be damaging both to U.S. strategic interests in Ethiopia and the Horn and undermine the democratic development of Ethiopia.

The dilemma that President Obama is facing today over human rights in Africa is the same one that his predecessors have faced over the decades. The U.S. has never really developed an African policy that tethered human rights, security, trade and governance issues. Historically, U.S. policy in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular has been haphazard and episodic dominated by a concern with the role of colonial powers, containment of communism, and now defeating global terrorism. “Realpolitik” has always trumped Wilsonianism. It was President Woodrow Wilson who during and after WWI undertook the mission “to make the world safe for democracy”. He believed international peace and America’s pre-eminent role in the world could be secured by promoting democracy and human rights and spreading the virtues of individual freedom, limited government, and popular sovereignty.

The Cold War threw cold water on Wilsonianism after WW II as the struggle to contain totalitarian communism became the core ideology ion U.S. foreign policy. It was the Carter Administration that gave human rights a real boost by emphasizing democracy and human rights as practical objectives of U.S. foreign policy. Not unlike President Obama, President Carter raised the hopes of millions around the world. President Carter followed up with action imposing export and import restrictions on South Africa , Ethiopia, and Uganda and by linking economic and military aid to human rights violations. But “realpolitik” caught up with him quickly and the specter of communist insurrections forced him to negotiate for military bases in Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan despite the poor human rights records of the ruling regimes. The Reagan Administration showed interest in human rights at the cusp of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was the administration of the senior George H. Bush that elevated the human rights rhetoric to new heights by unapologetically declaring that the world was not divided along an east-west axis but “between those committed to democracy and liberty and those against.” President Bill Clinton dubbed Africa’s dictators “new breed” of African leaders and built his “strategic initiative in Africa” so that African could serve as U.S. military proxies while using development aid and the international lending institutions to promote democratization.

President Obama is facing the same dilemma his predecessors have faced. His challenge now is to develop an effective strategy to transition his moral advocacy of human rights to practical application of human rights principles in U.S. foreign policy. If he fails to make the transition, he will be criticized for dashing the hopes of millions around the world and judged harshly by history for perpetuating American “hypocrisy” and spreading cynicism and despair.

Walking the Human Rights Talk: Accountability

It is high time for the U.S. to begin walking its human rights talk in Ethiopia. No doubt, striking the right balance between human rights concerns and “pragmatic” strategic interests will be no easy task. For the past decade, the U.S. has thrown human rights in Ethiopia under the bus in its pursuit of the global war on terror. Despite gruesome revelations of gross human rights abuses in Ethiopia by the official U.S. global human rights watchdog, the U.S. has consistently dismissed, ignored, disingenuously deferred, or promised action which never came to pass. It is time for the U.S. to fish or cut bait in Ethiopia.

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in her recent speech in Poland said there are four elements to the Obama Administration’s approach to “putting our principles into action” in American global human rights policy. The first pillar is accountability, which means “governments [must] take responsibility by putting human rights into law and embedding them in government institutions; by building strong, independent courts, competent and disciplined police and law enforcement.” Over the past decade, the U.S. has shown an almost pathological and reflexive aversion to the very idea of holding dictator Zenawi accountable. When Zenawi came out and declared that he had won the May 2010 election by 99.6 percent, the White House put out a statement bleating, “We are concerned that international observers found that the elections fell short of international commitments [and ] U.S. Embassy officials were denied accreditation and the opportunity to travel outside of the capital on Election Day to observe the voting.” Over the past five years, the U.S. has soft-pedaled gross violations of human rights. When Zenawi slaughtered hundreds of protesters following the 2005 elections, the U.S. made the mind-numbing statement: “The deaths as a result of the actions surrounding these protests are senseless. The United States calls upon both side to engage in a peaceful dialogue.” When Zenawi jailed tens of thousands of people that same year, the U.S. said, “We urge the government to respect the rule of law, international principles of human rights, and due process with regard to those arrested or detained.” This is not “accountability.” It is pusillanimity.

Accountability means holding someone responsible for their acts or omissions against a clear standard. Someone must be held accountable for the deaths and severe injuries of hundreds of peaceful protesters in 2005, the massacre of hundreds of Anuak people in Gambella in 2004 and the untold deaths and destruction in the Ogaden. The Obama administration must take the same moral leadership in Ethiopia as it has in Kenya by supporting the International Criminal Court investigations in Kenya for the deaths that occurred in the post-2007 election period and the genocide in Darfur. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If ICC action is good enough for Kenya and the Sudan, I say it is good enough for Ethiopia.

By Secretary Clinton’s own words, accountability applies not only to the tin pot dictators of the world but also the U.S. That is why Ethiopians in the U.S. must hold the Obama Administration itself accountable under Section 116.75 (a) of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. That provision plainly states:

No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or de-grading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.
Similarly, Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976 mandates:

[E]xcept under extraordinary circumstances no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.

Is there a country that cries out more for the rigorous application of these provisions than Ethiopia?
Walk the Human Rights Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick

President Obama has raised the hopes and democratic aspirations of millions around the world. He will have to give human rights the importance it deserves in U.S. foreign policy. Whether in Ethiopia or elsewhere, the issue of human rights could not be left to some embassy functionary who juggles other duties. Human rights should be given the same attention and importance given to counterterrorism, security, development and trade with African dictatorships. It must not be a side issue or an afterthought to other policies. President Obama in his speeches has awakened the world’s oppressed masses; and they fully expect that he will stand up with them and not those who oppress them. In Africa, he has a clear choice: Africa’s tin pot dictators bound for the dustbin of history or Africa’s youth. In his own words, “it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa’s future. Above all, it will be the young people – brimming with talent and energy and hope.” I am hopeful that the Obama administration will use creative approaches to put American “human rights principles into action” in the foreseeable future.

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.

Follow Alemayehu G. Mariam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pal4thedefense

The bomb attacks on crowded entertainment spots in Kampala where crowds were watching the World Cup final on Sunday killed at least 73 people and underscored the risk posed by the Somali rebel movement to the entire region.

“What happened in Kampala is just the beginning,” elusive Shebab leader Mohamed Abdi Godane, also known as Abu Zubayr, said in an audio message broadcast on several Mogadishu radio stations.

The Shebab — fighting Somalia’s Western-backed transitional government — say the blasts were in retaliation for the presence of more than 3,000 Ugandan troops in the embattled African Union mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

“We are telling all Muslims and particularly the people of Mogadishu that those martyred in AMISOM shelling will be avenged,” he added.

Godane said the Kampala attacks were carried out by a Shebab unit named the Saleh Nabhan Brigade, after a Kenyan-born Al-Qaeda operative suspected in 2002 anti-Israeli attacks in Mombasa and killed in a suspected US air raid last year.

Uganda’s army spokesman said Thursday that the country could provide 2,000 more soldiers for the AU force, following a decision earlier this month by a regional body to bring AMISOM to its full strength of 8,100.

“We are capable of providing the required force if other countries fail to do so,” spokesman Felix Kulayigye told AFP. “I should say, however, that I think it is appropriate that other countries contribute.”

Uganda became the first country in early 2007 to dispatch troops to AMISOM, which remains the main obstacle preventing the Shebab from seizing full control of the capital.

The Kampala attacks, the deadliest in the region since the 1998 bombings against the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, spoiled the continent’s World Cup party and drew global condemnation.

Analysts said the Kampala attacks further raised the Shebab’s jihadist profile but their immediate objective was to force an AMISOM withdrawal.

