Mr. Obang Metho Addresses Law students and faculty At the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Mr. Obang Metho / March 25, 2008

I would like to thank the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan and especially the faculty and students for inviting me to speak tonight. I would also like to thank Scales of Social Justice League (SOS Justice League): for giving me the honor of being your keynote speaker at Access to Justice Week.
When I first received the invitation a month ago to speak about justice, I was asked to speak on the topic, International Law: Does it Create Barriers in Access to Justice? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, the Rome statutes—what do these mean to the world, especially to those suffering the worst Anuak violations of these principles, laws and codes around the world?
I was told that I should speak in reference to my testimony of the case of my own ethnic group, the , before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2004 and because of my human rights work, including the two legal cases I have been working on with two different law firms, one who submitted our case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and another who submitted our case to the African Union’s Commission on Peoples’ and Human Rights. I am very pleased to share these experiences with you today.
For most of you who do not know me, I am resident of Saskatchewan and graduated with a degree in political science from this university. I have lived in Saskatchewan for a long time since coming from Gambella, Ethiopia. It is interesting that when I was doing development work in Africa and was asked where I was from, I said I was from Saskatoon, Canada, but when I was here in Saskatoon, people would ask me the same question and I would answer, Africa. I guess I have one foot in both places and I call both, home!
It is good to be back at this great campus which has meant a lot to me, not only because I graduated from this university, but also because of the great support and friendships I have with so many wonderful faculty and staff in the University’s Colleges and Departments such as in the Department of Political Science, the Department of Division of Media and Technology, Department of International Studies, Department of Sociology, the College of Arts & Science, the College of Medicine, the College of Education as well as with students!
It is no wonder why last month during the International Week Workshop at this University, there was a presentation on Ethiopia at the College of Agriculture and the Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs Office made a big deal out of it. The government of Ethiopia wrote on their websites that they were working with the University of Saskatchewan and Canadian government on such things as good governance, democracy and development because the Ethiopian government knows it very well that this university is my home.

I and others knew that this was another campaign to fool the people, especially because of my link to this university. They may have thought they were invading “Obang’s territory!” However, we both know the truth of what is going on in Ethiopia and to the best of my ability, I will continue to speak publicly, whenever and wherever I can do so, about the broken government and gross human rights abuses in Ethiopia until real justice, democracy, good governance, the rule of law and development is established in Ethiopia.
What I am going to talk about tonight is the experience that I have gained since I became involved in human rights work in late 2003 following the three-day long massacre of 424 from my own ethnic group, the Anuak, by the Ethiopian military.
Some of what I have learned about human rights work has been very disillusioning. As I speak of my own experience, you may learn that I am very disappointed with many in the international community, despite the good intentions of the creators of our human rights laws. The reason for is that not far underneath this system that is supposed to uphold the human rights of all people, is a system that resists the carrying out of those laws at most every level.
It is a common struggle—between the higher and lower natures within every person—between what one knows is right and what one wants for one’s own reasons. Our problem is not about knowing the difference. It is about having the moral strength to choose the right way to live. In order to face this crisis affecting millions throughout the world, we must first have the courage to face the dark side of our own flawed humanity. The problem is not the law; it is within us, individually, especially with many of those who wield the power!

International Human Rights laws are, without question, laws based on noble, God-given principles, many of which were enshrined in the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt of United States of America chaired the committee responsible for formulating these principles and a renowned Canadian law professor, John Humphrey, heavily contributed to the content.
By declaring the inalienable rights and dignity of each human being, regardless of any differences, it also declared the need to protect each human being—particularly the vulnerable—from the worst actions of others. These universal values and principles were proclaimed and later ratified by the majority of countries around the world.
Other international human rights laws from the past, like the Geneva Convention, which basically set rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, were updated at this time as well. Other human rights laws also followed in an attempt to make binding, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the purpose of protecting human kind from such crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Continuing implementation of other human rights treaties, dealt with additional areas such as racial discrimination, torture, the rights of the child, among others. The most recent human rights laws, the Rome Statutes, established the International Criminal Court, the ICC.
The original intent of these laws was to intervene to protect the vulnerable and see to it that the worst violators would be held accountable. The impetus for most of the laws came out of the horrible atrocities of World War I and World War II. The shock waves among people in the world to the barbaric acts of the Holocaust during which six million Jews, along with others, were exterminated, provided the rationale for a multi-lateral mechanism for intervening in the national affairs of another sovereign country.
It was in 1945 that the League of Nations formally was changed into the United Nations. The United Nations is the only organization in the international community with the mandate and worldwide legal jurisdiction to oversee and enforce these international human rights laws. The High Commissioner of Human Rights oversees the Human Rights Council who has the mandate to investigate violations of human rights.

