Could the Current Somali Crisis Affect Passage of H.R.5680?:Possible Strategies for the Home Stretch

 

Prowling and Skulking
Several weeks ago, an alliance of Somali Islamist militia leaders calling itself the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC), (Majilis al-shura Council) captured the Somali capital Mogadishu, and the nearby towns of Jowhar and Balad. The SICC is suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

The “word on the street” is that for the past couple of weeks the Ethiopian regime’s lobbyists and officials have been prowling the halls of Congress and skulking about particular members’ offices sounding the alarm of an Islamic-Jihadist-terrorist takeover of the Horn of Africa. A delegation of certain Ethiopian parliamentarians is said to be en route to Washington, D.C. to reinforce the regime’s powerful lobbying brigade already laying siege to Congress in a desperate last ditch effort defeat of H.R.5680.

The Somali Factor
Somalia has been without any central government since the downfall of President Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. For a decade and half, the country has been a rendered a “virtual state” as a result of clan warfare among shifting alliances of warlords, armed thugs and bandits. These marauding and murderous warlords have left tens of thousands of innocent victims in their wake.

Over the past decade, various “independent” territories claiming sovereignty have been carved out of Somalia. A transitional government, the Somalia Transitional Government (STG) seated in Baidoa, consisting of a patchwork of disparate warlords, was established a couple of years ago with U.N. and U.S. support; but that government has been toothless and totally ineffective. It lacks a military or police force; and has been incapable of establishing a political structure, or developing consensus among its contentious members to administer the country.

The SICC, having routed the various warlords from the capital and other important towns, is gunning for the STG which barely lingers on as a government under the guardianship of expeditionary Ethiopian forces. The SICC is said to have come into possession of large caches of weapons from fleeing warlords, raising concerns about its predominance in Somali politics for some time to come.

There is concern among American policy makers that the SICC, in its past formation (Al-Ittihad al-Islami) and current configuration, is linked to al-Qaeda, and providing protection to some of the terrorists who bombed the two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. There is also some apprehension that the ascendancy of the SICC in Somalia could complicate the U.S. war on terrorism in the Horn and engender regional instability.

Concern Among H.R.5680 Supporters
The Somali crisis has caused palpable anxiety among some supporters of H.R.5680; and there is concern that SICC’s victroy in Somalia could breath new life into the Ethiopian regime’s efforts to neutralize and defeat the legislation. This concern is based on anecdotal, but cumulatively substantial evidence of a massive renewed lobbying effort by regime officials and paid lobbyists using the specter of a Somali Talibanic-Islamist -cum-Jihadist “Bogeyman” rampaging throughout the Horn of Africa to defeat H.R.5680.

The regime’s reformulated argument to defeat H.R.5680 is based on the fanciful, deceptive and somewhat comical view that passage of H.R.5680 will undermine and nullify the U.S.-Ethiopian partnership to combat terrorism in the Horn, and render Ethiopia vulnerable to terrorism. Concerned H.R.5680 supporters suspect that the regime will use the SICC victory in Somalia to cause alarm and anxiety among American policy makers — particularly members of Congress– that the Horn is about to fall prey to al-Qaeda proxies.

The regime’s Somalia-cum-terrorism argument is neither persuasive, analytically sound or logically tenable, but it goes something like this: The SICC is an alliance of die-hard Islamic fundamentalists with a broad regional agenda to 1) transform Somalia into an Islamic fundamentalist state, not unlike Talibanic Afghanistan or fundamentalist Iran, 2) provide a haven and training ground for al Qaeda and other terrorists and Islamic militants, 3) support and expand Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism among Ethiopian Moslems, and use other internal armed anti-regime groups to destabilize Ethiopia and the region, and, 4) carve out an Islamic state combining the Islamic populations in the Ogaden, Djbouti and Eritrea in a greater Islamic state or sphere of influence. Passage of H.R.5680 supposedly aids the Somali fundamentalist jihadists achieve their four-pronged regional strategy!

As manifestly absurd as these arguments sound, the concerns among supporters of H.R.5680 could be reduced to two basic questions: 1) Are members of Congress (House and Senate) likely to evaluate the current situation in Somalia and be frightened by the prospects of a “Talibanic/Islamist/Jihadist” government in Somalia and vote against the bill? 2) What countermeasures can be taken to prevent the hijacking of H.R.5680 by the regime? These questions will be addressed in detail below, but first….

H.R.5680 is ABOUT Human Rights, Stupid!”

To paraphrase a popular expression in American politics, H.R.5680 is “about human rights, stupid!”

H.R.5680 is exclusively concerned with support and promotion of human rights and democracy in Ethiopia. Nothing else! Examine the bill, and all you will find is a comprehensive legislative measure that provides funding and technical assistance to Ethiopia to:

● promote human rights and democracy, and secure the immediate release of political prisoners held without trial over the past year,

● facilitate the functioning and operation of a free and independent press, and insure the exercise of free speech and uncensored internet access,

● strengthen U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East by providing Ethiopia military, intelligence and other tactical support,

● accelerate economic development by providing technical assistance programs to improve policies and practices in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt management, bank supervision, anti-money laundering and private sector development,

● enhance the performance and capabilities of local, regional, and national legislative institutions by providing technical support and training to government personnel, political parties, and civil society groups and government agencies,

● establish mechanisms and systems to enable local and international human rights groups to operate freely, and to regularly monitor and report on human rights conditions, and

● increase the independence of the judiciary and safeguard it from political pressure and interference, and promote and institutionalize the application of due process practices and the rule of law.

(See: http://www.ethioforum.org/News/article/sid=1348.html)

Deconstructing the Regime’s Arguments Against H.R.5680

Smoke, Mirrors and the Specter of the “Somali Talibanic-Jihadist Bogeyman”

Circus magicians and stage conjurers often use smoke and mirrors to hoodwink the audience.

Not unlike the sleight-of-hand employed by circus magicians, the regime’s Somalia-cum-terrorism argument and other miscellaneous contentions intended to defeat H.R.5680 are principally based on a strategy of diversion.

The regime’s discernable diversionary strategy is to re-focus and re-direct public, and most importantly Congressional, dialogue, debate and attention from the real issues — suppression of democracy, massive violation of human rights, ongoing illegal arrests and detentions of political opponents and leaders, denial of due process to political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, stonewalling of independent and credible investigations of election fraud and irregularities — to that of Somali Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in a cynical attempt to defeat H.R.5680.

For this purpose, the regime is desperately attempting to use this Somali “Bogeyman” to bundle and stitch together a number of asymmetrical and nonsensical arguments, and persuade — and if that is not possible, confuse and confound — members of Congress and Ethiopians in the Diaspora.

Regime Bogeyman Arguments:

● “The Somali Jihadists are coming! The Somali Talibans are coming! The Somali Islamists are coming! The sky is falling!” H.R.5680 undermines America’s global anti-terrorism efforts, and will pave the way for the resurgence of al-Qaeda- inspired terrorism in Somalia and the Horn region. The bill will effectively thwart Ethiopia’s efforts to combat terrorism which is now “mushrooming in the region.”

● The Islamists in Somalia are al-Qaeda fanatics and supporters who are willing, able and ready to provide a haven to terrorists and Islamic militants from around the world, and support terrorist groups (armed anti-regime groups) in southeastern Ethiopia, particularly in the Ogaden region. H.R.5680 will undermine Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism in its border areas and limit its ability to eliminate it from its source in Somalia.

● Unless militarily challenged by Ethiopia, the Islamists in Somalia will take control of the southern flank of the Red Sea (Gulf of Aden) and the coastal areas of the Indian Ocean providing a beachhead for Islamic terrorists. H.R.5680 should be defeated because it will diminish, if not altogether extinguish, Ethiopia’s enthusiasm and commitment to counter regional Islamic terrorism and aggressively eradicate the breeding ground for al-Qaeda terrorists in Somalia.

● Without the active support and participation of the Meles regime, U.S. anti- terrorism strategy in the Horn, and possibly even in the southwestern Arabian Peninsula, is doomed to failure. H.R.5680 will sever the existing partnership between Ethiopia and the U.S., and could force Ethiopia to seek assistance from other hostile countries.

Smoke and Mirror Arguments:

Diaspora Conspiracy

● H.R.5680 is a “concoction” of a few “elites” in the Ethiopian Diaspora in North America. The bill’s true authors are malevolent elite “Amharas” and Derg officials, “fringe elements,” and other “criminals” and “extremists” who lost power and privilege when the EPDRF seized power. Former Derg officials supporting this bill had emptied the bank vaults just before the EPDRF takeover of power and fled the country, and are now they are using the loot to lobby against the regime. If H.R.5680 is enacted, it would be a victory for these criminal conspirators and a loss for ordinary Ethiopians.

● Supporters of H.R.5680 are privileged individuals who live a life of luxury in America and Europe, and have little understanding of the of the realities in Ethiopia, or the dazzling economic progress that has been achieved in the country due to regime policies that have created a favorable economic climate for internal and external investment. Passage of H.R.5680 will derail and reverse the explosive economic growth in the country.

● H.R.5680 is a diabolical tool devised by recalcitrant Diaspora elites and their counterparts in Ethiopia, who lost the election of 2005. These malicious regime opponents are uninterested in meaningful “dialogue” to resolve political differences, and remain spiteful because they were rejected by Ethiopians in the rural areas who voted en masse for the regime. These elites are hell bent to use H.R.5680 to push their agenda of destabilization of the country and violent seizure of political power. Passage of H.R.5680 will embolden these stubborn and contumacious Diaspora elites to undermine economic development and the democratic process in Ethiopia.

● H.R.5680 is a product of an “unholy alliance” between Diaspora elites and Eritrea and other wealthy individuals who have the ability to hire lobbyists to destabilize and change the direction of Ethiopian democracy. Passage of H.R.5680 will provide the groundwork for the long-term destabilization of the country.

Hardship on the Ethiopian People

● H.R.5680 will bring “calamity” on the millions of Ethiopian peasants and cause a deterioration of the current political and economic situation. Passage of H.R.5680 will deny economic benefits to the masses of ordinary Ethiopians.

Unduly Punitive Against the Regime

● H.R.5680 is wrong-minded because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ethiopian people and culture. (Implicit in this argument is the suggestion that the bill disfavors the dominant ethnic group in power.) Passage of H.R.5680 will facilitate the resurgence and recrudescence of Amhara, Derg and other anti-regime groups, and enable them to destabilize and violently take over power in Ethiopia.

● H.R.5680 is unfair to P.M. Meles and maligns and defames his stellar international reputation and prestige. Meles has been recognized as one of the most progressive African leaders and entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing African economic development by Tony Blair. He has been internationally acknowledged for his outstanding political leadership and skilful economic planning, which has resulted in quantum economic growth in Ethiopia. Passage of 5680 will affix a badge of infamy on Meles as a major African and world leader.

● Meles’ regime is America’s best possible partner in the global war against terrorism in the Horn. Meles is a loyal and dutiful friend of America, and willing to remain as part of the “coalition of the willing” in the global and regional war on terror. H.R.5680 will sever the current counter-terrorism partnership with the U.S. and result in Meles’ disassociation with the U.S.

Undermine a Truly Democratic Regime

● H.R.5680 will undermine a truly democratic regime. The recent visit of World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz, the favorable statements he made about the regime and his decision to release hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to Ethiopia certifies that Meles’ regime is truly democratic. (The implied suggestion is that the World Bank would have withheld approving such a large loan had it been convinced that Ethiopia was undemocratic or the regime tyrannical). H.R.5680 will thwart and undermine not only economic development in Ethiopia, but also the development of democratic institutions and practices in Ethiopia.

H.R.5680 is an Exercise in Futility, and Will Fail in Its Ultimate Objectives

● There is really no real support for H.R.5680. The advocacy base for the bill reflects a “marriage of convenience” among splinter groups, and a motley collection of former Derg officials, Amharas and other disgruntled groups and individuals who are merely putting on a “dog and pony” show for uninformed American policy makers. Passage of H.R.5680 is a futile legislative exercise by the U.S. Congress.

● H.R.5680 will not make a significant impact on the thinking of regime leaders or actions. Regime leaders will not be pushed around by the U.S. H.R.5680 is a counterproductive legislative act by Congress.

● Supporters of H.R.5680 have no real or long-term interest in political events in Ethiopia, are only interested in the bill as a “publicity stunt.” Passage of H.R.5680 is a waste of time.

● H.R.5680 will fail in its objectives because it will not result in the release of political prisoners, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA. The are only persons jailed in Ethiopia are street criminals and other criminals who are detained for calling illegal acts of civil disobedience that have resulted in deaths and injuries. H.R.5680 is an improper act of legislative interference by the U.S. Congress in the criminal justice system of Ethiopia.

It would be a waste of time to refute the regime’s bogus, absurd, mismatched and non-sequitur arguments (i.e. arguments lacking a logical connection between the claim and its reason), but I would like to challenge the regime on the terrorism issue directly.

“H.R.5680 is NOT about Terrorism, Meles!”
H.R.5680 has very little to do with terrorism. The ONLY reference to “terrorism” in the entire bill appears in section 6 (A) (1) (B). Contrary to the regime’s claims that the bill undermines the fight against terrorism in the Horn, this section enhances joint anti-terrorism efforts by carving out a massive exception for counter-terrorism and peacekeeping assistance to Ethiopia.

Note well: The bill does impose one major prohibition: Any counter-terrorism assistance provided by the U.S. can not be used against the Ethiopian civilian population. But, pray tell, what is wrong with that?!!

Terrorism? Who Wants to Talk About Terrorism?
Do they want to talk about terrorism? Fine, let’s start with state terrorism.

What is state terrorism? It is state behavior — specific acts by national governments — characterized by, among other things, the use of systematic and indiscriminate acts of violence, torture and/or repression against one’s own civilian population. Common practices of state terrorism include extrajudicial killings, extreme censorship, suppression of political dissent and opposition political parties and use of torture. In countries practicing state terrorism, there are no constitutional safeguards for individual liberties, no independent judiciary, and dissenters and peaceful opponents are victimized as criminals. State terrorism is often carried out by security forces, and/or state supported militia and paramilitary organizations and death squads.

What is the evidence on state terrorism by the Meles regime?

Following is corroborated evidence on state terrorism in Ethiopia for the reader’s independent and objective review. The evidence speaks for itself, but you be the judge!

U.S. Dep’t of State- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2000
“The [Ethiopian] Government’s human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of extrajudicial killings and at times beat and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions are poor. Arbitrary arrest and detention and prolonged pretrial detention remained problems. The Government continued to detain persons suspected of sympathizing with or being involved with the OLF. The Government continued to detain and deport without due process Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin… The Government infringed on citizen’s privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was ignored widely…. The Government restricts freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press; however, fewer journalists were detained than in previous years. Most were accused or convicted of inciting ethnic hatred, committing libel, or publishing false information in violation of the 1992 Press Law. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly.” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/789.htm

Dep’t of State- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2001
“The [Ethiopian] Government’s human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of extrajudicial killings and at times beat and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions are poor. Arbitrary arrest and detention and prolonged pretrial detention remained problems. The Government continued to detain persons suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the OLF. The Government did not continue to detain and deport without due process Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin; however, approximately 1,800 prisoners of war (POW’s) remained in internment camps at Dedesa at year’s end…. Thousands of suspects remained in detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention was a consistent problem. The judiciary continued to show some signs of growing independence; however, the Judicial Administration Council took disciplinary action against a judge after he released suspects on bail on habeas corpus grounds. The Government infringed on citizen’s privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was ignored widely. The Government restricted freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly; security forces used excessive force to disperse demonstrations…” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8372.htm

Amnesty International, Annual Report on Ethiopia, 2002
“At least 31 people were killed and over 3,000 arrested during rioting in April. Armed conflict continued within Ethiopia between government forces and Oromo and Somali opponents; many human rights violations by government troops were reported. Suspected rebel supporters were detained, tortured and extrajudicially executed. Several thousand remained in detention; some had been held for years without charge or trial. Journalists, human rights activists, demonstrators and other critics of the government were arrested. Most were held without trial, although some received unfair trials. During local elections in March, April and December scores of opposition party supporters were subjected to intimidation, beatings and arbitrary arrest. The trials of officials of the former military government on charges including genocide and extrajudicial executions proceeded slowly. Several death sentences were imposed; no executions were reported.” http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/ethiopia!Open

U.S. Dep’t of State- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2003
“The [Ethiopian] Government’s human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of unlawful killings and at times beat, tortured, and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions remained poor. The Government continued to arrest and detain persons arbitrarily, particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the OLF. Thousands of suspects remained in detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem. The Government sometimes infringed on citizens’ privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was often ignored. The Government restricted freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly, particularly of opposition party members; security forces at times used excessive force to disperse demonstrations….” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27727.htm

Amnesty International, Annual Report on Ethiopia, 2004
“Widespread arbitrary detentions, torture and excessive use of force by police and soldiers were reported. A new media law, which would put journalists in the private media at risk of arrest, was proposed. Several thousand people remained in long-term detention without charge or trial; most were accused of supporting armed opposition groups. Prison conditions were harsh. Some prisoners “disappeared”. A parliamentary inquiry into killings of members of the Anuak (Anywaa) ethnic group in Gambela town in December 2003 reported that 65 people had been killed; other reports put the number of dead in the hundreds. Trials continued of over 2,000 members of the former Dergue government detained since 1991 on charges including genocide. Several death sentences were imposed; no executions were reported….” http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/eth-summary-eng

Amnesty International, Annual Report on Ethiopia, 2005
“Opposition candidates and supporters were arrested, beaten and intimidated in the run-up to elections. Some 9,000 opposition supporters were detained in June for several weeks following protests at alleged fraud in elections in which soldiers killed at least 36 people. In November, police killed at least 42 people after peaceful protests turned violent. Over 10,000 opposition supporters and demonstrators were detained. Ten new members of parliament, 15 journalists, several human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience were among 86 detainees later charged with treason, genocide and other offences. Civilians were killed and arbitrarily detained in the context of armed conflicts in the Oromia and Somali regions, with thousands remaining in detention without charge or trial. Several Oromo community activists were prisoners of conscience. Journalists and human rights defenders were detained and threatened with prosecution for criticizing the government. Death sentences were passed but no executions carried out….” http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/eth-summary-eng

Genocide Watch, 2005-Ethiopia
“Government defense forces, called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), have killed as many as 2,500 ethnic Anuak in the Gambella region since December 2003. Many more, including most Anuak leaders, have been imprisoned without charge. Hundreds of Anuaks have been tortured and raped. The Ethiopian authorities have attempted to justify these actions as a campaign against a “terrorist” insurgency. In fact, most of the army’s victims have been civilians and many Anuaks are Christians dedicated to non-violence.” http://www.genocidewatch.org/ETHIOPIAchiefcollaboratorinanuakmassacre26Jan.htm

Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 – Ethiopia
“The aftermath of Ethiopia’s landmark May 2005 parliamentary elections has laid bare the deeply entrenched patterns of political repression, human rights abuse and impunity that characterize the day-to-day reality of governance in much of the country. This dispiriting reality has come as a shock to many international observers who had viewed the electoral process with a great deal of optimism. The run-up to the May elections witnessed displays of openness and genuine political competition unprecedented in Ethiopia’s long history. But many Ethiopians experienced these limited openings in a context still dominated by heavy-handed government efforts to suppress and punish any form of political dissent. Worse, the aftermath of the May elections has been marred by seemingly intractable controversy and displays of government brutality that threaten to reverse the gains yielded by the electoral process.” http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=43cfae9f28

The prosecution rests!!!

A Comparative Perspective on State Terrorism Argentina

Beginning in the late 1970s, the Argentine military junta conducted a Dirty War (Guerra Sucia) on its opposition, dissidents and innocent citizens suspected of subversion or disloyalty and/or threatening the stability of the country. Opposition leaders, journalists, teachers, unionists, students and ordinary citizens were illegally arrested and detained without trial, tortured, liquidated, or “disappeared” (desaparecidos). The number of Dirty War victims in Argentina exceeded 30,000 persons. Through the use of state terrorism, the Argentine junta was able to intimidate the entire civilian population into submission. What is the difference between the Argentina of the late 1970s and today’s Ethiopia?

Chile

In 1973, the Chilean military, led by Gen. Agosto Pinochet overthrew the elected government of Salvado Allende. A junta headed by Pinochet was established, which immediately suspended the constitution, imposed strict censorship, prohibited opposition parties, halted all political activity and embarked on a campaign of terror against opponents and opposition leaders in the country. During Pinochet’s rule thousands were illegally arrested, tortured and subjected to extrajudicial killings, and an estimated 50,000 people “disappeared.” Through the use of state terrorism, the Pinochet regime was able to intimidate the entire civilian population into submission. Pinochet, in his late 80s, narrowly escaped prosecution for his crimes raising the defense of mental incompetence. What is the difference between Pinochet’s Chile and Meles’ Ethiopia?

Mynamar (Burma)
In 1988, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, a Gandhian, founded the National League for Democracy in Mynamar and was placed under house arrest (where she still remains to the present day) by the military junta. In 1990, the military junta called general elections, and Kiy’s National League for Democracy won decisively. Although Kiy had legitimate claim to the country’s leadership, the junta nullified the elections and entrenched itself in power against massive international criticism. The civilian population today manages a precarious existence in a state of terror. What is the difference between present day Mynamar and today’s Ethiopia?