With fewer than 7,000 troops on the ground, AMISOM has enabled the tenuous survival of Somalia’s Western-backed President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed but failed to weaken the insurgents.

“We can join to build up the strength of that force to 20,000 so that working with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia we can eliminate the terrorists,” Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said Wednesday.

“We were just in Mogadishu to guard the port, the airport and the State House. Now they have mobilised us to look for them,” he said.

“We are going to go on the offensive for all those who did this.”

The army’s Kulayigye explained that in order to deliver on a promise to deploy 2,000 more troops, IGAD (Inter-Governmental Authority on Development) should scrap a rule preventing bordering nations from contributing soldiers.

Uganda and Sudan are the regional body’s only member states not to share a border with Somalia.

“I think, given the current circumstances, it is appropriate to consider doing away with that provision,” he said.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, whose two-year invasion of Somalia failed to suppress the Shebab, has said he would not send troops back in but nevertheless advocated a tough approach.

“There is absolutely no hope of engaging in negotiations with this group. There is no option but to work for their total annihilation,” Meles told state television.

Meanwhile, Ugandan investigators were still trying to determine the exact circumstances of Sunday’s attacks in Kampala and identities of all the victims.

A senior official said Wednesday that at least one of the blasts was a suicide attack while police said they had already arrested six suspects.

The Hummingbird and the Forest Fire

In March 2007, I wrote an allegorical commentary during our grassroots advocacy efforts to pass H.R. 5680 (later H.R. 2003 “Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007) entitled “The Hummingbird and the Forest Fire”.[1] It was a tale which took creative license on a story once told by Dr. Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan environmentalist and 2004 Nobel Prize laureate for peace. In Dr. Maathai’s story,

One day a terrible fire broke out in a forest – a huge woodlands was suddenly engulfed by a raging wild fire. Frightened, all the animals fled their homes and ran out of the forest. As they came to the edge of a stream they stopped to watch the fire and they were feeling very discouraged and powerless. They were all bemoaning the destruction of their homes. Every one of them thought there was nothing they could do about the fire, except for one little hummingbird. This particular hummingbird decided it would do something. It swooped into the stream and picked up a few drops of water and went into the forest and put them on the fire. Then it went back to the stream and did it again, and it kept going back, again and again and again. All the other animals watched in disbelief; some tried to discourage the hummingbird with comments like, ‘Don’t bother, it is too much, you are too little, your wings will burn, your beak is too tiny, it’s only a drop, you can’t put out this fire.’
In my version of the story, the hummingbird never stopped humming. Indeed, my hummingbird is miraculously multiplied into battalions of young forest firefighters putting out the flames of oppression and dousing out the smoldering ambers of ethnic hatred and division in Ethiopia, while planting the seeds of freedom and democracy. My young hummingbird firefighters take on a single mission: Help build a new democratic society guided by a national vision which embraces the indivisible unity of the Ethiopian people, the territorial integrity of the Ethiopian nation and governance based on democratic principles, the rule of law and protection of human rights. My hummingbirds totally and completely reject the bankrupt and deceitful ideas of those who claim that Ethiopia is no more than a mishmash of competing and antagonistic ethnic, tribal, linguistic, religious and regional groups who must be kept corralled in their own Bantustan-style homelands or “kilils”.

Can Hummingbirds Really Stop the Forest Fire?

It is often heard in some Ethiopian circles that the efforts of a few individuals or groups will not amount to much in bringing about political change. They say the dictatorship is too rich, too powerful and too entrenched to oppose. Some have given up hope having surveyed the systematic looting of the country over the past two decades. Others argue for the violent overthrow of the dictators in the belief that those who seized power through the barrel of the gun can be removed only through the barrel of the gun. In other words, fight a forest fire with fire. It is an age-old idea with a predicable outcome: Everybody gets burned in the ensuing conflagration. But suum cuique (to each his own).

History shows that hummingbirds not only can stop fires, they can also start them. The chief architects of the current dictatorship in Ethiopia were originally formed as a small group of “ethno-nationalist” students who were inflamed by what they believed to be injustice and oppression. They were young hummingbirds long before they became old buzzards. As Dr. Aregawi Berhe wrote in his recent book[2]: “On 14 September 1974, seven university students… met in an inconspicuous cafe located in Piazza in the center of Addis Ababa… The aim of the meeting was to (a) wrap up their findings about the nature and disposition of the Dergue’s regime with regard to the self-determination of Tigrai and the future of democracy in Ethiopia, (b) discuss what form of struggle to pursue and how to tackle the main challenges that would emerge, (c) outline how to work and coordinate activities with the Ethiopian left, which had until then operated according to much broader revolutionary ideals.” They set out to “dispose” of the Derg (military junta that rules Ethiopia after the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie) and replaced it with a one-man, one-party dictatorship. In other words, tweedle dee replaced tweedle dum!

World history shows that individuals and small groups — the hummingbirds — do make a difference in bringing about change in their societies. The few dozen leaders of the American Revolution and the founders of the government of the United States were driven to independence by a “long train of abuses and usurpations” leading to “absolute despotism” as so eloquently and timelessly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Their vision was founded not only on the need for independence from the yoke of British colonial rule but also the necessity of perfecting the unity of the American people after independence. They formed a constitution for one nation to be governed under one constitution of the United States of America (which had some significant imperfections), which has endured for 223 years. The Bolsheviks won the Russian Revolution arguably defending the rights of the working class and peasants against the harsh oppression of Czarist dictatorship. They managed to establish a totalitarian system which thankfully swept itself into the dustbin of history two decades ago.

Gandhi and a small group of followers in India led nationwide campaigns to alleviate poverty, make India economically self-reliant, broaden the rights of urban laborers, peasant and women, end the odious custom of untouchability and bring about tolerance and understanding among religious and ethnic groups. He launched the Quit India civil disobedience movement in 1942 culminating in Indian independence in 1947. Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo led ANC’s Defiance Campaign and crafted the Freedom Charter which provided the ideological basis for the long struggle against apartheid and served as the foundation for the current South African Constitution. In the United States, Martin Luther King and some 60 church leaders formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, becoming the driving force of the American civil rights movement.

Social change depends a great deal on the circumstances of social forces in a given society. Political change in Ethiopia today seems improbable not because of the invincibility of the dictatorship but because of the lack of unity and commonality of purpose among the opposition. This calls for the establishment of a new political culture of cooperation, collaboration and coalition-building among anti-dictatorship elements, who now seem to have retreated into passive spectatorship of the dictatorship. The political history of contemporary Ethiopia could best be summarized in the words of V.I. Lenin: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” There is no doubt that the handful of core leaders of the dictatorship will cling to power at any cost. Though Lenin may be partly right, his empirical observation is countered by the irrefutable logic of the old Ethiopian saying: “The gathered strands of the spiders’ web could tie up a lion.” (Dir biaber anbessa biasir.) If one hundred unarmed hummingbirds could come together as one with a commonality of purpose and determination, they could overcome one vulture no matter the width of his wingspan or the sharpness of his claws. In the absence of such a ratio of hummingbirds to vultures and the widespread disillusionment with the dictatorship and disarray in the opposition, the self-empowerment of individuals and action by small committed groups of individuals as one of the most viable means of effecting change and bringing about democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia. Simply stated, to bring about change, citizens as individuals must be active by being active citizens.