The Human Rights Council has 47 members, elected by the full assembly by secret ballot. When I was there before the Council in 2004, a Sudanese representative sat on that council, despite the genocide going on in Darfur. This gives you an idea of who is hearing your case. Since that time, member states, who have committed gross human rights crimes, are excluded from membership.
The Council has the authority to appoint special investigators, rapporteurs, to do further investigation and report back to them. If force is to be used, including military intervention and sanctions, it is the United Nations Security Council who must authorize it. The current UN Security Council members are from the US, Russia, the UK, France and China.
However, regional organizations, such as the African Union, have been created to deal on a regional basis with many of these same issues and advise governments of their findings and recommendations. An African Judicial Court is in the development stage, but not yet operating. Cases from the African Union can be referred to the ICC.
The question is—have they achieved the well-intentioned objectives for which these laws were created? Have they made easier the path to justice or have they created their own barriers that have blocked the accomplishment of their intent?
I would contend that the problem is largely not with the content enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the numerous human rights laws and mandates, but is more about the lack of moral will to enforce them as well as due to the suppression of information that surrounds the commission of human rights violations.
These laws were meant to prevent genocide like the Holocaust from ever happening again. However, the evidence of the failure of these laws to be enforced is tragically clear when one looks at the millions of lives lost in Cambodia, Chile, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Darfur, Yugoslavia and numerous others places around the globe, including the case of the Anuak.
Yet, because the law regarding genocide was written in such a way to demand intervention in cases of genocide, the superpowers are reluctant to call cases that meet that definition because it requires action. Instead, most cases are defined as “crimes against humanity” as a way to skirt the obligation to do something. For instance, the United States has called Darfur a genocide while the European Union has not.

There are several reasons for this. For one, inherent in the laws is a tension between international intervention and national sovereignty. The case must be strong to cross international borders, intervening in an independent sovereign state. However, when the government of one’s own country is committing atrocities against its own citizens, like what happened in Rwanda, the intent of the law is that the need to protect the vulnerable trumps the rights of that nation.
Yet, unfortunately, many different factors influence whether or not the United Nations and the international community will take any action. At the same time, many in the world are under the illusion that the United Nations will act when and where appropriate. Because of this, most feel that they can settle back and not get involved.

