From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2010 - 16:26:06 EDT
"The Horn of Africa: Current Conditions and U.S. Policy"
June 20th, 2010 |
Testimony of Leslie Lefkow, Senior Researcher Africa Division, Human Rights
Watch, at the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
Hearing of June 17, 2010
Thank you, Chairman Payne, and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me
to participate in this hearing. My name is Leslie Lefkow. I am a senior
researcher with the Africa division of Human Rights Watch and I lead our
work on the Horn of Africa.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing comes at a critical time for the Horn of Africa,
one of the world's most volatile regions. Somalia is in the throes of one of
its most acute crises in more than 20 years of conflict, with millions of
its people displaced within or outside the country. Neighboring Eritrea has
earned the dubious distinction of being the most closed and militarized
society in sub-Saharan Africa. And across the border last month, Ethiopia
conducted an election that cemented the ruling party's grip on power and
signaled that authoritarian rule has become deeply entrenched in the United
States' closest regional ally.
Each of these countries is enduring a human rights crisis of severe
proportions and these crises are interlinked. Nonetheless, today I would
like to focus on Ethiopia, a country that is in some ways the lynchpin of
the region. In the wake of last month's election, this is a key moment to
take stock of recent developments in Ethiopia, assess its future, and
analyze the role that the United States-a longstanding ally and partner to
Ethiopia-can and should play in the region.
Ethiopia's Stalled Democracy
Mr. Chairman, Ethiopia is not democratizing. The May 2010 elections provide
a stark illustration of this fact. The ruling party, the Ethiopian People's
Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), won more than 99 percent of the
vote. Even the continent's long-term dictatorships baulk at these kinds of
figures, but not the EPRDF.
Those who care about Ethiopia and the region now face a key question: were
the May 2010 elections a casualty of a broader agenda of repression and
control, or was the agenda of repression and control primarily an electoral
strategy?
Mr. Chairman, based on the research and analysis that I and my colleagues at
Human Rights Watch have been doing over the past years, I would argue, with
deep regret, that the 2010 elections were simply a milestone in a broader
effort by the EPRDF to consolidate control. It is our view that the
repression we have documented in the lead-up to 2010, particularly the
assault on civil society and independent voices, is a trend that will
continue, and worsen, and is one that should deeply concern Ethiopia's
friends and partners.
Although the margin of the 2010 victory came as a surprise to many
observers, the result itself was predictable and echoed the results of local
elections in 2008. Then, as well, we witnessed a 99 percent victory for the
ruling party, but with the difference that those polls were largely
boycotted by the opposition. In 2010, the opposition engaged in the
electoral process and yet it won only one parliamentary seat in Addis
Ababa-an exact reversal of their landslide victory in the capital five years
earlier.
The latest overwhelming government "victory" is based, first and foremost,
on the government's five-year strategy of systematically closing down space
for political dissent and criticism. It is clear that the brief window of
political space that preceded the controversial 2005 elections in Ethiopia
was an anomaly in the EPRDF's 19-year rule and has now been slammed shut.
Thankfully, the polling on May 23 was peaceful. But the lack of unrest
preceding and following the polls should not be taken as a sign of citizens'
contentment with the process; rather it is the result of a systematic
assault on basic human rights and democratic freedoms since the last
elections of 2005. This campaign took the form of multiple forms of
pressure, including:
* legislative and administrative restrictions on the media, opposition
parties,
and civil society groups;
* harassment and outright intimidation of civil servants and opposition
supporters by government and party cadres at the local government level; and
* violence against, and arbitrary detention of, opposition activists.
Human Rights Watch's own research on the ground, carried out in difficult
conditions, demonstrates clearly that in the run-up to the 2010 elections,
voters were intimidated at almost every stage. The Ethiopian government's
grassrootslevel surveillance machine, largely inherited from the Marxist
military regime of the 1970s and 1980s, extends into almost every household
in this country of 80 million people through the kebele (village or
neighborhood) and sub-kebele administrations.
As a southern farmer and opposition supporter told Human Rights Watch last
fall: "The kebele has made 60 people spies. They spy on the opposition
members, they report on what we do, where we go, etc. We are scared, even
scared to go out much. They are like militias, they are armed with guns."
In addition to penalizing opposition supporters, since 2005 voters at all
levels of society were pressured to join the ruling party through a
combination of carrots-such as access to development resources and
programs-and sticks-such as denial of access to public sector jobs,
educational opportunities, and development assistance. In the months before
the election they were again pressured, this time to register for the
election. And finally, in the weeks before the election, they were pressured
once again, this time to turn out to vote-and to vote for the EPRDF.