Hummingbirds Must Keep on Humming

The morality tale of the hummingbird is instructive to all Ethiopians. Despite the ferocity of the forest fire, the hummingbird did not stop carrying its droplets of water. Dictatorships are analogous to a forest fire. They consume everything in their societies. Like the raging forest fire, they also seem unstoppable. But as Gandhi taught, the fires of dictatorship are always stopped by the waterfall of truth and love: “When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always.” The reasons are simple[3]. In the end tyrants always fail because though they have guns and tanks, they lack ideas and vision. They lose because they live in a world of darkness and ignorance. They are incapable of transforming themselves or their societies because they are trapped in their own cycle of repression that feeds off their ignorance and wickedness. And like Dracula, the legendary bloodsucker, they can only live on the blood — and sweat and tears — of their victims. They can not survive otherwise. Dictatorships use brutality because they can not convince their people with the strength of their political or philosophical arguments, the persuasiveness of their logic or the abundance of their good will. They fail because they can not withstand the force of truth and always slip and fall on the pile of lies and deceit that is their foundation.

Though dictators are destined to the dustbin of history, they will delay their inevitable rendezvous by proclaiming to be anointed by the masses. They put themselves out as the saviors of the very masses they oppress ruthlessly. They claim to have special qualities that give them the right to rule the masses forever and exhort the “herd” to follow them blindly and unquestioningly. In concluding his May 2010 “election” victory speech (a/k/a a public demonstration against Human Rights Watch for its critical report), dictator Meles Zenawi expressed gratitude effusively to the Ethiopian people for re-appointing him and his party to complete a quarter century on the throne. “Once again we, over five million EPRDF members, on behalf of our martyrs and our selves solemnly express our gratitude to day, standing before you, the Ethiopian people, who have the sovereign right and power to appoint or dismiss your leaders. We salute you!” An old Ethiopian saying teaches us to beware of a “wolf priest praying in the midst of a flock of sheep.” No doubt the wolf will “salute” and “express gratitude” to every sheep he devours. But do the sheep return the salutation and gratitude?

All of us committed to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia have choices to make and actions to take as individuals. That choice is between good and evil; that is between joining the host of hummingbirds that carry droplets of water to put out the fires set by a ruthless dictatorship, or siding with the wake of vultures that use their enormous wings to fan the flames of ethnic hatred and division to perpetuate themselves in power. Those who play with the fires of ethnic politics to cling to power should beware the backdraft.

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA

[1] http://almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com…

[2] Aregaw Berhe, A Political History of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (1975-1991) (Los Angeles: Tsehai Publishers, 2009), p. 38.

Andrew Whitehead, Editor, News and Current Affairs at the BBC World Service, explains how the story came about.

–
By Andrew Whitehead

A quarter of a century ago, the BBC’s Michael Buerk achieved something very rare – he not only reported the world, but changed it a little bit.

His vivid on-the-spot coverage of a famine “of biblical proportions” in Tigray in northern Ethiopia pricked the conscience of the richer part of the world.

The money came pouring in. Bob Geldof’s Band Aid and Live Aid led the way in galvanising public attention, raising cash and mobilising a huge relief effort.

As a result, many thousands of lives were saved – and tens of thousands of those facing starvation received food.

In the past week, the BBC World Service has broadcast an Assignment documentary – you can listen to it here – based on the testimony of key figures on the ground in and around Tigray in the mid-1980s.

It presents evidence, compelling evidence, that some of the famine relief donations were diverted by a powerful rebel group to buy weapons.

The documentary has revealed some uncomfortable facts and provoked a strong response. This morning a British newspaper, The Independent, gives over its front page to complaints from Bob Geldof and several leading charities. They accuse the BBC of “disgracefully poor reporting”.

The suggestion of aid money being to diverted to buy arms is “palpable nonsense”, in the words of Phil Bloomer, director of Oxfam’s campaigns and policy division.

Geldof goes further. “This is a Ross/Brand moment in BBC standards for me,” he told The Independent. “It is a disgrace.”

OK, so let’s stand back a moment. This documentary was put together by Martin Plaut, Africa Editor at BBC World Service News.

He has a particular expertise in the Horn of Africa, and indeed reported from there on the famine back in the 1980s. He has spent almost a year gathering material and doing research for this documentary – and the BBC stands by his journalism.

As so often is the case, the famine that afflicted northern Ethiopia was compounded by war. Much of Tigray was controlled by a hard left-wing rebel group, the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front. They were fighting the Ethiopian army, then the largest in Africa.

This was also the era of the cold war – and the Americans were seeking to undermine the Soviet-aligned Ethiopian government.

It is not in dispute that millions of dollars of relief aid was channelled through the Relief Society of Tigray (Rest), which was a part of the TPLF rebel movement. It was the only way of reaching those in desperate need in rebel-held areas. What Martin Plaut’s documentary uncovers is the systematic diversion of aid received by Rest to buy arms for the TPLF.

Martin tracked down two key former members of the TPLF who explained how they managed to divert the money.

They are now at odds with the then TPLF leader, Meles Zenawi, who is currently Ethiopia’s Prime Minister. But they are credible voices.

One of these former TPLF fighters, the rebel army commander at the time, makes an allegation which has attracted particular controversy – that the organisation made a policy decision that only 5% of the money received by Rest would be spent on relief, with the bulk going directly or indirectly to support their military and political campaigns.

Among the other accounts featured in the World Service programme, Robert Houdek, who was the senior US diplomat in Ethiopia in the late 1980s, states that TPLF members told him at the time that some aid money and supplies was used to buy weapons. A CIA document paints the same picture.

Bob Geldof was given every opportunity to express his point of view while the documentary was being made, but declined to be interviewed.

Some relief agencies – including Christian Aid and Cafod – pointed us towards their staff involved in directing food supplies 25 years ago, and those voices were included.

Two key aid workers active in and around Ethiopia in the 1980s confirm in the BBC World Service programme the way in which relief was channelled through Rest – though they dispute that there was a significant diversion of money for arms buying.

“If we were being conned, I think it was on a very small scale,” said Stephen King, then overseeing from Sudan the work of Catholic charities in providing food to the starving.

The documentary did not say that most famine relief money was used to buy weapons – it did not suggest that any relief agencies were complicit in the diversion of funds – it explicitly stated that “whatever the levels of deception, much aid did reach the starving”.

But there is a clear public interest in determining whether some money given as famine relief ended up buying guns and bullets.

And that’s what the evidence suggests.

–

Peter Horrocks is the director of BBC Global News.