Eritrea
Amnesty International Report (2005) for Eritrea finds: “Hundreds of people were arrested for the peaceful expression of their opinions or religious beliefs. Political prisoners were held indefinitely without charge or trial, many incommunicado and in secret detention places. Thousands had been held since a major crackdown on dissent in 2001. Torture was reported, including of people fleeing or evading military conscription.” Ethiopia/Eritrea, flip sides of the same coin?

The Regime’s Congressional Game Plan

Although I have no crystal ball or oracular powers to predict the future, I will attempt to provide a reasoned analysis of the regime’s likely game plan to scare — “terrorize” (no pun intended) — members of Congress to vote against H.R.5680.

I expect the regime will follow a two-pronged strategy in its efforts to defeat H.R.5680. First, regime officials and lobbyists will attempt to divert Congressional attention from the issues of human rights, democracy and the illegal detention of opposition leaders and opponents to the bogus issue of the onslaught of Somali Talibanic/Islamist/Jihadists.

Second, the regime and its supporters will mount a concerted effort to neutralize and demoralize H.R.5680 supporters, and distract them from focusing their energies and efforts to passage of H.R.5680.

Diverting Congressional Attention From the Issues of Human Rights and Democracy to the Alleged Onslaught of Somali Talibanic/ Islamist/ Jihadists

Question: Are members of Congress (House and Senate) Likely to Evaluate the Current Situation in Somalia and be Frightened by the Prospects of a “Jihadist” Government in Somalia and Vote Against the Bill?

House and Senate Action

It is critical to understand the “legislative waters” H.R.5680 needs to navigate before becoming law. As is the case with most legislation in the U.S. Congress, H.R.5680 requires bicameral action (both houses pass the identical bill) before it becomes law with presidential signature. At this writing, the bill has passed the House International Relations Committee with unanimous and bi-partisan support, but further inquiry has not revealed any subsequent action. As of this writing, Congress has begun its month-long summer recess after taking action on a number of domestic issues, but to my knowledge H.R. 5680was not part of the last minute floor debate.

Traditionally, once a bill is reported out of a House committee favorably, it is referred to the Rules Committee. Unlike the Senate where floor debate is freewheeling and pretty much unlimited for the 100 senators, the House with 435 members tightly manages its floor time. Consequently, before a bill reaches the House floor, the Rules Committee attaches appropriate rules for floor consideration, debate and vote. Specifically, the Rules Committee determines the amount of time a bill will be debated, the number of amendments that would be allowed, and other special rules that could increase or undermine the chances of success for the legislation on the floor.

I hazard to guess that H.R.5680 — whenever it is reported out to the floor — will not take the traditional Rules Committee route for two reasons: 1) in the grand congressional scheme of things, H.R.5680 is a relatively minor non-controversial bill, and 2) because H.R.5680 was passed with unanimous and bipartisan support in committee, it would be unnecessary for the Rules Committee to review it. In other words, by virtue of the unanimous and bipartisan support for the bill, there really is not much to debate on the floor, obviating the need for referral to the Rules committee. Moreover, there are no manifest disagreements among members of the International Relations Committee, or evidence of a broader disagreement on the bill among House members, and therefore formal rules of debate will be unnecessary.

The likely path for H.R.5680 floor consideration will be via a procedure called “suspension of the rules” (House Rule XXVII). This rule is used to pass non-controversial bills (often bundling disparate non-controversial bills) generally towards the end of a session of Congress. Under this rule, a bill is reported to the floor directly bypassing the Rules Committee subject to certain conditions: 1) maximum time of 40 minutes for floor debate, no floor amendments and a favorable vote by a two-thirds majority to pass the bill.

If my supposition is correct, Chairman Hyde of the International Relations Committee will bring the bill to the floor as “suspension” in early September when Congress returns from its recess. I seriously doubt Chairman Hyde will send a non-controversial bill in the congressional scheme of things (certainly, not non-controversial of the Ethiopian community) to the Rules Committee, or alternatively bring it to the floor under suspension of the rules unless he is confident that he has the two-thirds votes required to pass it. But, I could be wrong….

Danger Signs!
The analysis above should not be misinterpreted, and supporters of H.R.5680 should clearly understand the potential dangers that exist for the bill both in the House and Senate, and increase their vigilance and efforts to insure bicameral support for the legislation.

One potential danger to H.R.5680 is the prospect of regime lobbyists together with their congressional supporters, and possibly some administration representatives, persuading Chairman Hyde of the International Relations Committee or Chairman Smith, the chief sponsor of the bill, to withdraw or delay reporting of the bill to the floor, or to get them to agree to make certain changes or modifications before sending the bill to the floor. While this may not appear reasonably likely at the present moment, the dynamics of the Somali crisis could bring such an eventuality with the realm of possibility.

Consequently, it is absolutely critical for H.R.5680 supporters to amplify, intensify and expand their grassroots congressional advocacy efforts, and maximize their vigilance until the bill passes both houses.

Supporters of H.R.5680: Beware of What Could Happen in the Senate!
The dynamics of the legislative process in the Senate is much different than the House. I hazard to guess that H.R.5680 will not be sent to Senate in the traditional way to begin a new and long journey through Senate subcommittee, committee and floor consideration. As a non-controversial House bill, I suspect it will be presented for Senate floor action in an expedited way as a unanimous consent item.

It is worth noting that the Senate with its 100 members operates under very different rules. Unlike the strict House rules, Senate rules are very accommodating of their members, and much of the floor work there is done using a procedure called “unanimous consent.” This procedure expedites Senate business considerably, and routine and non-controversial matters and bills are swiftly dispatched under unanimous consent procedure.

The downside of the unanimous consent procedure is that it can be used not only to pass motions and expedite floor consideration, but also to delay proceedings and floor consideration of bills. For instance, it is possible for a senator to delay a bill under the unanimous consent procedure, and remain anonymous. In other words, one anonymous senator could use the unanimous consent procedure to delay consideration of H.R.5680, and thereby kill it procedurally! Don’t push the panic buttons yet! There are other procedures and methods to reveal the identity of the anonymous senator and bring the bill to a vote despite the objection of one or more such senators. (Umm, I bet this idea has not crossed the thoughts of the fearsome lobbying firm of Piper Rudnick Gray Cary.) We must be prepared for this possibility!!!

While I do not wish to cause undue alarm for H.R. 5680 supporters by suggesting such a drastic contingency in the Senate, it is important for them to be fully aware of the possibility, however remote it may or may not be. Perhaps, of more urgent concern is possibility that the regime may be using a “rope-a-dope” strategy in the House (that is, pretending to be lobbying and losing in the House and diverting supporters’ attention) while its lobbyists and supporters are working feverishly below the radar to deliver the coup de grace (death blow) to H.R. 5680 in the Senate.

H.R.5680 supporters, beware of the Trojan Horse in the House: The decisive battle could be in the Senate. Intensify, concentrate, reinforce and strengthen your efforts with senators from your state.

 

A. Regime’s Somali Talibanic/Islamist/Jihadist Bogeyman Strategy U.S. Policy in Somalia

The Somali situation is at best murky for U.S. policy.

Craig Timberg, Johannesburg bureau chief for the Washington Post, in an interview in the highly respected Foreign Policy magazine (July 26, 2006) provided an unconventional analysis of the Somali situation. Timberg explained that U.S. policy in Somalia is likely to have problems because of past “U.S. support for secular warlords. When it was discovered that the United States was backing warlords who were widely hated, support for the Islamic militants increased.” Timberg further explained that “[b]usinessmen, civil-society activists, and ordinary people in Mogadishu are grateful for the law and order that the Islamists have imposed. The tribunals that the Supreme Islamic Courts Council has established enforce the law and punish people who commit crimes. That ability to provide even a low level of order has made them very popular.”

Timberg added that “For the Americans to have associated with and supported these guys [secular warlords]… it made Somalis angry and frustrated with the U.S. government. But in the rallies at the mosques in Mogadishu, they’re not burning American flags; they’re burning Ethiopian flags. That’s where the real, powerful public anger is directed.” (See FP magazine web edition http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3536)

According to a July 22nd Reuter’s report, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer told journalists: “We have told them [Ethiopians] not to get drawn into this [Somali] provocation.” In a congressional briefing several weeks ago, Ms. Fraser noted that the U.S. government remains “deeply troubled by the foreign-born terrorists who have found safe haven in Somalia in recent years.” She added: “While terrorism is an important issue, it is not the only issue.” She explained that the U.S. is equally concerned about governance and institution building, humanitarian assistance for the Somali people and improving regional stability and security.

Tom Casey, U.S. State Department, Deputy Spokesman stated on July 26, 2006 that the U.S. “calls for both the Islamic Courts Union and the Somalia Transitional Federal Institutions to move forward and recommit to a process of dialogue and discussion to resolve the issues between them, and to work to build and establish a legitimate government for that country…. [I]t’s important that Somalia’s neighbors avoid any kind of actions that would prevent these groups from getting together and being able to talk through their differences. We certainly don’t want to see, whether it’s Eritrea or Ethiopia or Kazakhstan, or any other country engage or get involved in efforts to support any violence in that country….”

Recently, the senior United Nations envoy to Somalia, Francois Fall, following his visit with opposing factions, called on foreign powers “to exercise maximum restraint and not to interfere at this particular moment in Somalia.”

Ethiopian Intervention in Somalia

The regime’s intervention in the current Somali crisis on behalf of the STG is not without precedent. In 1993 and 1996, Ethiopian troops crossed into Somalia to crush the ascendancy of fundamentalist warlords. However, in light of the current military facts on the ground — that is, SICC control of the capital and other strategic towns and a large swath of land almost up to the border with Ethiopia –the regime’s third adventure in support of the STG could easily backfire and plunge Ethiopia and the neighboring countries into a regional war.

There are obvious issues that could complicate Ethiopia’s current intervention in Somalia on behalf of the STG. Perhaps the most critical issue could be the effect of intervention on the Somali population’s support for SICC. Could the intervention stir whatever vestigial sense of nationalism may exists among Somalis, at least those sympathetic to SICC, and provide them a basis to wage a conventional or guerilla war of “national liberation” against Ethiopia? If the STG is perceived as an Ethiopia puppet government, could it possibly aspire to gain legitimacy and acceptance of the Somali people regardless of their political persuasion? Could there be ramifications from intervention by “Christian” Ethiopia in Muslim Somalia? There are many unknowns.

Nonetheless, according to recent news accounts, the SICC has vowed to fight Ethiopia. Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, head of the 90-member SICC and a hardline cleric with links to al-Qaeda, was recently reported threatening a holy war against Ethiopia: “The Somali people have to fight against Ethiopia, this is a holy war in which we are defending our country… The Ethiopians have invaded our country and we must force them out of the country and this will be a holy war of Jihad.” To counter this threat, the Ethiopian regime is said to be moving troops and materiel into the border areas and inside friendly Somali territory. There is clear consensus among the U.S., the U.N and the A.U. that the Somali crises could be resolved only through negotiation and a multilateral approach among members of the international community. Escalation and intervention is likely to lead to a new outbreak of fighting in the Horn region bringing with it more insecurity and extremism.

Anyway, What Does Islamic Fundamentalism in Somalia Have to Do With H.R.5680?

While the prospects for long-term U.S. policy in Somalia are likely to remain in a state of flux, the relevant question is: What does Islamic fundamentalism in Somalia have to do with H.R.5680?

The problem for regime lobbyists and supporters, as I perceive it, will be how to package the Somali Talibanic/ Islamist/ Jihadists bogeyman argument for sale to members of Congress to defeat H.R.5680. To succeed with the bogeyman argument, they would have to demonstrate a direct and logical connection between the legislative elements of the bill and the spread of Islamic terrorism and militancy in Somalia and the region, and adverse impact on joint U.S.-Ethiopia counter-terrorism efforts. In doing so, they must answer the following questions:

● How does releasing political prisoners held without trial over the past year undermine U.S.-Ethiopian counter-terrorism efforts, or Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism within or outside its borders? Are the political prisoners, including opposition leaders and winners of parliamentary seats in the last election, terrorists? If so, are they being held on terrorism charges?

● Assuming all of the political prisoners are terrorists, how would H.R.5680 promote terrorism among political prisoners who are rotting in overcrowded, squalid and stinking corrals that pass off for jails?

● How does restoration of the right of free speech, reinstitution of a free and independent media and free internet access cause terrorism or undermine the regional or global war on terrorism?

● How does strengthening U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East by providing material support to and sharing intelligence with Ethiopia undermine Ethiopia’s ability to participate in the the regional or global war on terrorism?

● How does accelerating Ethiopia’s economic development by providing technical assistance programs to improve policies and practices in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt management, bank supervision, anti-money laundering and private sector development limit, impair or diminish Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism or its anti-terrorism partnership with the U.S.?

● How does enhancing the performance and capabilities of local, regional, and national legislative institutions in Ethiopia by providing technical support and training to government personnel, political parties, and civil society groups and government agencies affect Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism internally, regionally, or its anti-terrorism partnership with the U.S?

● How does establishing mechanisms to enable human rights groups to operate freely, and to regularly monitor and report on human rights conditions in Ethiopia affect Ethiopia’s ability to fight internal or regional terrorism?

● How does increasing the independence of the Ethiopian judiciary and safeguarding it from political pressure and interference, promoting the application of due process practices and impartial application of the rule of law restrict, impair or obstruct Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism within its borders or regionally in partnership with the with the U.S.?

● What legal exception is the regime relying upon to justify its intervention in Somalia in violation of Article 2 (4) of the U.N. charter which prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” or Article III (2), (3) of the African Union charter which requires members to practice “non-interference in the internal affairs of States and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence”?

● Will the Ethiopian military limit its intervention to the defensive protection of the STG in Baidoa (the seat of the STG) and fend off an SICC assault, or does it plan to take other preemptive actions against the SICC?

● Having set up a defensive perimeter around Baidoa, how will the Ethiopian regime respond should the SICC Islamsits gobble up the rest of the country as it appears likely given their military advances? Does the Ethiopian regime expect to use its military to occupy all or part of Somalia to dislodge the SICC Islamists as it attempted to do in 1993 and 1996?

● How will the Ethiopian regime respond to possible repercussions from its own large Islamic population arising from its intervention? Does it anticipate potential fraternal alliance between the SICC and ethnic Somalis in the Ogaden region? If it does anticipate such an alliance, will the Ethiopian regime commit to using negotiations, to avoid a regional war, to resolve disputes?

I venture to guess that unless the regime and its lobbyist can demonstrate a link between their Somali Talibanic/ Islamist/ Jihadists bogeyman argument and the plain intent and objectives of H.R.5680, their absurd and wild assertions will be self-evident not only to astute members of Congress, but also the average fair-minded person as well.

But really…

H.R.5680 is An Effective Tool in the U.S.-Ethiopian Partnership in the War Against Terrorism and Should be Embraced by the Regime

H.R.5680 is a demonstrably effective tool against terrorism within the framework of the Bush doctrine. President George W. Bush has emphatically stated on numerous occasions that there is a clear link between terrorism and the absence of democracy in countries afflicted by terrorism. He has explained his view that the push for democracy, particularly in the Islamic world, will not only result in spreading American democratic values and ideals, but also enhance U.S. global security and aid the U.S. in its global war against terrorism.

The centrality of promoting democracy as a potent weapon in the war against global terrorism was clearly restated by President Bush in a speech in March, 2005 at the National Defense University:

“Our strategy to keep the peace in the longer term is to help change the conditions that give rise to extremism and terror, especially in the broader Middle East. Parts of that region have been caught for generations in a cycle of tyranny and despair and radicalism. When a dictatorship controls the political life of a country, responsible opposition cannot develop, and dissent is driven underground and toward the extreme. And to draw attention away from their social and economic failures, dictators place blame on other countries and other races, and stir the hatred that leads to violence. This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off.”

He continued: “It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors. It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies. And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East…. Pervasive fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime — the prop that holds up all power not based on consent. And when the regime of fear is broken, and the people find their courage and find their voice, democracy is their goal, and tyrants, themselves, have reason to fear.

 

Shortly after this speech, on March 16, 2006, the White House released President Bush’s second term national security strategy. Relevant to terrorism, the strategy states:

“Terrorists exploit political alienation. Democracy gives people an ownership stake in society. Terrorists exploit grievances that can be blamed on others. Democracy offers the rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the habits of advancing interests through compromise.Terrorists exploit sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Democracy offers freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas.”

This belief in the relationship between terrorism and absence of democratic practices and institutions is shared by both Democrats and Republicans. On numerous occasions, Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid affirmed his view that the need for greater political reform and democratization in the Islamic world is an integral part of the war on terrorism. Many other respected international scholars have made similarly persuasive arguments over the years.

I argue that the Bush doctrine provides the ultimate justification for passage of H.R.5680.

To be sure, promoting democracy in Ethiopia and the Horn region is not merely a tactical advancement of U.S. security and its global war on terror; rather, it is a necessary precondition for achieving long term regional stability and security. In short, H.R.5680 fits perfectly within the framework of the Bush anti-terrorism doctrine because it helps Ethiopia not only become a democratic society, but also transform itself as a beacon and bulwark for democracy in the region.

Consistent with the Bush doctrine, H.R.5680 is intended to accomplish the following:

● The Bush doctrine asserts maximizing mass political participation reduces the likelihood of terrorist attacks because participation offers a way out of “despair and radicalism.”

H.R.5680 accomplishes the aims of increased political participation by enhancing the performance and capabilities of local, regional, and national legislative institutions in Ethiopia by providing technical support and training to government personnel, political parties, and civil society groups and government agencies. H.R.5680 also strengthens training for political parties in Ethiopia in areas such as organization building and campaign management, civil society groups in election monitoring, improved and ongoing communications with the to address issues such as election irregularities, delimitation of constituencies, voter registration, political party registration, candidate registration, and related matters to enhance the credibility of future elections.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that the habits of democracy would ameliorate extremism and terrorism.

H.R.5680 establishes mechanisms that will help Ethiopia develop “habits” and practices of democracy such as the establishment and free operation of human rights groups and regular monitoring and reporting on human rights conditions in Ethiopia. It also establishes a program focused on reconciliation efforts between the Government of Ethiopia and peaceful political and civil society groups, including in minority communities, in preparation for negotiation and for participation in the political process.

 

● The Bush doctrine asserts terrorists exploit sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Democracy offers freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas.” H.R.5680 counters the “culture of conspiracy and misinformation” by strengthening the Ethiopian private media, providing technical journalistic support, eliminating government censorship and repeal of laws that criminalize free speech and licensing of independent radio free internet access.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that as democratic institutions grow and spread in the Arab world, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism.

H.R.5680 cultivates the growth of democratic institutions in Ethiopia by helping create independent electoral institutions, training of electoral workers and establishment of transparent electoral procedures, increasing the independence of the Ethiopian judiciary and safeguard it from political pressure and interference, and promoting the application of due process practices and impartial application of the rule of law. H.R. 5680 aims to help institutionalize due process and the rule of law reigns so that ordinary Ethiopians are treated with justice and dignity, thereby reducing the need for terrorism as a means of political expression.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that pervasive fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime, the prop that holds up all power not based on consent.

H.R.5680 aims to eliminate “fear” in Ethiopia by securing the immediate release of political prisoners held without trial over the past year, and by requiring adherence to universal standards of fairness and due process of law so that any citizen can peacefully engage in acts of opposition and dissent.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that terrorism has been able to take root in societies that have been caught for generations in a cycle of poverty, tyranny and despair and radicalism.

H.R.5680 aims to help Ethiopia develop economically and avoid the cycle of tyranny, despair and radicalism. It seeks to accomplish this by providing technical assistance programs to improve policies and practices in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt management, bank supervision, anti-money laundering and private sector development. It also provides mechanisms for Ethiopia to participate in the United States Millennium Challenge Account, which is a fund “devoted to projects in nations that govern justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom.” Additionally, H.R.5680 provides assistance for sustainable development of Ethiopia’s Nile and Awash River resources, including assistance to help Ethiopia with the technology necessary for the construction of irrigation systems and hydroelectric power that might prevent future famine.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that as American democratic values and ideals spread, even if Islamists do come to power, the realities of governance will moderate them or the public will grow disillusioned with them.

H.R.5680 aims to achieve this by facilitating the functioning and operation of independent newspapers and insure the exercise of free speech and uncensored internet access. When people can freely access information and express their views freely, it is infinitely more difficult for secularists or fundamentalists to hoodwink them.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and combat international terrorism.

H.R.5680 aims to do that by strengthening U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East by providing material support and sharing military intelligence with Ethiopia.

Given the new political configuration in Somalia, Ethiopia is “on the horns of a dilemma” (no pun intended). But for the regime to try and use the SICC Islamist juggernaut — as a force capable of crushing Ethiopia and establishing a greater Islamic Somalia in the region as an argument against H.R.5680 is not only a stretch of the imagination, but pure fantasy! It is equally fantastic to argue that direct intervention in Somalia to prop up the STG in Baidoa offers an effective countermeasure to the Islamic-Jihadist juggernaut in Somalia or permanent security to Ethiopia.