What were the consequences of disobeying the elaborate and highly structured
EPRDF-run local level administrations and militias? Government services,
jobs, and other government-controlled resources would be withheld from those
who failed to toe the line.
So the EPRDF's victory this year is no surprise. It was the inevitable
result of a longterm strategy of repression that has been remarkably
thorough and far-reaching. In addition to putting pressure on the voters, it
has manifested itself through an iron grip on the political opposition,
independent civil society, and the media. The electoral consequences of
repression were a landslide result beyond what any simple attempt at rigging
could have delivered. But the consequences of this repression will extend
far beyond 2010.
Political Repression
Mr. Chairman, in any circumstances the development of multi-party democracy
in Ethiopia would be an enormous challenge. Ethiopia is a country that has
never known a peaceful political transition and has a long history of
autocratic governments. For these reasons and others, the opposition gains
in 2005 were a profound surprise to most people, including, it seems, many
government officials. A review of all of the developments since 2005
illustrates that in the wake of the mass public protests, the deaths of
almost 200 demonstrators at the hands of the police, and the negative media
attention of 2005, the government decided well in advance that 2010 would be
very different.
One strand of the government's strategy has been to repress the political
opposition: government critics are subjected to harassment, arrest, and even
torture. Many of the most prominent opposition leaders were incarcerated for
two years after the 2005 elections and charged with very serious crimes
including treason and genocide, for allegedly inciting violence in the
post-election protests. Most of these charges were politically motivated.
One of those detained in 2005 and then released under a pardon negotiated
with the government was prominent opposition leader Birtukan Midekssa.
Birtukan is currently serving a life sentence after the government revoked
its pardon in December 2008 and detained her anew, without a trial,
apparently because of her statement that she had not requested the pardon.
Her detention was determined to be arbitrary by United Nations legal experts
in December 2009.
Repression affects not just prominent dissidents but millions of ordinary
citizens in small and large ways. Across Ethiopia and particularly in
politically sensitive areas such as Oromia, Tigray, and Amhara Regions,
local officials harass, imprison, or threaten to withhold vital government
assistance from perceived government critics and opposition supporters. And
again and again, ordinary Ethiopians stress the oppressive administrative
structures as the key instruments of control.
As a teacher told Human Rights Watch, "You have to understand that at the
grassroots level, everything is organized according to the EPRDF ideology,
everything is organized and controlled by cells; if you are opposition you
are excluded."
"Those who are not [EPRDF] supporters are like prisoners or paralyzed
persons in that kebele," said a farmer from Awassa. This system, which
proved so potent a tool to ensure the outcome of May 2010, will still be in
place long after the elections are forgotten.
Peaceful government critics are often accused of serious crimes such as
membership in insurgent or terrorist organizations. Most are released
without being brought to trial due to the lack of any evidence against them,
but only after punitively lengthy periods of detention.
The prospect of politically-motivated arrests, detentions, and abuses is
only heightened by another recent development in Ethiopia. One of the
alarming pieces of legislation adopted in July 2009, in the prelude to the
elections, was the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. This law provides an
extremely broad and vague definition of terrorism and expands police powers
to arrest suspects without a warrant, among other concerns. Its potential
use against political dissenters and even media who publish dissenting views
is of great concern. Alongside it, there is a second nefarious piece of
legislation regulating non-governmental organizations.
Attacks on Civil Society and the Media
Mr. Chairman, freedom of expression and association are currently under
assault in Ethiopia. Human rights organizations and other elements of
independent civil society that scrutinize and hold governments accountable
came under particular attack in the lead-up to the 2010 elections. In
January 2009 the Ethiopian parliament adopted a new law called the Charities
and Societies Proclamation (CSO law). The legislation restricts and
criminalizes the activities of non-governmental organizations and
associations in ways that violate the rights to freedom of expression and
association.
The government claims that the CSO law is necessary to improve transparency
and accountability and promote indigenous organizations, all of which are
legitimate goals. But the rationale behind the law is quite the opposite. As
laid out in an EPRDF newsletter and described to Human Rights Watch staff by
government officials, the law has a clear discriminatory intent. It equates
certain kinds of independent, non-governmental organizations-like human
rights groups-with political parties, arguing that they should be restricted
from foreign funding in order to restrict foreign influence in Ethiopia's
"developmental democracy." And practically the law allows the government to
determine which kind of non-governmental activity is appropriate. In other
words, development work is acceptable, and an organization can receive
foreign funding for such work as long as the development work does not touch
on anything that hints at human rights promotion. Human rights activity is
barred, including any advocacy for women's rights, children's rights, and
the rights of the disabled.
