“Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia”

Last week, US Senators Feingold and Leahy introduced a draft bill into the US Senate. It was entitled ‘Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia, Act of 2010.’ Any bill that is introduced into the US Senate is, of course, a matter of US internal affairs. And we wouldn’t criticize Senators for anything they might wish to place before the Senate of the US, even if it does deal with the internal affairs of other countries. Indeed, we would entirely welcome support for democracy in Ethiopia. As we have frequently emphasized, democracy, together with good governance and respect for human rights, is a necessity for the survival of Ethiopia and for the achievement of the eradication of poverty, the main aim of government development strategy. This, indeed, is why we spend a great deal of time and energy ensuring the strengthening of democratic governance.

At the same time, this bill is something of a puzzle. Under the heading ‘findings’, it does contains sizeable factual errors and fails to notice numerous relevant details. Senators Feingold and Leahy really ought to know by now that Ethiopia, far from refusing to comply with the arbitration of the Ethiopian Eritrean Border Commission, fully accepted the Delimitations Decisions of the Commission nearly six years ago, in November 2004. Since then,Ethiopia has made repeated efforts to encourage demarcation of the border according to international practices, to enter into dialogue with the government of Eritrea and to normalize relations. These efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed by Eritrea. Eritrea has coupled this with the takeover of the Temporary Security Zone between the two countries and the arbitrary expulsion of the UN Mission, the guarantor of the integrity of the TSZ, and another of whose jobs was supposed to be oversight of the demarcation process. Eritrea has in fact to all intents and purposes nullified the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of June 2000, the central plank of the peace agreement which ended the war started by Eritrea in May 1998. It is not Ethiopia which has made demarcation impossible.

The ‘finding’ on the Somali Regional State is similarly inaccurate, making no mention of, inter alia, such important developments as the peace deal signed between the government and the United Western Somali Liberation Front (UWSLF) in March, or the agreement currently being negotiated between the government and the major faction of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which will be signed next month. It makes no mention of recent major advances in the provision of health, education, infrastructure, IT and energy supplies in the Somali Regional State, nor of the significant administrative and financial devolution down to woreda, even kebele, level.

The source of any claim of “credible” reports of gross violations of human rights in the Somali Regional State is the Asmara-based ONLF fraction, refracted through Human Rights Watch, whose methodology and checking procedures have been shown to be seriously flawed. In its last report on the Ogaden region, over two years ago, HRW admitted relying solely upon external, often telephonic, contacts with refugees and ONLF sources, all outside Ethiopia. It made little or no effort to establish the accuracy of claims on the ground. Other reports, indeed, clearly demonstrated multiple errors in HRW’s claims.

The other difficulty with this bill is its failure to notice that a number of the demands it makes have actually been going on for years. We have, in ‘A Week in the Horn’ for example, listed details of the extensive and regular education provided for all levels of the Ethiopian Defense Forces in human rights and accountability. Any credible allegations of abuse are automatically investigated; appropriate punishment is given if proven. We would, however, admit that details of such procedures are not normally released to the US Senate. It is hardly the appropriate body to be kept informed of such internal disciplinary matters. There is a major program for strengthening the independence and capacity of the judiciary, supported by a number of international donors, which has been going on for several years. There are no political leaders who have been jailed for political reasons; any in custody have been arrested on civil or criminal charges. Humanitarian and development ‘entities’, including those of the UN, are welcome anywhere in Ethiopia and have complete access unless security preclude this, as for example close to the Eritrean border, or in areas of the Somali Regional State where the ONLF was carrying out terrorist attacks in 2007-2008.

It is, in fact, disconcerting that two such prominent Senators should spend so much time and energy on the internal affairs of a country with which the US has a close and, we believe, a valuable relationship. We would, in this context, have expected a real and particular effort to get the facts straight. Equally, however, at the end of the day, perhaps the biggest surprise is that Senators Feingold and Leahy should concentrate on Ethiopia when there are so many more serious concerns for the international community in our own region: the dangers posed by the situation in Somalia, by the possibility of expanding extremism and terrorism, the operations of Al-Shabaab and piracy, the risks to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan, and the destabilization activities of Eritrea throughout our region which have after all been recognized as a major problem by the international community. It is ironic that the two Senators even appear unaware of Security Council Resolution 1907. This is indeed emblematic of the flaws in their draft bill. All these are very real threats to international peace and security. It is hardly surprising that we find it difficult to understand why Senators Feingold and Leahy should focus on allegations, most unchecked and largely inaccurate, concerning Ethiopia.