By Sultan Taha
Negative statements issued by neoliberal activist groups have the same constitutive elements. They are made of similar bricks and cements, with slight difference in design.
The bricks are unverified and unverifiable information, inaccurate accounts, exaggerated stories and one-sided information originating from politically motivated personalities and hastily put together without thorough review of the concerned matter.
The cement is flawed research methodology, neo-colonial mentality and egoistic personality wrapped by yellow journalism techniques, exaggerated and emotive headlines and phrases designed to attract media or fund-raising attention. It is common to see them displaying extreme forms of paternalism by trying to preach Ethiopia, as if the whole country is a kindergarten rather than a sovereign country with thousands of years proud history.
In light of these facts, it is tiresome to respond to each new routine attempt of besmirching the national image that originates in the neo-liberal camp as they are all made up of similar bricks and cement with slight modification in design.
Moreover, we know from experience that they will not respond to legitimate criticisms made against their claims and methodologies. Instead they elect to ignore the criticisms and pompously claim that any other evidence, from whatever source, however reputable, should be disregarded unless and except it concurs with them.
Experience had shown that the people who run these self-appointed rights groups are financed by forces of color revolution and ideological agenda are worse on this regard.
These are facts well-known to these neoliberal forces. From time to time, it has become increasingly clear their credibility is fast deteriorating and a small number of people trouble to read their excruciatingly long sermons.
As a result, this time around, Amnesty International (AI) chose to use the most melodramatic and preposterous headline for its report: titled “Because I Am Oromo: Sweeping Repression in the Oromia Region of Ethiopia.”
The ignorance and arrogance of the report can easily be revealed in a few points.
The reports suffer from critical defect as it is difficult to tell whether it is a researched report or a compilation of fictional stories, due to the methodological flaws on data gathering, compilation and presentation, hence difficult to verify or disprove the allegations.
The latest report of AI is entirely based on hearsay collected from unnamed individuals. As usual, it failed to provide details of its interviewees or any details of the alleged misconducts.
This makes it impossible to crosscheck whether the interviews have really taken place at all and also to inquire for more details.
AI stated:
“over 240 testimonies were used to compile this report….details and corroborating information was also taken from phone calls and emailed exchanges with Oromo activists in exile”.
At first look, that seems impressive. But let’s check the scant details provided in the report.
After a few pages, AI indicates not all of those people have firsthand information of the things on which they were interviewed. It said: “Of the 176 primary interviewees, around 150 had been harassed or arrested based on possession of actual or suspected dissenting opinions or demonstration of dissenting behavior.”
Who are the rest 26 interviewees? Never mind.
If you pay attention, not even the 150 interviewee are fit to talk about prison conditions. Because some of them – we don’t know how many – were said to have been “harassed” not imprisoned.
Even if AI did not tell us, let’s assume 75 of them told AI that they were in prison for some time. How does AI verify their statements and how does it expect the government Ethiopia to investigate the matter? After all, AI met the individuals and conducted the interviews in
“Nairobi and Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, Hargeisa in Somaliland and Kampala in Uganda”.
In short, the sources of the information are asylum seekers who have every reason to exaggerate things. If they fail to make the most embellished claims of persecution, their chances of getting a visa to Europe and America will be slim.
In another page of the report, AI says:
“more than 40 telephone interviews and email exchanges were conducted with people in different locations in Oromia and in Addis Ababa between 2012 and 2014. These people were victims of human rights violations, family members of victims or eye – witnesses of human rights violations”.
First: AI has no way of knowing whether an email or phone call originated in Ethiopia or not. Family members? OLF and its friend Eritrea can use several technologies to hide and disguise the location of a web based email or a phone call.
Second: When does a family member became a witness status? Why not a neighbor? Or a passer-by?
What we understand from all these is that AI had probably talked to 5 or 10 people who actually claimed to have suffered mistreatments, then inflated the number of “witnesses” to make an impression.
The terrible flaw of these so-called testimonies is visible in the self-contradicting statements contained in the report.
At one page, AI said:
“The government suggests the OLF continues to enjoy popular support in Oromia and many observers agree. This may be true, at least to some extent”.
In another page, it claimed:
“It is often unclear whether the government still believes there to be a high level of support for the OLF or whether it is merely politically expedient for it to say so”.