The effects of the CSO law on Ethiopia's slowly growing civil society have
been devastating and predictable. The leading Ethiopian human rights groups
have been crippled by the law and many of their senior staff have fled the
country due to the increasing latent and sometimes blatant hostility towards
independent activists. Some organizations have changed their mandates to
exclude reference to human rights work. Others, including the Ethiopian
Human Rights Council (EHRCO), Ethiopia's oldest human rights monitoring
organization, and the Ethiopian Women's Lawyers Association (EWLA), which
over the past decade launched groundbreaking work on domestic violence and
women's rights, have slashed their budgets, staff, and operations.
Meanwhile, the government is encouraging a variety of ruling
party-affiliated organizations to fill the vacuum, including the Ethiopian
Human Rights Commission, a national
human rights institution with no semblance of independence.
Mr. Chairman, Ethiopia's government has also had little tolerance for the
independent media. The most blatant attack on free expression-and a
particularly telling reflection of his personal attitude towards the
press-came from Prime Minister Meles Zenawi himself when in March 2010 he
justified the jamming of Voice of America (VOA) by likening its programming
to the genocidal Rwandan broadcaster, Radio Milles Collines. Throughout the
days leading up to polling day, both the VOA and Deutsche Welle, the only
two international radio broadcasters with programming in Ethiopia's
principal languages, were jammed.
Although a few independent newspapers continue to publish despite a
crippling barrage of state-inspired lawsuits, most choose self-censorship or
shy away from frank coverage of the most sensitive issues. One of the most
prominent local independent media outlets, the Addis Neger, closed in
December 2009 after its editors received threats of prosecution under the
new Anti-Terrorism law and fled the country.
Impunity of the Security Forces
Mr. Chairman, Ethiopia's government often cites national security threats to
justify its repressive measures. Certainly Ethiopia has suffered deadly
attacks on its soil and, in October 2008, on its trade mission in Hargeisa,
Somaliland; its concerns about terrorism are real. Ethiopia's government
also faces security threats in the form of two low-level and long-standing
insurgencies: the Oromo Liberation Front, in Oromia region, and the Ogaden
National Liberation Front, which operates in Ethiopia's Somali region.
However, the government has regularly used the language and threat of
terrorism as a pretext to restrict legitimate political opposition activity
and political protest.
Even more alarming, Ethiopia's military has committed serious abuses
amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity in responding to these
threats. And those responsible have enjoyed total impunity from prosecution.
Both the abuses and the widespread impunity enjoyed by perpetrators appear
systematic. From Ethiopia's western Gambella Region to Somali Region in the
east, and in neighboring Somalia, Ethiopian security forces have in recent
years repeatedly responded to insurgent threats with atrocities against
local civilians.
To date, Ethiopia's consistent response to serious allegations of
international crimes committed by Ethiopian security forces has been to deny
the allegations and disparage the sources, be they Ethiopian human rights
groups, my organization-Human Rights Watch-or even the US State Department.
Instead of responding with genuine efforts to investigate and address
abuses, the Ethiopian government has conferred effective immunity upon the
perpetrators.
US Policy towards Ethiopia
Mr. Chairman, the US relationship with Ethiopia is one of its most important
on the African continent and Ethiopia is currently the only viable US
partner in the volatile Horn of Africa. Ethiopia is also one of the few
countries in sub-Saharan Africa whose government has made real and
consistent efforts to realize broadbased economic development for its
citizens.
But over the long term, if its current trajectory continues, the Ethiopian
government is destined to become a serious liability rather than an asset to
US interests in the region. If the United States needs Ethiopia as a
strategic partner over the long term, it is crucial for the United States to
act now to press Ethiopia's government to reverse course, before it is too
late.
The Obama administration responded to the recent elections with a welcome
and lucid statement of concern at the restrictions on freedom of expression
and association. Officials in the administration say that the US government
is shifting from the almost solely security-centered paradigm of the Bush
years to a "balanced" and multi-dimensional relationship that embraces
governance, economic development, and security interests. This shift is
welcome. But it should go further: human rights underpins and intersects
with all three areas of policy concern and should be at the heart of the US
approach.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, so long as there is no accountability for
human rights violations-whether at the hands of security forces, development
officials, or ruling party cadres-it will be impossible for Ethiopia to
achieve the kind of governance and stability it needs to be a truly viable
partner for the United States. Conversely, if the Ethiopian government
continues on its current trajectory of authoritarianism and repression, it
will inevitably, inexorably undermine the partnership it has traditionally
enjoyed with the United States.