I was under this illusion when I presented the case of the Anuak to the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights in April of 2004 after Ethiopian Defense Forces massacred 424 people from my ethnic group in Gambella, Ethiopia. Let me start by explaining what happened. Oil exploration in the Gambella area in southwestern Ethiopia, on the border of Sudan, revealed promising oil reserves on indigenous Anuak land.
The Anuak leaders spoke out regarding wanting to be involved in the decision making, as spelled out in the Ethiopian Constitution, but they were seen as trouble-makers. When the killing of Anuak leaders began on December 13 through 15 of 2003, the Chinese were visiting the country and the oil rights had been given to Petronas of Malaysia and their subsidiary, the Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau (ZPEB), of China to begin their work in the area immediately.
The Ethiopian military had a list of Anuak names, each allegedly picked due to their leadership, educational background or overall influence in the community. For instance, one of the first ones on the list was my sister-in-law’s father who was a beloved pastor. Others included many of those I was working closely with in the development work.
A number of doctors from Saskatoon had accompanied me to Gambella and we had plans to develop a full-scale medical project between the two cities that had to be temporarily suspended for safety reasons. We had received a large CIDA grant for the project that instead, had to be returned due to continuing security concerns for Canadian students, who as part of the project, would have been spending time in Gambella.
The massacre began on December 13, 2003 when the Ethiopian military, accompanied by some local militia groups from a different ethnic background, went door to door, pulling out the Anuak from their homes. If they refused to come out, their homes were set on fire until they had to run for safety. The militias then hacked them with machetes and clubs. If they ran, they were shot by the defense troops in Ethiopian uniform.
They marched through the town chanting, “Today is the day for killing Anuak.” As they raped the women and young girls, they chanted, “Now you will have no more Anuak babies!” The Ethiopian National Defense troops did not stop there, but destroyed homes, water wells, granaries, crops, health clinics and schools. They continued to wreak havoc in the rural areas in the following weeks and months, killing, injuring, raping, torturing and detaining many more Anuak. About 10,000 fled the country for refuge in south Sudan. It is unknown today how many Anuak were killed as many were buried in mass graves and in remote areas, but some believe over 1500 were killed.
The tragedy was a tremendous loss for the Anuak who were already considered an endangered people group, totaling only about .01% of the total population of 80 million Ethiopians. Additionally, most of those killed were the leaders and most educated in the community of a very marginalized people.
These human rights abuses are all well-documented in a co-sponsored investigation by two US-based organizations, Genocide Watch and Survivors’ Rights, organizations created to prevent genocide. That report, “Today Is the Day for Killing Anuak,” and a subsequent one, “Operation Sunny Mountain,” are available on their websites as well as on ours. Another report by Human Rights Watch, which came out on March 24, 2005, “Targeting the Anuak,” is also available on their website.
The question is—does the Anuak massacre meet the definition of genocide? To answer it, we need to review the law itself. Genocide was addressed at the Genocide Convention and the laws regarding it were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. More than 130 nations have ratified the Genocide Convention since that time. Ethiopia is one of these.
Now, according to the definition of genocide in Article II of the Convention, what happened to the Anuak does meet the criteria for being classified as a genocide as it meets the overall definition as well as it meets one or more of the criteria. In fact, it meets all but the last—forcibly transferring children of the group to another.
In the definition, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (including inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation rape)
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III strongly states that the acts of (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide and (e) Complicity in genocide shall be punished.
The Anuak case meets the stringent criteria of genocide under the law as the intent to destroy part of a specific ethnic group could be proven. The Anuak was the only ethnic group targeted in a region of at least eight other ethnic groups. The presence of the list, the slogans, the recruiting, arming and incitement of the militias all proved the intent to destroy the Anuak, in this case the educated leaders, and the intent to incite others to do so as well.
The maiming, injury, burning down of homes with inhabitants in them and the widespread raping of the women and girls accompanied by the slogan that the result would be to prevent or limit the birth of “Anuak” babies met another definition. The only definition that was not met was the forcible transfer of children from one group to another. However, one does not need to meet all these criteria to meet the overall definition.

Additionally, information was later documented in another investigation by Genocide Watch and Survivors’ Rights that gave evidence that the plan had an actual name, “Operation Sunny Mountain,” which alleged that those in the highest offices in the country had knowledge of the plan, if not direct involvement. No one still has been found accountable for the crimes despite the mandate in Article III to punish perpetrators. What went wrong?
Most of us in the world live under a number of illusions that are propped up by false beliefs about the international community, the United Nations and the presence of international human rights laws.

We in the Anuak Justice Council were no different. I will use our own experience, along with others, where relevant, to further explain the obstacles to securing justice through the international community.

A call for worldwide Solidarity for Daniel & Netsanet

A call for worldwide Solidarity for Daniel & Netsanet

Posted on 16th March 2008

A call for worldwide Solidarity dedicated to human rights and civic society activists Daniel Bekele & Netsanet Demissie.

Daniel Bekele (m), policy manager of the Ethiopian office of ActionAid (international development NGO), lawyer

Netsanet Demissie (m), director of NGO Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia.

……………..

Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie are human rights activists who ended up being deprived of their own basic human rights. Amnesty International and other international human rights organisations consider them as prisoners of conscience. 27 months have now passed since they have been illegally detained and justice has not yet been restored.

Netsanet Demissie is a human rights and environmental lawyer based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He is the founder and Executive Director of the Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia (OSJE), which took part in monitoring national elections in May 2005. Daniel Bekele is the head of the Policy Research and Advocacy Department for Action Aid International in Ethiopia. Both Netsanet Demissie and Daniel Bekele are coordinators of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP). The two were arrested following the aftermath of May 2005 election and remained in jail to this day.

Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie are some of the last remaining prisoners following a trial that started in May 2006, which originally involved 131 politicians, journalists, civil society leaders and organisations accused of a range of charges from genocide to treason. They were among thousands who were detained following protests accusing the Ethiopian regime of rigging the 15 May 2005 National elections. Some of the accused were acquitted during the course of the trial. Others were convicted but pardoned in July and August 2007 after they allegedly signed a confession letter apologizing for “mistakes” in the demonstrations following the 2005 elections.

Although they were asked to sign a similar statement, Daniel and Netsanet declined. Counting on the non-existent justice system they argued that their activities in 2005 were entirely legal and did not serve to undermine, but rather to protect and promote Ethiopia ’s constitutional order.

