Ethiopia: 2010 Annual Report on Human Rights by Amnesty International

Freedom of association and expression, and the work of human rights groups, were limited by new laws introduced in the first half of the year. Human rights defenders were harassed, with some fleeing the country to avoid arrest and detention. Opposition party leader Birtukan Mideksa, who was re-arrested in December 2008, continued to serve a life sentence in prison. Some 26 people were convicted in November in the trial of more than 30 former military officers and Ginbot 7 party officials accused of plotting an armed attack on the government. Ethiopian security forces continued to carry out periodic arrests of Oromo political leaders, businessmen and their family members, who were often detained, sometimes without charge, for prolonged periods. Sporadic fighting continued between Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) and armed opposition Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in the Somali Region (known as the Ogaden). Up to 6.2 million Ethiopians, many in the Somali Region, required emergency assistance because of severe drought. International donor support for humanitarian operations was insufficient.

Background
Legislation was passed restricting civil society groups and broadening the reach of counter-terror operations. Human rights defenders chose to limit their own activities and journalists to self-censor in a climate of heightened anxiety over repression.
By the end of January, nearly all remaining Ethiopian troops based in Somalia had been withdrawn, although there were reports of sporadic cross-border incursions, particularly in the area of Beletweyne, throughout much of the year. Ethiopian government officials were also reported to have played a role in mediating negotiations between the President of Somaliland and opposition party leaders in September in Hargeisa, Somaliland. At that time, a crisis over repeated delays in national elections brought the self-declared independent country to thebrink of violence (see Somalia entry).
While the government of Ethiopia hosted thousands of Eritrean, Somali and other refugees from the Horn of Africa, an increasing number of prominent opposition figures fled Ethiopia. These included human rightsdefenders and journalists who were harassed and intimidated by the authorities, leading them to believe that their arrest and detention could be imminent.
In September, more than 9,500 prisoners were released by the central government and by governments in the Amhara and Oromia regions, in a mass amnesty celebrating the Ethiopian New Year.

Prisoners of conscience and other political prisoners

The government continued to hold several prisoners of conscience and a large number of political prisoners in detention.
* Former judge and Unity for Democracy and Justice Party leader Birtukan Mideksa remained in detention, serving a life sentence, since she was re-arrested in December 2008. Following international calls to improve her prison conditions, government officials moved her out of solitary confinement and she was later detained with other women prisoners. She received regular family visits but her lawyer reportedly had only intermittent access to her.
* Twenty-six former military officers and others affiliated with the Ginbot 7 political party, led by Berhanu Negga, were convicted on several charges related to planning an attack on the government early in the year. Those detained for many months in this case included Ginbot 7 party leader Andargachew Tsige’s father, 80-year-old Tsige Habtemariam, believed to be in very poor health. Eighteen of the defendants were reported to have been tortured and otherwise ill-treated upon their arrest by Ethiopian security forces in May.
* Prisoner of conscience Sultan Fowsi Mohamed Ali, an independent mediator, remained in prison. He was arrested in Jijiga in September 2007, reportedly to prevent him from giving evidence to a UN fact-finding mission in the Somali Region.
* Bashir Makhtal, a Canadian citizen, was sentenced to life imprisonment on 3 August. He had been convicted on 27 July on four terror-related charges, including being a member of the ONLF. The government denied allegations that his trial was unfair. Bashir Makhtal consistently denied all charges. On 4 December, the Supreme Court heard his appeal, but upheld the conviction and sentence. His brother, Hassan Makhtal, was released from prison in October and died in November, reportedly from complications due to ill-treatment in detention.

Freedom of expression
The authorities introduced various laws which negatively affected freedom of expression. Media workers were harassed by the authorities.