Democratic Ethiopia Antidote to Regional Terrorism

Ultimately, consistent with the Bush doctrine, the best defense against Islamic fundamentalism in the Horn is likely to be the establishment and success of democracy in Ethiopia. If Ethiopia could emerge as a multiparty democracy anchored in the rule of law, with secure civil liberties and human rights, an independent judiciary and clean elections, then a democratic Ethiopia will be the best antidote to a regional Islamist threat and boost the U.S. war on regional and global terrorism.

For Ethiopia alone, in the long run, commitment to democratic principles and practices and the rule of law, as well as economic growth based on the free enterprise system and private ownership of land (and government divestment of such powers in the main) may well be her best defense against the prospects of internal armed opposition and aggressive Islamist states or the motley crew of mixed up fanatics and terrorists running about the Horn.

How to Keep the Regime’s Bogeyman Out of Congress

The current Somali crises does offer an opportunity of sorts to the regime to divert the focus of H.R.5680 from human rights and democracy to terrorism (that is, the non-state terrorism type). Whether the crisis will play a decisive role in changing congressional perception and diminution of support by members of Congress remains to be seen.

Members of Congress are generally exceptionally bright and well-informed individuals, despite media caricatures to the contrary. They have well-qualified staff members who specialize in specific policy areas who can critically analyze complex issues and present policy options. House members also take their cues on issues from their party leadership — subcommittee, committee chairs, recognized policy specialist members and others in caucus leadership positions.

On the other hand, the inescapable reality is that for a significant segment of congressional members, Horn politics is not at the top of their agenda. They may not be fully informed on the current issues and problems. This means supporters of H.R.5680 must make every effort to educate their congressional members and their staff on the Somali crisis, the Ethiopian government’s regional adventurism and the absolute lack of nexus or connection between H.R.5680 and what is happening in Somalia today. Some talking points which could be used in congressional communication — in person, by telephone, email, letter or fax– on this topic are provided in the appendix at the end of this analysis.

B. Discredit and Divide the Diaspora, and take Advantage of Diaspora Weaknesses Strategy

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Reichsminister for Propaganda and National Enlightenment, had an ingenious theory about mass political communication. He explained that political communication must reach the target audience ahead of competing communication or propaganda. The content of the propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans and create an optimum anxiety level in the intended audience. The propaganda message must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat or failure to achieve the objects of the intended message. Above all, propaganda must not be used to immediately affect strong countertendencies, rather it should offer some form of action or diversion or both.

One should expect the regime and its supporters will undertake diverse efforts to discredit, divide and exploit weaknesses in the Diaspora in classic Goebbelisian-style. First, the regime and its supporters will likely undertake an offensive to discredit opponents in the Disapora. This could take an overt, covert and/or proxy campaign to discredit individuals, groups and organizations.

I anticipate they will continue and refine their propaganda to label Diaspora leaders, organizations and opponents as “power-hungry Amharas, former Derg officials, extremists and radicals, conspirators, violence-mongers, sore election losers, bankrollers, disgruntled former regime officials”, and even “loyalists” of the bygone regime of Haile Selassie. They will attempt to create a false, provocative and denigrating media images of the Diaspora. They will seek to perpetuate false accusations about the Diaspora as “subversive, unpatriotic and destabilizing forces.” They will attempt to undermine the Diaspora as “disconnected from the Ethiopian reality,” which paradoxically includes both lack of familiarity and empathy with the abject poverty of the people, as well as the allegedly dazzling economic growth and development that has been seen over the past several years. They will portray H.R.5680 supporters as a “disorganized blundering mess of Amhara and Derg criminals.” They will seek to will lump the Diaspora and the opposition as an alliance of antagonistic and factional splinter groups who have managed to “sign a temporary truce” with the singular purpose of staging a “dog and pony” show for uninformed members of Congress and other American officials. And more mudslinging….

Second, I expect the regime and its supporters will make every effort to take advantage of Diaspora weaknesses and lack of effective organizational coalition-building in pushing for H.R.5680 in the Diaspora.

We must face the facts, however unpleasant they may be: One of our glaring weaknesses in the Diaspora has been the lack of consistent coordination and collaboration between organizations, groups and individuals on vital issues affecting our motherland. (This lack of coordination is what has enabled the regime to portray us as a “disorganized” collection of “splinter groups,” etc. I never cease to be amazed by the number of well-intentioned organizations, groups and individuals working very hard on their own to pass H.R.5680. The disadvantages of lack of coordination, inability to pool resources and devise effective strategies as well as speak in one voice on H.R.5680 are monumental. It results in a massive duplication of efforts, unwittingly working at cross-purposes, wasted energy and resources and even, forgive me, meaningless competition for credits. We must unite and work for a common purpose.

Fortunately, there are a substantial number of determined and purpose-driven individuals, groups and organizations that have learned the value of collaborative work, and have been in the forefront of the struggle to push H.R.5680. They deserve top credits for helping bring H.R. 5680 to its current stage. They deserve our highest respect and deepest appreciation not only for the results they have produced, but also for teaching the rest of us the value of coalition-building and commitment to collective action as the most effective means of political expression in a democratic society..

Unfortunately, there are others of us who have yet to learn the value of working together cooperatively, collaboratively and effectively on a single project for an agreed upon outcome. We need to reconsider the value of “go-it-alone” strategy versus a “let’s-do-it-together” strategy, and resolve to create tighter organizational bonds for effective collective grassroots action to pass H.R.5680.

At the risk of sounding trivial, in one of the most famous comic strip quotes of all time, Pogo said: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Pogo was referring to the way each one of us at the individual, group and organizational level participates in the democratic process. Whether the process works for the supporters of H.R.5680 passes depends largely on what supporters do or fail to do. If we can not organize, cooperate and collaborate to successfully follow through on this single issue, then Pogo may be right. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Nonetheless, I expect the regime will make every effort to take advantage of our apparent inability to create a united grassroots advocacy movement to push for passage of H.R.5680. We must prove them wrong!

Third, I expect the regime and its supporters will try to take advantage of one of our other major weaknesses: our tendency to become excitable and reactive instead of calculating and proactive. We need to overcome the tendency to react impulsively — often in anger and little deliberation — to every little thing the regime or its supporters do or do not.

 

We need to be more proactive, that is, anticipate issues and strategies likely to be employed by the regime and its supporters and plan a response accordingly. Impulsive reaction to every statement and action by the regime or its supporters will only divert our attention from the real work that needs to be done. Also, one must never underestimate one’s adversary; and one can learn much from one’s opponent, which requires a certain amount of deliberation and calculation in the way we respond to real and imaginary challenges.

Fourth, I expect the regime and its supporters will attempt to take advantage of the apparent lack of vigilance, and palpable smugness and complacency among some of H.R.5680 supporters. We must face the facts: there are some among H.R.5680’s supporters who believe the “cat’s in the bag” and the regime can not do much to change the outcome at this stage. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

Let’s not underestimate the regime and its supporters. We have a mighty adversary with unlimited financial resources who has assembled lobbyists of the highest caliber and influence in Washington. If we drop our guard even for a moment, if we stop our grassroots advocacy efforts even for a day, if we stop vigorously defending and promoting H.R.5680 until it is enacted, then the Goliath lobbying firm of Piper Rudnick Gray Cary will dig its claws and tentacles into our fledgling grassroots advocacy activities and lay waste all of our efforts and hard work.

But we shall fear not! As Goliath was felled by David’s slingshot, so our grassroots advocacy efforts will in the end prevail over the Piper Rudnick Gray Goliath. BUT WE MUST ORGANIZE, WORK TOGETHER, COLLABORATE AND SUPPORT EACH OTHER, ACT INDIVIDUALLY WHEN APPROPRIATE AND MAINTAIN THE VIGILANCE OF MINUTEMEN UNTIL H.R.5680 IS ENACTED INTO LAW.

What does non-passage of H.R. 5680 mean?

Could the regime succeed in its efforts? Only if we let it! They will undoubtedly succeed if we fail to form a united front to vigorously advocate, defend and promote H.R.5680. They will succeed if we are unwilling to pay the price for victory, which is unrelenting grassroots advocacy with congressional offices– House members until floor debate takes place hopefully sometime in early September, and the Senate — until the bill is enacted into law.

Will Diaspora opposition to the regime dissolve if H.R.5680 were to be defeated? Very unlikely. It will probably make the Diaspora more defiant and energetic in its opposition to the regime’s violations of human rights and arbitrary rule. But for the regime, defeat of H.R.5680 would mean ushering in a new era of dictatorial and tyrannical rule, unrestrained and indefinite detention of thousands of new political prisoners, the permanently crippling of emerging democratic institutions, and perpetuation of flagrant violations of human rights of 70 million Ethiopian citizens.

Carpe Diem (Seize the Day) — 2006 Congressional Midterm Elections

Midterm congressional elections (elections that fall between presidential elections) for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate will be held on November 7, 2006. All of the 435 seats in the House will be up for election and the winners will serve for a two year term in the 110th United States Congress.

The current composition of the House is 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats and 1 Independent. There are 3 vacant seats. Republicans have had a majority since 1995, and now have a 29 member advantage. Political scientists who specialize in congressional politics suggest that based on historical trend analysis it is possible for Democrats to wrest control away from Republicans, but not reasonably likely given the dynamics of congressional district politics and the power of incumbency.

In the U.S. Senate, only 33 of the 100 seats are being contested. This staggered election is required by Art. I, sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

In terms of grassroots congressional advocacy, there is not a much better time for supporters of H.R.5680 than now. This is the time members of Congress want to hear from their constituents in view of the November elections. They want our material and moral support, as much as we need their votes for H.R.5680. This is the time to make appointments preferably in groups and as members and leaders of grassroots organizations to visit with members, particularly House members, and their staff to discuss and secure their commitment to support H.R.5680.

In the end: No excuses!!! Carpe diem, and reach out and touch your member of Congress!

Final Word: “Through unity of action we can be a veritable colossus in support of peace [H.R.5680]. No one can defeat us unless we first defeat ourselves. Every one of us must be guided by this truth.” (President Dwight Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States -1953-1961.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alemayehu (Al) Mariam, Ph.D., J.D. (Esq.) is professor of political science and a defense attorney in California. Readers are invited to visit and share their comments at:

http://almariamforthedefense.wordpress.com/ http://www.almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

APPENDICES

GRASSROOTS

CONGRESSIONAL ADVOCACY STRATEGY

One of the most effective methods of grassroots advocacy is to provide members of Congress and their staff concise, timely, accurate and relevant information on the subject matter of the advocacy. Whether one communicates in writing, by telephone or in person, it is always useful to provide the member/staffer with documentation which could be reviewed at a later point in time.

The materials provided in this appendix are illustrative, and by no means complete or exhaustive. Each advocate must use his/her diligence and imagination in finding information that is likely to be persuasive to a member of Congress.

The materials and contents below could be incorporated in written communication, or attached electronically or as paper copies.

You can easily find contact information for your member of congress by typing in your zip code at:

http://www.capwiz.com/now/dbq/officials/

Appendix

A. The Bush Doctrine and H.R. 5680

B. Evidence of State Terrorism Under the Meles Regime

C. Questions for Regime Lobbyist, Officials and Supporters Visiting or Communicating With Congressional Offices

D. Amnesty International (May, 2006) Partial List of Prisoners of Conscience

E. Somalia Crisis Talking Points

The Bush Doctrine and H.R. 5680

● The Bush doctrine asserts maximizing mass political participation reduces the likelihood of terrorist attacks because participation offers a way out of “despair and radicalism.” H.R.5680 accomplishes the aims of increased political participation by enhancing the performance and capabilities of local, regional, and national legislative institutions in Ethiopia by providing technical support and training to government personnel, political parties, and civil society groups and government agencies.

H.R.5680 also strengthens training for political parties in Ethiopia in areas such as organization building and campaign management, civil society groups in election monitoring, improved and ongoing communications with the to address issues such as election irregularities, delimitation of constituencies, voter registration, political party registration, candidate registration, and related matters to enhance the credibility of future elections.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that the habits of democracy would ameliorate extremism and terrorism. H.R.5680 establishes mechanisms that will help Ethiopia develop “habits” and practices of democracy such as the establishment and free operation of human rights groups and regular monitoring and reporting on human rights conditions in Ethiopia. It also establishes a program focused on reconciliation efforts between the Government of Ethiopia and peaceful political and civil society groups, including in minority communities, in preparation for negotiation and for participation in the political process.

● The Bush doctrine asserts terrorists exploit sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Democracy offers freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas.” H.R.5680 counters the “culture of conspiracy and misinformation” by strengthening the Ethiopian private media, providing technical journalistic support, eliminating government censorship and repeal of laws that criminalize free speech and licensing of independent radio free internet access.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that as democratic institutions grow and spread in the Arab world, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. H.R.5680 cultivates the growth of democratic institutions in Ethiopia by helping create independent electoral institutions, training of electoral workers and establishment of transparent electoral procedures, increasing the independence of the Ethiopian judiciary and safeguard it from political pressure and interference, and promoting the application of due process practices and impartial application of the rule of law. H.R. 5680 aims to help institutionalize due process and the rule of law reigns so that ordinary Ethiopians are treated with justice and dignity, thereby reducing the need for terrorism as a means of political expression.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that pervasive fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime, the prop that holds up all power not based on consent. H.R.5680 aims to eliminate “fear” in Ethiopia by securing the immediate release of political prisoners held without trial over the past year, and by requiring adherence to universal standards of fairness and due process of law so that any citizen can peacefully engage in acts of opposition and dissent.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that terrorism has been able to take root in societies that have been caught for generations in a cycle of poverty, tyranny and despair and radicalism. H.R.5680 aims to help Ethiopia develop economically and avoid the cycle of tyranny, despair and radicalism. It seeks to accomplish this by providing technical assistance programs to improve policies and practices in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt management, bank supervision, anti-money laundering and private sector development. It also provides mechanisms for Ethiopia to participate in the United States Millennium Challenge Account, which is a fund “devoted to projects in nations that govern justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom.” Additionally, H.R.5680 provides assistance for sustainable development of Ethiopia’s Nile and Awash River resources, including assistance to help Ethiopia with the technology necessary for the construction of irrigation systems and hydroelectric power that might prevent future famine.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that as American democratic values and ideals spread, even if Islamists do come to power, the realities of governance will moderate them or the public will grow disillusioned with them. H.R.5680 aims to achieve this by facilitating the functioning and operation of independent newspapers and insure the exercise of free speech and uncensored internet access. When people can freely access information and express their views freely, it is infinitely more difficult for secularists or fundamentalists to hoodwink them.

● The Bush doctrine asserts that all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and combat international terrorism. H.R.5680 aims to do that by strengthening U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East by providing material support and sharing military intelligence with Ethiopia.

Evidence of State Terrorism Under the Meles Regime

U.S. Dep’t of State- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2000

“The [Ethiopian] Government’s human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of extrajudicial killings and at times beat and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions are poor. Arbitrary arrest and detention and prolonged pretrial detention remained problems. The Government continued to detain persons suspected of sympathizing with or being involved with the OLF. The Government continued to detain and deport without due process Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin… The Government infringed on citizen’s privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was ignored widely…. The Government restricts freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press; however, fewer journalists were detained than in previous years. Most were accused or convicted of inciting ethnic hatred, committing libel, or publishing false information in violation of the 1992 Press Law. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly.” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/789.htm

U.S. Dep’t of State- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2001

“The [Ethiopian] Government’s human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of extrajudicial killings and at times beat and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions are poor. Arbitrary arrest and detention and prolonged pretrial detention remained problems. The Government continued to detain persons suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the OLF. The Government did not continue to detain and deport without due process Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin; however, approximately 1,800 prisoners of war (POW’s) remained in internment camps at Dedesa at year’s end…. Thousands of suspects remained in detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention was a consistent problem. The judiciary continued to show some signs of growing independence; however, the Judicial Administration Council took disciplinary action against a judge after he released suspects on bail on habeas corpus grounds. The Government infringed on citizen’s privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was ignored widely. The Government restricted freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly; security forces used excessive force to disperse demonstrations…” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8372.htm

Amnesty International, Annual Report on Ethiopia, 2002

“At least 31 people were killed and over 3,000 arrested during rioting in April. Armed conflict continued within Ethiopia between government forces and Oromo and Somali opponents; many human rights violations by government troops were reported. Suspected rebel supporters were detained, tortured and extrajudicially executed. Several thousand remained in detention; some had been held for years without charge or trial. Journalists, human rights activists, demonstrators and other critics of the government were arrested. Most were held without trial, although some received unfair trials. During local elections in March, April and December scores of opposition party supporters were subjected to intimidation, beatings and arbitrary arrest. The trials of officials of the former military government on charges including genocide and extrajudicial executions proceeded slowly. Several death sentences were imposed; no executions were reported.” http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/ethiopia!Open

U.S. Dep’t of State- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2003

“The [Ethiopian] Government’s human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Security forces committed a number of unlawful killings and at times beat, tortured, and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions remained poor. The Government continued to arrest and detain persons arbitrarily, particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the OLF. Thousands of suspects remained in detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem. The Government sometimes infringed on citizens’ privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was often ignored. The Government restricted freedom of the press and continued to detain or imprison members of the press. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly, particularly of opposition party members; security forces at times used excessive force to disperse demonstrations….” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27727.htm

Amnesty International, Annual Report on Ethiopia, 2004

“Widespread arbitrary detentions, torture and excessive use of force by police and soldiers were reported. A new media law, which would put journalists in the private media at risk of arrest, was proposed. Several thousand people remained in long-term detention without charge or trial; most were accused of supporting armed opposition groups. Prison conditions were harsh. Some prisoners “disappeared”. A parliamentary inquiry into killings of members of the Anuak (Anywaa) ethnic group in Gambela town in December 2003 reported that 65 people had been killed; other reports put the number of dead in the hundreds. Trials continued of over 2,000 members of the former Dergue government detained since 1991 on charges including genocide. Several death sentences were imposed; no executions were reported….” http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/eth-summary-eng

Amnesty International, Annual Report on Ethiopia, 2005

“Opposition candidates and supporters were arrested, beaten and intimidated in the run-up to elections. Some 9,000 opposition supporters were detained in June for several weeks following protests at alleged fraud in elections in which soldiers killed at least 36 people. In November, police killed at least 42 people after peaceful protests turned violent. Over 10,000 opposition supporters and demonstrators were detained. Ten new members of parliament, 15 journalists, several human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience were among 86 detainees later charged with treason, genocide and other offences. Civilians were killed and arbitrarily detained in the context of armed conflicts in the Oromia and Somali regions, with thousands remaining in detention without charge or trial. Several Oromo community activists were prisoners of conscience. Journalists and human rights defenders were detained and threatened with prosecution for criticizing the government. Death sentences were passed but no executions carried out….” http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/eth-summary-eng

Genocide Watch, 2005-Ethiopia

“Government defense forces, called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), have killed as many as 2,500 ethnic Anuak in the Gambella region since December 2003. Many more, including most Anuak leaders, have been imprisoned without charge. Hundreds of Anuaks have been tortured and raped. The Ethiopian authorities have attempted to justify these actions as a campaign against a “terrorist” insurgency. In fact, most of the army’s victims have been civilians and many Anuaks are Christians dedicated to non-violence.” http://www.genocidewatch.org/ETHIOPIAchiefcollaboratorinanuakmassacre26Jan.htm

Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 – Ethiopia

“The aftermath of Ethiopia’s landmark May 2005 parliamentary elections has laid bare the deeply entrenched patterns of political repression, human rights abuse and impunity that characterize the day-to-day reality of governance in much of the country. This dispiriting reality has come as a shock to many international observers who had viewed the electoral process with a great deal of optimism. The run-up to the May elections witnessed displays of openness and genuine political competition unprecedented in Ethiopia’s long history. But many Ethiopians experienced these limited openings in a context still dominated by heavy-handed government efforts to suppress and punish any form of political dissent. Worse, the aftermath of the May elections has been marred by seemingly intractable controversy and displays of government brutality that threaten to reverse the gains yielded by the electoral process.” http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=43cfae9f28

Questions for Regime Lobbyist, Officials and Supporters Visiting or Communicating With Congressional Offices

Provide your congressional members/staffers a list of questions to ask regime lobbyists and officials, and the parliamentary delegation expected to arrive in the U.S. shortly, urging defeat of H.R.5680. Here is a preliminary list:

How does releasing political prisoners held without trial over the past year undermine U.S.-Ethiopian counter-terrorism efforts, or Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism within or outside its borders?

Are the political prisoners, including opposition leaders and winners of parliamentary seats in the last election, terrorists? If so, are they being held on terrorism charges?

Assuming all of the political prisoners are terrorists, how would H.R.5680 promote terrorism among political prisoners who are rotting in overcrowded, squalid and stinking corrals that pass off for jails?

How does restoration of the right of free speech, reinstitution of a free and independent media and free internet access cause terrorism or undermine the regional or global war on terrorism?

How does strengthening U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East by providing material support to and sharing intelligence with Ethiopia undermine Ethiopia’s ability to participate in the regional or global war on terrorism?

How does accelerating Ethiopia’s economic development by providing technical assistance programs to improve policies and practices in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt management, bank supervision, anti-money laundering and private sector development limit, impair or diminish Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism internally, regionally, or its anti-terrorism partnership with the U.S.?