If Ethiopia were not considered such a close ally on terrorism issues, it is
likely that these trends would have evoked a far stronger and more concerted
US response before now. Efforts by Human Rights Watch and other
organizations to document Ethiopian state abuses and press for genuine
accountability have to date met with little or no serious response from the
Ethiopian government-or from international donors, led by the US, who
provide Ethiopia with more than US$2 billion in aid annually.
In addition, Ethiopia's government has proven remarkably adept over the
years at intimidating donors into a passive stance on human rights and
governance concerns-somehow managing to leverage massive inflows of
development and humanitarian assistance against the donors and the taxpayers
who provide them. The terms of the debate need to change.
The argument used by some that "quiet diplomacy" works best in Ethiopia has
been proven wrong by its failure to yield few if any tangible results in
recent years. All too often it just gives the Meles government the veneer of
respectability that it seeks. The situation of the past several years-where
the Ethiopian government could publicly reject the State Department's human
rights report as an "irritant" based on "hearsay and lies," or compare the
Voice of America to a genocidal Rwandan broadcaster-should not be quietly
tolerated.
Mr. Chairman, were the US government to give priority to human rights and
governance concerns and work to achieve concrete improvements in the
Ethiopian government's overall rights record, other donors would likely
follow suit. Many key European donors have adopted (or conveniently hid
behind) the position that they cannot effectively press these issues without
leadership from the United States or United Kingdom, Ethiopia's most
important bilateral partners. US leadership is therefore key to pressuring
Ethiopia to change course.
Key Recommendations for the US Government
The statement from the US National Security Council following the May
elections in Ethiopia was welcome and balanced. The US government should
follow-up by clearly setting out some key short- and medium-term steps and
reforms that the Ethiopian government needs to undertake. These should
include revision or amendment of Ethiopia's repressive legislation, release
of political prisoners and other measures, as follows:
1. Insist that Ethiopia's Repressive Legislation is Amended
As an urgent priority, the US government should press Ethiopia's government
to scrap or substantially amend the repressive legislation it adopted in
2008 and 2009, in particular the Charities and Societies Proclamation (CSO
law) and the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. The necessary amendments should-at
minimum-include:
CSO Law:
* Lifting the restriction on foreign funding for CSOs engaged in human
rights activities.
* Adding provisions that appropriately limit and oversee the Charities and
Society Agency's powers to license, register, supervise, penalize, or
dissolve CSOs, and control their operational activities.
Anti-Terrorism Law:
* Clearly defining and limiting the definition of "terrorist acts" to
violent crimes targeting people.
* Removing provisions from the law that are not in conformity with
international evidentiary standards.
* Removing the death penalty.
Media Law:
* Amending provisions that apply criminal penalties, suspension of
publications, and disproportionate financial penalties, and those that are
otherwise not compatible with the Ethiopian Constitution and international
conventions ratified by Ethiopia.
* Removing provisions that impose sanctions based on vague national security
considerations and definitions.
2. Call for the Release of Birtukan Midekssa and other Political Prisoners
Prominent opposition leader Birtukan Midekssa was imprisoned without trial
in 2008 following allegations that she violated the terms of her original
pardon in 2007. She is now required to serve out the remainder of her life
sentence. The Ethiopian government has sought to portray this issue as the
mechanical outcome of an impartial legal system at work. The US government
has already expressed considerable concern about Birtukan's detention but it
has not done so forcefully enough or publicly enough.
3. Ensure that No Military Assistance is Provided to Troops Suspected of War
Crimes
The US should make a clear statement that further International Military
Education and Training (IMET) funding to the Ethiopian military, including
training and provision of equipment to Ethiopian peacekeeping forces, will
depend on meaningful Ethiopian efforts to respond to serious abuses, in line
with the Leahy
amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act.
A meaningful Ethiopian response should include inviting independent
Ethiopian and international investigators and media to investigate
allegations of abuses.
4. Insist on Unfettered Access to Somali Region
In the short term, the US government should seek immediate unfettered access
for impartial humanitarian organizations seeking to assist vulnerable
populations, particularly in the Ogaden area of Somali Region. The Ethiopian
government has placed severe restrictions on such access to date. We suspect
its motives are to conceal what is happening in conflict-affected areas.
The Obama administration should also support an independent evaluation of
the humanitarian response, including the distribution of food aid, in
affected regions of Ethiopia. Serious allegations about potential diversion
and manipulation of aid in the region by the military remain.
As a medium-term goal the US government should press for credible
independent monitoring and reporting on the situation in conflict-affected
regions of the Ogaden-whether by a UN-led commission of inquiry; a UN
delegation of special rapporteurs; or some other impartial mechanism.
Mr. Chairman, my thanks again for the opportunity to address this
sub-committee.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----