Below is a round-up of the key coverage surrounding the story so you can have the full picture:

•Article: Read Martin Plaut’s feature about the programme on the BBC News website. [3 March]
•Audio: Listen again to BBC World Service Africa Editor Martin Plaut’s original programme, Aid for Arms in Ethiopia, or download as a podcast (mp3, 11MB). [4 March]

•Article: The Independent newspaper (UK) carries a frontpage story in which Band Aid organiser Sir Bob Geldof says he has reported the BBC to media regulator Ofcom for “disgracefully poor reporting” which “relied on dubious sources and rumour”. [6 March]

•Blog: BBC World Service News and Current Affairs editor Andrew Whitehead, introduced by Director of Global News Peter Horrocks, writes on the BBC News Editors Blog saying there was “compelling evidence” to back up the claims made in the programme. [6 March]

•Video: Geldof also responds furiously to the story in an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr. [7 March]

•Audio: Geldof then challenges Whitehead to provide proof that the claims in the report are correct. [7 March]

•Comment: Former BBC journalist Rageh Omaar writes about the story for the Guardian newspaper (UK), wondering “why the strong and blanket reaction without a hint of wanting to know more?”. [8 March]

•Comment: Omaar’s piece prompted Geldof to write his own column in the same newspaper, asking: “Where were all the dead people then? If no one was getting food, why was nobody dying? That would have been one of the first questions I’d have asked.” [9 March]

•Article: In the Independent, Geldof calls for Peter Horrocks to be sacked over the story, as well Andrew Whitehead and Martin Plaut. [10 March]

•Audio: Whitehead appears on BBC Radio 4′s Media Show to stress that the BBC is standing by its story. Listen again online, or download as a podcast (mp3, 14MB). [10 March]

•Comment: In an editorial, the Daily Mail (UK) describes Geldof’s comments as “a typical, childishly choleric outburst” – adding that the BBC “deserves praise for this piece of journalism”. [11 March]
•Comment: Alasdair Palmer writes in the Telegraph (UK) that: “The truth may not help aid organisations to maximise donations. But that isn’t a reason for suppressing reports such as Martin Plaut’s on the World Service.” [13 March]
•Comment: Former editor of the BBC Radio 4′s Today programme Rod Liddle writes in The Times, suggesting the “‘Bono ‘n’ Bob’ effect” presented a “simplistic vision of Third World poverty”. [14 March]

•Comment: An opinion column in the Ethiopian Review accuses Geldof of “throwing temper tantrums on the talk show circuits”. [15 March]
•Comment: In the Daily Mail (UK), Richard Dowden, author of Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles, writes that “the irony that escapes Geldof is that guns and getting rid of the Mengistu regime may have been Live Aid’s greatest contribution to preventing a new famine”. [15 March]

Birtukan Midekssa, Ethiopia’s foremost political prisoner and first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history enjoyed talking about an allegorical “future country of Ethiopia” that would become an African oasis of democracy and a bastion of human rights and the rule of law in the continent. In Birtukan’s “future Ethiopia” women and men would live not only as equals under the law, but also work together to create a progressive and compassionate society in which women are free from domestic violence and sexual exploitation, have access to adequate health and maternal care, and are provided education to free them from culturally-enforced ignorance, submissiveness and subjugation. But if the situation of women in the “present country of Ethiopia” is any indication, Birtukan’s “future country” is in deep, deep trouble.

Article 35 of the Ethiopian Constitution (1995) guarantees women not only full equality but also preferential treatment “in the political, economic and social fields both within public and private organizations.” Women are provided sweeping constitutional protections from “all laws, stereotyped ideas and customs which oppress women or otherwise adversely affect their physical and mental well-being.” They have guaranteed property rights and “the right of access to education and information on family planning” to “prevent health hazards resulting from child birth.” Article 34 secures matrimonial contractual rights for “women attaining the legal age of marriage.” It mandates that “Marriage shall be based on the free and full consent of the intending spouses.” Even before the rights of women were “constitutionalized” in 1995, the ruling dictatorship of Meles Zenawi took the lead by issuing a National Policy on Women in 1993 with the aim “to institutionalize the political, economical, and social rights of women by creating an appropriate structure in government offices and institutions so that the public policies and interventions are gender-sensitive and can ensure equitable development for all Ethiopian men and women.” After a lapse of seventeen years, the evidence on the status of women in Ethiopia society is horrifying and shocking to the conscience.

The 2000 U.S. State Department Human Rights Country Report on Ethiopia[2] described the status of women in appallingly disheartening terms:

The Constitution provides for the equality of women; however, these provisions often are not applied in practice. Furthermore, these provisions often are in conflict with the 1960 Civil Code and the 1957 Penal Code, both of which still are in force. The 1960 Civil Code is based on a monarchical constitution that treated women as if they were children or disabled. Discriminatory regulations in the civil code include recognizing the husband as the legal head of the family and designating him as the sole guardian of children over 5 years old. Domestic violence is not considered a serious justification under the law to obtain a divorce. Irrespective of the number of years the marriage has existed, the number of children raised and the joint property, the woman is entitled to only 3 months’ financial support should the relationship end. However, a husband has no obligation to provide financial assistance to his family and, as a result, women and children sometimes are abandoned when there is a problem in the marriage. All land belongs to the State; however, land reforms enacted in March 1997 stipulate that women may obtain government leases to land. Discrimination is most acute in rural areas, where 85 percent of the population lives. In urban areas, women have fewer employment opportunities than men do, and the jobs available do not provide equal pay for equal work. As a result of changes in the Labor Law in 1998, thousands of women traveled to the Middle East as industrial and domestic workers. There were credible reports that female workers were abused, and even killed, in these positions.
A decade later, the 2010 U.S. State Department Human Rights Country Report on Ethiopia[3] described the status of women in similar stark terms:

The constitution provides women the same rights and protections as men. Harmful Traditional Practices (HTPs) such as FGM (female genital mutilation), abduction, and rape are explicitly criminalized; however, enforcement of these laws lagged. Women and girls experienced gender-based violence daily, but it was underreported due to shame, fear, or a victim’s ignorance of legal protections. Domestic violence, including spousal abuse, was a pervasive social problem. The 2005 Demographic and Health Survey found that 81 percent of women believed a husband had a right to beat his wife. Prostitution was legal for persons over age 18 and was commonly practiced around the country. Sexual harassment was widespread [and] harassment-related laws were not enforced. The law sets the legal marriage age for girls and boys at 18; however, this law was not enforced. For example, a 2006 Pathfinder International study found that in the Amhara region, 48 percent of women were married before the age of 15, the highest early marriage rate in the country. Limited access to family planning services, high fertility, low reproductive health and emergency obstetric services, and poor nutritional status and infections all contributed to high maternal mortality ratio… Discrimination against women was most acute in rural areas, where 85 percent of the population was located. There was limited legal recognition of common law marriage. Irrespective of the number of years the marriage existed, the number of children raised, and joint property, the law entitled women to only three months’ financial support if a relationship ended. A common-law husband had no obligation to provide financial assistance to his family, and as a result, women and children sometimes faced abandonment. In urban areas women had fewer employment opportunities than men, and the jobs available did not provide equal pay for equal work.
It is manifest that in 2010, the vast majority of Ethiopian women, particularly in the rural areas, enjoy very little personal security against violence and degradation. In fact, these women believe that violence and degradation is an appropriate form of treatment for women. According to the 2005 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (“a nationally representative survey of 14,070 women age 15-49 and 6,033 men age 15-59″) “81% of Ethiopian women believe their husbands have the right to beat them if they burn food, refuse sex, or go somewhere without their husband’s consent”[4]. Ethiopian women are not only lacking personal security but also social security. Seventy- five percent of all Ethiopian women are illiterate, and consequently bear the heaviest burden of poverty. Maternal deaths from childbirth for Ethiopian women is among the highest in the world[5]. High HIV infection rates, child marriages and the devastating health consequences associated with them and many other risk factors have left Ethiopian women in a state of misery and despair facing a daily ordeal for survival.[6] With one of the highest birth rates in the world, Ethiopia’s population is projected to increase by 20 million in the next 10 years and double to 160 million by 2050.

Thanks for Nothing!