How does enhancing the performance and capabilities of local, regional, and national legislative institutions in Ethiopia by providing technical support and training to government personnel, political parties, and civil society groups and government agencies affect Ethiopia’s vulnerability to terrorism or diminish its ability to participate in its anti-terrorism partnership with the U.S?

How does establishing mechanisms to enable human rights groups to operate freely, and to regularly monitor and report on human rights conditions in Ethiopia affect Ethiopia’s ability to fight internal or regional terrorism?

How does increasing the independence of the Ethiopian judiciary and safeguarding it from political pressure and interference, promoting the application of due process practices and impartial application of the rule of law restrict, impair or obstruct Ethiopia’s ability to fight terrorism within its borders or regionally in partnership with the with the U.S.?

What legal exception is the regime relying upon to justify its intervention in Somalia in violation of Article 2 (4) of the U.N. charter which prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” or Article III (2), (3) of the African Union charter which requires members to practice “non-interference in the internal affairs of States and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence”?

Will the Ethiopian military limit its intervention to the defensive protection of the STG in Baidoa (the seat of the STG) and fend off an SICC assault, or does it plan to take other preemptive actions against the SICC?

Having set up a defensive perimeter around Baidoa, how will the Ethiopian regime respond should the SICC Islamsits gobble up the rest of the country as it appears likely given their military advances? Does the Ethiopian regime expect to use its military to occupy all or part of Somalia to dislodge the SICC Islamists as it attempted to do in 1993 and 1996?

How will the Ethiopian regime respond to possible repercussions from its own large Islamic population arising from its intervention? Does it anticipate potential fraternal alliance between the SICC and ethnic Somalis in the Ogaden region? If it does anticipate such an alliance, will the Ethiopian regime commit to using negotiations, to avoid a regional war, to resolve disputes?

Somalia Crisis Talking Points

● Somalia has been dubbed as the “planet’s most failed state.” It has been without an effective central government since warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991, and subsequently turned on each other, carving much of the country into armed camps ruled by violence and clan law.

● Somalia is a virtual state. The country has been carved out into three “statelets” by warring factions. There is a Somaliland Republic, which effectively declared independence following a referendum in 2001 and defined its borders along the lines of the old British Somaliland. There is a separate territory of Puntland, which declared its independence from Mogadishu in 1998.

● The Somali Transitional Government established two years ago with the support of the U.N. and the U.S. was intended to serve as a transitional body to help Somalia emerge from anarchy. But its leadership, which includes some warlords linked to the violence of the past, has failed to establish a viable political or administrative structure or develop consensus and legitimacy among the various factions to govern.

● Several weeks ago, an alliance of Somali Islamist militia leaders calling itself the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC), (Majilis al-shura Council) captured the Somali capital Mogadishu, and the nearby towns of Jowhar and Balad. The SICC is suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

● When Paul Wolfowitz, (current president of the World Bank) was the Deputy Secretary of Defense, he asserted that Somalia attracts Al-Qaeda “precisely because the government is weak or nonexistent.” American counter-terror “options” there are limited because “by definition you don’t have a government you can work with.” Somalia needs to establish a viable government before its involvement and links to al-Qaeda and terrorism could be addressed.

● Somalia has fundamental structural and political problems. It lacks any semblance of modern political leadership, it has a traditional clan and patronage system. Its warlord leaders lack modern education or sophistication.

● According to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. does not favor Ethiopia getting drawn into the Somali crisis. Ms. Fraser has noted that the U.S. government remains “deeply troubled by the foreign-born terrorists who have found safe haven in Somalia in recent years.” Mr. Fraser has further stated that “While terrorism is an important issue, it is not the only issue,” and the U.S. is equally concerned about governance and institution building, humanitarian assistance for the Somali people and improving regional stability and security.

● Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia will aggravate the crisis and not improve it. Ethiopia’s intervention is untenable over the long term because it can neither provide permanent protection to the Somali Transitional Government from attacks by the Islamic Courts Council or regional security.

● There is clear consensus among the U.S., the U.N and the A.U. that the Somali crises could be resolved only through negotiation and a multilateral approach among members of the international community. Escalation and intervention is likely to lead to a new outbreak of fighting in the Horn region bringing with it more insecurity and extremism.

***MAKE SURE TO DISCUSS RELEASE OF THE PRIOSNERS OF CONSCIENCE WITH YOUR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER/STAFFERS, AND PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING LIST WITH ADDITIONAL UPDATES AS AVAILABLE.***

ASK YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS IF HE/SHE WOULD CONTACT AND REQUEST REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH (Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations) OR TOM LANTOS (Co-Chair, Congressional Human Rights Caucus) TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE ETHIOPIAN PRIOSNERS OF CONSCIENCE.

 

 

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (May 2, 2006) PARTIAL LIST OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE

 

** Some individuals are listed in multiple categories. Includes ONLY names listed in AI.**

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR250132006?open&of=ENG-373

OPPOSITION LEADERS- CUD Hailu Shawel (CUD president and All Ethiopia Unity Party leader, civil engineer), Birtukan Mideksa (f) (CUD vice-president, Rainbow leader, lawyer), Berhanu Negga (CUD Mayor-elect of Addis Ababa, economics professor), Muluneh Eyuel (CUD sec. general, Ethiopian Democratic League leader, economist), Debebe Eshetu (CUD public relations officer, Rainbow member, theatre professional) Hailu Araya (CUD and Ethiopian Democratic Unity Party leader, former academic and journalist), and others.

JOURNALISTS Andualem Ayele, Nardos Meaza, Dawit Fasil Solomon, Aregawi Dawit Kebede Sileshi, Andarge Dereje, Hailewold Hailu, Araya Eskinder, Negga Zekarias Tesfaye, Fasil Yenealem, Wossenseged Gebrekidan, Feleke Tibebu, Mesfin Tesfaye, Serkalem Fasil, Sisay Agena, Wonakseged Zeleke, Wossenseged Gebrekidan

CIVIL SOCIETY Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, founder and former chair of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, Daniel Bekele, policy director of the Ethiopian office of Action Aid, a South Africa-based international non-governmental organization, Netsanet Demissie, chair of the Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia Kassahun Kebede, head of the Addis Ababa branch of the Ethiopian Teachers Association

LAWYERS Anteneh Mulugeta (also a former judge), Birtukan Mideksa (also a former judge), Daniel Bekele (international NGO official and human rights lawyer), Netsanet Demissie (local NGO official, and human and environmental rights lawyer), Yakob Hailemariam (former UN genocide prosecutor at the Rwanda tribunal and former UN Special Envoy in the Cameroon/Nigeria border dispute)

ACADEMICS/PROFESSORS Dr. Berhanu Negga, Yakob Hailemariam (also lawyer), Gizachew Shifferaw, Dr. Hailu Araya, Professor Mesfin Woldemariam

PARLIAMENT MEMBERS-ELECT Abayneh Berhanu Bedru Adem Befekadu Degifie Getachew Mengiste Gizachew Shifferaw Hailu Araya Hailu Shawel Mamushet Amare Yakob Hailemariam

ADDIS ABABA CITY COUNCIL Dr. Berhanu Negga, Mayor-elect of Addis Ababa Anteneh Mulugeta

WOMEN PRISONERS Birtukan Mideksa Serkalem Fasil (journalist), Nigist Gebrehiwot (CUD office secretary),Seblework Tadesse (CUD official)

NGO ACTIVISTS Daniel Bekele, Netsanet Demissie, Kassahun Kebede (Ethiopian Teachers Association)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AWAKENING GIANT!

CAN ETHIOPIANS AND ETHIOPIAN AMERICANS LIVING IN AMERICA MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR HOMELAND?

(Full text of address given on July 2, 2006 at the Ethiopian American Council of the United States Forum, the LAX Hilton, Los Angeles, CA.)

Amesegnalehu. Enquan dehna metachehu.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

First, I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to come to this event. We appreciate very much your presence here today.

I would like to offer my special thanks to the Ethiopian Americans Council of the United States (EAC US) for organizing and sponsoring this event and for facilitating dialogue on issues that are critical to us in America, and our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia.

The very existence of the Ethiopian Americans Council and other similar organizations is proof positive that we have come of age in America.

I would like to congratulate the Ethiopian Sports Federation of North America as it opens its 23^rd annual Ethiopian Soccer and Culture Festival in Los Angeles.

Ms. Ana Gomes is here with us today.

As you all know, Ms. Gomes is a great friend and a staunch defender of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

Who can forget?

Ana is the one who called the international cops when she witnessed the wholesale theft of an election, and the hijacking of democracy in Ethiopia in 2005.

Ms. Gomes, thank you for being here with us, and for standing up for us.

Although our great champion, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey, is not here with us today, we have our brother in the cause of justice and human rights, Mr. Greg Simpkins of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations.

Greg, we are indebted to you and Chairman Smith for your dedicated and tireless service in the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

When others chose to became mouthpieces for the doers of inequity and apologists for ballot thieves, cold-blooded murderers and jail keepers, Chairman Smith and yourself stood up and upheld the principles of human rights and insisted that the democratic verdict of the people must be respected.

We thank you!

Last but not least, I want to extend a warm welcome to any government representatives who may have traveled far and wide from the homeland or the nation’s capital to attend this event.

When you return and file your reports on these proceedings today, I hope you will dare tell the truth — nothing extenuate — that you came upon a peaceful gathering of Ethiopians in Los Angeles.

That you heard them talk. And that they talked of nothing but freedom, human rights and democracy in their homeland.

Report to your superiors that these Ethiopians bear malice towards none, but stretch out their hands in friendship, peace and good will to all.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am an academic and a lawyer by profession.

I have spent a good part of my adult life teaching young Americans in the art and science of politics and the law.

The balance of my professional life has been largely dedicated to defending the rights of the accused, and safeguarding American civil liberties to the best of my ability.

I believe this has been and continues to be a worthwhile commitment for me.

I will confess to you today that I have not had the good fortune of rendering much service to the land of our fathers and mothers.

I assure you, this is not for lack of interest or desire on my part.

The fulfillment of my boyish hopes and dreams was to return to the motherland one day and make a contribution, however small.

But as you know, things fall apart, and so did my hopes and dreams.

Perhaps, some of you may sympathize with me if I tell you that I carry with me a sense of guilt about the way things turned out.

I should also let you know that I have been away from the motherland for many years now, perhaps to many to count.

But I assure you that I may have left Ethiopia, but Ethiopia has never left me.

My case is a simple one. To adapt an old saying: “You can take the kid out of Ethiopia, but you can not take Ethiopia out of the kid!”

That is exactly how I feel.

Let me also set the record clear at the outset.

I am a follower of Mahatama Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., two great leaders who were deeply inspired by the teachings of Christ.

I believe in the ways of nonviolence, truth and love.

I also believe that mere declaration of faith in these principles is not enough.

Ghandi and King have taught that the highest expression of love for mankind is to love justice, the highest virtue to stand for truth, and the highest value, compassion for our fellow man and woman.

There is no place for violence where justice stands tall.

No place for oppression where law reigns supreme.

I believe we prove the righteousness of our cause not in battlefields soaked in blood and filled with corpses, but in the living hearts and thinking minds of men and women of good will.

And so today I come before you to share a few words about a question of great interest to all of us:

Can we — Ethiopians and Ethiopian Americans– make a difference in our homeland while living, working and struggling in America?

I shall argue that we can, and in fact, are making a world of difference today.

As I labor to answer this weighty question, I wish to speak with you, my friends, not as an Ethiopian, not as an American, but as an Ethiopian American.

I want to speak with you as one who was blessed to have been born in a country unrivalled for its beauty and the compassion of its people, and also as one who had the great fortune of living in a country that strives to be a beacon of democracy in the world.

I am going to speak with you bluntly today, and so I ask for your forgiveness in advance if the truth as I see it makes you uncomfortable, makes you question yourselves and your values.

I believe we must step out of our comfort zones if we are to do anything that will make a difference in our homeland.

It is no secret that our homeland today is gripped with terror and tyranny. And our people are floating precariously on a sea of melancholy and despair.

Over the past year, an irreversible course of tyranny has been charted in our country. And the light of freedom has been extinguished.

Everyday, our people look towards the westward sky for signs of hope.

But the star on the westward sky shines dimly.

Their despair deepens, and they are overwhelmed by a sense of abandonment.

And so today I have come here to gaze with you towards the heavens and face the question: “Can we make a difference in our homeland while living, working and struggling in America?”

My friends, this innocent question is pregnant with a serious accusation.

Today, we stand accused of the crime of moral indifference to the suffering of our people, moral indifference to evil!

You may ask: Who dares make such an outrageous accusation!!

Allow me to me tell you a little story.

A few weeks ago, I had a chance meeting with a bright young man who had recently arrived in this country from Ethiopia.

In the course of our conversation, this young man asked me to explain to him why it is that Ethiopians in America seem not to care or be able to do much to help the suffering of their brothers and sisters in the motherland.

He said to me words to the following effect:

“There are many of you in America who are well educated, prosperous, politically and socially aware, but you do not seem to do much for the country that gave you birth.”

I must admit, I was caught a bit off guard by this matter-of-fact observation.

For a moment, I thought I was being asked not so much to offer an explanation, but to present an instant defense to a state of facts.

But the young man’s inquiry was innocent enough.

Surely, he asked not out of malice but with the same innocence of a child who notices something out of place and is puzzled.

I don’t know if it was a reflexive reaction of a guilty mind on my part, but suddenly I felt I was standing accused:

Is this young man asking a question or condemning us all for living in America in relative luxury, apparently unconcerned and disengaged from the life of our homeland?

Is he asking me and the rest of us to make sacrifices?

In that fleeting moment, I thought I should object strenuously:

“What right do you have to expect sympathy from us or even assume we are patriotic enough to care?

Who are you to question our morality?”

I was uncomfortable. I was being held accountable. I did not like it.

I wanted to feign righteous indignation. Chastise him for his audacity to ask such an impertinent question.

But I thought it safer for me to steer the conversation away from this unrelenting question, and casually brush him off with an off-the-cuff response about not really being able to do much from thousands of miles away.

May be, I thought, he will buy it and will not insist on an answer. I will be off the hook.

But he did not have to ask again. I was deeply stung by his question.

I could not walk away by giving him a flippant answer. It would be disrespectful. And if I did not answer his question forthrightly, I thought I’d be at serious risk of compromising my own intellectual integrity.

I did not have to think much.

It dawned on me that the young man was not merely asking a question, but in fact indicting us all for the crime of moral indifference in the first degree, for failure to assist in the plight and suffering of our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia.

It was distressing to me.

You know, moral indifference to evil is the greatest crime of all.

It comes bundled with the lesser included offense of moral cowardice.

If the philosophers are right in teaching that suffering is what makes a human being human, then indifference to the suffering of our brothers and sisters is a demonstration of our inhumanity.

If the philosophers are right in teaching that compassion is what makes a human being human, then indifference to their plight is an act of cruelty.

If justice is what makes a human being human, then indifference to injustice is an injustice itself.

I submit to you today that when one is indifferent to the suffering of others, one has indeed taken a moral stand.

A moral stand which says, the life or pain of one’s countrymen and women is of no consequences. That their lives have no real value or meaning.

Now, I know, it is convenient to be indifferent. We do not have to get involved in another person’s despair or pain.

But if the accusation of indifference in the young man’s question is true, we are at perilous risk of losing not only our moral standing, but our essential humanity as well.

I felt I had to say something to convince this young man that everything is OK! Stop him from pursuing this uncomfortable line of questioning.

I desperately wanted to present a credible defense.

I wanted to tell this young man that life in America is really difficult.

He must understand that everyday we are fighting for survival.

We work long hours and we get weary.

We do not have time to tend to our own affairs, let alone to get involved in politics and save others. We need to be saved ourselves.

I wanted to tell him that he was new and naïve.

It will take time for him to understand the trials and tribulations of the black immigrant experience in America.

He will soon find out. It’s a jungle out there. Yes, live in America for a year and ask me the same question, I wanted to challenge the young man.

I wanted to tell him it takes generations to mature politically and integrate into the American political system and influence policy outcomes. He must understand, it’s not that easy.

I desperately wanted to convince him there really wasn’t much that we could do. That is just the way things are!

But I knew this litany of lame excuses was disingenuous at best, perhaps bordering on the dishonest.

I knew better.

There is really no defense against a charge of moral indifference to the suffering of others.

There is no argument in support of silence in the face of injustice.

There is no defense against a charge of inaction, apathy and political paralysis when our people suffer under the yoke of a brutal and merciless dictatorship.

There is no excuse for not taking a stand when our motherland teeters on the precipice of disaster.

I thought I should be honest with this young man, and answer his question without evasion.

“It is not lack of interest or compassion or inability to identify with the suffering of our brothers and sisters,” I confessed to the young man.

The real reasons, I said, are simple.

“You see, some of us do not know how to get involved, organize politically, or use resources available to us. We lack knowledge and experience.”

Some of us, I said, remain estranged from our homeland.

The wounds that have been inflicted upon us in the past are too deep and too painful, and have yet to heal.

Our thoughts can not be homeward bound. It hurts too much to look back. To think back.

Some of us live in America, I told the young man, resigned to a life of quiet desperation.

We feel lost. We do not feel at ease and at home in America. America is a wilderness to us.

We feel permanently cut off from our roots.

Some of us, I said, have given up hope and faith in the future of our motherland.

We are overwhelmed by the unending misfortunes that have befallen our beloved country.

We know all too well, our brothers and sisters die everyday not only from the bullets of ballot thieves and oppression, but also from the scourge of AIDS and debilitating poverty.

It is all too much to bear.

Some of us are afraid, I told the young man, afraid to speak, afraid to take a stand, afraid to be seen doing the right thing.

We lack courage. We fear our own shadows.

We are paralyzed by distrust and mistrust of each other, unable to unite or cooperate in any meaningful collective action.

Some of us, I said, are drowning in a sea of consumerism and suffocating ourselves in lifestyles well beyond our means. We struggle to keep our heads above water.

We don’t have time to worry about anyone else.

I told the young man some of us have our own individual interests to protect.

We are building homes, operating businesses and helping in the economic development of our people. We want the best of both worlds.

Our credo is “Business and politics do not mix.”

Our mantra: “Leave politics to the politicians.” We can’t get involved.

We stand on the sidelines hoping against hope that if things change, we will still be around and still get ahead.

And, I said, yes, some of us, some of us, just do not care. We couldn’t care less!

I saw an expression of shock and dismay on this young man’s face.

Perhaps he did not expect such disarming honesty.

But I was not about to let him down!

“But look at us now!” I said effusively. “We are the sleeping giant beginning to awaken!”

“Did you feel the tremor in the Ethiopian political landscape when Chris Smith introduced the Ethiopia freedom, human rights and democracy act in the United States Congress?” I asked the young man.

Did you feel the earth move when we stood together shoulder-to-shoulder and said to Pharaoh:

“Release the prisoners of conscience, now!”

“Keep your hands off the free press!”

“Let justice flow in our country like the mighty waters of the Blue Nile!”

Did you feel it?

“Look at us now,” I said.

We are organizing, building coalitions and action groups, not only to demonstrate in the streets of America but also to walk the halls of Congress and executive branch offices.

“Look at us now!” I said. We are mobilizing at the grassroots level, groups with different agendas are coming together, uniting in a common purpose.

A new generation of Ethiopian Americans is taking upon the cause, and their thirst for justice in their ancestral homeland is no less than our own.

Our sons and daughters, born and raised in America, have claimed their identity, and their pride in their heritage is only exceeded by their enthusiasm to help their people.

Look at us now!

We are forging ahead– without discouragement or reserve of action.

I could see the young man’s eyes lit up with anticipation and joy.

I wanted to reassure him.

“We can not turn our backs on the history of the past year.

We can not sit silent when freedom is rooted out, democracy hijacked in broad daylight, our brothers and sisters butchered in the streets, human rights trampled and the innocent languish away in overcrowded and unsanitary jails.”

We can’t. We won’t!!

We insist on a forward course, the only course. We have no avenue of retreat from our present struggle for human rights, democracy and freedom in our homeland.

And so, I told the young man what I believed to be the truth.

I am not sure if he believed me, but I tried.

As I left the young man, the question he planted in my mind kept gnawing at me.

I felt he had served us all in America with a summons issued by our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia.

It is a summons that calls upon us to testify in the cause of freedom and justice.

It is a summons that calls us to be drum majors for human rights, and advocates and defenders of democracy.

And this is what the summons says:

“We are your brothers and sisters in Ethiopia. We have no voice, could you speak for us?

We can not tell the story of our suffering because we have no free press. Could you tell the story of our suffering to the world?

Our eyes have been blinded. Could you help us find our way?

And our ears have been rendered deaf? Could you sign for us?

Our faith is wilting under tyranny and oppression. Could you pray for us?

We are in despair, could you be our hopes?

My friends: If we fail to answer the summons of our people today, we will surely be indicted by posterity, by generations to come who will point an accusatory finger and say:

“They remained silent when they could have spoken.

They stood by idly, when they could have acted.

They turned their backs, when they could have extended a helping hand.

They saw our sacrifices, and walked away.”