Charities and Societies Proclamation
In January, Parliament passed the Charities and Societies Proclamation, imposing strict controls and restrictions on civil society organizations whose work included human rights. If this law is enforced, international organizations would also be restricted from working on a range of human rights and democracy issues in Ethiopia without special permission. Similarly, local groups would be barred from human rights activities if they receive more than 10 per cent of their income from foreign sources, despite the fact that most depend heavily on support from outside Ethiopia. Even minor breaches of the law’s provisions could invite severe criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The Proclamation established a Charities and Societies Agency with broad discretionary power, including surveillance and interference in the management and operations of local organizations. The new law, expected to be implemented in early January 2010, puts at serious risk the ability of local and international organizations to monitor, report and advocate against human rights violations in Ethiopia. Some human rights groups scaled back their operations in the interim. Reregistration of local organizations under the new law began in October.
Anti-Terrorism Proclamation
In July, parliament passed the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation which restricted freedom of expression, and may restrict peaceful assembly and the right to a fair trial – with serious implications in the run-up to Ethiopia’s 2010 parliamentary elections. According to the Proclamation, “acts of terrorism” include damage to property and disruption of public services, for which an individual could be sentenced to 15 years in prison or even the death penalty. The Proclamation’s definition of “acts of terrorism” is vague and could encompass legitimate expressions of dissent.
* In November and December, Addis Neger, a major publishing company, was threatened with closure and several of its reporters threatened with arrest, reportedly under the new Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. By the end of the year a number of journalists from the company had fled the country.

Media suppression
* Ibrahim Mohamed Ali, editor of the Salafiyya newspaper, and AsratWedajo, editor of the former Seife Nebelbal newspaper, were each sentenced to one year in prison on charges linked to stories reporting human rights violations dating back to 2005. They were reportedly tried under an outdated press law which had since been superseded by a new media law passed in 2008.
* The owners of several of the largest newspapers, which were closed during the government’s 2005 media crackdown, were threatened in November with a summons to appear before the Ethiopian Supreme Court. They were asked to pay fines, imposed on them as part of their 2005 convictions, which reportedly had previously been waived.

Repression of dissent
The government of Ethiopia continued to suppress dissent in the Oromia Region of Ethiopia, and detained hundreds of people suspected of supporting the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). Many were believed to have been held in incommunicado detention and many were detained without trial. Court proceedings were frequently and repeatedly delayed. Detainees were often held in poor conditions; some were reportedly ill-treated. Group arrests and detentions of Oromo leaders, activists and businesspeople continued sporadically throughout the year. Many of these arrests and detentions were reported to have been politically motivated.
* Opposition political parties accused the government of arresting their members ahead of the scheduled 2010 elections; the majority of those named in lists of detainees were Oromo.
* There were also reports of arrests, cases of rape and extrajudicial executions by government forces of suspected supporters of the ONLF in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. Although international fact-finding missions led to some alleviation of the humanitarian crisis in the region, Ethiopian authorities continued to place restrictions on humanitarian aid in some areas.

Death penalty
Death sentences were imposed but no executions were reported.
* On 2 September, the Ethiopian Federal High Court sentenced six people to death and 97 others to prison terms on charges of genocide in relation to violence between residents of the Benishangul Gumuz and Oromia regions over a border dispute.
* On 25 December, five men were sentenced to death, four in absentia, and 32 men and one woman to life imprisonment on charges related to an aborted coup attempt in April and May.

Amnesty International visit/reports

• Amnesty International delegates visited Ethiopia in September.
• Ethiopia: Arbitrary detention/torture or other ill-treatment: Birtukan Mideksa (AFR 25/003/2009)
• Ethiopia: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review (AFR 25/004/2009)
• Ethiopia: Canadian citizen sentenced to life: Bashir Makhtal (AFR 25/006/2009)
• Ethiopia: Government passes repressive new legislation, 6 January 2009- Ethiopia: Government must reveal fate of political prisoners, 5 May 2009
• Ethiopia: New Anti-Terrorism Proclamation jeopardizes freedom of expression, 7 July 2009

BBC: EU observers say Ethiopia election 'falls short'

16:32 GMT, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 17:32 UK
Mr Meles says he has improved the lives of ordinary Ethiopians

EU observers have criticised Ethiopia's election, as Prime Minister Meles Zenawi held a victory rally attended by tens of thousands of people.
There was an "uneven playing field", said chief EU observer Thijs Berman.
The governing party has won 499 of 536 seats declared but the opposition has complained of vote-rigging.
Violent protests over alleged fraud in the last poll in 2005 left about 200 people dead.
With provisional results announced in all but 11 seats, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) is set to massively increase its majority in parliament.
The eight-party Medrek alliance, which had been seen as the main challenger, has only won a single seat - in the capital, Addis Ababa - according to the official results.