Dictator Zenawi, in a “victory” speech celebrating his 99.6 percent win in the May 2010 “election”, thanked Ethiopian women “boundlessly”:

We, the members of EPRDF, with great humility offer our gratitude and appreciation to the voters who have given us their support freely and democratically. We also offer our thanks to the real backbone of our organization, the women of Ethiopia who are committed to our struggle due to their realization of our track record on gender equality and who want to forge ahead on this path of peace, development and democratization. Our admiration to the women of Ethiopia is indeed boundless!
It is disconcerting to think of the vast majority of Ethiopian women who suffer in absolute misery and wretchedness becoming a “backbone” to anyone. But if we must resort to anatomical analogies, women can best be described as the rump of Ethiopian society, little valued and appreciated. Their backbones, spirit and will have long been shattered by official neglect and indifference and the daily reality of domestic violence, illiteracy, sexual exploitation, underage marriages, lack of education and grinding poverty. It is adding insult to injury to patronize them as the “backbone” of a potbellied dictatorship when they can barely stand up on their own two feet. If we are to offer “admiration” to Ethiopian women (and they deserve it all), it is only because of their incredible capacity to withstand unimaginably “boundless” suffering, degradation, cruelty and indifference. Even illiterate women know when they are being patronized by crocodilian words of “humility”, “gratitude” and “appreciation”.

Misogynistic or Chauvinistic?

I am not sure of the qualitative difference between misogyny and male chauvinism. Misogynists hate and have total contempt for women. A male chauvinist just believes women are naturally inferior to men and do not deserve equal treatment. If it is not misogyny or male chauvinism, what on earth could possibly explain the fact that “81% of Ethiopian women believe their husbands have the right to beat them if they burn food, refuse sex, or go somewhere without their husband’s consent”? This deeply disturbing fact was historically observed only among slaves. The slave was absolutely terrified of his master and always lived in fear of his master’s whims and fancy. The slave believed his master could do whatever he wanted to him because he understood himself to be his master’s property. The slave, totally dependent on his master for his very existence, pinned the blame for his master’s cruelty and depravity on himself. The slave believed that mistreatment and abuse by his master is his divinely foreordained destiny. Could it be that long after the odious institution of slavery has been abolished in the world, the overwhelming majority of women shackled by domestic violence, inequality, sexual exploitation, destructive traditions and customs and poverty continue to believe themselves to be chattel property (personal property) to their husbands and men?

Ethiopian Women’s Human Rights

If 81 percent of Ethiopian women believe they are the property of their husbands, it seems obvious that they are not aware of their human rights secured under international law. Since 1948, there have been at least ten major international conventions and protocols protecting the human rights of women throughout the world. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, ratified by Ethiopia in 1981, prohibits as discrimination a variety of actions that compound the subjugation of women, and requires state parties to take action to eliminate them. Governments are required to act and eliminate “social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” A special legal duty is imposed upon governments to “take into account the particular problems faced by rural women and take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of the present Convention.” Women have the “right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent.” Children can not give free and full consent to marriage. As parents, women shall have equal rights “irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children.” It is discriminatory to arbitrarily deny women spousal support and equal custody rights at divorce. Various other conventions ensure that women are protected from involuntary servitude, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Domestic violence can not be ignored as simple “family misunderstanding” but must be prosecuted as a serious crime. The Convention on the Rights of the Child protects young girls from being forced to undergo the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation and rape in the form of child marriages.

Calling for a Movement for Ethiopian Women’s Human Rights

It is manifest that the vast majority of Ethiopian women are trapped in a patriarchal and paternalistic system that exploits them sexually, socially, politically and in every other way. For centuries, Ethiopian law has “treated women as if they were children or disabled.” Discrimination, abuse and mistreatment against Ethiopian women has continued for so long that it is time to end the silence and stand up and speak up against their dehumanization. All Ethiopians, and particularly the educated ones and those in power, should publicly condemn the brutal practice of female genital mutilation. It is an atrocious and dreadful custom. All educational and informational efforts must be employed to eliminate it. The rampant violence against women must not be tolerated. It must be combated through a combination of education, information and rigorous prosecutions of abusers. If actions or lack of action speaks louder than words, it is obvious that Ethiopian men do not think much of their women’s lives and dignity and could be straddling that thin line between misogyny and male chauvinism. A broad social movement needs to be established to challenge all practices that degrade women and challenge cultural and social patterns defining the lopsided power relationship between men and women in Ethiopian society.

A New Culture of Women’s Activism and Assertiveness is Needed

Throughout the Western world and elsewhere, women have organized effectively to form political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing greater rights and securing effective legal protection for women. In some part of the world, the label “women’s liberation” has been given to describe the campaign for women’s rights. Those who advocate for women’s rights have been called “feminists” because of their efforts to change traditional perspectives on a wide range of issues covering domestic violence, sexual harassment and exploitation, economic equality and elimination of all forms of gender discrimination against women.

Labels and designations for Ethiopian women’s activism are unimportant in describing the need for activism. What is important is the realization that effective activism and advocacy on behalf of Ethiopian women is long overdue. Well-educated and well-placed Ethiopian women are in the best position to engage in activism to stop violence against women, help teach them to assert their legal and human rights and research and document the condition of women in society for informed policy-making. They are also in the best position to challenge Ethiopian men to reconsider their long held beliefs about women and encourage and show them how they can change their outdated beliefs and unhealthy behavior towards women. In other words, it is possible to help Ethiopian men gain new awareness and consciousness about the plight of their women and help protect their dignity and value in society. In this regard, I believe Diaspora Ethiopian women bear special responsibility to articulate Ethiopian women’s issues in international forums.

Young Ethiopian Women Need Female Role Models

I often wonder if many Ethiopian fathers seriously ponder whether our daughters have good role models in strong, ethical and assertive Ethiopian women. It pains me to think that the vast majority of girls growing up in Ethiopia today will absorb the beliefs from their mothers and society that domestic violence and sexual exploitation are acceptable; that male supremacy is the natural order of things and that they will likely be married off in childhood and have children while they are themselves children and very likely die an early death from complications of childbirth.

I truly hope that all of the young Ethiopian girls will look up to Birtukan Midekssa and understand that she stood up not only for her rights and theirs, but also that she represents the new Ethiopian woman who stood up to the arrogance of power and male chauvinism. I have no doubts that if Birtukan dropped on her knees, bowed down and begged for mercy from her captors, as do women who face the daily reality of violence and physically abuse, she would be out of prison in heartbeat. We need more Ethiopian women like Birtukan who set new moral and ethical standards for the newer generation of women who in turn can change the attitudes and beliefs of the newer generation of men so they can together build “the future country of Ethiopia.”

The Question: To be or Not to be…. Birtukan

When I write about my heroine Birtukan Midekssa, I often refer to her as “Invictus” (unconquered).[7] Some wonder why I defend Birtukan passionately and ferociously against those who have unjustly imprisoned her and take every opportunity to humiliate and degrade her despite the universally recognized fact that she is innocent of any wrongdoing. I do so because Birtukan to me is the model of the new self-confident and dignified Ethiopian woman I hope to see in the “future country of Ethiopia.” Birtukan chained in prison stands taller for the cause of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia than any man I know. She sacrificed motherhood to her 4-year old child so that the millions of little girls in Ethiopia could grow up in dignity, without physical abuse by men, educated and equal in every way to Ethiopian boys. Birtukan has shown more backbone and spine in standing up to dictatorship than anyone I know.