Then, my friends, we will have no defense.

And so, generations yet unborn will look back at us and pay tribute for what we have done or condemn us for sitting by idly.

We will face the judgment of history, that there once lived Ethiopians away from their homeland.

Much was given to them, but they returned little.

Much was expected from them, but they turned up empty.

But I am optimistic that when a jury of posterity sits in judgment and renders its verdict, we will be praised for our courage, for our unflagging pursuit of justice and human rights, and indefatigable defense of democratic principles.

My friends, in the tradition of folklore, there was once a mighty man who fell asleep.

Seeing this mighty man in deep sleep, a crowd of small men began to tie him up from stake to stake, across hand and foot, leg and arm, neck and body.

These little men bragged to each other that they have finally caged the great giant into submission.

From time to time, the giant would take a deep breath, and some of the stakes and ropes would snap.

The little men, terrified by the thought of the giant waking up, would scramble furiously and retie the ropes.

But in time something happened that was beyond the imagination of the little men.

The giant began to awaken and flex his muscles.

The ropes which seemed to be permanent shackles to the little men broke like strands of cobwebs as the giant began to stretch.

I submit to you that Ethiopians in America today find ourselves in a position similar to that of the giant.

We had fallen into a mighty sleep, and in our sleep little men had bound our minds with ethnic hatred and division, shackled our wills with fear, riveted our mouths with savage threats, and blinded our vision with gifts of shimmering gold and silver.

But, we are awake now!

We awakened when we heard the cries and wails of the innocent who languish away in Zenawi’s jails.

We awakened when we heard the call for help in the dying voices of the courageous young men and women who were massacred chasing ballot thieves.

We awakened when we heard the voice of Ana Gomes saying, “The Ethiopian people have been betrayed by those who continue to govern in their name without a proper mandate.”

We awakened when we heard the voice of Christopher Smith ringing in the halls of the United States Congress pleading for freedom, human rights and democracy in Ethiopia!

We awakened because the silence of the Ethiopian free press was deafening.

We awakened when our children tugged on our hands and said, “Wake up mother and father. It is a new day. It’s time to act!”

We began to flex our muscles when we heard the savage threats and boastful arrogance of the adversary.

We began to stretch our muscles when the adversary thumbed his nose at international law.

We stood up and proclaimed to the adversary: “The people have spoken. You must accept their verdict!”

My friends, I began my conversation with you with a question:

“Can we– Ethiopian and Ethiopian Americans — make a difference in our homeland while living, working and struggling in America?

I suppose I do not have to give a definitive answer to that question now.

The giant is awake! The giant is sitting in this room.

The giant is at this soccer tournament, and in every state, city and town in America.

Look around you and ask him.

Look around you and ask her.

The giant can give you the answer.

But I will be glad to share with you my humble personal views on this important question.

The tragedy for us in America today is that we have great power, but do not know how to use it.

We have great energy of purpose, but we do not know how to harness it.

And we have great knowledge, but we do not know how to put it in the service of justice.

My view is that whether we can answer the question put to us by history depends on our answers to a number of other vital questions.

And so I will advance them to you today.

Can we purge the poison of ethnic hatred from our hearts and minds?

I believe we must undertake an internal struggle in our minds and hearts and cleanse ourselves of the poison of ethnic hatred.

I realize that maintaining perpetual ethnic antagonism is the lifeline of those who misgovern our homeland today, and it is an issue that causes me the deepest anxiety and anguish.

We must stand united, shoulder-to-shoulder and stamp out this malignant cancer from the body politics of our country.

Some of us, long denied our rightful place in society and politics, speak of secession and separation from the motherland.

Such talk, I believe, springs from deep feelings of dispossession and deprivation and frustration, and testifies to the success of our adversary’s ability to sever the everlasting bonds of marriage and blood, and sisterhood and brotherhood and nationhood we have shared for millennia.

I can not accept the core principle of those misgovern us today that Ethiopia is merely a nation of ethnic reservations. Ethnic federalism is the tool used by the adversary to keep us alienated from each other and in perpetual antagonism.

No! No! No. We are first and foremost Ethiopians, one people, woven by the hand of the Almighty into the most beautiful ethnic mosaic in the world.

Look in the Holy Bible. Look in the Holy Q’uran.

The learned scholars tell us that Ethiopia and Ethiopians are mentioned in the Holy Bible no less than thirty-three times, and as many times in the Holy Q’uran.

And so, whatever language or dialect we speak in our country, we have shared the same name for millennia: Ethiopia and Ethiopians. No one can change that! We should not allow anyone to change that!

And so, I reject those who proclaim that we live in our country merely as ethnic partners in a marriage of convenience.

I take great pride not only in our unique regional and geographical communities, but also rejoice in our tradition of diversity and tolerance.

But we must take a clear and unambiguous stand against the politics of ethnic hatred.

If we allow ethnic hatred to fester and smolder, one day we will find ourselves consumed by it.

Let us also not forget that the world is shrinking every day through advanced technology.

More and more people are thinking and acting globally.

The politics of narrow nationalism and ethnic division have appeal only to those leaders who seek to feed their own insatiable appetite for power.

I have no doubts that we will ultimately overcome the destructive passions of ethnic hatred, but we can do so only if we value our brotherhood and sisterhood and nationhood more than the vestigial bonds of ethnicity.

Do we have a vision?

We must be clear about what it is that we want for our homeland. We want change, but what kind of change do we want?

If we are not clear about what change we want, any change will do. We will be back to square one soon enough.

We will need substantial intellectual force to help us define a vision of what we want to become as a society and as a nation.

We have that force, we are that force, but we need to deploy it.

Without a vision, my friends, we will only have sight, and only a blurred view of the future.

Can we cultivate leaders who are able to subordinate their personal ambitions to the common good?

Leadership is the flip side of vision.

We need to cultivate leaders who want to lead not out of personal ambition or selfish interest, but out of a desire to serve the common good.

We have many such leaders amongst us today, but they need to come forward and join the march, lead the march, follow the march!

Can we build welcoming and nurturing organizations?

It is true, we can do a few things individually, but if we participate and collectively act within the framework of organizations, there is no limit to what we can do.

During the American civil rights movement, there was a popular catchphrase that went something like this:

“If I push you with a single finger, you may not move, but if I push with all ten, you will surely lose your footing.”

I realize that some of us may have had disappointing experiences in the past with organizations of one type or another.

Some of us may have been turned off by the lack of vision, transparency and accountability in our prior experiences with organizations.

But if we insist on bringing this baggage of discontent and disillusionment from the past to our future collective efforts, we would be giving the adversary the greatest gift he can hope for — self-defeat, disunity and discord. We would have done his job for him!

But if we unite in a common purpose, in the words of the old song: “There ain’t no stopping us now!”

Can we change the way we look at ourselves?

Far too many of us look at the world as victims.

We are quick to sound the trumpet of defeat and say, “men yaregal, yalekelet neger new. Esun te-wew.”

Some of us counsel defeatism: “Don’t waste your time. It is impossible to organize and unite Ethiopians in action.”

Some of us explain the die was cast by the Almighty: “We have been cursed to a fate of discord, disunity and division. There is no hope!”

We tell each other things have been bad for a long time in Ethiopia. Nothing can change. Nothing will ever change.

Some of us even doubt divine mercy and declare: “God has abandoned Ethiopia!”

Some of us in our bootless cries ask where Ethiopia’s educated children have gone when their people are being massacred and jailed by the thousands, their country’s wealth mismanaged and plundered by the practitioners of corruption.

“Why are they silent?” we ask. “Where have the Ethiopian men gone?”

Some of us even comfort ourselves in despair saying: “Compared to the Derg, it’s really not that bad. This too shall pass.”

Some of us are quick to criticize and condemn each other, and sit in judgment of each other’s organizations and leaders for sins committed, and yet to be committed.

We malign and defame those individuals who strive to offer leadership and build organizations, and spread rumors about their individual and leadership integrity, often with little evidence.

We accuse each other of misconduct and improprieties, which if proven, could be felonious violations of the law.

I get weary listening to some of our brothers and sisters who, out of frustration and despair, have become unwitting prophets of defeatism, self-negation, self-doubt and doom.

I don’t blame them for their frustrations and disappointment.

When your spirit is broken by a long train of abuses, and you have no outlet for your frustrations, it is easy to cling to defeat.

When your hopes for democracy and freedom are dashed, and find yourself floating on a sea of despair, defeatism offers a comfortable safe harbor.

But I believe we must change our attitudes and perceptions about ourselves before we exert our labors to help others in changing their circumstances.

We must constantly remind ourselves that we are in charge of our destiny, but if we do not change the way we look at ourselves and act decisively, destiny will surely be in charge of us.

Are we prepared to take on the challenge?

Knowledge is power, but knowledge combined with action has the force of cosmic energy capable of moving individuals and nations.

We must educate ourselves on the American political process.

More importantly, we need to educate ourselves and our children on our rich history and heritage.

We need to learn from each other. We need to teach each other.

Can we learn from our experiences in America?

I believe there are two great lessons we can learn from our experiences in America.

One is that people of diverse national, ethnic and racial backgrounds can live in an imperfect harmony with each other and prosper together. Thrive together.

Another lesson is that we need to learn to do politics in the open. To debate our differences in the open. To challenge each other in the open.

And to do so, always, with civility and respect for each other.

We should abandon the politics of intrigue and suspicion.

It has proven destructive our homeland, and it will not serve us well here.

Can we take advantage of the resources available to us here?

We have enormous resources on our hands. We have the advantage of numbers. We count in the hundreds of thousands in America.

We have expertise. We have brothers and sisters who have excelled in the arts, sciences, law, medicine, the humanities and other fields of knowledge.

We have allies in the halls of the government and elsewhere — members of Congress, executive branch officials at all levels, and international human rights organizations.

They want to hear from us. They want to help us.

But we must seek their help fully prepared to answer their questions and address their concerns.

There is nothing more irksome to our allies than to seek their help but be ignorant of our own cause.

We have the most powerful communications tool — the internet — at our fingertips. Let us it to create and network virtual communities across cyberspace.

And we have the greatest resource of all: ourselves and our children.

We need to engage our youth in the great cause of freedom, human rights and democracy in Ethiopia.

Their yearning to learn about their ancestral homeland is deep and expansive.

We must teach our youth in America to be proud of their history and heritage.

They should know in their hearts and minds that our people are not the wretched of the earth. We are not merely news footage from the pages of the apocalypse that they see on television.

Let us also answer their questions honestly:

“Why is there so much suffering in Ethiopia? Why is the news about Ethiopia mostly about famine and starvation and political turmoil? Why do they allow so many kids of our age to die from AIDS? What are you doing about it mom? Dad?”

It causes me great pain to see our children, with downcast eyes, deny to their school mates that they are not really the same as those Ethiopian children you see on TV dying from famine, starvation and poverty.

It causes me great pain to see the sheer terror in the faces of our children who take upon a class project on our country, but are embarrassed and ashamed to talk about our people’s poverty and suffering.

But I tell the young ones, “Do not feel ashamed. You come from a great and proud people who have maintained their independence for 3000 years. You come from a land of heroes. You come from good people. Compassionate people. Affectionate people. Respectful people.”

I believe our youth have the intensity of passion that most of us had not too long ago.

Let’s help them lead us. Let us prepare them for leadership.

Let us also strive always to be inclusive of all who agree with our principles and our cause, but disagree with us on strategy.

If we agree on the destination and we are all aboard the freedom train, we can sit at a table of brotherhood and sisterhood and chart the course of our destiny.

Let us join with each other in a common purpose.

Now, allow me to say a word or two about resource management.

Resources require careful husbandry. We should not overtax and make unreasonable demands of our allies and supporters.

Those of us who play leadership roles, and aspire to such roles should be careful in the way we administer the funds and resources we gather for our cause.

Some complain that adequate accounting is not given for the administration of resources. Some even hold back in their contributions because they feel unsure about the ultimate use of their funds.

We should strive to inspire confidence that resources we collect for our cause are administered not only with the highest ethical standards, but also professional standards of accounting.

Do we understand the adversary? Can we learn from him?

We should not be naïve. We have a formidable adversary. We should not underestimate him.

He is wily. He is treacherous. He is resourceful.

He has unlimited financial resources. And he is resilient.

And, my friends, he has a Master Plan.

It is a stealthy and Machiavellian Master Plan.

It relies on the use of mercenaries to defeat, buy or destroy the opposition in the Diaspora.

You will find this Master Plan in a 52-page Amharic booklet with the title roughly translated as “Constituency Building Strategy for the Ethiopian Year 1998.” You will find it on the web. http://www.ethioforum.org/pdf/tplf_secret.pdf

When you read the Master Plan, you will see that the adversary will use every device of political partisanship to subdue the giants in the Diaspora, to give them the opiate of money and privilege just to lull them back into slumber.

Skip reading this Master Plan at your own risk.

Now, we should be mindful that our boastful and arrogant adversary has great contempt for us.

I suppose he is probably sitting somewhere now and laughing at us with contempt, saying:

“Let them talk. What are they going to do? We got ourselves in power with the force of arms, let them come and remove us with the force of arms, if they can!”

Yes, we have a clever adversary. He knows of our difficulties to act in unity, to follow through.

 

In fact, he uses our apparent weaknesses to discredit us before the international community, and use every avenue of propaganda to scandalize our name.

He tells the international community, “The opposition is disunited. They have no plan or program. Those in America are just bankrollers. They are former Derg supporters, outdated royalists, Amharas who lost their privileges, and so on.

If they ever took power, the sky will fall. The country will go to hell in a hand basket.”

The adversary has been successful in painting a false picture of us before the international community, and some like Tony Blair have been duped into surrendering to him the crown jewels.

But the adversary has succeeded in his international propaganda because we have been busy with the small picture, pointing fingers at each others and calling each other names.

We have done little to expose his deceits, chicanery and hypocrisy. That is our loss and his gain.

The adversary tells our people at home and abroad: “These mischief makers from America are only interested in meddling in our affairs from the comfort of their luxury. They are not interested in us.”

He seeks to denigrate us in his usual boastful and dismissive way saying: “If they are so dedicated to their country, why don’t they come here and help! After all, it is a free country!”

And in our fractious politics, in our inability to unite in a common purpose to wage a united struggle for democracy and human rights, we have played right into his hands.

Shame on us!

So, my friends, have no doubts.

The adversary will be hard at work scheming and crafting divisive strategies to weaken our influence and our ability to act collectively.

He will do anything, spare no expense to keep us divided and at each other’s throats.

After all, he has used this strategy successfully for a decade and a half to keep himself entrenched in our country.

Yes, he is a grand master at divide and rule. He will try to use every trick in the book. Offer gifts of gold and silver. Threaten and intimidate.

I assure you when the giant is awake, the little men will not sleep. They can’t afford to sleep!

Like the little men of folklore, the adversary now has a big problem on his hands. He is terrified of the awakening giant. He is confused.

He is asking himself, “What went wrong? It’s not supposed to be this way! The giant should be asleep!”

And so now, he has organized a mighty army of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington to subdue the giant.

This mighty army will be marching on the Hill — the United States Congress — everyday!

He will feed this mighty and voracious army with thousands of dollars every month — money that could go to care for AIDS victims, build schools, clinics and many other worthy causes.

And so, my friends, the giant,We, stand alone against the mighty armies of Nebuchadnezzar.

But we will not be subdued. No! No! No! We will not give in!

In the end, we are assured of victory because we have something that Nebuchadnezzar does not have.

We have truth on our side.

We have the cause of justice on our side.

We have the power of democratic ideals and ideas on our side.

But above all, we have the Almighty God on our side!!!

And so, in the end Nebuchadnezzar’s mighty army will be vanquished by freedom advocates and defenders of human rights and democracy in the Diaspora.

And in the end, Nebuchadnezzar will meet his fate!

But I caution you, we must maintain perpetual vigilance against this cunning adversary.

We must be prepared, and yes, his malicious campaigns will lay a heavy toll upon our reserve of power and will.

Can we all contribute?

This is a very important question for each one of us.

I have heard so many of us express doubt about ourselves and stand on the sidelines saying: “I am not a politician. There is not much I can do. I lack this art or that profession, or this skill or that aptitude.”

I believe this self-induced self-disempowerment is perhaps the most important obstacle to any collective action we may be able to undertake in the Diaspora in the future.

One need not be a professor or a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, a scientist or whatever else to make a contribution.

In the larger scheme of things, I believe the contributions and sacrifices of the average citizen have proven more decisive in changing the course of history.

If truth be told, the thousands of heroes who died defending our country against fascist aggression were average men and women whose unique distinction was patriotism and love of country, and not necessarily learning or education.

The American civil rights movement was sparked by a seamstress, a woman who sewed clothes for a living. One day she sat down and said “Enough is enough!”

The leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement were barely out of their teenage years when they laid their bodies in segregated buses and restaurants.

Martin Luther King Jr. was 24, and Harry Belafonte, who did not even finish high school, was 26 when the Montgomery Boycott was launched.

The millions of Indians that populated the British colonial jails in Ghandi’s movement were ordinary citizens.

So, yes, I believe every Ethiopian living, working and struggling in America can contribute, indeed has a moral duty to contribute to improve the lives of our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia!

We can, and must, contribute according to our abilities. Those with learning, with ideas. Those with means, with financial support.

But no one, no one, can be exempt from offering at least moral support and encouragement to those on the frontlines.

And so when you doubt your capacity to make a contribution, think of the contributions of the young men and women who were massacred chasing ballot thieves.

Think of the contributions of thousands of our brothers and sisters who are suffering and dying in Zenawi’s jails every day.

When you doubt ability to make an impact, or feel you are just too small to make a difference, consider the thought of going to bed with a mosquito in the room.

That tiny mosquito can keep you awake all night. And so, you can keep the little frightened men awake all night!!

I have no doubts we will rise to the occasion. We will not merely survive, but surely prevail in the end.

I have confidence in the future, because I have pride in our past. 

Sometimes when I think upon the fate of our country and the suffering of our people, I get weary and dispirited.

But I quickly pick myself up. I reinvigorate and inspire myself with thoughts of the deeds of our ancestors, their immortal courage and honor and dignity, and their immeasurable sacrifices, which remain the glory of our history.

I pick myself up with visions of our young people in America and Ethiopia carrying the torch of freedom, human rights and democracy in every city, town and hamlet, in every village and neighborhood in Ethiopia.

Oh! “My cup runneth over!”

And so, as I come to the end of my remarks today, perhaps some of you might think that I do not fit the usual mold.

I admit I have a different approach and style.

Indeed, some of you may listen to my message and call me utopian.

I don’t mind that. I don’t mind being called a utopian Ethiopian.

And one day soon, I hope to meet the young man I spoke about earlier.

I am sure each and everyone of you will meet him too.

Let’s tell him it is a new day for us in America!

Tell him that we have accepted the summons of our people, and we will stand in their defense!

Tell him to reassure our brothers and sisters in the streets and jails, and in every city and hamlet to hold on, hold steady, and to keep hope alive!

Friends, before I close my remarks, I want to tell you that I have come to this place, as I hope you have, not only to have a conversation about what is possible, but also to remember the untold thousands of our brothers and sisters who languish away in jail in Ethiopia today accused of bogus crimes or no crimes at all.

I stand here at this podium and offer my deepest sympathies for their suffering.

I stand here and express my appreciation for their sacrifices and declare my eternal indebtedness for their contributions.

I stand here to praise their courage and express my admiration for their incorruptible character and unimpeachable virtues.

And so, I stand here to proclaim my affirmation of those principles of civil and human rights for which they continue to be persecuted.

They sit in jail today because they stood up for democracy and human rights yesterday.

They suffer and die in the darkness of Kaliti jail and Kebele jails and other jails throughout the land, because they wanted to bring the light of freedom, democracy and human rights to their people.

And so I would like to respectfully ask you all to stand up and join me in thanking our brothers and sisters in Ethiopian jails:

Thank you, brothers! Thank you sisters!

Thank you for your sacrifices! Hold on! Hold on! The Almighty willing, redemption is near!! God bless you and protect you wherever you are!!!

Thank you my friends, thank you all for being here.

God bless Ethiopia! God bless you all, and your children! And God bless America!

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENTS ON H.R. 4423

INTRODUCTION

Over the past several months, there has been much discussion and debate over House Resolution (H.R.) 4423 and the two substitute amendments[1] offered by New Jersey representatives Christopher Smith (R) Chairman, House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations and Donald Payne (D), ranking minority member of the same committee. While the active proponents and opponents of HR 4423 have been vigorously advocating their respective positions on the bill, it appears many Ethiopians who have been following developments on the sidelines may not have fully grasped the substance of the bill or the differences between the two substitute amendments.

Reading and understanding legislative language often requires specialized knowledge and training, and for most lay people such material tends to be legal “mumbo jumbo.” Lawyers and judges spend considerable time and energy disputing and deciphering the intended meaning, scope and application of a particular piece of legislation, often without reaching agreement. Given the complexity of statutory construction (formal rules of interpreting legislation), one may not reasonably expect the average Ethiopian reader of H.R. 4423 to engage in formal legislative analysis and arrive at a comprehensive understanding of its provisions or implications.

