webmaster@africanidea.org

The United States Should End Supporting Dictatorship in Ethiopia

IDEA Viewpoint October 19, 2009

The aim of this viewpoint is to influence public policy in general and the policy-planning spectrum of the United States, so that the latter can seriously consider paradigm shift in the 21^st century. The U. S., of course, is going to carefully examine its options with respect to its relations with Ethiopia, but it should never play the antiquated dice of realism, that, in turn, relegates the interest of the Ethiopian people into the backburner.

For a long time, two schools of thought, namely the Realist school and the Liberal School have dominated and shaped American foreign policy. The Realist school advocates that human beings by nature are selfish and fallible; global politics is characterized by ‘a war of all against all’ (bellum ominum contra ominus á la Thomas Hobbes); national interest comes first; the preponderance of national security and military might over economics is desirable; international organizations and/or international law are less relevant or irrelevant to international conduct.

By contrast, the Liberal school fostered ideas such as human nature is essentially good; institutions and the environment influence human behavior; global collaboration through reason and dialogue; promotion of free international trade against economic nationalism; secret diplomacy to be replaced by open covenants.

The two schools, with their attendant policy paradigms have fashioned U. S. foreign policy, but there is no neat divide between Realism and Liberalism when it comes to advancing U. S. global interests. In fact, sometimes, the two schools overlap and coalesce. It is in light of the liberal tradition and the hard facts on the ground in Ethiopia that we like to urge the Obama Administration to end its support to the dictatorial regime in Ethiopia.

At the outset we like to make clear to our readers that we at IDEA have no intention whatsoever to belittle initiatives taken by the Ethiopian government. We are neither interested nor have the time for character assassination, but we are steadfast in uncovering the reality in Ethiopia, as we have done in the past by series of editorials and articles.

The current Ethiopian government of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) assumed power after it defeated the Mengistu Haile-Mariam regime in 1991. Initially, the ruling party promised democracy, free elections, citizen rights etc. but increasingly, over the last eighteen years, the EPRDF proved to the Ethiopian people its true nature of vicious and dictatorial governance. This is not surprising, because from the outset the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) and its appendage, the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), formerly the Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement (EPDM), are anti –people and anti-democracy, and luckily for us the truth has been revealed by a former TPLF member, now in exile.

Gebremedhin Araya, former chief of finance of the TPLF, in his essay (Amharic) entitled ‘A Disturbing Report: So that the Ethiopian People Know’ tells it all: in 1977 a huge fanfare and festival was organized by the TPLF leaders inside the guerrilla base area in Tigray to inaugurate the Marxist Leninist League of Tigray (MLLT). The establishment and inauguration of the MLLT coincided with the drought and subsequent widespread famine in Tigray. In order to meet the objective of it’s fundraise, the TPLF deliberately paraded thousands of the hungry peasants on the streets of Sudan. World organizations such US Aid, Red Cross, CARE International, World Vision, Red Crescent, and UN Humanitarian team, have responded and extended relief aid. The Band Aid of Sir Bob Goldof alone contributed $100,000,000, but this money was put into the personal account of Meles Zenawi and Sebhat Nega, top TPLF leaders. The TPLF leaders also decided to allocate the aid property and money as follows: 55% for MLLT, 45% for the Red Army, and 5% for the people. But even the 5% did go to the people. While the starving peasants were dying, and hyenas were eating some of the rotten bodies, the TPLF leaders had the pleasure of squandering aid money for their festival and personal gains. For the MLLT fifteen-day festival alone, the following money was disbursed and spent:

a) Food, beverage, meat 28, 000, 000

b) Hall construction and various tools 4,700, 000

c) Generator and other materials 1,500, 000

d) Various other goods 2,332,000

Total 36, 532, 000 Ethiopian Birr¹

While Gebremedhin Araya deserves a huge accolade for his patriotism and courage, it is stunning and frightening to witness the cruelty and depravity of the TPLF leaders against a people whom they pretend to represent. It is unconscionable and hard to fathom for any person, whose humanity is still in tact, the level of arrogance and crude bestiality of the TPLF leaders. In light of this gruesome reality that surrounds the Ethiopian landscape, we believe it is time for the Obama Administration to end its support to the government of Ethiopia.

