By Abebe D.

Early last week, US Senator Feingold, Chair of the Africa Sub-Committee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke at length in the Senate on what he called the Political Crisis in Ethiopia.

It was a curiously confusing speech. It opened with reference to Ethiopia’s stability in contrast to the rest of the Horn of Africa, its robust poverty reduction programs, and its growing economy, and underlined just how essential the US relationship with Ethiopia was.

In contrast to this apparently optimistic opening, his other remarks bore little relationship to reality on the ground whether in Ethiopia, or in Somalia. And one has to ask why Eritrea, the country most responsible for regional problems, was barely mentioned. Senator Feingold is holding a Senate hearing on US policy towards Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea this week. This speech was presumably intended to set the scene for this.  

Senator Feingold devoted most of his speech to being “seriously” concerned by the political crisis he detects in Ethiopia. He claims this is a crisis that has been growing over several years and which needs to be solved, though his recapitulation of past events will have no effect in achieving this, rather the reverse.

He calls the 2005 elections “a severe step back for Ethiopia’s democratic progress”. These elections were of course Ethiopia’s most successful multi-party elections since the end of military dictatorship.  The opposition parties did remarkably well, though they did not win. Democracy was not, however, “thwarted”, as he claims, when the opposition tried to “express their concerns about the election process”.

Ethiopians are the first to regret the loss of life but it is difficult to see how the Senator can call the November 2005 riots mere “peaceful demonstrations”.
With seven policemen killed and hundreds injured, they could hardly have been more violent as the available videos, can demonstrate. Peaceful, they most certainly were not.

The whole episode, of course, was finally brought to an end through a traditional Ethiopian response; mediation by elders allowed for pardons to be given to opposition leaders who had been convicted in the courts. The elders deserve full credit, and the process should be commended.

Senator Feingold visited Ethiopia in 2006, but he appears oblivious to the democratic progress being made, including steady improvements in human rights and the successful multi-party elections in 2005.  

One must ask if Senator Feingold is aware of the recent transformation of the judicial system as a result of steps taken, including the speeding up of court procedures and linking of regional and federal courts?  

Has he not noticed the Office of the Ombudsman, which dealt with thousands of cases last year? Multi-party local elections are taking place throughout the country next month, together with a number of by-elections for the House of Representatives as well as for the Addis Ababa Council. From what we understand, registration has been impressive; there are tens of thousands of candidates from dozens of political parties; radio and television time has been allotted proportionally. The voting and the results will provide an excellent example of the democratic progress that Senator Feingold wants to see.

Senator Feingold accuses the government of portraying political dissent as extremist uprisings, and he categorizes operations against the ONLF as “brutal counter-insurgency” intended to stifle dissent. Has he looked at what has been happening in the Somali Regional State and the activities of the ONLF, activities that have included the massacre of 74 Chinese and Ethiopian workers, the burning of villages, the murder of local officials, the assassination of local clan elders, landmines on roads targeting civilian vehicles, grenades thrown into public gatherings and bombs placed in hotels? Is Senator Feingold seriously calling this sort of activity political dissent?  Equally, to suggest that Ethiopia’s assistance to the Government of Somalia has increased regional instability shows no understanding of what Ethiopia is doing in Somalia nor of the current situation there. To suggest Ethiopia has contributed to regional instability in the interests of its own domestic security is outrageous. It also demonstrates an unwillingness to look at regional politics, and ignores the deliberate (and indeed publicly admitted) efforts of Eritrea to destabilize both Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as the whole region as the Senator admits.

Senator Feingold claims he is trying to be helpful, but persistent references to past events have the effect of causing division rather than unity. One can not avoid taking note of the way all candidates in the American presidential election have emphasized unity and looking to the future. It is something one can admire.  Senator Feingold is surely aware that Ethiopia celebrated its Millennium last September, launching an Ethiopian Renaissance, looking to a rebirth for the country. The whole thrust of government policy is now a determination to build on the five recent years of impressive economic growth, to concentrate on achieving the Millennium Development Goals, many now within reach, and to fight and win a national war against poverty. These are the aims towards which all Ethiopian government policies are now directed.   There is absolutely no trace of this optimistic spirit prevailing in Ethiopia in the Statement by Senator Feingold.  

Beginning from the title of the statement, apart from the first paragraph, all the rest of the statement made the Senator appear to be talking about another country, a hopeless country to boot.

Ethiopia needs its own space for political development, a space that Senator Feingold appears reluctant to appreciate. The relationships that Ethiopia wants and needs, and currently has, with the US and its other partners, must be built on mutual respect and recognition of national interests. These can often coincide, but true friendship allows for flexibility, acknowledges the reality of the aims of both parties, and accepts that they sometimes have their own different priorities. Friendship might involve counsel, but not over-intrusive instruction. Senator Feingold says one reason for his concern over the 2005 elections was the expulsion of three US organizations that arrived in Addis Ababa claiming to promote democracy. This was, he said, “the first time in 20 years a government has rejected such assistance”. In fact, from what we were told by the Ethiopian Government at the time through the mass media, there was good reason for their removal: youngsters, with little knowledge of Ethiopia or of the elections and the electoral processes in which they were claiming to assist, arrived and started to operate without registering, clearing their activities with the relevant authorities or even approaching the National Electoral Board. Surely Senator Feingold would accept that external guidance, is not a condition for democracy.

The current democratic process in Ethiopia is not being carried out for the benefit of Ethiopia's friends.  The process was launched because Ethiopians are fully aware that a properly structured democratic system will guarantee the stability and progress of the country.  Any reasonable person must believe that would also be in the interests of the United States.