The following comparative analysis is intended to aid in a better understanding of H.R. 4423. The analysis aims to illuminate some of the major policy and legislative issues that appear in the two amendments, enhance the quality of the general public dialogue over the bill, and render intelligible the legislative language so that anyone with a cursory interest in the bill could understand its provisions.

Objectivity and impartiality are critical to a fair rendition of the various elements of the two substitute amendments, and this author shall attempt to provide such an analysis. In the interest of full disclosure, however, the reader should know this author supports Chairman Smith’s substitute amendment, and briefly explains his reasons at the end in a postscript.

The comparative analysis focuses on legislative objectives, legislative findings, proposed action plan to assist Ethiopia and sanctions for noncompliance.

I. LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES[2]

Smith and Payne appear to subscribe to similar legislative objectives, although the practical implications and outcomes of their respective objectives are quite different. Smith broadly aims to support human rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia. Payne seeks to promote human rights, good governance, free and fair elections and economic development, as well an independent judiciary and free press institutions. (See Smith, Sec. 2; Payne, Payne, sec. 2.)

Analysis

While there is apparent overlap in the declared objectives of the two amendments, the conceptual and practical differences become readily apparent upon closer examination. Both amendments aspire to achieve similar outcomes, but overused words and phrases such as democracy, good governance, human rights, economic development, etc., are often understood differently not only by lay persons but also legislators, political scientists, economists and others.

One illustrative example of different outcomes in legislative policy objectives concerns the issue of promoting “economic development” in Ethiopia. Smith approaches economic development along the lines of “economic freedom” (broadly defined in terms of private entrepreneurship, private ownership of land to allow the peasant farmer borrowing opportunities, and compensation for persons whose properties were confiscated by the Derg), and specific mechanisms aimed at advancing such freedom, e.g. providing technical assistance to develop the Awash and Nile hydro resources, promoting joint Ethiopian-American joint commercial ventures, improvements in the system of taxation, etc. (See Smith, sec. 5.) Payne’s notion of economic development is limited to support for rural education and effective water resources management. (See Payne, sec. 6.)

II. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

Both Smith’s and Payne’s substitute amendments are based on several sets of factual predicates (evidence) related to violations of human rights, deficiencies in the Ethiopian legal system and political process, obstacles to economic development and functioning of free press institutions, and post-election events.

Human Rights

Smith’s amendment begins its findings of human rights violations in Ethiopia by focusing on recent evidence of killings, torture and persecution of Anuaks in the Gambella region. Smith finds widespread human rights abuses in Ethiopia, including occurrences of unlawful killings of opponents, abuse and mistreatment of detainees, excessive use of force by security forces, detention of thousands of people without charge, government restrictions on the freedom of speech and assembly, and limitations on citizens’ rights to peacefully change their government.

Smith makes specific findings that after the May 15, 2005 elections, the human rights situation in Ethiopia deteriorated significantly marked by the killing of scores of demonstrators by government security personnel, and detention of tens of thousands of government opponents, including opposition political leaders, human rights activists, community leaders, and journalists.

Payne’s amendment begins its findings by framing the issue of human rights violations in Ethiopia as a Derg legacy, and implicitly commends the EPDRF for ushering a new era of human rights by ending “Mengistu’s brutal dictatorship.” The EPDRF-led government is credited for setting up a coalition government which has integrated various groups, including liberation fronts (such as the OLF and ONLF) resulting in significantly improved human rights conditions and political stability in Ethiopia.

Payne acknowledges that human rights conditions deteriorated significantly in Ethiopia after the May 15, 2005 elections, but points out that serious abuses occurred only after opposition parties refused to accept the announced election results and called for civil disobedience protests. Payne’s findings confirm that the government has detained notable political leaders, human rights activists, and journalists; and in Oromia and Amhara regions, Payne finds that federal police have threatened, beaten and detained opposition supporters often in nighttime raids.

Analysis

On April 6, 2006, Smith provided a mark-up statement[3] to the Subcommittee explaining his reasons for introducing HR 4423. Smith became concerned after the May, 2005 elections when he learned of delayed release of election results and massive arrests of demonstrators. He was afraid the situation could “spiral out of control” and began working with international human rights organizations. He was able to craft legislation that would help improve “human rights abuses and encourage Ethiopia to pursue a more certain path to democratic elections, good governance and economic development.” Smith also sought to hold accountable those who were involved in the shootings of demonstrators.

Smith subsequently visited Ethiopia and observed first hand that opposition leaders were being followed and harassed. He met with Zenawi who bragged to him that he had “proof” opposition leaders had committed treason, and that he could arrest them at any time. Unbeknownst to Smith, Zenawi was telling him his actual plans, and within weeks, Zenawi had ordered the roundup and detention of hundreds of opposition leaders for treason and genocide. (See Smith Mark-Up Statement.)

In the absence of an official mark-up statement or other public declarations by Payne, one has to rely on the plain language of his substitute amendment and record of hearings, which in this writer’s view are insufficient to provide a substantial basis to ascertain Payne’s real interest in presenting his amendment or in deciphering the reasons for his opposition to Smith’s bill.

The differences in legislative findings on human rights in the two versions are significant and wide-ranging. Smith’s findings place the entire burden of human rights violations squarely on the shoulders of the government. He holds the regime exclusively responsible for the denial of due process to opposition detainees and the deteriorating economic situation in the country. He is critical of the government's human rights record, and makes no efforts to explain away the human rights abuses that have occured under the current  regime. (See Smith, sec. 3-5.)

On a more subtle level, Smith frames the issue of human rights violations in Ethiopia as part of a comprehensive interplay of policy and institutional failures, including repressive government actions and policies, inept judicial officers and ineffective judicial institutions, general official indifference to the rule of law and unbridled use of security forces to violently suppress all opposition. The Ethiopian judiciary is criticized for its failure to protect the rights of the accused sua sponte (i.e. the court on its own power), and for its complicity with the government in denying due process to defendants by conducting closed proceedings, limiting or denying attorney-client consultations and disregarding the presumption of innocence accorded to those accused of political crimes.

Payne’s amendment takes a radically different view of the current and historical human rights situation in Ethiopia, and seeks to excuse the current regime’s record by condemning the Derg-era human rights violations. (See Payne, sec. 3 (1)) Payne portrays the defeat of the “brutal dictatorship of Mengistu’s regime” by the EPDRF as the dawning of a new age of human rights and participatory democracy in Ethiopia. (See Payne, sec. (2). Payne’s findings broadly acknowledge and commend the EPDRF and the current regime for creating a “spirit of a new start” in “the building of a democratic Ethiopia.”

Payne’s findings imply that any human rights violations that have occurred since the takeover of the EPDRF government in 1991 were episodic and not systematic or significant. (See Payne, sec. 3 (9)). Although Payne acknowledges a “significant deterioration of human rights conditions” after the May 15, 2005 elections, and disapproves of the killing of nearly 80 demonstrators by government security forces and detention of opposition leaders and thousands of others, he curiously seems to hold demonstrators and opposition leaders responsible for their own misfortunes. In other words, following Payne’s findings, had the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) abstained from civil disobedience protests and not challenged the election results, there would have been few human rights violations by the government in the post-election period! (See Payne, sec. 4 (1)) This conclusion is somewhat analogous to a provocation defense sometimes raised in domestic abuse prosecutions where the husband pleads to the court that his wife is responsible for the injuries he inflicted upon her because she has a bad habit of talking back to him and challenging his commands.

Payne’s amendment makes no finding on the current status of detainees or the ongoing arrests and detentions of persons suspected of opposition to the government, the nature and gravity of the charges leveled against opposition leaders, the general atmosphere of fear, loathing and intimidation throughout the country, and the need to guarantee due process to the prisoners of conscience or international oversight of their trial.

Payne makes specific findings with respect to the “marginalization” of “the Oromos” and Ethiopian Somalis, implying that with the exception of these groups, others do not feel marginalized. (See Payne, sec. 3 (4) (5). Acknowledgement is made of the fact that members of the original EPDRF coalition “were forced to leave,” but the impression is left that only the OLF has been the object of military action by the government. The manifest implication of this finding is that other groups who were forced to leave, or who remained “outside the political process” have not suffered military action or persecution by the government. (See Payne, sec. 3 (4)).

It is puzzling that Payne makes no findings that “marginalization” is a direct outcome of the government’s policy of “ethnic federalism” — a gentler and kinder version of bantustanization or tribal homelands — which has been used to force Ethiopians to declare their ethnic identities and establish narrow ethnic allegiances. One could conclude from Payne’s findings that Ethiopia’s “ethnic federalism” is the most significant recent innovation in the general political theory of federalism. It is remarkable that a distinguished member of the American federal government could find any merit in the fictitious notion of “ethnic federalism.”

Payne’s overall findings suggest that he has a threshold of human rights abuses to trigger his outrage. Unfortunately, the killing of scores of demonstrators and incarceration of hundreds of opposition leaders and thousands of opponents is insufficient to provoke his moral outrage and demand immediate remedial action.

Deficiencies in Legal/Political Processes

Smith’s amendment finds significant flaws and deficiencies in the political and judicial processes in the country. As alluded above, some of Smith's legislative findings accuse the Ethiopian courts for acting inconsistently with Ethiopian law and constitutional protections. The election board is criticized for what amounts to a dereliction of duty by failing or refusing to perform an impartial investigation of allegations of election irregularities, and for undermining opposition efforts to pursue their election complaints. The government is blamed for failing to release election results in a timely fashion, and expelling internationally respected nongovernmental organizations for political reasons.

Smith encourages Ethiopian opposition parties to follow through on court challenges of the May 15, 2005 elections, and urges reorganization of the National Election Board to be more representative of the spectrum of political parties and perspectives in the country, and to become more independent in its investigative functions and decision-making.

Payne’s findings on the performance of the EPDRF and the government it has led since 1991 are largely favorable. The EPDRF is credited with bringing “stability” and much improved human rights conditions in Ethiopia. (See Payne, sec. 3 (9)). It is given credit “for significantly changing the political structure” and “shifting political dominance among groups,” creating “ethnic federalism,” and a “multiparty system,” and is approvingly described as “the best organized political party in the country” with wide support in the countryside. It is also commended for conducting a “transparent, competitive and relatively fair and fair election” in May, 2005, and for establishing a commission to investigate the post-election killings of demonstrators. Casting a shadow on this illustrious achievement, according to Payne’s findings, was the threat of dissension within EPDRF and challenges to Zenawi’s power (which was resolved through “restructuring and ouster” of dissenting leaders). (See Payne, sec. 5 (a) (1), (4), (5), (6) (16))

Payne’s findings on opposition groups are far less favorable. They are characterized as “suffering from internal divisions” and “lacking clear policy objectives.” They are said to suffer from government and exile group interference. They are generally portrayed as a negative political force responsible for election boycotts, civil disobedience protests and causing election turmoil. (See Payne, sec. (a) (2) (5) (10) (12)). It is noteworthy that Payne is dismissive of Ethiopians in the Disapora, and by inference particularly those “exiles” in the United States. He finds little role for “exile” groups of Ethiopians in the political or economic life of their homeland.

Repression of Free Press Institutions

Smith’s findings are critical of the Ethiopian government’s treatment of press institutions and journalists. The findings lament the fact that the government’s “repressive media law,” which threatens capital punishment for its violation, has had a chilling effect on the free press and spawned rampant self-censorship. The government’s monopoly of the electronic media (radio and television and internet) and lack of progress towards licensing of private radio are singled out for special criticism. Smith’s amendment encourages the Ethiopian government to support freedom of the press by allowing print and broadcast media to operate without censorship, facilitate and expedite the licensing of independent radio and television, and provide unimpeded access to the Internet. Smith specifically urges the government to revise Press Proclamation No. 34 of 1992 with the aim of repealing criminal defamation provisions and other speech-related crimes.

Payne’s findings on the operation of a free press merely pays lip service to the severity of government control and censorship. He finds that while “foreign journalists continue to operate freely,” independent Ethiopian journalists continue to face harassment, prosecution, detention and exile. This parallel universe of a free foreign press operating alongside a decimated independent Ethiopian press does not seem to present any contradictions for Payne requiring immediate remedial action. (See Payne, sec. 4 (6) (7)).

Economic Issues

Smith’s amendment finds economic conditions in Ethiopia have worsened “measurably” over recent years due to the government's inability to formulate and implement effective policies and regulations and control corruption. The Ethiopian economy is deemed to be mostly unfree, largely due to a cumbersome bureaucracy that deters investment, a judicial system that does not offer sufficient protection for property rights, and a system of higher tariffs on imported products. The government’s refusal to change its policy of state ownership of all land and insistence on land leases is said to prevent financing opportunities for farmers and contribute to the suboptimal performance of the agricultural sector. Lack of water is considered a major reason for the recurrent famine in the country, but Smith finds that food insecurity in Ethiopia is exacerbated by misguided government policies, including prohibitions on the private ownership of land, excessive taxation of farmers, and the high cost of fertilizer sold by companies affiliated with the government.

Payne’s findings on the economic situation in Ethiopia merely acknowledge that the country remains poor country despite strong performance of the agricultural sector. His findings simply lack the depth and breadth of understanding of the complex economic issues facing the country.

LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLAN TO ASSIST ETHIOPIA ACHIVE DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE, AND OVERCOME ITS HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS

To promote and preserve human rights in Ethiopia, Smith proposes various types of support and mechanisms: financial and technical assistance to independent human rights monitoring organizations working in Ethiopia, training to government officials and other leaders/activists on international human rights standards, readmission of the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDA) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) to continue their work in developing democratic institutions and practices, and use of the office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture to conduct an investigation of the conditions of prisoners of conscience in government custody.

Smith also provides for training assistance to strengthen local, regional, and national parliaments and governments, political parties and civil society groups in Ethiopia. Such assistance is expected to facilitate ongoing communication between political parties and the government and improve voter/party/candidate registration to ensure the credibility of the next election in Ethiopia. Assitance is also available to enhance the independence and competence of the Ethiopian judicial system, particularly to support institutionalization of procedural due process.

Smith’s amendment further provides additional technical assistance to the government in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt management and banking. Assistance will be available to develop the Nile and Awash River resources and hydroelectric power and irrigations systems to prevent future famines. There is additional assitance in Smith's bill to promote use of financing programs for joint United States and Ethiopian commercial ventures. The bill also aims to remove obstructions that have prevented Ethiopia from participating in such programs as the United States Millennium Challenge Account.

Payne seeks to promote human rights in Ethiopia by creating a Victims Support Network for Ethiopia, which will provide assistance to families of individuals killed in demonstrations and others injured by security personnel, as well as financial support for the legal defense of prisoners of conscience, human rights groups and others actively monitoring the status of detainees. Payne proposes a Judicial Watch Network to monitor court proceedings throughout Ethiopia, and insulate and strengthen the judiciary from undue government usurpations.

Payne aims to promote democracy and good governance by providing assistance to strengthen local, regional and national parliaments and government agencies in Ethiopia in the form of training provided by such organizations as the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). These organizations are expected to undertake various tasks, including training of local groups in election monitoring and voter registration, and establish programs focused on reconciliation efforts between the government and groups outside the political process.

Payne’s amendment provides economic development assistance by increasing funds to support the education sector, especially in rural areas of Ethiopia, and by providing technical and financial support for irrigation and improved management of the Nile River and other water resources.

SANCTIONS

Smith’s amendment requires suspension of all joint military activities between the Ethiopian and U.S. governments other than anti-terrorism and peace-keeping activities. Travel restrictions will be imposed on any Ethiopian official or member of the security forces involved in the shooting of demonstrators. Non-compliance with the legislation could also result in the denial of non-essential United States assistance (all aid except humanitarian assistance, emergency food programs, assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, fistula treatment, health service planning, child/motherhood programs, etc.).

Payne’s amendment provides for denial of visa to any government official or member of the security forces involved in the shooting of demonstrators, unless waived by the U.S. President.

Commentary

The Ethiopian Government is Unlikely to Agree to Smith’s Demand for the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Political Prisoners and Prisoners of Conscience and Free Operation of Human Rights Groups, or Accept Economic Development Measures Prescribed in the Bill.

In his Mark-up Statement, Smith asserted that “H.R. 4423 is not merely a punitive measure,” but seeks to use “technical assistance and other support” to change the human rights situation and contribute to Ethiopia’s economic and political development. The first order of business for Smith is the “immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners and prisoner’s of conscience.” This is to be followed by reactivation of international and local human rights organizations to operate in the country, and deployment of the U.S. Special Rapporteur on Torture to undertake an investigation of the conditions of the prisoners of conscience. It is highly unlikely that the Ethiopian government will accept either of these proposals.

First, the government has painted itself into a corner by detaining opposition leaders on charges of genocide, treason, incitement and so on. These are patently bogus charges. Amnesty International has characterized the genocide charges “absurd.” If the government were to release the political prisoners now, it would be an admission that they were held arbitrarily and improperly in the first place. Unlawful detentions are a violation of international human rights standards, and the government is unlikely to admit such culpability.

Second, release of opposition leaders in the foreseeable future would be tantamount to handing the opposition a political and moral victory. The prisoners will emerge from detention triumphantly as heroes who valiantly faced persecution and sacrificed their liberties for the cause of democracy and human rights. They will gain considerable popularity and moral authority among the people, and inspire others to become even more defiant of the government. The government can not take such a risk.

Third, releasing the prisoners now would create the impression that the government is giving in or buckling to U.S. pressure. The government does not want to be seen as weak and irresolute. It wants to maintain the appearance of standing up to U.S. pressure, and even pretend that it does not want or need U.S. aid. The government can not appear to be an American lackey.

Fourth, the government will not agree to the free operation of domestic and international human rights groups with monitoring and civil society training missions. Such organizations will in effect function as watchdogs limiting the government’s scope of action in controlling opposition groups and parties, and in ensuring observance of Ethiopian law and constitutional mandates and compliance with international human rights conventions. The government can not withstand such scrutiny or accountability.

As to Smith’s proposals for economic freedom, particularly private ownership of land, they are unlikely to be accepted by the government. Presumably, the government’s objection to private ownership of land is based on fears of protracted litigation by pre-Derg land owners who may seek to reclaim their land or seek compensation, and/or because the government believes the peasants who currently have possessory use of the land will sell it and move to the city if they had full ownership rights, creating large numbers of displaced and landless peasants in the urban areas. Regardless of the economic merits of these contentions, the government is unlikely to allow private ownership of land because control of the land is its principal means of controlling the economic lifeline of the rural population, and its most effective strategy in disempowering this population and perpetuating its dependency on government handouts.

Changes required in the bill in other areas of government economic policy such as budgeting, taxation, debt management, bank supervision and corruption control are likely to be rejected as well because these issues require implementation of complex regulatory systems and structures. For instance, Smith’s amendment aims to provide policy assistance to address key economic obstacles arising from deficiencies in the system of taxation. This may involve overhaul of the Ethiopian tax system –which by some accounts is antiquated, irrational and afflicted by massive corruption– to achieve substantial efficiency and spur economic growth. It is unlikely that the government will be open to abolition of certain taxes and tariffs that are considered disincentives to foreign investments, or introduce substantial changes in the system of taxation, tariff and custom duties to bring about significant gains for the country’s economy.

Smith’s proposals for technical and economic assistance to enable Ethiopia to participate in the U. S. Millennium Challenge Account, develop the Nile and Awash River resources and undertake other hydroelectric power and irrigation projects to prevent future famines and joint commercial ventures all seem to make eminent good sense. It is unlikely that such massive national projects could be undertaken in the context of an “unfree” economy

Why the Ethiopian Government Will Tacitly Endorse Payne’s Substitute Amendment

It appears Payne’s amendment has received the tacit approval, if not the active support, of the Ethiopian government. Some of the reasons for the government’s acceptance of Payne’s version seem obvious. Manifestly, Payne's version “waters down” Smith's robust provisions, which require significant policy changes and accountability on the part of the Ethiopian government. Under Payne’s version, the government is required to perform window dressing without undertaking any real changes in its policies or practices.

Payne’s amendment may be acceptable to the government because Payne does not really find any significant problems with Zenawi or the current regime, and in fact suggests that Zenawi and the EPDRF are the only viable option for the country today. Payne portrays the current regime as the only hope of political salvation and stability for the country. In the background of Payne’s findings on human rights violations and political repression in Ethiopia stands a shadowy specter of chaos and anarchy, which will consume Ethiopia should Zenawi and the current regime be removed from power. The government may find Payne's apologia a valuable political and ideological tool.

Payne may not be alone in his messianic appraisal of Zenawi and his regime. British Prime Minister Blair handpicked Zenawi for his Commission for Africa because he believed Zenawi was one of the new breed of progressive leaders who will take Africa to new heights. It may be that Payne subscribes to the same view that in the meager field of real leaders and parties on the African continent, Zenawi’s government may be the only hope for Ethiopia. He is wrong.

Dislike and distrust of Ethiopian opposition groups may provide common ground for Payne and the Ethiopian government to oppose Smith's bill. The fact that Payne's amendment castigates and discredits opposition groups should be a welcome development for the government. Payne seems to have had unpleasant personal experiences with some Ethiopian groups in the United States. Judging from his comments at the last full subcommittee hearing, he seemed quite bitter and critical of the tactics used by these groups in advocating their support for Smith's bill.