The people's vote will not be overturned by foreign forces
Meles Zenawi Ethiopian prime minister
At the last polls, the opposition swept the capital, while Medrek had been expecting to perform well in the Oromia region.
"This electoral process falls short of certain international commitments," Mr Berman said, pointing to the use of state resources to campaign for the EPRDF.
US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Johnnie Carson made a similar observation, reports the AFP news agency.
Over the last 18 months, the "government has taken clear and decisive steps that would ensure that it would garner an electoral victory," he said.
Mr Berman praised the elections for being peaceful and well organised but said the EU had received numerous reports of harassment and intimidation which were "of concern".
However, the head of the 170-strong EU team said these shortcomings did not necessarily affect the overall outcome.
Election and government officials have denied the charges of fraud, accusing the opposition of making excuses for its overwhelming defeat.
'Completely fraudulent'
At the rally in Addis Ababa's Meskel Square, supporters of Mr Meles held up placards reading: "We chose our leaders, accept the results" and "Stop second guessing us".

Election officials say the process was above board
"The people's vote will not be overturned by foreign forces," said the prime minister, a US ally against Islamist militants in neighbouring Somalia.
The BBC's Will Ross in Addis Ababa says his message was clearly aimed at international observers and human rights groups who are criticising the way the election was conducted.
But Medrek leader Merera Gudina said his coalition was considering what action to take.
"I don't see any reason why we should accept the results that were completely fraudulent."
Human Rights Watch said in the run-up to last Sunday's vote, people were intimidated and threatened into joining and voting for the EPRDF.
It has also accused the government of not allowing the opposition and independent media to operate freely - charges it strongly denies.
Mr Meles - in power since 1991 - put the expected win down to an impressive track record, especially when it comes to economic growth.
The government has worked hard to improve infrastructure, especially in the urban areas and access to social services like healthcare has increased.

U.S. says Ethiopa vote not up to international standards

1:17pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday Ethiopia's election failed to meet international standards and called for stronger democratic institutions in the country, a key U.S. ally in Africa.
"While the elections were calm and peaceful and largely without any kind of violence, we note with some degree of remorse that the elections there were not up to international standards," Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson told a House of Representatives panel.
Carson, the Obama administration's top diplomat for Africa, said Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's government had taken "clear and decisive" steps to ensure it won a landslide victory in Sunday's vote. The ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front and allied parties won nearly every seat in the country's 547-member parliament.
A European Union observer mission said on Tuesday the polls had been marred by reports of violence and intimidation, as well as the ruling party's use of state resources for campaigning, but that this did not invalidate the results.
"It is important that Ethiopia move forward in strengthening its democratic institutions and when elections are held that it level the playing field to give everyone a free opportunity to participate without fear or favor," Carson said.
The United States regards Ethiopia as a crucial ally in the fight against hardline Islamism in the Horn of Africa, and has provided some $4.7 billion in aid to the country between 1999-2009, including $862 million in 2009, according to State Department figures.
But Washington has also noted opposition accusations of repression by Meles, who has been in power since 1991.
The two countries traded sharp words in March after Meles accused the U.S.-funded Voice of America broadcaster of spreading "destabilizing propaganda" and said it would explore jamming the broadcaster's Amharic language service.
Carson indicated that the United States would continue to press Meles to make democratic changes, but not at the price of endangering the alliance.
"We appreciate the level of collaboration that we receive from Ethiopia in a number of areas, but we also believe that Ethiopia must do better in strengthening its democratic institutions," he said.
(Reporting by Andrew Quinn; editing by Jackie Frank)

Ethiopia is an authoritarian state in which the government's commitment to democracy exists only on paper

Human Rights Watch
Ethiopia: Government Repression Undermines Poll
International Election Observers Should Condemn Voter Intimidation