Throughout this sham trial Daniel and Netsanet defended the charges of ‘outrage against the Constitution and constitutional order’, and proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were within the law, but partisan judges were not interested in upholding the rule of law.

On 26 December 2007 they were unjustly convicted by the phoney court and were sentenced for two and half years.

Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie become victims of persecution as a consequence of their peaceful activities in defence of human rights. Furthermore, this is another evidence that indicates the deplorable and ferocious campaign waged by the dictatorial regime that is bent on silencing civic society and human rights defenders in Ethiopia.

We salute these great civic leaders that have become an inspiration for many of their young compatriots, who are keen to promote their cause and vow to follow on their tracks in the building of a better and just society.

ACTION REQUESTED:

We ask the international civic and human rights organizations across the globe not to give up on the demand for the freedom of their illegally detained colleagues.

We ask Governments of democratic nations to use your good offices to put pressure on the regime on Ethiopia to respect human rights and release these two human rights activists unconditionally.

We ask all international human rights activists and concerned Ethiopians to publicize, as widely as possible, the news of this outrageous injustice by the regime in Ethiopia, condemning it in the strongest possible terms. Letters of protest may be sent to any or all of the international organizations asking them to demand for the immediate and unconditional release of Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie.

Insist on Zenawi’s regime to stop the threat against all civic society and human rights defenders in Ethiopia, as well as lifting all prohibitions preventing them to freely conduct their lawful and peaceful work towards building a democratic society,

Let us put our voice together to press the ruling regime in Ethiopia to respect the rights of human rights defenders and civil society to operate without fear of intimidation or reprisal.

Let us make sure that we take time this week to express our solidarity and campaign for the freedom of the jailed civic society and human rights defenders Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie.

…………………………………….

Text taken from previous solidarity call by Ethiopian Civic Consortium UK, posted on 29th February 2008, available below;
Solidarity week for Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie

…………………………………….

American Power and the Struggle for Democracy and against Terror in Africa

Dr. Berhanu Nega, Mayor-Elect of Addis Ababa,Ethiopia, former prisoner of concise and Economist.
From His Speech @Bucknell University, February, 2008


I. Introduction

It was a clear Thursday evening in March 2006 when two prison guards armed with their AK47’s called me outside my prison cell. The sky was full of beautiful sparkling stars. I and my colleagues in the Coalition for Unity and Democracy ( CUD) had been in prison already for five months by then. Since prisoners were herded inside their cells at about 5:30 every afternoon, we didn’t have a chance to see the stars at night. At the time I was in a warehouse converted into a prison cell with some 350 inmates, most of them common criminals. The guards told me to get dressed and cleaned up because I had “important” visitors waiting for me at the main prison office. Followed by my two escorts and enjoying the stars that I had not seen for months, I went to the office to meet these “unknown” guests. But, when I got to the office, I saw the familiar figures of Vicky Huddleston, the Charges d’ Affaires for the U.S. Embassy along with her young assistant and the French Ambassador. Since we all knew each other from previous meetings and Embassy functions, we shared a few pleasantries before we started with the more serious business that brought them to the Kaliti prison.
I was happy to see them initially, thinking that the West had finally seen the madness of the Meles Zenawi government and might be looking for a negotiated way out of the political crisis. Even after these five months in prison, the political instability had continued unabated and some important small rural towns in Oromia were being rocked by demonstrations. I knew the U.S. was nervous about the instability and wished it to end. What I didn’t know was how far they were willing to go in pushing the government to clean up its act and respect its own laws, since that was really what was at issue here.

Congressional Record Statement of Senator Russ Feingold

Congressional Record Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
On the Political Crisis in Ethiopia

March 3, 2008

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the political situation in Ethiopia. The US-Ethiopian partnership is an incredibly important one – perhaps one of the more significant on the continent given not only our longstanding history but also the increasingly strategic nature of our cooperation in recent years. Ethiopia sits on the Horn of Africa – perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in the world, with Somalia a failed state and likely safe haven for terrorists, Eritrea an inaccessible authoritarian regime that exacerbates conflicts throughout the region, Sudan a genocidal regime, and now Kenya descending into crisis. By contrast, Ethiopia seems relatively stable with its growing economy and robust poverty reduction programs.