Unless U. S. foreign policy and the liberal variety operates within the framework of hegemonic stability theory (a hybrid of neo-realist and liberal theory) or it is “an eclectic school that does not posit a single underlying logic explaining conflict and cooperation,”² the Obama Administration could not ignore the inexplicable criminality directed against the Ethiopian people.

It is understandable that relatively poorer and weak states like Ethiopia, led by the survival instinct of the EPRDF, would look unto the U. S. and other major powers like the European Union (EU) for financial and diplomatic support. And as Christopher Clapham observes, “the imperatives of state survival force elites to use foreign policy to garner political and economic resources from external environment.”³

The United States cannot always coach and cushion desperado regimes within the framework of a statist government-to-government relations, without due regard to the peoples’ interest. In fact, as Robert P. Putnam so aptly puts it, “political science must have a greater public presence,” and “the concern of fellow citizens is not an optional add-on for the profession of political science, but an obligation as fundamental as our pursuit of scientific truth.”⁴ America, of course, does not have legal obligation for Ethiopia and Ethiopians, but it definitely may have a moral obligation, if indeed its foreign policy, as per the liberal tradition is tainted by ‘reasoned and ethically inspired education’.

The United States must also realize that the global political scenario has dramatically changed over the last two decades in favor of democracy and the market economy. There shouldn’t be any justification for U. S. policy makers to embrace anti-people and anti-democratic regimes, as it was the case, for instance, during the entire period of the ‘60s, ‘70s, 80s and beyond. In 1982, for example, when Vice President George Bush visited the Congo, he spoke in admiration of the kleptomaniac Mobutu Sese Seko and said, “I have come to admire Mr. President, your personal courage and leadership in Africa.”⁵

Although we do not agree with Mr. Bush’s praise of a brutal regime, just to be fair however, we like to acknowledge his statement in the context of the Cold War. But, again the U. S. advanced similar diplomatic gestures in the early 1990s, this time in admiration of the ‘New and Progressive’ leadership of the Horn of Africa, whose leadership turned out to be quite the opposite.

During the Clinton Administration, the same old policies of nurturing and supporting corrupt regimes in Africa continued. Clinton was a perfect example of a center-liberal hybrid typology that manifested an eclectic foreign policy of liberal-cum-realist in its relations with African governments. This is understandable given the nature of U. S. foreign policy, but what was not obvious was the Clinton Administration inability to divulge itself from the old school of realism. Clinton, in fact, was a smart, shrewd, eloquent and charismatic leader. Above all, he was a lucky man for two reasons: 1) he assumed power at a very propitious moment when the Soviet Union vanished and subsequently the Cold War ended and America was no longer preoccupied with containing communism; 2) in the United States, small businesses and major corporations enjoyed economic prosperity.

Logically, thus, there was no need for America to look for friendly countries (or puppet regimes, if you will) in the peripheries, and it is for this apparent reason that we urge the Obama Administration to discontinue its support of the Ethiopian regime that is inimical to the national interest of Ethiopia (including its sovereignty and territorial integrity) and the Ethiopian people. If indeed the U. S. is bastion and exemplar of a democratic system, it should support regimes that yearn for a democratic culture, and refrain from backing undemocratic and anti-democratic governments. Here, we like to underscore that no nation in our planet can easily maintain the delicate balance between diplomacy and principle. Countries will indeed continue to have diplomatic relations with other countries that pursue offensive politics and unacceptable behavior. But the point we like to make is that the U. S. should not reward governments that are vicious and anti-people.

Moreover, democracy must not be seen mechanically, as if it can be superimposed from above. First and foremost, we must reckon with the hard fact that democracy is both an idea and a way of life. Put otherwise, it is a concept that necessarily need to be translated into action, and since in essence it is ‘government by the people’, it is neither an individual nor a group phenomenon, but a system that must be examined and understood in a socio-cultural context. It is in the latter broader framework that America must shape its foreign policy to induct principles and not just ‘permanent interests’.