We can thank Ethiopian women until the cows come home, but so long as they have little personal and social security and are valued less and subjected to violence, there will be neither development, progress nor justice in Ethiopian society. The real question is not whether Ethiopian women can be the “backbone” of a political party or even society. It is whether Ethiopian men can be the backbone, indeed have the backbone, to lift their women out of the misery, suffering, degradation, insecurity and value them for their inestimable worth.

In my flights of fancy, I let myself imagine millions of young Birtukan clones growing up in Ethiopia. I imagine these young women standing up to male chauvinism and defending their rights to be free from physical abuse, sexual exploitation and discrimination. I imagine them demanding accountability from their leaders and government. I imagine them taking leadership in vast numbers in society. Then I realize that I am not really lost in imagination. I had just taken a brief detour to Birtukan’s “future country of Ethiopia”.

I will now say of Ethiopian women collectively what I have said of Birtukan individually:

Ethiopian women condemned to abuse, exploitation and indifference, but unconquered.
Ethiopian women subjected to the wrath of men and tearful, but defiant.
Ethiopian women beaten, bludgeoned and bloodied, but unbowed.
Ethiopian women mocked, ridiculed and disrespected, but gracious.
Ethiopian women vilified, strong-armed and manhandled, but unafraid.
Ethiopia under the crushing boots of soldiers of fortune.
Ethiopian women, Invictus!
Birtukan, Invictus!

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS.
WOMEN OF ETHIOPIA, UNITE!
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
[2] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/1999/246.htm
[3] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135953.htm
[4] http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR179/FR179.pdf ; p. 244 (final report, 2006)
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanna-ingber-win/mothers-of-ethiopia-part_b_300333.html
[6] http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=336
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ethiopia-birtukan-invictu_b_404713.html

Every year a British charity sends top cosmetic surgeons to Africa to treat those affected. Ben Fogle travels to Ethiopia, where he joins in the difficult task of finding noma sufferers who are hidden away in shame.

On his journey Ben meets three children whose lives have been blighted by the terrible disease: teenager Rashid, forced to hide his face in public; Asnake, aged 11, whose misshapen mouth makes him dribble constantly; and 10-year-old Mestikma, abandoned by her family because of her deformity.

These children join other noma victims in Addis Ababa for radical transformative surgery. Demand is overwhelming, and the visiting surgeons don’t have time to treat everyone. Ben watches the teams carrying out amazing surgery. A month later he returns to Ethiopia to visit the recovering patients. For them, a new face means a new life.

This is a follow-up to the invitation recently given to all Ethiopian stakeholder’s to take part in a meeting—the actual date, yet to be set—with the goal of exploring ways to achieve some basic goals in Ethiopia that we could agree on as important first steps to enhancing our society to the benefit of all of us.

We want to know If there is interest in doing this and if so, we in the SMNE would facilitate or work with a coalition of other individuals or representatives of any other organizations to facilitate a meeting in the next few months where representatives from a wide range of political, faith, women’s, youth and other such diverse groups would come together to start creative discussions around increased collaboration in order to achieve a few very simple and basic goals towards bringing greater freedom, justice, truth, equality, civility and the respect for human and civil rights to Ethiopia and beyond.

In order to make sure that more stakeholders are informed about the meeting and that they have time to consult with others in their group about this—possibly appointing a representative—we are extending the response date by another two weeks to Wednesday, July 14, 2010. We ask that you submit a written statement of your serious intention to participate.

We have already heard from a number of groups who have indicated their total support of this idea; even indicating that they were thinking of doing the same thing! Some have also expressed a willingness to take a role as part of a larger coalition of facilitators. This is great for we in the SMNE are simply facilitating this initial process and welcome others to join in.

The response from the public has been very positive as well. Many say they are very encouraged by the idea of diverse groups cooperating on some shared goals. However, let us be clear, this is NOT a meeting focused on unity, because that is a much slower process that builds over time and success in working together.

Additionally, participating individuals and group representatives will certainly not agree on all aspects of this struggle because their agendas and methods to achieve these agendas will differ.

In other words, we never will have unanimous agreement on all of what must change in Ethiopia; but we do believe we can certainly settle on a few basic priorities in order to move ahead.

We also believe we can achieve more if we set some ground rules for all participants that would promote a reasonably respectful and inclusive atmosphere for discussion that could improve collaboration and trust.

We have sent letters to many, but we hope to hear from more stakeholders, including those of you we have not personally invited, because we do not have everyone’s contact information and may not know about you and/or your organization or background experience that might contribute to the effort. We also welcome those who are pro-government because we assume many of you genuinely seek a more reconciled and harmonious society for the future of all our children.

We look forward to hearing from you!

May God guide us; giving us creative minds, humble spirits, open and accepting hearts towards others and willing hands and feet to do the work required of us at such a time as this.

Sincerely yours,

Obang Metho;
Executive Director of (SMNE)
PO Box 50561
Arlington, VA 22205
Phone: (202) 725-1616
Email: obang@solidaritymovement.org
www.solidaritymovement.org

This letter will be cc or send to all Ethiopian Stakeholders. Click here to see the names of the Stakeholders.

Please respond to this request by emailing the Reconciliation Task Force of SMNE at reconciliation@solidaritymovement.org or by emailing the Director.

Note: This is my fourth commentary on the theme, “Where do we go from here?” following the rigged elections in Ethiopia last month in which the ruling dictatorship won by 99.6 percent[1]. In this piece, I express deep anguish over the enormous problems and challenges faced by Ethiopia’s youth, and urge them to emancipate their minds and work collectively to build the “future country of Ethiopia” that Birtukan Midekssa, Ethiopia’s foremost political prisoner and first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history, dreamed about.
Own the Youth, Gain the Future

In 1935, Adolf Hitler delivered a speech at the Reichsparteitag (national party convention) in which he declared, “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” By impregnating German youth with Nazi ideology and unleashing them on the world, Hitler believed he could perpetuate the Third Reich for a thousand years. Creating an indoctrinated and brainwashed youth is the impossible dream of all dictators and tyrannical regimes. The Soviets created the Young Pioneers and Komsomols to integrate youth into the party structure and tighten their control over the population. In China, Mao’s anchored his theory of “permanent revolution” in the mass mobilization of youth; and in the late 1960s he formed the Red Guards to implement his Cultural Revolution.

During the 17 years of military dictatorship in Ethiopia following the overthrow of the imperial regime in 1975, much effort was done to convert the country’s youth to become supporters of the junta and its socialist revolution. That courtship ended in a so-called Red Terror campaign in which tens of thousands of young people were hunted down in the streets and in their homes and arrested or killed by junta cadres. In a monstrous act that will remain in infamy in the history of mankind, junta leader Mengistu Hailemariam forced the parents of Red Terror victims to pay for the bullets used to murder their children.

Today, the dictatorship of Meles Zenawi is busily implementing a master plan to “own” Ethiopia’s youth in a futile attempt to perpetuate itself for a thousand years. Zenawi’s strategy is straightforward. Force the best and the brightest of Ethiopia’s youth to make a Hobson’s choice: Become loyal party members or you will not have access to jobs, education, health care or social welfare programs. It is a simple Faustian bargain. The youth have the option of getting education, jobs, wealth, political power and social privileges in exchange for selling their souls and joining the party. Those who will not take the deal will be left to twist slowly in the wind. The political pressure on Ethiopia’s youth to join the ruling party is so staggering that young people who are not members or supporters of the dictatorship are routinely denied “support letters” from their kebeles (local districts) necessary to get public employment and other social benefits. To squeeze new college graduates into joining the party, the dictatorship has a “new scheme” in place: “Students graduating in the year 2008-2009 from all governmental higher learning institutions have been prohibited from collecting their academic credentials including the student copy until they find jobs which enable them to refund the cost sharing expenses utilized at the universities.”[2] This policy is inapplicable to members and supporters of dictatorship’s party.