Indeed, one look at the deteriorating situation on the Horn of Africa and it is clear just how essential our relationship with Ethiopia really is. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s approach to strengthening and building bilateral ties with Ethiopia has been short-sighted and narrow. As in other parts of the world, the Administration’s counter-terrorism agenda dominates the relationship, while poor governance and human rights concerns get a pass.

Mr. President, genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. We can not allow a myopic focus on one element of security to obscure our understanding of what is really occurring in Ethiopia. Rather than place our support in one man, we must invest in Ethiopia’s institutions and its people to create a stable, sustainable political system. As we are seeing right now in Kenya, political repression breeds deep-seated resentment, which can have destructive and far-reaching consequences. The United States and the international community can not support one policy objective at the expense of all others. To do so not only hurts the credibility of America and the viability of our democratic message, but it severely jeopardizes our national security.

Mr. President, I am seriously concerned about the direction Ethiopia is headed – because according to many credible accounts, the political crisis that has been quietly growing and deepening over the past few years may be coming to a head. For years, faced with calls for political or economic reforms, the Ethiopian government has displayed a troubling tendency to react with alarmingly oppressive and disproportionate tactics.

For example, Mr. President, in 2003, we received reports of massacres of civilians in the Gambella region of Ethiopia, which touched off a wave of violence and destruction that has yet to truly loosen its grip on the region. At that time, hundreds of lives were lost, tens of thousands were displaced, and many homes, schools, and businesses throughout the area were destroyed. Credible observers agree that Ethiopian security forces were heavily involved in some of the most serious abuses and more than 5 years later no one has been held accountable and there have been no reparations.

The national elections held in May 2005 were a severe step back for Ethiopia’s democratic progress. In advance of the elections, the Ethiopian Government expelled representatives of the three democracy-promotion organizations supported by USAID to assist the Ethiopian election commission, facilitate dialogue among political parties and election authorities, train pollwatchers, and assist civil society in the creation of a code of conduct. This expulsion was the first time in 20 years that a government has rejected such assistance, and the organizations have still not returned to Ethiopia because they do not feel an environment exists where they can truly undertake their objectives.

Despite massive controversy surrounding the polls, it is notable that opposition parties still won an unprecedented number of parliamentary seats. Their pursuit of transparency and democracy was again thwarted, however, when they tried to register their concerns about the election process. In one incident, peaceful demonstrations by opposition members and their supporters in Ethiopia’s capital of Addis Ababa were met with disproportionate and lethal force that killed more than 30 people and injured over 100. In another incident, the Ethiopian government arrested thousands of peacefully protesting citizens who took to the streets in support of the opposition.

The systemic nature of this crackdown was revealed in credible reports coming from the Oromia and Amhara regions that federal police were unacceptably threatening, beating and detaining opposition supporters. Indeed, international human rights groups documented that regional authorities were exaggerating their concerns about armed insurgency and “terrorism” to try to justify the torture, imprisonment and sustained harassment of critics and even ordinary citizens.

This tendency to portray political dissent as extremist uprisings has been repeated more recently with regards to what is being characterized by some as a brutal counterinsurgency operation led by Ethiopia’s military in the Ogaden, a long-neglected region that borders Somalia. Certainly I recognize the serious security concerns in this region, made worse by the porous borders of the failed state just a stone’s throw away.

But it is precisely because Ethiopia is our partner in the fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and allies, Mr. President, that I am so concerned about what I understand to be a massive military crackdown that does not differentiate between rebel groups and civilians. While I am sure there are few clean hands when it comes to fighting in the Ogaden region, the reports I have received about the Ethiopian government’s illicit military tactics and human rights violations are of great concern.

I have been hearing similar reports of egregious human rights abuses being committed in Somalia, about which I am gravely concerned. When I visited Ethiopia just over a year, I urged the Prime Minister not to send his troops into Somalia because I thought it might make instability there worse, not better. Tragically, more than a year later, it seems my worst fears have been realized as tens of thousands of people have fled their homes, humanitarian access is at an all time low, and there are numerous reports of increasing brutality towards civilians caught in the crossfire. In the interest of its own domestic security, Ethiopia is contributing to increased regional instability.

Mr. President, what troubles me most is that the reports of Ethiopia’s military coming out of the Ogaden and Mogadishu join a long list of increasingly repressive actions taken by the Ethiopian government. The Bush Administration must not turn a blind eye to the aggressive – and recurring – tactics being utilized by one of our key allies to stifle dissent.

