habeshaw

HR 2003: Myth and Reality

A couple of months ago, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill called ‘Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007’, or HR 2003, as it is also known. Since then, we have been witnessing to some of the most absurd comments about the bill from those who oppose it. Few of these people might have been innocently mislead by the Ethiopian government’s deliberate misinformation concerning the bill. But in my opinion, most of those who advance a negative view of the bill, some of them even with out reading it, are people who consciously choose to perpetuate the myth created by the Meles regime regarding the bill.
One of the most outrageous charges from the opponents of the bill is that they see it as a threat to Ethiopia’s sovereignty. They even go so far as to complain that the bill puts Ethiopia under America’s colony. It may not be surprising if such claims come only from people like Ayele Chamiso, the self appointed Kinijit ‘leader’ which in my view does not even merit a response here.
However, the situation becomes all the more shocking when we realize that included in this line of thinking are personalities like Professor Ephrem Yisak, the long time Harvard professor to whom many of us have great regard. As we all know, Professor Efrem is praised by many (I believe rightly so) for his role in the release of Kinijit leaders. It should be noted however that, from what we know after the jailed leaders have been freed, the circumstances surrounding their release and all the compromises made to secure it are little less than a mystery. And this still makes some of us less enthusiastic, if not suspect of the roles that the ‘shimagles’ played in the ‘pardon’. Since this is not the main focus of this article, I will now return to the central idea of my writing: how and why people like Prof. Efrem oppose HR 2003.
In his interview on ETN (Ethiopian Television Network) shortly after the release of Kinijit leaders, the Professor made it clear that he is a big fan of Meles. He praised PM Meles as the ‘bright, intelligent leader’ and dismissed HR 2003 as a way of putting Ethiopia in an indirect colonization. I have no problem with the Professor’s portrayal of Meles as such, because I respect his opinion, though I feel that it is an extremely misplaced characterization.
Viewed in the light of his admiration for Meles, the Professor’s strong opposition to the bill is understandable. But to any one who has read the bill, it is hard not to put in to question the intentions of those who oppose the bill on such unfounded grounds including Prof. Efrem. With all due respect to the Professor, my view is that his dismissal of the bill is a total distortion of reality. There is nothing in the bill which makes one think that it is a threat to the sovereignty of our country. The bill is about the creation and advancement of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia.
Even if we assume for a moment that the bill threatens Ethiopia’s independence as Professor Yishak and others would like us to believe, who is to blame? If United States is a ‘threat to Ethiopian sovereignty’ or wants to ‘colonize’ Ethiopia, it is the Meles regime that is responsible. Not only is Meles Zenawi’s brutal dictatorship the reason for the bill to come in to existence in the first place, but he is still doing business with the supposed ‘colonizer’. At about the same time when HR 2003 was approved, congress also passed a bill which angered the Turkish government condemning the Turkish massacre of Armenians during WWI, as ‘genocide’. What did the Turkish government do? They summoned their ambassador from Washington as a strong demonstration of their disappointment. What did the Ethiopian government do when ‘Ethiopia’s sovereignty is threatened by another nation? My question is why would not Professor Yishak and others advise the ‘boss’ to ‘suspend’ his relationship with United States as they have ‘discovered’ some ‘conspiracy’ on the part of United States of America to ‘colonize’ Ethiopia. The irony is that Meles continues to accuse others of treason for supporting a bill coming from a country to which, as the whole world knows, he has always been showing unwavering loyalty.
To get a better sense of how silly those people who oppose the bill are, listen to what Meles Zenawi himself has to say. The Prime Minister declared that the bill is a ‘personal vendetta’, (against him?) referring to either or both of the bill’s original creators: congressmen Donlad Payne and Chris Smith. Hey, your Excellency, what about the rest of 433-members of congress who approved the bill unanimously? Do they hate you too?
Never mind. In your 15 years experience, you have never had any problem of getting a law approved in your ‘parliament’ over night against those who dare to think slightly different from you. Therefore, it is perfectly in line with your experience to think that a single person in American Congress can easily have a bill passed to revenge some one he/she hates.
Now, the real question is what is it in the bill that scares Meles and his clique so much that they are in mindless propaganda against the bill? For the answer we have to read section six of the bill. In section six, the bill imposes travel restrictions to the United States on those who ordered the killings of innocent civilians in the June and November demonstrations and the security personnel who took part in the shooting. This is what scares the Meles camp most. So, the paranoia about the bill is perfectly understandable from the perspective of the regime in Addis Ababa. As far as others who oppose the bill are concerned, we can only speculate what their real motive is. But if they prefer to hold on to their ‘sovereignty’, and ‘colonization’ thesis, we are forced to assume that their opposition is to section 6 of the bill, not the entire bill. And if that is true, shame on them.
Finally, what is the chance of the bill to be a law? And even assuming that the bill becomes a law, what can it achieve? In my opinion, if the current trend is any indication, it hard to be overly optimistic about what the bill can do. It is true that the government in Ethiopia heavily depends on foreign aid for its survival. It is also true that the lion’s share this aid comes primarily from the United States of America. One would therefore reasonably expect the Addis Ababa regime to yield to outside pressure as it did several times before. But given the good relationship between the current US administration and its counter part in Ethiopia (thanks to the so called war on terror), it is yet to be seen to what extent the bill achieves its intended result even if it becomes a law. We need to remember that to be a law, the bill has to be approved by the US senate and signed by the president both of which have not happened yet.
The Bush administration has shown in several occasions that it does not support the bill. The secretary of State Condolezza Rice’s recent visit to Ethiopia is a huge diplomatic boost for Meles and the message it sends is clear: as long as you do what we want you to, do not worry about human rights and democracy in your country. I am a realist and I know that there is only permanent interest, not permanent friendship in politics. But considering the highly submissive nature of the Meles regime and its willingness to do what ever it takes to please his bosses in Washington, I do not see any reason for the friendship to be hampered significantly in the foreseeable future. However, I am not advocating that we should give up the pressure to help the bill become law. Rather, we should continue to press for every possibility to make the bill a reality. If not for anything else, the bill might produce some result by simply scaring the regime. Above all, we should support the bill because it is good for our country.
——–The writer can be reached at habeshaw646@gmail.com.

posted by habeshaw @ 12:42 PM