Only Slaves Can Be Owned

“Owning” the youth of a nation remains the Holy Grail of every tin pot dictator and tyrant from Albania to Zimbabwe. The concept of “ownership” of youth evokes the imagery of slaves and masters. The slave’s sole purpose in life is to serve the master. Slaves work exclusively for the benefit of their masters, and receive nothing in return. Slaves always work involuntarily and do so because they are fearful of the painful sting of their overseer’s whip. The history of slavery also shows that the master can only own the body of the slave and rarely the slave’s mind. But the master’s ultimate aim is to enslave and cripple the mind of the slave by making the slave feel totally dependent on the master and imposing an overwhelming sense of fear, powerlessness, hopelessness and despair in the slave.

Own-a-Youth or Rent-a-Youth?

In his “victory” speech celebrating his 99.6 percent win in last month’s “election”, Zenawi offered hollow gratitude to Ethiopia’s youth: “We are also proud of the youth of our country who have started to benefit from the ongoing development and also those who are in the process of applying efforts to be productively employed! We offer our thanks and salute the youth of Ethiopia for their unwavering support and enthusiasm!” Given the grim statistics on Ethiopia’s youth and children (below), it is not clear what “ongoing development” Zenawi is talking about.

Nonetheless, Zenawi’s message at the Third Annual Youth Conference in November 2009 provides some insights into his overall strategy to “own” (more appropriately “rent”) Ethiopia’s youth. Before a stage-managed hall full of young people sitting in numbed silence wearing party-issued baseball caps, purportedly representing Ethiopia’s youth, Zenawi laid out his over all youth strategy based on engagement of youth into his party structure. In sketching out his plan for “leadership succession” incorporating youth, Zenawi said that his party for the preceding three to four years had been engaged in preparing youth for political leadership by undertaking “broad recruitment, broad training and broad placement” efforts. His party has placed “no less than 30,000″ youths in leadership positions at the local, district and even regional levels. Youth leaders that have shown potential for higher leadership positions will be “tried and tested” and elevated. The “main thing”, Zenawi said is to get youth — large numbers of them — enlisted in the party. In response to carefully crafted questions read out by apparently pre-selected youth, Zenawi assured the overwhelmingly male youth crowd that they have a much better chance of electoral participation than ever before, and have an “irreplaceable role” to play in ensuring “free and fair election” in the May 2010 “election”. He advised repeatedly to closely work with and report issues and problematic persons to the “authorities”.

The manifest aim of this youth strategy is to recruit and unleash hundreds of thousands of well-trained, loyal, bought-off robotic army of youths that will carry out the party’s programs, follow orders and serve as “shock brigades” in the implementation of party policies and Zenawi’s will. In time, the thirty thousand youths would proliferate to hordes of 3 million; and that way, the youth can be owned and the future gained. But the history of the 20th Century shows that many dictatorships have tried and failed in their efforts to recruit and enlist an army of brainwashed youths who could be cloned as successive generations of “True Believers” for the party.

Ethiopia’s Youth at Risk

In discussing Ethiopia’s youth here, I am not employing the standard quantitative age category of 15-24 years. In the context of the African economic realities, a broader swath of the age group under 30 is warranted. Article 36 of the Ethiopian Constitution enumerates a whole set of guarantees to ensure the health, education and welfare of the country’s children and youth. But the statistics on Ethiopia’s children in general is shocking. Though the population under the age of 18 is estimated to be 41 million or just over half of the country’s population, UNICEF estimates that malnutrition is responsible for more than half of all deaths among children under age five[2]. Ethiopia has an estimated 5 million orphans or approximately 15 per cent of all children. Some 800,000 children are estimated to be orphaned as a result of AIDS. These children are highly vulnerable to all forms of exploitation, including child labor and sexual, and receive little educational services, social support or supervision. Urban youth unemployment is estimated at 70 per cent. According to a Population Council report[3] “the vast majority of Ethiopian adolescents, 85 percent, live in rural areas. Levels of education are very low, especially for girls and for rural youth. A substantial proportion of adolescents do not live with their parents, especially in urban areas, where 33 percent of Ethiopian girls aged 10-14 live with neither parent. Some regions have extremely high rates of early marriage. For example, 46 percent of girls in the Amhara region were married by age 15.” There are also about 2.5 million children with disabilities receiving very little government assistance. Frustrated and in despair of their future, many urban youths drop out of school and engage in a fatalistic pattern of risky behaviors including drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse, crime and delinquency and sexual activity which exposes them to a risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. There is a serious problem of child trafficking and highly publicized instances of adoption fraud and abuse cases have been documented in the international media in the past year.

Ethiopia’s Youth as Ticking Bomb

The wretched conditions of Ethiopia’s youth point to the fact that they are a ticking demographic time bomb. The evidence of youth frustration, discontent, disillusionment and discouragement by the protracted economic crisis, lack of economic opportunities and political repression is manifest, overwhelming and irrefutable. The yearning of youth for freedom and change is self-evident. The only question is whether the country’s youth will seek change through increased militancy or by other peaceful means. On the other hand, many thousands gripped by despair and hopelessness and convinced they have no future in Ethiopia continue to vote with their feet. Today, young Ethiopian refugees can be found in large numbers from South Africa to North America and the Middle East to the Far East.

The dictatorship in Ethiopia hopes to neutralize the youth by “buying” (renting) the “best and the brightest” to serve them. But they also see the writing on the wall clearly. When youth experiencing such high levels of frustration represent such a high percentage of the total population, the implications for a small repressive dictatorship without any broad societal support or acceptance are plain. The critical questions are: Will the frustration, hopelessness and despair push the youth to take a path away from peaceful change? Will the hand-selected and well-trained cadre of rent-a-youth be able to provide a buffer between the masses of locked-out youth and the dictators or demand change? Does the dictatorship really “own” the youth cadres, or merely “renting” them by offering them lavish rewards and incentives? The answers to these questions appear plain to the reasonable mind.

What Can Be Done?

Given the enormity of the problems facing Ethiopia’s children and youth, there are no easy answers or solutions. But the real and lasting solutions to the problems of youth will not come from self-serving cynical dictators, party hacks, academics or self-indulgent intellectuals. The search for solutions must begin with the youth themselves.

Ethiopia’s Youth Must Be Seen, Heard and Engaged

As I have observed and studied Ethiopian politics, it seems that the old adage holds true: “Children should be seen and not heard.” Though young people represent a significant segment of the Ethiopian population, they are marginalized and largely ignored in the governance process. A study of Zenawi’s speech and exchange with the youth “leaders” at the Third Annual Youth Conference provides an object lesson in how political leaders of all stripes have dealt with the youth in a condescending and patronizing manner. At that conference, Zenawi did not solicit the views of the youth “leaders”, he lectured them like school children. He did not allow them to interact with him freely, rather designated individuals asked specific written questions in apparent trepidation. It was obvious that they were not even allowed to improvise in asking questions or follow up with additional questions. The stage management of the questioners was so mechanical and robotic that the observer could easily tell that the youth asking the questions did not formulate the questions themselves. The very nature of the questions points to the fact that they were planted. One would reasonably expect a youth conference representing the interests of all of Ethiopia’s youth to focus largely on matters that have direct relevance to youth. It seems odd that such a conference should devote so much attention and time to questions of leadership succession, party organization of youth and placement of youth in local, state and national offices. The point is that all young Ethiopians, regardless of their party affiliation or ideology, should be encouraged to be actively engaged in the political process, become civically engaged, take volunteer and formal leadership roles in their communities and become active participants in the governance process.