I certainly welcome the role the Bush Administration has played in helping to secure the release of many -- although not all -- of the individuals thrown in jail in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. I welcome the Embassy’s engagement with opposition members and their efforts to encourage Ethiopian officials to create more political space for alternative views, independent media, and civil society. These are all important steps Mr. President, but they do not go far enough.

The Administration’s efforts at backroom diplomacy, Mr. President, are not working. I understand and respect the value of quiet diplomacy, but sometimes we reach the point where such a strategy is rendered ineffective – when private rhetorical commitments are repeatedly broken by unacceptable public actions. For example, recent reports that the Ethiopian government is jamming our Voice of America radio broadcasts should be condemned in no uncertain terms, not shrugged off.

The Bush administration must live up to its own rhetoric in promoting democracy and human rights by making it clear that we do not – and will not -- tolerant the Ethiopian government’s abuses and illegal behavior. It must demonstrate that there are consequences for the repressive and often brutal tactics employed by the Ethiopian government, which are moving Ethiopia farther away from – not closer to – the goal of becoming a legitimate democracy and are increasingly a source of regional instability.

Mr. President, I’m afraid that the failure of this Administration to acknowledge the internal crisis in Ethiopia is emblematic of its narrow-minded agenda, which will have repercussions for years to come if not addressed immediately. Worse yet, without a balanced US policy that addresses both short- and long-term challenges to stability in Ethiopia, we run the risk of contributing to the groundswell of proxy wars rippling across the Horn – whether in Somalia, eastern Sudan, or even the Ogaden region. And those wars, in turn, by contributing to greater insecurity on the Horn and providing opportunities for forces that oppose U.S. interests, pose a direct threat to our own national security as well.

I yield the floor.

Dr. YACOB HAILE MARIAM: RECONCILIATION WITHIN KINIJIT LEADERSHIP IS A MUST

By Kirubel Tadesse: Capital

Dr. Yakob Hailemariam, a former UN prosecutor and one of the key figures of the former Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party (CUDP) during the May 2005 elections, stated that reconciliation between the Hailu Shaul and Birtukan Medkisa’s group is not only a likely option but a must ,considering the consequences if talks fail.
In an exclusive interview he gave Capital, Dr. Yakob said that he is hoping for reconciliation because what is at stake is the future of Ethiopia and there isn’t anything that shouldn’t come before the interest of the country and the people. Talking about the current state of the political process in Ethiopia, Dr. Yakob explained to Capital that twenty five million people, who voted for the former CUDP, have been disfranchised because of the decision of giving ‘CUD’ label to an individual who doesn’t represent the party.
Explaining about the international diplomatic community’s role in the May 2005 election, Dr. Yakob said that they did they best they could. “Perhaps they couldn’t do much, after all this is a sovereign country and in fact, at one point, the P.M had said ‘Uncle Sam can go to hell’” added Dr. Yakob,” I think they did their best but the government was adamant that it wouldn’t give on any of its positions or to any negotiation.”
Further explaining the role of the European Union and the American government, Dr. Yakob stated that he believes that the European Union did the best under the circumstances. “As it is to be recalled, after we were arrested, they demanded the unconditional release of the detainees which Amnesty International classified as political prisoners. They even applied some sticks,” said Dr. Yakob,” the Americans from the beginning made it very clear that the legal process should be expedited and that the trial should be undertaken quickly, knowing the kind of the courts we had.”
Further pointing out the American role,” The Americans of course, are out to protect their own interest and definitely this preceded our right to being released. They didn’t demand our unconditional release like the Europeans,” stated Dr. Yakob,” One of the pillars of the foreign policy of the American government is protection of human rights and they didn’t meet that obligation. They sacrificed the protection of human rights in Ethiopia to their interest in fighting terrorism. So the Americans were, right from the very beginning looking out for their interest at our expenses. Even it was no obligation with out compromising their interest; they could have made some dents in the protection of human rights and in the release of political prisoners. I don’t think Americans have been faithful to their creed when it comes to Ethiopia. “
Ambassador Vicki Huddleston, the US Ambassador to Ethiopia during the May 2005 election, told Capital that at the time she felt that the US and the European Community had done everything possible to bring the two sides together.
“Suspicion and public posturing overcame the negotiations with the return of Hailu Shawel,” stated the former acting Ambassador,” In retrospect both sides needed more time, more patience, and above all a greater willingness to compromise.” Ambassador Vicki added that her objective was to support the Government of Ethiopia in finding a way forward that would allow the Opposition to have a voice in governance and prepare the way for both more political space and economic growth.