Principles are not easily attained or implemented. Discussing the ‘perennial destiny of principles’, Susan Sontag once said, “While everyone professes to have them, they are likely to be sacrificed when they became inconveniencing. Generally a moral principle is something that puts one at variance with accepted practice.”⁶

We do not expect principles from an EPRDF-type regimes, and now we know, thanks to Gebremedhin Araya’s testimonial essay, that this organization was anti-people from its inception. Nevertheless, the EPRDF enjoys three sources of political support despite its pathology and artfully deceptive politics: 1) Direct support from EPRDF members and cadres, and opportunist professionals and intellectuals; 2) Indirect objective allies of the EPRDF, Ethiopians at home and the Diaspora who claim to be in the opposition camp but with no clear political agenda and on the contrary foment their Tigray phobia sentiments. These spent forces have become objective allies to the EPRDF, because they too are anti-Ethiopian interests and a blessing-in-disguise for the government of Ethiopia. The latter is aware that the Diaspora charlatans are ‘god-given gift’. 3) The United States and the European Union direct or indirect support in spite of the hegemonic control of the EPRDF and its psychopathology of dissociation from the Ethiopian people.

It may sound ironic, but the EPRDF members and cadres are not to be blamed (although they could be opposed and challenged in principle) for backing their organization, but the two other sources mentioned above are historically obligated to answer to the Ethiopian people. Here is a clue for them to begin figure out the solution to the problem: A model for understanding the broader question of differing developments in Ethiopia. In plain English, it means an alternative could be forged if the complex Ethiopian political landscape is clearly understood.

Finally, we like to reinforce the central theme of this Viewpoint by suggesting an alternative to the current political system in Ethiopia. Whether we like it or not, the Ethiopian fate will be decided by Ethiopians at home, but given the complex and inextricably concatenated global politics vis-à-vis the Ethiopian reality, it logically follows that the opposition in Ethiopia needs support from the U. S. and the EU.

At this juncture, the alternative force and the pride and promise for the Ethiopian people are the Forum for Democratic Dialogue (FDD), locally known as Medrek. Both in terms of organizational composition and political program, the FDD comes very close to fulfilling the dreams and aspirations of the Ethiopian people. The FDD has relatively matured and experienced leaders and its objective, as per its political program, is not simply to oppose the EPRDF and capture state power, but to transcend beyond regime change and transform Ethiopia for the better.

It is in light of the overall Ethiopian reality and the alternative rationale discussed above that the United States must restructure its ambiguously suspended foreign policy and sort out its options. It can no longer continue to support a dictatorial regime that thoroughly disregards rule of law, incarcerates members of the opposition without due process of law, and governs with neo-patrimony and espionage. The former president of Ethiopia, Dr. Negasso Gidada, in his recent visit to Dembi Dollo of the Oromia region in western Ethiopia, has encountered the intimidation, illegal arrests, and arbitrary detention of fellow Ethiopians by EPRDF forces.⁷

The United States should end supporting dictatorship in Ethiopia. Furnishing political and financial support to autocracy in Ethiopia, at a time when the Ethiopian people suffer from oppression, poverty, and famine, is tantamount to going against all powers of reason and history.

Notes

Gebremedhin Araya, A Disturbing Report: So that the Ethiopian People Know: Part II, Ethiomedia, pdf in Amharic, 2009. The subtitle for this essay is ‘The fall of the people of Tigray in the hands of the enemy and its ramification on Ethiopia’.
Etel Solingen, Regional Orders At Century’s Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy, Princeton University Press, 1998, p. 6
Christopher Clapham in Gilbert M. Khadiagala and Terrence Lyons, editors, African Foreign Polices: Power and Processes, Lynne Rienner, 2001, p. 7
Robert D. Putnam, “The Public Role of Political Science,” in Bernard E. Brown, editor, Comparative Politics, Thomson Wadsworth, 2006, pp. 40 and 41
Martin Meredith, The Fate of Africa: From the Hope of Freedom to the Heart of Despair, Public Affairs, 2005, p. 307
Susan Sontag on Courage and Resistance, The Nation, May 5, 2003, p. 12
Negasso Gidada, “No Level Playing field for the 2010 election,” www.ethiomeida.com/adroit/4222.html, October 12, 2009