We Must Listen to the Youth

It is necessary to listen to and understand the views and perspectives of Ethiopia’s youth on the issues and problems vital to them. They should not be marginalized in the discussions and debates. The older generation is always quick to tell the youth what to do and not do. We lecture them when we are not ignoring them. But rarely do we show them the respect they deserve. We tend to underestimate the intelligence of youth and overestimate our abilities and craftiness to manipulate and use them for our own cynical ends or in our political struggles with our adversaries. How many of us in the older generation have made the effort to interact with young people regularly and tried to understand their pain, despair, hopelessness? How many of us have taken the time to talk to small groups of them to find out the issues that are most important to them and what they desire in the future? How many of us in the older generation truly believe that the youth own the future and we do not own them?

Let’s Help Develop Youth Leadership and Inspire Them

One of the major problems of Ethiopia’s youth is that the older generation refuses to get out of the way. At the Third Youth Conference, Zenawi used an interesting analogy involving a “traffic jam” to describe his sense of the intergenerational leadership succession. He said it was necessary to create an orderly succession in the transfer of power from one generation to another in the same way as traffic on the highway should flow “smoothly” and in an “orderly process.” It is ironic that he does not see himself as the principal cause of the 20-year total traffic jam on the Ethiopian political freeway, but his analogy is instructive. Speaking particularly to the older generation opposition, we need to realize that we are cluttering and congesting the political highway with our old clunkers and jalopies. We need to graciously accept the fact that we need to get off the highway so that the youth driving their turbocharged cars can zoom to their destinations. The point is that the older generation can be most helpful by providing guidance and advice to the youth instead of getting on the highway and blocking the flow of traffic. Leadership is not limited to the political realm. Youth can be engaged in activism on community, environmental and human rights issues; they can participate in volunteer community service and take leadership roles in civic and cultural institutions. We can help enlighten, inspire and empower the youth. The basic challenge is not only to engage the youth in governance but also in preparing them to take diverse leadership in the future. Those in the opposition should seriously consider drafting a formal youth agenda with the significant input of youth addressing the wide range of problems and issues.

Link Diaspora Youth with Youth in Ethiopia

There is a big disconnect and a huge gulf between young Ethiopians in the Diaspora and those in Ethiopia. That is partly a function of geography, but also class. It needs to be bridged. Youth in the Diaspora are in the best position to create linkages with their counterparts in Ethiopia using cyber-technology. Many young Ethiopians born in the West are often heard complaining and expressing concern over the enormous problems faced by young people in Ethiopia. Diaspora youth endowed with higher education and resources can use their creativity to create networks and linkages to help their counterparts in Ethiopia.

My Humble Message to Ethiopia’s Youth

I have no magic formula for any of the problems faced by Ethiopia’s youth. My humble message to all young Ethiopians is simple. Never give up. Never! Emancipate your minds from mental slavery. Develop your creative powers. Learn and teach each other. Unite as the children of Mother Ethiopia, and reject any ideology or effort that seeks to divide you on the basis of ethnicity, language, region or class. Study and acquire knowledge not only about the arts and sciences but also your legal, constitutional and human rights. It is easier for tyrants and dictators to rob you of your rights when you are ignorant and fearful. It has been said that “ignorance has always been the most powerful weapon of tyrants; enlightenment the salvation of the free.” Jamming the airwaves to keep information from reaching the youth and the larger population and maintaining a pall of darkness over society is the weapon of tyrants. Blocking access to the internet, banning the free press and exiling independent journalists are all weapons in the arsenal of tyrants who fear the truth and despair over their rendezvous with the dustbin of history.

President Obama was absolutely right when he said, “We’ve learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa’s future. It will be the young people brimming with talent and energy and hope who can claim the future that so many in previous generations never realized.” The destiny of “the future country of Ethiopia” is in not in the clenched fists of dictators but in the palms of the likes of Birtukan Midekssa and all the youth like her yearning to breath free. Ethiopia’s youth owes a lot to Birtukan. She is in prison for life not only because she stood up for her rights; but most importantly because she wants her generation of young people and posterity to live free in the “future country of Ethiopia” that she often dreamed about. If the dictators do not own the youth, they can not own the future!

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
[2] http://www.abugidainfo.com/?p=10670
[3] http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/TABriefs/PGY_Brief06_Ethiopia.pdf

—

* Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on pambazuka.org, allafrica.com, newamericamedia.org and other sites.

Semou Zinabou and about 60 local Ethiopians are taking their disdain to the streets and participating in a protest against Zenawi at Queen’s Park in Toronto on Saturday.

“This man has a long record of human rights abuses,’’ said Zinabou. “This is an undemocratic government where people have no freedom, and university professors and journalists are jailed.’’

Having Zenawi attend the G20 is sending a wrong message to Canadians, said Zinabou.

Zenawi, along with Malawi President Bingu Wa Mutharika, who is chair of the African Union, have been invited to attend the two-day summit of finance ministers and bank governors from 19 leading countries and the European Union.

In addition, to protesters from Waterloo Region, the organized rally expects groups from Montreal, Ottawa, Boston and Washington, D.C. to attend the march.

Zinabou, a member of an advocacy group called Unity for Human Rights and Democracy, said the Canadian government, like many of the G8 countries, gives financial aid to Ethiopia.

He said 34 per cent of the country’s budget is being provided by donor countries like Canada. In 2009, Canada provided $138 million in aid to Ethiopia.

But he’s concerned that the money doesn’t go to the local people, but rather lining the coffers of government leaders.

“It’s our tax money and we are giving it to a dictator,’’ said Zinabou, 54, who left Ethiopia in 1980.

He was part of the student movement that the government of the day quashed. He then left his homeland as a political refugee and settled in Germany.

He lived there for nearly 20 years, getting married and having two children. In 2002, Zinabou and his family moved to Canada because they wanted to live in a multicultural country.

International organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said that the Zenawi government has systematically tried to destroy ethnic minorities in Ethiopia and continues to abuse human rights and international law.

Zenawi seized power in an armed takeover in 1991 and since then thousands of Ethiopians have fled the country.

In 2005, during the country’s elections when opposition parties made a strong showing, the government cracked down on protesters and 200 people were shot dead in the streets of the capital city of Addis Ababa.

Opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa was imprisoned and remains in jail

Observers from the European Union who oversaw the recent elections in May said the Ethiopian government pressured, intimidated and threatened voters.

Government officials and militia members went from house to house to warn Ethiopians to vote for the ruling party or face reprisals such as losing their homes or jobs, Human Rights Watch said.

Zinabou said he’s concerned that the ethnic unrest in his homeland could lead people to take up arms.

“If people take up arms, it’s the worst thing that could happen,’’ said Zinabou, who’s visited Ethiopia once in 1998 since leaving 30 years ago.

“It (war) is a real possibility because this government is not willing to compromise on anything except preserving its power,’’ he said.

—-