On the other hand, there is speculation that Payne’s own opposition to Smith’s bill may be based on ideological grounds. It is well known that the Congressional Black Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives has played and continues to play a critical role in the formulation of U.S. policy in Africa. Payne, as a former chair of the Caucus, may find it difficult to accept the idea of republicans championing the cause of freedom and human rights in a black African country. One hopes such speculation is groundless, for the cause of human rights and justice knows of no racial or ideological boundaries.

There is also other speculation that Payne has grown sympathetic and fond of the current regime because of his long term involvement with them, and wants to protect the regime from critical external scrutiny. Payne's almost romantic fascination with the EPDRF and its efforts in dislodging the Derg regime, and his depiction of the regime as Ethiopia’s salvation should bring considerable delight to Zenawi and company.

Payne has not been vocal in explaining his version of H.R. 4423, nor has he articulated in detail his reasons for opposing Smith’s bill. For those who have had an opportunity to observe him at the hearings or other forums, he appears uncomfortable with the subject matter and overly defensive about his role.

In contrast, Smith has been forthright, passionate and candid in his views and comments on the situation in Ethiopia. His questions at the hearings were incisive, skillful and unrelenting, his observations keen and to the point, and his knowledge of the current situation in Ethiopia prodigious.

POSTSCRIPT

There are many supporters of Smith’s version of H.R. 4423, particularly in the United States. I support Smith’s version because his bill upholds the principles of human rights and civil liberties, and private property ownership rights in Ethiopia. It is my professional creed that every person is entitled to due process of law regardless of the nature of the accusations or the gravity of the alleged crime. This means the accused is presumed to be absolutely innocent until proven guilty, that s/he has the right to counsel paid for by the government if s/he can not afford one, that s/he is entitled to a speedy and public trial and that no person shall be convicted unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. International human rights groups report that the prisoners of conscience in Zenawi's jails are denied these and many other rights. I call upon Zenawi and his government to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia immediately and unconditionally!!!

In the same vein, I believe that private property ownership is a natural right, and that no person shall be deprived of it without due process of law and just compensation. I reject wholly the socialistic principle that only the state can own land. The government must make changes to allow exclusive ownership of land in private hands.

I have defended these principles of civil liberties, human rights and property rights not only in American courtrooms, but also in the court of public opinion. Smith’s bill deserves the support of all who believe in the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, and value the growth of democratic institutions, practices and culture in Ethiopia.

POST-POSTSCRIPT

This author remains perplexed by the singular fact that Representative Payne has not demanded and insisted upon the immediate and unconditional release of opposition leaders and other prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia. Payne knows that there is not a single government or international human rights organization that has recognized the legitimacy of the detention of opposition leaders in the aftermath of the May 15 elections.

Similarly, the stony silence of our brothers and sisters in the Congressional Black Caucus in the dialogue over H.R. 4423 and the detention of opposition leaders has, in the words of Martin Luther King, cast a “shadow of deep disappointment” upon a large segment of the Ethiopian community in the U.S. But we should be careful not to harbor resentment; rather we should reach out to the Caucus members and convert them to the cause of human rights and justice in Ethiopia with Dr. King’s message:

“Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history.”

The yearning for freedom that African Americans experienced four decades ago is the same yearning that Ethiopians are experiencing today. Let’s share Dr. King’s message with our brothers and sisters on the Congressional Black Caucus in the spirit of solidarity for justice.

Whether H.R. 4423 will be enacted into law remains to be seen. It is abundantly clear, however, that regardless of the outcome of the bill, Ethiopians in the United States have gained a new consciousness and unflinching resolve to defend and sustain human rights and democracy in their homeland, and participate in its economic development. Those who continue to flagrantly abuse and trample upon the human rights of their citizens should heed the regretful observations of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the ill-fated attack on Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

Al Mariam, Ph.D., J.D. (Esq.) is professor of political science and a defense attorney in California.

---

[1] Refers to the two versions of H.R. 4423 presented before the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations [hereinafter “Subcommittee”]: “Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to HR 4423 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey,” April 6, 2006; and “Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to HR 4423 Offered by Mr. Payne of New Jersey,” April 6, 2006. Specific references to the two versions in the discussion will be captioned “Smith, sec.__”, and “Payne, sec__.”
[2] “Legislative findings” in a bill often provide insight on the facts and circumstances supporting the proposed legislation and component provisions. Such findings also provide insight into the thought processes of lawmakers (technically referred to as ‘legislative intent’) and are used in judicial interpretation (technically referred to as “statutory construction”) of a bill once it is enacted into law.
[3] See Mark-Up Statement for H.R. 4423, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, April 6, 2006. “Mark-Up” refers to the preparation of a bill in final form in a congressional committee before it is reported out for a vote by the legislative body. Smith’s “Mark-Up Statement” was provided before H.R. 4423 was reported out of his Subcommittee to the House Committee on International Relations.

 

My Country, ‘Tis of Thee…

MARTIN LUTHER KING

Part III

“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time — the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression,” declared Martin Luther King (MLK) in his Nobel acceptance speech in 1964. A trained theologian and Baptist minister, MLK was ultimately concerned with the issue of how black and white people can live together in America in peace, harmony and interracial unity. As a Christian and minister of the Gospel, he believed “we cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flaunt the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule.”

MLK’s aspirations for racial equality and justice were a natural outgrowth of the long and arduous nonviolent struggle by African Americans and their supporters to end slavery and racial discrimination. The struggle to end slavery in America was essentially a moral one. With the major exception of the American Civil War which ended slavery, there were relatively few slave insurrections and rebellions in colonial or antebellum (pre-Civil War) America. Among the few notable violent slave rebellions include Denmark Vesey’s uprising in South Carolina; and in Virginia, Gabriel’s conspiracy, Nat Turner’s rebellion and white abolitionist John Brown’s raid on the federal armory.

African slaves in America toiled for their masters under the most inhumane conditions, while a few freed slaves and abolitionists agitated to end slavery through moral condemnation and other legal efforts. Some abolitionists sought to repeal or invalidate the Slave Codes (which legally recognized slaves as the personal property of the owner in much the same way as cattle) in the colonial legislatures or courts. Individual slaves who could afford to buy their freedom did so, or were manumitted by their masters.

By the mid-1800s, former slaves were directly challenging slavery, not through armed insurrections, but in the courtrooms asserting constitutional rights of American citizenship. They had a rude awakening when the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its final answer on slavery in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1851): “It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted the Declaration of Independence.” Once a slave, always a slave! This case set the stage for the American Civil War.

MLK was certainly not the first African American to advocate a nonviolent struggle (in contrast to civil disobedience of unjust laws) against inequality and injustice in America. Notably, Frederick Douglass, a former slave, in the 1840s, influenced by the pacifist ethos of the abolitionist movement, preached widely that slavery could be ended only through moral persuasion. In the early 1900s, Booker T. Washington even argued that Black people should suspend the struggle for equality “political power, insistence on civil rights, and higher education of Negro youth and concentrate on industrial education.” He thought equality would naturally come to blacks once they became economically self-sufficient and commanded the respect of whites. W.E. B. DuBois took the opposite view and advocated the nurturing of a “small but well-educated negro youth” (“Talented Tenth”) to guide blacks in their quest for equality and justice in America.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples (N.A.A.C.P.) continued the nonviolent struggle for equality and justice in its many successful legal challenges to discriminatory laws in education, voting and housing under the leadership of attorney Thurgood Marshall, who later became one of the greatest justices to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court. Black leaders such as J. Phillip Randolph in 1941 threatened to mount a peaceful protest march on Washington if racial discrimination was not ended in the defense industry. In response, President Roosevelt issued an executive order banning racial discrimination in defense industries that accepted federal contracts, and establishing the Fair Employment Practices Committee. Randolph called off the march, but in 1948, he again played a critical role in persuading President Truman’s to desegregate the armed services. Other Black leaders such as Bayard Rustin and James Farmer, both conscientious objectors and pacifists, founded the Congress of Racial Equality in 1942; and two decades later organized convoys of nonviolent Freedom Riders into the deep South in an effort to desegregate interstate buses and bus terminals.

MLK’s imagination for a nonviolent struggle against segregation and racism was fired by Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience, which he read in his freshman year in college. He was fascinated by the whole idea of actively refusing to cooperate with a system that inflicted so much suffering on black people; but at the time the idea of civil disobedience as an effective tool for social change seemed impractical to him. He continued his philosophical exploration of nonviolent social change in the theological seminary by studying Gandhi.

By the time of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956, MLK had made an irreversible intellectual commitment to nonviolent resistance as a tactical weapon against segregation and racial discrimination. However, it was his actual engagement in protest and civil disobedience that convinced him of the necessity of nonviolence in social change. He observed that “living through the actual experience of the protest, nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life. Many issues I had not cleared up intellectually concerning nonviolence were now solved in the sphere of practical action.”

MLK’s ideas about nonviolent civil disobedience rested fundamentally on his analysis of the nature of human laws, in contrast to the laws of God. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, he explained that there were just and unjust laws in society: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

There are many manifestation of an unjust law; and MLK made a distinction between a law that is unjust on its face, and one that is unjust in its application. A manifestly unjust law is one “that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” A law that imposes segregation on a group of people merely because of their skin color is morally wrong and unjust on its face. A law that is imposed on a minority that was never given a voice — more accurately, prevented from voting by legal and illegal means– either in electing the lawmakers or in the formulation of the law is not only unjust, it is also fundamentally undemocratic.

Most importantly, “all segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.” An example of a law that is unjust in application is a city parade permit ordinance, which in itself is not objectionable, but when used systematically to prevent demonstrations against segregation laws, becomes unjust in application.

Disobedience of unjust laws, according to MLK, is a hallmark of Christians who early in their history “were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.” He even found civil disobedience practiced widely among the American colonists who staged the Boston Tea Party (colonial settler boycott of English tea after Parliament gave an English company monopoly on tea importation into the colonies) just three years before the onset of the American revolution.

By the mid-1950s, MLK had concluded that it took too long to end unjust laws through judicial pronouncements and injunctions, which were routinely ignored and flouted by segregationists. He was deeply offended and saddened by the daily indignities that black people had to endure in public accommodations –white and colored drinking fountains, whites’ only hotels and restaurants and racial epithets. Employment, education, and housing discrimination were inescapable facts of second class citizenship for blacks; and most had been resigned to these facts as immutable aspects of life in white America. He insisted on the moral imperative and duty of citizens to disobey unjust laws.

By the time of the Montgomery Boycott in 1956, MLK had come to the conclusion that change in segregation laws could come only through organized mass action, and not negotiation in the boardroom or litigation in the courtroom. The events leading to the boycott and launching of a mass-based nonviolent civil disobedience movement began in 1955 when Rosa Parks, a seamstress, calmly refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white person as required by the segregation laws of the time. Parks was arrested triggering massive protest in the black community in Montgomery, Alabama. A few days later, MLK reluctantly accepted the presidency of a new organization called the Montgomery Improvement Association, and began coordinating a boycott of the city’s bus system. After a year of sustained boycotts, the city’s bus system was successfully desegregated.

The Montgomery boycott experience was instructive to MLK in combining Christian theology with Gandhian civil disobedience. While leading the boycott, MLK often thought about “the Sermon on the Mount (central principles of Christian discipleship) and the Gandhian method of nonviolent resistance. This principle became the guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.”

After the Montgomery victory, MLK and other black leaders determined that it was necessary to create an organization that could build upon the gains of the Montgomery boycott and launch a national civil rights movement, resulting in the establishment of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). This organization was intended to serve as a coordinating mechanism for a national mass-based nonviolent direct action campaign against racism and racial discrimination.

In 1959, MLK traveled to India as a guest of Indian Prime Minister Nehru and spent some time there learning about Gandhian principles. The experience reaffirmed his commitment to nonviolent social change. Upon returning to the U.S., he noted similarities in the treatment of the “untouchables” in India and blacks in America. He found it ironic that India’s leaders had accepted integration of “untouchables,” while some major American leaders continued to stridently support racial segregation.

By the early 1960s, MLK found himself not only fighting unjust laws, but also in the middle of two opposing forces in the Black community: one “made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of ‘somebodiness’ that they have adjusted to segregation,” and a second group of black people “who have lost faith in America and absolutely repudiated Christianity, and have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible ‘devil’.” MLK “tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the ‘do-nothingism’ of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist.” He sought to offer a “more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest” that could prevent bloodshed and avoid “a frightening racial nightmare.”

MLK faced a number of organizational and tactical problems in managing a mass-based civil rights movement: mobilizing that part of the black community that had been “drained of self-respect” into joining a mass civil rights movement, mitigating the violent tendencies of black youth and that part of the black community that has “absolutely repudiated” Christianity, particularly black nationalists and separatists, managing the cross pressures applied on him by sympathetic white liberals who wanted him to be more patient in seeking changes, and fending off the personal attacks of FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover.

In weighing his options and in developing a comprehensive strategy for the civil rights movement, MLK drew some fundamental conclusions about the realities in American society. He became convinced that “privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily nor willingly give freedom to the oppressed.” Black people must, therefore, be insistent in demanding their rights, but in doing so they “must not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns.” They “must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate” and make love the “center of their lives.” He instructed: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

MLK believed it served no purpose to engage in acrimony with such leaders as Malcolm X, who believed that the whole idea of nonviolence and integration was a trick devised by whites to keep blacks in subordinate positions in American society, and urged black people to respond to white oppression “by any means necessary.” MLK understood the rage and impatience of young blacks, and found it counterproductive to engage their leaders in public debates. However, he supported the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) as its members engaged in lunch counter sit-ins, took freedom rides into the deep South, and integrated them in the planning of the march on Washington.

MLK determined white liberals were misguided in understanding the urgency of the demands of the Negro because they have never seen “vicious mobs lynch (their) mothers and fathers at will and drown (their) sisters and brothers at whim,” or experienced the feeling of being “smothered in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society.” He cautioned: “The white liberal must rid himself of the notion that there can be a tensionless transition from the old order of injustice to the new order to justice. It is important for the liberal to see that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension.”

Throughout the 1960s, MLK applied Gandhi’s strategy in launching successful nonviolent civil disobedience campaigns based on the existence of four preconditions: existence of sufficient facts showing substantial injustice, attempts at genuine negotiations to remedy the injustice, self-purification, and ultimately, direct action. From his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, MLK explained how he applied his four point direct action program in the civil disobedience campaign in that city. Birmingham’s “ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation.” Black leaders tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with local merchants and government officials to repeal segregation laws and symbols of racial humiliation in public accommodations.

Failing in their efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement, black people in Birmingham had no choice but to prepare for direct action, but before acting, they needed to undergo self-purification by engaging in a “a series of workshops on nonviolence” and asking themselves: “Are (we) able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are (we) able to endure the ordeal of jail?” Following “self-purification,” they began lunch counter and library sit-ins, marches on City Hall and the county building, and started voter registration drives. They enlisted thousands of high school students to join the demonstrations, and many of them ended up in jail attracting national and international attention. MLK’s efforts in Birmingham transformed American public opinion and heralded the end of the legal system of segregation that had been a fact of life throughout the South since the Civil War.

By the mid-1960s, MLK felt a certain amount of disillusionment with his efforts and the lack of tangible successes the nonviolent civil rights movement had produced for black Americans. He became increasingly critical and condemnatory of American involvement in the Vietnam War. He preached that America should solve its own racial and social problems before sending young Americans, particularly black men, to fight in some distant land. He criticized the FBI for failing to aggressively investigate violations of the rights of black citizens. FBI Director Hoover, stung by the criticism, undertook a personal vendetta against MLK and spared no effort, including use of illegal wiretaps, to discredit him personally and as a public leader. When MLK was chosen as Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year,” Hoover remarked that “they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one.”

MLK was criticized as an extremist for his nonviolent disobedience and advocacy, but he often turned the question on his critics: “So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Are we to be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness.” He explained that the central purpose of direct action was to produce negotiations with those that have historically refused to discuss the issue. “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

Like Gandhi, MLK saw nonviolent resistance not as end in itself but as a tool to “awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent.” The aim is not “to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding,” and ultimately spiritual redemption and social reconciliation. The target of nonviolent direct action are the “forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces.” The struggle against racism and discrimination is to “defeat injustice and not white persons who may happen to be unjust.” MLK believed nonviolent civil disobedience was “not a method for cowards,” and in the spirit of Gandhi, advised that nonviolent civil disobedience should be done “openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”

MLK will be remembered as one of the great champions of equality and justice throughout the world. His leadership of the civil rights movement produced two of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in American history — the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He brought a renewed sense of dignity and self-assurance for black people in America, and hope to all oppressed peoples throughout the world.

Above of all, MLK was a man of vision and dreams, and saw America as the Promised Land. Were he alive today, I wonder if he would have urged Ethiopians to set aside their ethnic, religious, linguistic, regional and gender differences and “sit down together at the table of brotherhood (and sisterhood) and work together, pray together, struggle together, go to jail together, and stand up for freedom together, knowing that they will be free one day.”

I feel certain that he would have gladly shared his favorite verse, “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”, to lift our weary souls:

My country,’ tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
land where my fathers died,
land of… (our) pride,
from every mountainside let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills, like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees sweet freedom’s song;
let mortal tongues awake;
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.

Our fathers’ God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom’s holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.

---

Al Mariam, Ph.D., J.D. (Esq.) is professor of political science and a defense attorney in California.

May the Force Be With You…

GHANDI

Part II

“Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong. With the weak, it might easily be hypocrisy…,” declared Ghandi in 1891. Over the succeeding decades, Ghandi proved time and again the irrefutable truth about the efficacy and morality of nonviolent civil disobedience in resisting unjust laws and colonialism, culminating in Indian independence in 1947 in the only successful nonviolent revolution in history.

Gandhi was a lawyer whose conscience was seared by the humiliation and indignities forced upon the Indian population in South Africa in the 1890s. Indians had been brought there to work on English tea and coffee plantations. They were disparagingly called “coolies” by the English colonial settlers. They had no rights, and were prohibited from owning property or traveling between towns, and were required to pay settlement tax. Ghandi himself was a victim of discrimination and humiliation. On various occasions, he was forcibly removed from passenger trains and beaten for refusing to give up his seat to a white person. Once he was ejected from court for failing to take off his turban.

Between 1906 and 1913, the colonial government in South Africa passed laws which required fingerprinting and registration of Indians, banned Indian immigration, imposed an annual tax on former indentured Indian servants, and invalidated all but Christian marriages. Ghandi was outraged by these repressive measures, and successfully organized the Indian community to engage in acts of civil disobedience. Although he was successful in getting these laws repealed, he was jailed repeatedly for his leadership and participation in the civil disobedience campaigns.

Ghandi drew two fundamental lessons from his early experiences in civil disobedience in South Africa: First, as a lawyer, he concluded that his duty was to champion the cause of truth, and not necessarily defend or advance the interests of a client merely because he was paid for his legal services. Second, he determined philosophically that all disputes could be settled if the opposing parties discovered the “truth” about their disagreements. To Ghandi, violence arose from disagreements over the “truth” and “error” in understanding between opponents.

Based on these two lessons, Ghandi developed a comprehensive approach to discovering and applying “truth” to the resolution of disputes. He called his approach “Satyagraha,” which he defined as “truth-force,” “love-force” or “soul-force.” The practitioner of this “force” begins with the assumption that one can only change “an opponent from error by patience and sympathy. And patience means self-suffering. So [Satyagraha] means vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on one’s own self.” The quest for and discovery of the “truth” is not a simple task; it requires time and patience, and admits of no violence, while offering limitless capacity for love.

Ghandi was profoundly influenced by the teachings of Christ, and often cited Jesus’ teachings as the supreme example of his “truth/love force.” Jesus taught his followers to “to love their enemies,” and to “turn the right cheek” if struck on the left. As Christians know all too well, Jesus suffered great physical suffering culminating in his crucifixion. He also suffered spiritually by carrying the weight of the sins of mankind. At the last moment of his life, Jesus did not ask to be delivered from death, but rather asked forgiveness for his tormentors: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they have done.”

Ghandi found it ironic that Christian Europe should conveniently forget the essential message of Christ: “Even in Christian Europe the principle of non-violence is ridiculed. Christians do not understand the message of Jesus. It is necessary to deliver it over again in the way we can understand … But I must say that so long as we do not accept the principle of loving the enemy, all talk of world brotherhood is an airy nothing.” In a moment of frustration, Ghandi said:“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

From 1917 until independence, Ghandi continued to use nonviolent civil disobedience to protest unjust colonial laws and actions of the British colonial government. He traveled throughout India learning about the exploitation of workers and peasants, often participating in their meetings and strikes, and invariably being arrested and jailed. In 1919, in an incident prominent in the colonial history of India, a mob killed several Englishmen. In retaliation, the British general ordered his soldiers to fire at a peaceful gathering Indians causing significant casualties. The general at the time observed: “Force is the only thing that an Asiatic has any respect for.” Ghandi was ever more determined to prove that “truth/love force” was far more powerful than the force of an expelled bullet from the barrel of a gun.