May 24, 2010(Nairobi) - Ethiopian government and ruling party officials intimidated voters and unlawfully restricted the media ahead of the May 23, 2010 parliamentary elections, Human Rights Watch said today.
In assessing the polls, international election observers should address the repressive legal and administrative measures that the Ethiopian ruling party used to restrict freedom of expression during the election campaign, Human Rights Watch said.
"Behind an orderly façade, the government pressured, intimidated and threatened Ethiopian voters," said Rona Peligal, acting Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Whatever the results, the most salient feature of this election was the months of repression preceding it."
In the weeks leading up to the polls, Human Rights Watch documented new methods used by the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to intimidate voters in the capital, Addis Ababa, apparently because of government concerns of a low electoral turnout.
During April and May, officials and militia (known as tataqi in Amharic) from the local administration went house to house telling citizens to register to vote and to vote for the ruling party or face reprisals from local party officials such as bureaucratic harassment or even losing their homes or jobs.
The May poll was the first national parliamentary election in Ethiopia since the government violently suppressed post-election protests in 2005; almost 200 people, including several police officers, died after the 2005 poll and tens of thousands of people were arrested, including opposition leaders, journalists and civil society activists.
In a March 2010 report, "‘One Hundred Ways of Putting Pressure': Violations of Freedom of Expression and Association in Ethiopia," Human Rights Watch described the complex and multi-faceted way in which the government has sought since 2005 to silence dissent, restrict the media and independent civil society, and leverage government resources such as civil service jobs, loans, food assistance and educational opportunities to encourage citizens to join the ruling party or leave the opposition.
The government's efforts to ensure the election outcome continued right up to polling day in Addis Ababa, according to Human Rights Watch's research in different areas of the capital, including in Merkato, Piazza, Wollo Sefer, Meskel Flower, Aya Ulet, Kera, Gotera, Hayat, Kotebe-CMC and Bole neighborhoods.
"Intimidation to register and to vote for the ruling party is everywhere," a resident of Addis Ababa told Human Rights Watch. "If the local administration is against you, they'll be after you forever. They can come and round you up at will."
Residents of Addis Ababa described numerous forms of intimidation in Addis Ababa in recent weeks.
Pressure to Register to VoteMany people told Human Rights Watch that tataqi, local kebele (or neighborhood) militia members came house-to-house asking to see registration cards and checking if people were members of the ruling EPRDF party.
A couple living in the Meskel Flower area said they were visited on a weekly basis by members of the neighborhood militia who were checking whether they were registered as EPRDF members. The wife told Human Rights Watch: "One of them approached my husband. ‘We know who you are,' he told him. ‘If you don't want to register, no problem, but then don't come to the sub-kebele and ask for your ID renewal, or for any other legal paper. We won't help you. It's up to you, now." The following day the couple registered.
Pressure to Join the Ruling Party When RegisteringDifferent sources across the capital confirmed to Human Rights Watch that alongside registration, voters were requested to sign a paper, under a heading "Supporter of EPRDF," that included ID number, age, and address.
An Addis Ababa resident said, "There's a lot of pressure for you to obey. They have your name, they ask you to sign. If you don't, it means you're against them. And they can come back to you whenever they want. At the end of the day, you just have to do what they force you to do."
Pressure to Vote for the Ruling PartyPressure to vote for the EPRDF appeared to take a number of different forms. Pressure was particularly acute among civil servants, people living in government-owned housing, and those living in poor neighborhoods.
An elderly resident living in state-owned housing said local government officials visited her house a few weeks before the elections asking to see her registration card. She said they wrote down her house number and told her, "We are going to check. And don't forget to vote for EPRDF. We provide you the house, we can have it back." She said that she was frightened by the threat and registered even though she had not intended to vote.
Civil servants are particularly pressured to vote for EPRDF, saying that ruling party officials remind them that it is the EPRDF government that employs them. Patterns of intimidation of teachers and others that were recently documented in Addis Ababa echo the examples previously documented across the country by Human Rights Watch in "‘One Hundred Ways Putting Pressure'." For example, a teacher in a public school in Addis Ababa said: "A few weeks ago my headmaster called us all. He asked us to show him our registration cards. He wanted to know whom we were going to vote for as well. I refused. He harassed me and said, ‘You better get your card, and vote properly, otherwise after the elections you might lose your job.'"
