Amen Teferi
Bent out of shape about the remark made by the State Department’s undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, the Washington Post(WP) had editorialized on her statement. During her visit to Addis Ababa on April 16, Sherman declared, “Ethiopia is a democracy.” Unfortunately, her testimony has sparked a kind of commotion among some groups and individuals. Hence, the Post has decided to echo the reactions of “some Ethiopians and human rights advocates,” which it deemed to be justified.
I think the rhetorical power that Washington Post has lies in its being a business firm. The Post has editorialize the statement given by the under Secretary Sherman when she had visited Ethiopia last month, April 2015. The post in its editorial titled “The United States’ irresponsible praise of Ethiopia’s regime” has touched upon many issues that it finds to be the weakness eating up Ethiopia’s governance. The fourthcoming election, freedom of expression, civic freedoms etc were discussed.
Well, I believe that Wendy Sherman’s statement is true and have found it to be a genuine compliment. She knows what is at stake in the longstanding relationship between the two countries. That is the best bet as far as the rational national interests of the US government and its people. However, according to the Washington Post,(WP) Ms. Sherman’s statement was a “lavish praise” which is particularly unjustified given Ethiopia’s record on press freedom.”
The editorial board of WP has run two editorial comments, one on its April 30 edition and the other the in May. Later,on May 8, 2015, Wendy Ruth Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs has published a letter in response to the WP editorial and said “Ethiopia is a valuable partner in a critical region.”
Post’s assault
It is clear that the Post has unfriendly opinion about Ethiopia and considered Ms. Sherman’s statement to be “a lavish or irresponsible praise” that would be unjustified given Ethiopia’s record on press freedom.” WP has euphemously noted, “Ethiopia’s election, scheduled for May 24, [is] shaping up to be anything but democratic.” We cannot take this statement as read. If we can take that way,Post’s opinion will be in accord with the judgment of the Undersecretary.
Washington Post takes a dim view on the progress Ethiopia made in its democratic governance. It accuses the Ethiopian government for “stifling civic freedoms and systematically cracking down on independent journalism for several years.”Thus, it found it “startling to hear” the State Department’s undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, who declared that “Ethiopia is a democracy that is moving forward.The forthcoming election, we expect, will be free, fair and credible.”
However, WP has unwillingly acknowledged the success it has made in economic sectors. Unlike the present, Ethiopia had been a poster child of everything evil that was coming out of the African continent. According the newspaper, “A country that has often been held up as a poster child for development” has been stifling free press and political dissents.
Like the Ethiopian government, the undersecretary did not fail to highlight that “Ethiopia has a long road to full democracy.” I would like to underscore the fact that this statement is a daily mantra for EPRDF. All the same, the editorial board of WP has misled its readers and done unpardonable mistake when it simply endorse the condemnation leveled by CPJ and AI against the Ethiopian government. The exercise of freedom of expression in Ethiopia and the anti-terrorist act it had endorsed in 2009 has remained for long a thorny subject.
EPRDF had presaged a doomsday Armageddon in the absence of democracy, arguing, the alternative to democracy is inevitably civil war that would upend the nation to chaos and the country would cease to exist as a sovereign entity.
In its policy documents,the ruling party has declared that any attempt to shut the mouths of the citizens and to restrict press freedom would eventually lead the nation into the abyss. The document has also noted that unprofessional conducts of some private presses would not only hamper the consolidation of Ethiopia‘s fledgling democracy and may undermine the constitutional order.
Mr. Sherman pointed out that “Ethiopia is a valuable partner” to the US in peacekeeping,pursuing peace in South Sudan and fighting al-Shabab. She has also noted, while “Ethiopia is among the world’s fastest-growing economies and has made significant progress toward its Millennium Development Goals…. stability, security and economic development are sustainable only with the development of democratic values.”
As she has indicated in her letter written to WP, her comments on the upcoming election was simply “an aspiration in hopes that it would be a step forward” in the democratization process that Ethiopia embarked on. Many political party candidates, opposition party leaders and the voting public would testify this statement.
In her letter she wrote to the WP editor, Mr. Sherman has said, “Ethiopia is a young country in terms of democracy and over time we hope the political system matures in a way that provides real choices for the people.” This statement could be justified by the records of accomplishment in the last two decades. Given Ethiopia’s unswerving commitment in promoting good governance and democracy, one can predict with absolute certainty that Ethiopia will soon have a full-blown democracy. Nevertheless, if history is any judge, the world should bet that like any democracy Ethiopia’s democracy could only consolidate itself overtime.