Ghandi explained that in committing acts of civil disobedience, the person disobeying the law should be civil and not hurt or inflict suffering on the opponent. His idea of “ahimsa (non-hurting)” made a distinction between resistance of an unjust impersonal political system, and the individuals who happen to be in it and have to defend, serve and support it. He believed that persons who work in unjust systems need to be taught the “truth” so that they can correct the error of their ways, but never be targets of violence. His message to the colonial oppressors of India was simple. “My ambition is no less than to convert the British people through nonviolence, and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India. I do not seek to harm your people.” His perspective could be summarized in the modern cliché “Hate the sin and not the sinner.”

Gandhi continued to organize massive disobedience and non-cooperation campaigns throughout the 1920s, and was arrested and jailed numerous times. When he was put on trial for one of his civil disobedience campaigns in 1922 — arguably the only judicial trial he ever had despite his numerous arrests and detentions — he was unrepentant and unapologetic, and ready to practice his “Satyagraha.” He defiantly told the judge: “I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I am here, therefore, to invite and cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.” He served 22 months in prison.

Ghandi resisted popular calls for armed struggle against the British. He believed that he would simply demand independence, and if the British did not grant it, he would declare it himself. He did just that in 1930, and asked people to celebrate independence day. He simultaneously announced an eleven-point program which included land reform, release of political prisoners, and repeal of the infamous salt tax which prohibited Indians from making salt, among others. In his inimitable way, Ghandi notified the British Viceroy that he intended to disobey the salt law, and promptly set off on a long walk to the sea where the salt was being made, joined by thousands along the way. Over 100,000 Indians were imprisoned in the uncontrollable salt law civil disobedience campaign. Unable to contain the massive numbers of protesters, and hoping to blunt the ever growing campaign, the British repealed the salt law. Ghandi’s civil disobedience campaign was triumphant once again!

Ghandi’s problems in the 1930s were not limited to the struggle for independence from colonialism. The recurrent sectarian (religious) conflict between Hindus and Muslims became a source of deep frustration and anxiety for him. His teaching of love and tolerance did not seem to resonate meaningfully among these religious communities. He went on numerous fasts protesting sectarian violence and encouraged others to follow his example. When India formally gained independence on August, 15, 1947, Gandhi was not present in New Delhi at the ceremonies; he was in Calcutta working feverishly to calm sectarian strife and mourning the partition of India. Barely a year and half after independence, the modern architect of nonviolent civil disobedience and champion of the downtrodden was gunned down at a prayer meeting.

Ghandi’s Philosophy in a Nutshell

Ghandi never doubted that his “truth/love force” technique could serve as a tool for human freedom, and “if it became universal, would revolutionize social ideals and do away with despotisms and the ever-growing militarism.” Ghandi was so convinced of the efficacy of his nonviolent methods that he believed even Abyssinia (Ethiopia) could prevail over fascist Italian aggression using his method. He explained that “if every Abyssinian man, woman and child refused cooperation, willing or forced, with the Italians, the aggressor would have to walk over the dead bodies of their victims and to occupy the country without the people.” It was unlikely that most Abyssinians at the time were aware of Ghandi’s prescription of nonviolent civil disobedience, but ultimately the Ethiopians drove out the Italian colonists, proving to the world that a ragtag African army could defeat a mighty European power in the battlefield.

Ghandi’s ideas of “love/truth force” (Satyagraha) and nonviolence (ahisma) are at once simple and complex. The simplicity arises from the fact that the concepts are easily understandable. The complexity arises in application of these ideas to real life situations. It is for that very reason that Ghandi said nonviolence is for the strong, and not the weak. It takes great spiritual, intellectual and physical strength to renounce the use of violence against those who cause us great suffering, not to hate them as evildoers, champion a righteous cause despite adverse consequences and accept unlimited suffering, including the possibility of martyrdom, in the pursuit and defense of truth.

Gandhi’s idea of willingly accepting suffering is not some sort of benign masochism. It is based on his belief of self-purification in which the violence of the perpetrator purges the evil that resides within the victim, which in turn cleanses the conscience of the victimizer. The victim by not responding to the violence committed against him becomes the terminating point for the violence, ending the vicious cycle of attack and counterattack, revenge and retaliation, reprisals and retribution. He observed: “The end of violence is always defeat, but nonviolence is endless and is never defeated.”

It is important to understand that Ghandi’s idea of nonviolence does not only refer to the absence physical violence; it also embraces other more spiritual and psychological manifestations of harm (violence) that arise from such behavior as lying and deceitfulness, hatred, jealousy, greed, anger and impatience.

Ghandi believed that it is futile to try and convert a person to a just cause by violence and coercion; rather one must use persuasion and genuine dialogue to communicate with one’s opponent and reach the humanity buried deep in his heart. Once the truth is awakened in the conscience of the victimizer, the irresistible force of truth will transform and guide him to do the right thing. One must therefore be very careful in using the great spiritual power of nonviolence, and the “slightest use of violence can taint a just cause.”

Ghandi believed that hatred, anger, greed and other negative forces that dwell in the individual are destructive and must be harnessed and transformed into positive energy of love, patience and compassion. If they are not, the individual who responds to evil in anger or hatred becomes consumed by the anger and hatred he bears towards his victimizer losing his spiritual balance and strength. It is only through self-discipline and self-control that the individual accepts the abuse and suffering of his victimizer, and manages to remain above the hatred while developing the capacity for boundless love of his enemy and convert him to the truth.

Gandhi saw the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience as “the inherent right of a citizen. He dare not give it up without ceasing to be a man.” Indeed, the citizen not only has the natural right to civil disobedience but is also under a moral imperative to defy unjust laws, which are in themselves a form of “error” (untruths) requiring correction. When peaceful demands for removal of unjust laws fall on deaf ears, and all peaceful methods have been exhausted, the person at that point acquires the moral right to “break an unjust law and willingly suffer the penalty in order to call attention to the injustice.” However, in breaking the unjust laws, one must avoid all use of violence.

Ghandi always stressed that acts of civil disobedience are not things to be done impulsively. Rather they should “be undertaken only after extensive preparation and as a last resort.” It is not something that is “engineered by only a handful of leaders. It must, rather, arise as a natural response to widespread moral distress,” and should “be attempted with calm deliberation and a clear resolve to benefit others.” The ultimate aim of civil disobedience should be “overcoming evil with good, hatred with love, anger with patience, falsehood with truth, and violence with ahimsa (nonhurting).” In short, nonviolent civil disobedience does not seek the destruction of the opponent, but rather seeks to convert him to truth and the ways of justice.

Ghandi understood that the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience is extremely challenging since one has to undergo intense internal struggle to overcome the negative energies of anger, hatred, greed and so on, and attain a “power which can move the world.” The internal struggle requires not only great spiritual strength, but also training, education and personal development through self-discipline and self-purification. But it is not difficult to pursue: “The beauty and efficacy of Satyagraha are so great and the doctrine so simple that it can be preached even to children.”

Ghandi makes a distinction between civil disobedience and non-cooperation which “involves the withdrawal by individuals of allegiance and support from various public institutions.” Ghandi believed that if people could “no longer in good conscience participate in or support a government that has become oppressive, unjust, and violent,” they have the right not to participate in it or support it. The may demonstrate their non-cooperation by “refusing to pay taxes, participating in government programs, and even refusing to participate in the legislatures. Non-cooperation is less about disobeying the law as much as it is an “effort to purify the soul by disassociating it from evil.”

Ghandi always taught that nonviolent civil disobedience was for the strong and not the weak. A person practicing nonviolent civil disobedience must be “fearless.” He must not be afraid to be arrested, jailed, beaten, tortured or even die for the cause of truth. But fearlessness in the physical sense is not enough. The persons must also have spiritual fearlessness. He must never show anger, animosity, hatred, hostility or disrespect towards an opponent. Ghandi went as far as prescribing against the use of offensive language and curse words against opponents, and protecting them from mob violence if the occasion arose.

Ghandi reminded his followers that the nonviolent civil resister must not only be fearless, he must also not inspire fear in the opponent. If the opponent perceives a threat, not only will he be unable to see and experience the truth that is before him, but he will instinctively react from a position fear, often violently. Therefore, in nonviolent civil disobedience, it is important to avoid arousing fear and striving to reassure the opponent.

Ghandi believed people “are politically weak not because they lack weapons or votes, but because they lack moral and ethical direction.” Satyagraha empowers them to make choices based on morally and ethically defensible truths, and help them nurture leaders and institutions that promote justice, equality and fairness.

Although Ghandi was fully committed to nonviolence, he did believe that in certain extremely narrow circumstances, it may be justified. He explained that “nonviolence is superior to violence, violence, in turn, is superior to passivity in the face of injustice.” Moreover, if the “only choice is between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence….I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence…”

In practice, Ghandi often notified the colonial authorities that he intended to violate a certain law and fully expected to suffer the consequences of his actions, a fact that was a source of great confusion and frustration for the authorities. He did so because he felt that engaging in civil disobedience by hiding his identity or actions would make him indistinguishable from a common criminal. He would equally frustrate his followers by canceling a civil disobedience campaign because he felt there was potential for violence or the motive for the campaign was not pure.

Gandhi believed in the singular importance of the individual in nonviolent civil disobedience. He explained that in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, what mattered the most was not the “quantity of people involved” but the quality. He believed a single satyagrahi (civil resister) could serve as an exemplar to the masses and move them to great action. Of course, he was the paragon of the nonviolent civil resister.

Ghandian principles have been applied in diverse societies throughout the world. The most notable recent examples include South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and even Ruwanda’s traditional system of Gacaca (pronounced gachacha) reflects basic Ghandian elements. In both cases, the victims and victimizers are brought into a genuine truth searching process, with the promise of amnesty and forgiveness for victimizers and self-purification for the victims of suffering once the truth is established, giving renewed meaning to the biblical precept: “The truth shall set you free.”

One wonders if Ghandi would have counseled nonviolent civil disobedience to contemporary Ethiopians as he did to the Abyssinians during the Italian occupation. I should like to think, at least, he would say: “May the (Truth) Force be with you!”

---

Al Mariam, Ph.D., J.D. (Esq.) is professor of political science and a defense attorney in California.

Of Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence – Part I

There is rumor of mass civil disobedience in Ethiopia. Over the past month, the U.S. Embassy has been reminding and urging Americans in Ethiopia to “avoid demonstrations intended to be peaceful [which] can turn confrontational.” On April 22, Sudan Tribune online published a press release purportedly issued by Tegbar League Addis Ababa announcing the initiation of a “peaceful civil disobedience campaign against the Meles dictatorship.” The campaign is aimed at pressuring the “government to respect the people’s vote and to demand the release of all political prisoners.” According to the press release, the objective of the concerted nonviolent acts of civil disobedience is to “systematically make the country ungovernable and choke the Meles regime by drying up its sources of revenue.”

In a three-part series, we shall attempt to present an overview of the history, practice and philosophy of civil disobedience and nonviolence, and the unique contributions of Henry David Thoreau, Mahatama Ghandi and Martin Luther King to the global nonviolence movement.

Henry David Thoreau

Is there a moral duty for men and women to nonviolently resist oppressive and unjust laws, and the commands and demands of a despotic government? If there is such a duty, what is the best method of resistance? If civil disobedience and nonviolence are morally justified methods of resistance, what are the foreseeable consequences of such resistance for the individual and society?

Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, was the first modern thinker to systematically consider the moral dimensions of disobeying unjust laws and oppressive civil government. He concluded that nonviolent civil disobedience was justified, because in a democracy government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and by delegation from free individuals. If government abuses or perverts the will of the people, Thoreau argued, any individual has the moral right, indeed a higher moral duty, to stand apart from the laws of that government and actively and nonviolently resist it.

Thoreau, an ardent abolitionist and pacifist, condemned the practice of slavery in America, and railed against the federal fugitive laws which allowed slave masters to recapture and repossess slaves who had escaped to the free states. He also opposed the westward territorial expansion of the United States and annexation of what is now western United States by President James Polk in the Mexican-American War (1846-48) under a general doctrine known as “Manifest Destiny,” which was based on a belief that God had given America a mission to expand its borders from “sea to shining sea.”

In his book, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience(1), Thoreau explained his philosophical justifications for civil disobedience and the moral duty of individuals to engage in it to preserve their individual integrity and advance the common good.

Thoreau had little confidence in elected leaders or governmental institutions. He believed that “government is best which governs least,” but such government he did not find in his day. He acknowledged government was necessary, but only in so far as it is the “mode which the people have chosen to execute their will.” He believed the leaders of his day, entrusted with the people’s will, were “liable to abuse and pervert [that will] before the people can act through it.”

The inevitable “perversion and abuse” of the people’s will presented Thoreau two problematic issues in the functioning of democratic government: 1) the tendency for majority rule to degenerate into tyranny of the majority, and 2) the tendency for citizens in a democracy to abdicate their moral responsibilities in favor of blind obedience to the law. Thoreau questioned: “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?”

For Thoreau, men could be distinguished by their demonstrated abilities to act their conscience and convictions. He felt most citizens — out of ignorance, indifference, or cowardice– would rather show blind respect for the law than disobeying it even when they are convinced the law is oppressive and unjust. He believed government had reduced ordinary citizens to “serve not as men, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables.” He felt these citizens had no “moral sense, but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones. Such [men] command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs.”

Thoreau had an equally dim view of the “esteemed good citizens” of society — legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, scholars, businessmen and office-holders — who have compromised their capacity to make moral distinctions and judgment to advance their self-interest and were “as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God.”

Thoreau saw social redemption in a third and much smaller group of citizens — heroes, patriots, martyrs and reformers — whose chief distinction is that they “serve the state with their consciences, and necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”

In his day, Thoreau saw his civil disobedience as a proper response to the evil institution of slavery and the unjust expansionist war in Mexico. He thought the American government of his day was a “disgrace,” and declared: “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” Thoreau refused to accept a government that kept a sixth of the American population in bondage, yet piously claimed to be the land of liberty. He found it necessary to oppose an unjust war against Mexico resulting in the destruction of indigenous populations in a shameless land grab.

Thoreau demonstrated his civil disobedience by becoming part of the antiwar movement of the day and refusing to pay poll tax which he felt was used to support an unjust war and extend slavery into the western territories, which proved true when Texas became a slave state upon joining the union in 1861.

The greatest source of frustration for Thoreau was the inertness of the thousands of his countrymen who were opposed to slavery and the Mexican War, yet did nothing to put an end to them. Thoreau complained that these citizens will “sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing…. They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.”

The impact of Thoreau’s advocacy of civil disobedience has been wide-ranging, inspiring notably Ghandi to mount a passive resistance independence movement in India and Martin Luther King to lead a nonviolent civil rights movement in the in the United States.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from Thoreau’s philosophical discourses, it is that civil disobedience is both an act of uncommon virtue and valor, and an extraordinary act of patriotism by an individual in a given society. As to the “ninety nine patrons,” they have a choice of not acting, and continuing to practice their well-worn virtues: ignorance in the face of manifest injustice, indifference in the face of suffering, deprivation and oppression, and cowardice in the reflective mirror of their own conscience.
_____________
1 Originally titled Resistance to Civil Government.

---

Al Mariam, Ph.D., J.D. (Esq.) is professor of political science and a defense attorney in California.

…. A Friend in Deed

There is much confusion and consternation in the Ethiopian community in North America over the fact that the democrats on the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations of the House International Relations Committee voted against a bill in subcommittee titled the “Ethiopian Freedom, Human Rights and Democracy Act (HR 4423), introduced by subcommittee chair Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.). Many Ethiopians are perplexed by the fact that the ranking democrat on the subcommittee, Donald Payne — an African American supported by other African American representatives on the Subcommittee — should spearhead the opposition to HR 4423. Perhaps out of a sense misplaced ethnic solidarity, many Ethiopians thought the African American members of the Subcommittee would take the leadership in promoting human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Ethiopia. This turn of events appears to have been an epiphany to many Ethiopians in the U.S. who are now openly questioning the value of their allegiance to the Democratic Party.

HR 4423 is a piece of legislation designed to promote human rights, due process and the rule of law in Ethiopia. It requires the unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners in Ethiopia and demands legal protections for journalists along with guarantees of free speech rights for Ethiopian citizens, offers support and training for human rights groups working in Ethiopia, and provides for technical assistance to Ethiopian law enforcement authorities to ensure due process of law in the administration of justice, among other things.

Donald Payne offered a substitute amendment which sought to provide assistance to Ethiopia to strengthen local, regional, and national parliaments and government agencies, promote reconciliation efforts between the Government of Ethiopia and opposition political groups, and facilitate participation of opposition groups in the political process. Payne’s failed substitute consisting of lofty platitudes did not call for the immediate release of political prisoners nor did it require compliance with various human rights issues boldly featured in HR 4423.

Part of the confusion and bewilderment among Ethiopians on the voting patterns of the democrats on the subcommittee may stem from a lack of understanding of the history of the Republican Party and their uncritical allegiance — bordering on blind faith — to the Democratic Party. Many Ethiopians subscribe to popular misconceptions about the Democratic Party, and know even less about the Republican Party or its history.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Democratic Party in the United States is the defender of human rights, democracy and freedom not only in America but also throughout the world. Democrats are said to be champions of the poor and weak and advocates of civil liberties and social justice.

On the contrary, the Republican Party is often depicted as the party of the “rich,” mostly white and conservative, and unconcerned with the plight of the downtrodden and the dispossessed. Republicans are portrayed as indifferent and insensitive to the cause of human rights and individual liberties.

The historical facts negate the conventional wisdom. When the Republican Party was formed in the early 1850s, it was impelled by two factors: an abolitionist ideology committed to the eradication of the institution of slavery — an institution that is the very antitheses of human rights– and economic modernization driven by robust business institutions and a strong national government.

In 1856, the first Republican presidential candidate, John Freemont, adopted the slogan “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont,” which summed up the essential concerns of the early Republicans. When republican Abe Lincoln became president in 1860, he had to decide whether to go to war with his Southern brothers over the issue of slavery. Lincoln understood the grave consequences of liberating the slaves — the real possibility of disintegration of the Union– but he affirmed the humanity and human rights of the slaves by boldly issuing the Emancipation Proclamation against weighty advice to the contrary. This decision made Lincoln a reluctant partner in a civil war that was fought in no small part over the question of slavery.

The Republican Party did not stop with a proclamation telling the slaves they were free. After the Civil War, republicans played a pivotal role in amending the U.S. Constitution to abolish slavery altogether and guarantee the former slaves the equal protection of the laws and the right to vote. But they did not stop with constitutional amendments. During Reconstruction — the period after the Civil War when the defeated southern states were reintegrating into the Union — the republicans pushed a number of bills in Congress which had a decisive effect on the lives and rights of the newly freed slaves. Progressive republicans known as “radical republicans” advocated for and secured more legal protections for the freed slaves, and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 — overriding a presidential veto for the first time in U.S. history– recognizing blacks as U.S. citizens and guaranteed them a whole panoply of economic and political rights. In 1869, the first blacks were elected to Congress as members of the Republican Party, and continued to serve as part of the republican delegation until 1935 when the first black Democrat joined them.

Republicans continued to defend human rights and remained in the forefront of the struggle for women’s right to vote, providing the decisive ratification victory in the various states for the 19th Amendment. Montana sent the first woman and republican member of Congress — Jeanette Rankin who incidentally was the only member of Congress to vote against U.S. involvement in the two world wars– in 1917. Needless to say, the Democratic Party was conspicuously absent in the long march for human rights, until the civil rights movement in the 1960s when it discovered the electoral value of black voters.

Unlike Jimmy Carter who pronounced the May, 2005 elections in Ethiopia as “fair and free,” Ronald Reagan in 1982 stood in the British Parliament and predicted the “march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.” A few years later, he stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, and issued his challenge: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

HR 4423 is the legislative equivalent of Reagan’s challenge to Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” The bill states in its preamble that its purpose is “to encourage and facilitate the consolidation of security, human rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia.” It contains a simple message: “Mr. Zenawi, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for Ethiopia as you say you do, if you seek liberalization, release the political prisoners you have packed in your jails, respect the rule of law and ensure due process of law in your courts, allow your citizens and journalists to engage free speech and free press. Respect the human rights of your citizens! Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.”

It is obvious and natural that the Republican Party should reflect a diversity of views and opinions across the ideological spectrum. The important point is that there are republicans such as Chairman Smith, Representatives Royce, Tancredo, Flake, Mark Greene, Boozman and Fortenberry on the Subcommittee, who believe in the original republican principles of “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men” and women. They have proven their commitment to our cause, the cause of human rights in Ethiopia!

As we ponder HR 4423, we should perform a reality check and see if we have misplaced our trust and relied upon misguided political alliances. We should candidly ask ourselves whether we believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all regardless of race, creed, gender, age or disability, free enterprise and individual initiative, fiscal responsibility and low taxes, democracy, freedom and human rights throughout the world and the principle that the “the best government is that which governs least.” These are core republican principles. It may be that the moment of truth has arrived for many Ethiopians in America to decide one way or the other. As they say, this is the time to fish or cut bait! As we express our gratitude to Chairman Smith and the other republicans on the Subcommittee — and each one of us who supports HR 4423 must do so by email, letter, fax or telephone– we should remind ourselves that “a friend in need is a friend indeed!”

---

Al Mariam, Ph.D., J.D. (Esq.) is professor of political science and a defense attorney in California.