Still, in another page, it said:
“The government demonstrates that it continues to believe sympathy or support for the OLF remains widespread in the region. Further, the government appears to also believe the OLF is behind many signs of peaceful dissent in the region”.
Why all these self-contradictions and speculations? The golden rule says: Stick to what you know! Nevertheless, AI feels entitled to talk and speculate about everything.
The main elements of AI’s report, built on the flawed bricks we discussed above claim that:
The majority of former detainees interviewed by Amnesty International, arrested based on their actual or imputed political opinion, reported that they had been subjected to treatment amounting to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in most cases repeatedly, while in detention or had been subjected to treatment that amounts to torture or ill – treatment in and around their homes.
Former detainees repeatedly said that they were coerced, in many cases under torture or the threat of torture, to provide a statement or confession or incriminating evidence against others.
However, the contrary is true as we learn when we take a look at the 2012 report of Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to observe its impeccable methodology and also the reality in Ethiopia’s prisons.
The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on Prison Conditions was outcome of a wide-ranging thorough review of the prisons by EHRC’s monitoring group.
Explaining the methodology the report states that:
“EHRC’s monitoring group was divided into seven working teams each of which consisted of 2-4 experts.
Next, 10-15 detainees were selected by the detainees themselves to provide information to the monitors on their behalf. The selected detainees must be representative of the entire detainees and be capable of explaining human rights condition of detainees.
They should be non-members of any leadership committees in the detention center. Efforts were made to ensure that the composition of the selected detainees be of a representative nature that takes into account their religious background and detainee status.
Discussions with the selected detainees were held in an area that is free from the presence and influence of prison security personnel in order to allow detainees express their views without any fear.
The monitoring covers 114 (95.8%) out of the 119 detention centers in nine regional states and two Federal City Administrations. The monitoring teams made personal visits to all of these prisons.”
Following this impeccable sampling methodology, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report presented the situation in the prisons.
In a section titled “Major Issues Identified by Monitoring”, the report elaborates that:
“Monitoring findings revealed that the rights to life of all detainees in all the prisons that are covered by the monitoring are duly respected.
Prisons have been observed offering all possible assistance to ensure that the right to life of all detainees is respected.
It was confirmed that deceased detainees received all possible medical assistance prior to their death. The findings also revealed that there were some detainees who died of natural causes in prison.
It was also confirmed during the monitoring that the human rights and freedoms of the majority of detainees under custody are appropriately respected. Detainees, however, explained that in 49 prisons there have been cases when fellow inmates who committed serious offenses have been subjected to harsh disciplinary measures by the respective committees. The punitive actions have been described as harsher than what is provided for in existing regulations. It was also explained that there had been cases when detainees were arbitrarily beaten by some security personnel.
However, the monitoring teams tried to find out if there had been any torture cases in violation of Article 1 of the 1984 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Findings confirmed that there had been no violation of that nature.”
It doesn’t seem we can hope AI will be able and willing to learn this kind of transparent and objective research methods. Because the root problem is not ignorance but also arrogance.
The source of the ideologically driven media onslaught is an outcome of Ethiopia’s resistance to implement a full-scale privatization, deregulation and liberalization of strategic economic sectors as per the neoliberalism prescriptions (also known as, the Washington Consensus).
The ideological driven onslaught has intensified in mid-2000s when Ethiopia made it abundantly clear that it has embarked the democratic developmental state paradigm and increased after that despite the astonishing socio-economic progress achievement of Ethiopia’s development strategy. The neoliberal forces at home and abroad saw it as a “bad example” that should be quashed at the earliest possible opportunity.
While Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia congratulated the achievements, others chose to launched non-stop smear campaign based on ideological bias to the developmental state paradigm and using the natural limitations of a transitional democracy and developing country as a pretext.
Ethiopia, however, made significant strides in expanding the protection of the lives and liberties and its citizens and in providing a constantly improving humane treatment for all sections of the population as per the constitution in the past two decades.
The main measure of Ethiopia’s progress is how far it traveled in the path to “develop a comprehensive and structured mechanism to advance the respect, protection and fulfillment of human and democratic rights guaranteed by the Constitution” so as to ease the challenges and meet the expectations of its citizens.