She did not retract any of her statement but expressed her disappointment saying: “It is unfortunate the editorial mischaracterized my remarks and, more important, underestimated the fullness of our bilateral relationship.” She further added, “The U.S. government closely monitors the human rights situation and works with Ethiopia to foster a true democracy as part of our valued relationship.”
As English proverb has it, a cat may look at a king. Thus, everyone, no matter what its knowledge about the fact on the ground, has the freedom to express its opinion. WP, CPJ and AI are entitled to air their opinion and we accept their right to comment even on matters that we consider as the most sacred and defend as the apple of our eyes. But, change the record please!
EPRDF has empirical lesson that dictatorial regimes cannot sustain long. If the EPRDF wish to be a dictator, its days will be numbered and soon dark nights will approach. It also strongly believes that any system that would spend all of its energy in controlling the thoughts of its citizens would break down eventually. Anyone who can aptly draw lessons from the demise of the dictatorial regimes in the world, wouldsurly understands the importance of democracy where listening to dissidentsis a rule.
EPRDF has fully understood how difficult it is to suppress the longing to live freely. At the same time, it has clearly understood what imminent danger terrorism has posed. While more states in the West are gathering additional energy in their fight against terrorism to ensure the peace and security of their citizens and arebeginning to cross the traditional legal restriction with respect to freedom of expression,human rights group continued to press Ethiopia to loosen its legal regimes.
There is bad blood between the “revolutionary democrat” EPRDF and the international rights groups who avidly defend the interest of their financers. Hence, throughout the last two decades, rights groups such as HRW and AI have repeatedly diagnosed EPRDF and found it to be undemocratic.
Conundrum
Recently leaders of the “free world” flocked to Saudi Arabia to meet with the new king, where they praised the country as a partner for peace and center of stability.But, I have not come across an editorial by the WP that run under the title “US irresponsible praise of Saudi’s regime.”
In any case, many dissidents disagreed with the western officials who praised Saudi “as a partner for peace and center of stability.” As Mansour Al-Hadj, a liberal activist who lived in Saudi Arabia for 20 years, said; “Saudi Arabia is not stable. Deep down, people are not happy. Eventually, the winds of change will come to Saudi Arabia. The regime will fall.”The western media chose to give deaf ear to many such prophetic voices. Simply they do not want to listen to them.
But why?
Put aside the hatches, matches and dispatches; Saudi Arabia is a goose that lays the golden egg. Therefore, western media, like their financers, do not want to kill the goose that lay this golden egg.
But, what did these journalists and advocates misunderstand about Ethiopia; and what are the facts that its leaders have grasped? The answer is the need to uphold sovereignty and policy independence. It must be clear that the Ethiopian leaders want to embrace a legitimate relationship with the United States or the West.
These human right groups said that the West “should not be subsidizing a regime that is one of the world’s leading persecutors of journalists.” To their dismay, the incessant call for sanction on the Ethiopian government has been repeatedly ignored, thus Ethiopia continued to be “an international development darling.”
Ethiopia happen to be a “darling of western donors,” because it is one of the few countries that uses donors money wisely and according to the annual African Report published by UNICEF:“form every 1 USDEthiopia receives as donation, $ 0.80 cents would go to the intended targets. This is a commendable achievement when compared with $ 0.22 cents for the rest of African countries.”
The WP is asking the donors to stop their development assistance and severe their cooperative engagements with Ethiopia.The newspaper has claimed that Ethiopia has prosecuted and imprisoned journalist “for just doing their job as a journalist.” Well then, take the decision of the court and advance your argument based on the merit of the case. In fact, some journalists who complain about being persecuted the government are members of the terrorist groups like Ginbot 7 and are fond of glamorizing the convicts that were allies.
In my view, journalists that are willing to collaborate with any unsavory groups such as Ginbot 7, ONLF and OLF are undermining the constitutional order. They are also working to foment clashes along ethnic linesthat would lead the country to disintegration. Theseare criminals not journalists. However, as rights groups have alleged, these journalists are not convicted because of the articles they published that are deemed critical towards the government but for the criminal offence they have committed.
For democracy to thrive, Ethiopia needs professional journalists and visionary oppositions with alternative policies that would build up on the positives achievement that we have attained so far.And not journalists and oppositions who subvert the hard-won fledgling democracy that we are working to consolidate.Denouncing and fighting Ginbot 7 and other local and international terrorist groups is a prerequisite for the hatchling democratic system we have in Ethiopia.