That goal is far from achieved. Nonetheless, the journey covered thus far is encouraging given the shortness of the period and the infancy of the infant Constitutional order.
The National Human Rights Action Plan 2013 – 2015 of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia shows those commitments.
Before we conclude, let’s quote two relevant sections of the plan.
With regard to the “Right of the Security of Person and Prohibition against Inhuman Treatment “, the plans states that:
1. In order to better ensure respect of the right to security of the person prohibition of inhuman treatment the legal provisions regarding the use of force, currently employed by members of the police will be developed and implemented on the basis of study findings. Measures will be taken to strengthen the system of accountability that is in place.
2. Persons in custody will be allowed to make telephone calls to members of their family, their legal and religious counselors or any other person of their choice immediately after arrest. In places where telephones are unavailable they shall be allowed to send message through a third person or any other means of communication. Where none of these means is available, the police will provide the necessary assistance.
3. At all times when interviews and interrogations are conducted on persons in custody, records of : names of police officers present, the exact place of interview/interrogation and time will be recorded on a register to be prepared for this purpose and presented to the courts of law and other authorized bodies whenever ordered.
With regard to the “Rights of Persons Arrested, Persons Held in Custody and Convicted Prisoners”, the plan states:
1. In order to reduce the length of the pre-trial detention, time frames within which criminal investigations shall be completed will be set based on the seriousness of the crime.
2. The necessary legal and administrative framework will be put in place to enable the effective provision of follow up and support for persons released form prisons in order to assist them in becoming productive and law-abiding citizens.
3. Where a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a medium or serious criminal offense is unable to afford a legal counsel of his/her choice, efforts will be made to provide free legal service before the person is interviewed by the police. To provide the service on a wide scale, close operational relations will be developed with relevant bodies. The Ministry and Regional Bureaus of Justice will assign private practitioners to provide free legal service /pro bono/.
4. Police officers will inform all arrested persons on suspicion of having committed a criminal offense promptly of the reasons of their arrest and any charges against them; their right to remain silent; the fact that any statement they make may be used against them as evidence in court; their right to be represented by legal counsel, in a language they understand. Provisions imposing administrative measures for failure to do the above mentioned tasks will be incorporated in police ethics regulations and appropriate trainings will be given.
5. Regular visitations of police detention centers and prisons by senior police and prison administration officials, prosecutors and House of Peoples Representatives/Regional Council members and other relevant bodies will continue reinforced. The conduct of investigations into credible complaints of human rights violation and the taking of appropriate measures where violations are proved to have occurred will continue reinforced.
6. In order to ensure accelerated justice by eliminating the undue delays in receiving criminal investigation reports and autopsy and psychiatric examination results, easily accessible centers of post mortem examination and psychiatric examination will be established in the hospitals accessible to all areas of the country. Further, to build the human resource needed, education and training facilities and institutions of forensic pathology will be expanded.
8. Measures will be taken to improve the quality of services in police detention centers. Efforts being made to provide all persons in detention centers with three meals a day will continue intensified. The amount of money allocated for feeding each detainee per day will be revised in line with market prices. Work will also be made to improve the sleeping and sanitary supplies.
9. All persons held in police detention centers will be made aware of their right to submit their complaints of human rights violations. Notices explaining the methods of registration of complaints will be displayed at salient points visible to all detainees.
10. Efforts will be made to ensure that all prisons at Federal and Regional levels are better able to respect and enforce the human rights of every prisoner. Actions will be taken to enable all prisons to separate the juvenile offenders from the adults; the persons on pre-sentencing remand from convicted persons. With regard to congestion in prisons, the expansion, renovation and upgrade of old facilities as well as the construction of new centers will be conducted based on the findings of a need assessment study to be conducted. Federal and Regional Prison Administrations will undertake a review of the budget allocated to feed each prisoner in order to improve the quality of meals.
11.Clean water for drinking and sanitation will be made available to all prisons.
Quality formal and vocational education offered in prisons will be expanded to enable prisoners to become productive and law abiding citizens and earn a living when they rejoin the society. A stronger working relationship shall be formed with the Ministry and Regional bureaus of Education.
Further, work will be done to expand health services in prisons. (aigaforum)