Those who read the articles written by those convicted and imprisoned journalists (the newspapers and magazines) would most likely be offended and disavow the outrageous opinion they reflect. This issue would trigger a pertinent point that must be discussed, i.e. should we tolerate the intolerant?
Unfortunately, in many instances of the third world countries, the human right groups and international NGOs tend to glamorize those journalistswho try to subvert the constitutional order, and not those who work tirelessly for the consolidation of the democratic system in their respective countries.
In many cases, these human right groups and international NGOs chose to glorify those journalists who usually tended to be “criminal” and those who had never won the respect and admiration of their colleagues or societies. They got their “Pulitzer winning”pieces from those who much often than not exhibit an unprofessional treatment in their journalistic workmanship and pieces.
In our case, journalists who had until now won various awards and the recognition of the international NGOs like the CPJ are not journalists who are watchful not to reflect their bias and political opinionsin what they are doing. Rather, they areblunt opposition politician who are, in all cases, best example for an unprofessional journalism and treated by their peers as surrogate of this or that political parties. These are the “Pulitzer winning” journalists for the CPJ and its likes. This is really a disservice to professional journalism and democracy in Ethiopia.
Professional journalists must not reflect, even slightly, their political allegiance and work hard on their storiesbased on sources that havefirsthand knowledge ordirect exposure to the incidents and issues. Most leading journalists in the West try their best to inform their readers and viewers so that they reach at an informed decision on issues that matter most in their lives. They donot try to be self-appointed spokespersonsfor theiraudience.
The situation is different in countries that have just come out of the grips of past repressive regimes. Here, the democratic system is at its fledgling stage and things tend to be tricky. Not everyone who claims the name “journalist,” might be the true practitioner of the craft. I know that everyone has the right to express his/her opinion freely. It would be sacrilegeto give international award to thosewho promotehidden political agendas using legal and illegal means in tandem and claim to be journalist. Hence, not everyone who fled to the US or Europe is a true champion of press freedom.
Ethiopia is located in the volatile region -the Horn Africa, andisfound in the neighborhood of the explosive region we call the Middle East. Thus, we are facing the imminent danger of being a prey to the terrorist attack. Therefore, glorifying terrorism is an intolerable and unpardonable legal trespass that has quite the same magnitude to the act of praising the Nazi ideology in Germany. Countries may decide to tolerate or repudiate certain conducts depending on their context. Germany a democratic country where extolling the Nazis would be considered as grievous crime. A journalist in the US can enjoy the right extol the Nazi with impunity. Nevertheless, this doesnot mean that Germany is not a democracy and no western media accuse Germans for chastising or being tough towards the Neo-Nazis activists.
Ethiopia is a country with multi-ethnic and multi-religious society who has been enjoying the long cherished peaceful coexistence thatlasts for centuries. Over these centuries, they have developed a culture that would promote respect for differences. And we cannot tolerate seeing this priceless culture being challenged by the so called “bloggers” who happened to learn pressing the keyboard before reading the arduous historical trajectory of this great people and country. These bloggers the west vigilantly defendinghad been engaging in menacing and subverting the century-old cohesion of the Ethiopian people. However much these pushy and hypocrite INGOs may barrageus with their ceaseless condemnation, we will never cave in and let our democracy and beloved country plunge into the abyss of Armageddon.
Sherman
As Mr. Wendy R. Sherman had said in Addis, “Ethiopia keeps on strengthening its democracy every time.” As she has rightly pointed out “Ethiopia is young democracy.” She has unequivocally made her interest clear and told to journalists in Addis that Ethiopia is a valuable partner to the US. Right after the discussion she had with the Ethiopian foreign minister Dr. TewodrosAdhanom,she told to journalists that the“treats and concerns in the region, which is also a major topic of conversation at the G7 summit in Germany,” are the major area that America wanted to work in partnership with Ethiopia.
In this regard, “strengthening Somalia and fighting Al- Shebab”present itself as a common interest for both countries. Whereas, “from the Ethiopian perspective” she added that the“US believe that no group includingGinbot 7 should attempt to overthrow or speak about overthrowing a democratically elected government andwe will work with the Ethiopian government to address these concerns in a very serious and appropriate ways.”
Underscoring that “the world is facing a lot [of security problems] these days,”Mr. Sherman, also noted the fact that “Ethiopia is moving forward” and the “US want to make sure the peace and security and the growing prosperity to continue.”
She never ducked to spell that “Ethiopia is a young democracy,” and mentioned, “election should be more inclusive, fair and credible,”while commending that “every time there is election in Ethiopia things are getting better and better.”Emphasizing the need to “make sure that every election is better than the last one” Sherman added, “Just as ours, every election should be more inclusive, fair and credible giving more space to the various actors and Ethiopia is moving forward and working in that direction.”However, her statement has drawn some praise from some and derision from others. As she has explicitly indicated in the letter she wrote to the WP,she has affirmed, “Ethiopia is a valuable partner.”
Ethiopia has fast growing economy in the African continent and it is really committed to democratic values and principles. Ethiopia believes that in her peculiar context development is impossible without democracy. This is not a stunt of public relation but a deep-rooted conviction. Ethiopia does not want to become the next Libya, Syria or Iraq and when democracy is out of the picture, then its downfall will be inevitable. It is with such serious commitment and urgency that Ethiopia has embarked upon the formidable venture of democratization.
Some western experts, media and NGOs blinded by theirparochial interests anddelusionary notionshave failed to appreciate the progressEthiopia made infostering democracy and good governance. These neo-liberal agents are working hard to chip its changing image hoping to see another Libya, Syria or Iraq in the Horn of Africa. However much they may wish their prophecies to will not come true.
These neo-liberal agents have all but forgotten the lesson of Ethiopian history. If they had listened more attentively to what Ethiopian history is telling, they might have been better prepared to work with the pragmatic, independent minded and freedom loving Ethiopian government. Perhaps they would have spent less time in the futile business of hand twisting and save more time and money to support the ongoing development in Ethiopia that would eventually benefit them.But today we are witnessing a full-fledged policy of denouncing and name smearing on the part of right groups.
This time around, the White House has all but dropped the demand that Assad step down, hinting that he could be a partner in the fight against the Islamic State. Moreover, U.S. and European diplomats are pursuing deals with the Iranian regime. The new Saudi king has been touted as a robust ally. Did WP take issues in its editorials?
I would argue,partnering with the Ethiopian government is a wise measure not on account of tactical advantages but for the strategic interests the US. I believe EPRDF is a dependable ally and is certainly a guarantor of long-term stability in the face of growing threat of fundamentalist terror. I also consider the current propensity of the US government is encouraging that would guarantee that there would be no surprises in the Horn of Africa as in the Middle East. We must make sure that coups and revolutions does not prop up and upend the region.
As the undersecretary has noted in her response to editorial published by the Post, it is unfortunate that the WP editorial mischaracterized her remarks and, “more important, underestimated the fullness of [US-Ethiopia] bilateral relationship.” She has made clear her position in no uncertain terms that “the U.S. government closely monitors the human rights situation and works with Ethiopia to foster a true democracy as part of our valued relationship.”
WP and the self-styled human rights advocates of the “free world” have immediately reacted to her statement. The WP has gone too far and said, “the bloggers remain imprisoned, awaiting what will likely be a trial by farce.” They do not have the gut to condemn the anti-peace and anti-democratic forces like the Ginbot 7.This stance has triggered in my mind the big question “WHY?”
May be
I know that arms trade, both legal and illegal, is a multibillion-dollar industry. The US, Russia, and other European countries benefit massively from the sale of their weapons primarily to developing countries like India and Taiwan. While the benefits of the arms trade are obvious— political capital, money, and defense—so too are the costs: murder, human rights abuses, and terrorism.
Combating these costs requires a focused global approach, one that, unfortunately, is unlikely to happen on a large scale. Therefore, contextualized and specific trade sanctions levied against a specific country, such as Syria, may prevent or stem violence by increasing the costs of violence, both politically and economically, for that country. However, more general small-arms policies are unlikely to affect terrorism, specifically because of terrorism’s illegal nature.
The trade in arms has important implications, especially when it involves developing countries: since 1990, armed conflicts have cost Africa around 300 US$ billion, which is equivalent to international aid from major donors in the same period, and at least 95% of Africa’s most commonly used conflict weapons come from outside the continent (IANSA, Oxfam and Safe world, 2007).
However, even though during the past decades the public concern on arms trade has increased exponentially, as Hartley and Sandler (1995) point out the topic has not received equal attention by economists and political science scholars. The economic papers on arms trade are not very numerous, and most contributions are theoretical.
Arms dealers sell power—the power to back a regime, the authority to challenge the status quo, and the legitimacy that a gun can lend to an idea. All that an arms dealer asks for in return is money. At such a price, it is no wonder the industry enjoys annual revenues larger than the GDP of some small countries. Guns become highly-prized symbols of power and legitimacy; businesses, aware of their product’s enormous influence, will often sell as indiscriminately as possible—even going so far as to arm both sides of a conflict. As a result, arms traders have been implicated in supporting an ever-growing list of violent coups, armed juntas, and terrorist plots.
The arms trade touches every square inch of the globe. While its interactions can bring prosperity, the trade is also inexorably linked with violence. Understanding the interplay of these dynamics is essential to comprehend the conduct of some international agencies.
To conceptualize the global arms trade one needs to understand three things: who produces, who buys, and who benefits. We know that the US government is the world’s largest governmental arms dealer, supplying annually around $10 billion of small and large arms (33.3% of total governmental arms sales) to countries around the world (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2012). Competing for a close second (26.3%), the Russian Federation has an arms industry worth over $7.9 billion. France rounds out the list as the world’s third-largest arms supplier, contributing around $2.4 billion (8.1%) in arms to the industry.
In essence, three countries—all of whom are on the United Nations Security Council and who wield considerable political clout— control over two-thirds of the world’s arms trade (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2012).
These public sector sales often pale in comparison to the arms contracts secured by private industry. The top four suppliers (three of whom are US-based) are responsible for more than $128 billion in sales. In 2011 the top company, Lockheed Martin, sold over $35.7 billion in arms (specializing in aircrafts like the F-16) to countries all over the world (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2012).
The only non-US supplier in the top four, BAE Systems (a UK company) sold over $32.8 worth of artillery, missiles, small arms, and ammunition (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2012). Thus, the largest governmental and other suppliers are all based in the same country, the United States. Of the top ten private arms suppliers, only three are not US companies, and only two of these are not headquartered in countries represented on the UN Security Council.
Effectively, the US and her industries are in the business of war and war technology as much as they are in the business of healthcare and telecommunications. Since Western powers such as the US and France and Eastern powers like Russia and China are dumping billions of dollars’ worth of arms into the market, the question becomes, “Who is buying, and why?” The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that from 2003–10, over 72.5% of arms transfer agreements went to developing countries. Reflecting the general export trend, the US supplied the largest number of arms to these countries, claiming 40.1% ($72 billion) of the “developing” arms market from 2007–10. Russia again took a distant second, claiming 20.7%, or $37.1 billion (Grimmett 2011). India has continued to be the largest weapons purchaser, securing $5.8 billion in weapons agreements in 2010. Current estimates suggest that in 2012 India will spend $9.63 billion on arms agreements, 80% of which will be supplied by Russian exporters (Kramnik 2012).
The CRS ranks Taiwan and Saudi Arabia as the second and third largest importers in the world during 2010, spending $2.7 billion (almost entirely US-based) and $2.2 billion respectively (Grimmett 2011). How- ever, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that in 2011 India (10%), South Korea (6%), Pakistan (5%), and China (5%) represented the top four arms importers (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2012). Who benefits is perhaps the easiest question to answer—businesses and governments. The simplest actors to understand are the weapons manufacturers and distributors because they receive direct financial profits.
For example, despite continued human rights abuses committed by the Bahraini regime, the Obama administration, which has been critical of any country repressing democratic protest—has agreed to sell weapons and anti-personnel equipment to a country that has openly opposed democratic protests (Koring 2012). Tellingly, the Obama administration has yet to condemn Bahrain, its trading partner, when it has condemned Syria for similar violations, especially given that Syria’s weapons are supplied almost entirely by Russia (Grove & Solomon 2012).
Countries like the United States, Russia, and France—all of whom benefit from large sales of weapons—are likely to oppose any stringent global restrictions. Such bans require global cooperation, or else the countries that follow the charter will be hurt economically by the countries that do not. This kind of asymmetric competition would punish the “moral” sellers to the benefit of the “economically” motivated sellers.
The result would be an increase in the number of economically motivated sellers in the market. This development, in turn, might actually increase the odds that weapons could be sold to bad actors, because the economically-motivated sellers are less concerned with the identity or motivations of their buyers.
Is this the reason why WP went up in smoke to condemn any group, includingGinbot 7, who attempt to overthrow or speak about overthrowing a democratically elected government, as Mr. Sherman did?