Residents also described an EPRDF pyramid recruitment strategy called One-for-Five. A coordinator (ternafi) had to identify five recruits or fellow voters (teternafiwoch) among family members, friends, colleagues or neighbors. Coordinators then tried to compel their five signers to go to the polling stations and vote all together.
A woman in Aya Ulet area said, "A neighbor came to me. He said: ‘I know you voted for the opposition last time. Are you going to vote for them again? Do I have to report it to the kebele?' I am a civil servant; I know that party officials and local administrators are the same thing. For fear of losing my job, the next morning I went to his place and signed."
Pressure on the Media and Foreign DiplomatsSimultaneous with the increased pressure on voters, in the weeks before the polls the Ethiopian government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi acted to restrict electoral scrutiny by independent media and foreign diplomats.
The government issued several codes of conduct covering media and diplomatic activity. Initial drafts of the media regulation restricted foreign and local journalists from even speaking to anyone involved in the election process, including voters on election day, in violation of the right to freedom of expression. Several journalists in different countries told Human Rights Watch that when they applied for media visas to cover the elections, they were extensively questioned by Ethiopian embassy diplomats.
The government told Embassy staff they needed travel permits for any movement outside of Addis Ababa between May 10 to June 20.
"The government has used a variety of methods to strong-arm voters and try to hide the truth from journalists and diplomats," said Peligal. "Donor governments need to show that they recognize that these polls were multi-party theater staged by a single-party state."
Repressive Context of the Elections Since 2005, Human Rights Watch has documented patterns of serious human rights violations by the Ethiopian government. Members of the security forces and government officials have been implicated in numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity both within Ethiopia and in neighboring Somalia. The pervasive intimidation of voters and restrictions on movement and reporting are serious concerns for the integrity of the electoral process, but represent only one aspect of the Ethiopian ruling party's long-term effort to consolidate control.
The EPRDF's main instrument for stamping out potential dissent is the local administrative (kebele) structure, which monitors households and can restrict access to important government programs, including seeds and fertilizer, micro-loans and business permits, all depending on support for the local administration and the ruling party.
Since 2008 the government has also passed new laws to clamp down on independent civil society and the media. The Charities and Societies Proclamation restricts Ethiopian nongovernmental organizations from doing any human rights work, including in the areas of women's and children's rights, if they receive more than 10 percent of their funding from foreign sources. Since the law's adoption in 2009, the leading Ethiopian human rights groups have closed most of their offices, scaled down their staff, and removed human rights advocacy from their mandates. The new regulatory agency established by the Charities and Societies Proclamation froze the bank accounts of the largest independent human rights group, the Ethiopian Human Rights Council. At least six of Ethiopia's most prominent human rights activists fled the country in 2009.
Another law, the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, has also been used to threaten with prosecution human rights activists and journalists for any acts deemed to be terrorism under the law's broad and vague definition of the term. Several journalists also fled in 2009, including the editors of a prominent independent Amharic newspaper, and in February 2010 Prime Minister Meles acknowledged that the government was jamming Voice of America radio broadcasts.
Human Rights Watch urged the international election observer teams from the European Union and the African Union to take into account in their public reporting the insidious apparatus of control and the months of repression that frame the 2010 polls.
Ethiopia is heavily dependent on foreign assistance, which accounts for approximately one-third of government spending. The country's principal foreign donors - the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, which provide more than US$2 billion annually in humanitarian and development aid, - were timid in their criticisms of Ethiopia's deteriorating human rights situation ahead of the election.
Human Rights Watch called on the principle donors and other concerned governments to publicly condemn political repression in Ethiopia and to review policy towards Ethiopia in light of its deteriorating human rights record.
"Ethiopia is an authoritarian state in which the government's commitment to democracy exists only on paper," said Peligal. "The question is not who won these elections, but how can donors justify business as usual with this increasingly repressive government?"

Experts Say There Will be No Contest in Ethiopia's Upcoming Vote

VOA
Nico Colombant Washington17 May 2010

Ethiopian protesters in Washington have sought U.S. pressure to release jailed opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa.
Horn of Africa experts in the United States say there will be no contest in Ethiopia's parliamentary election Sunday. They say it will be unlike the volatile vote in 2005, due to a diminished opposition and a ruling party totally in control.
The last election in Ethiopia in 2005 was fiercely contested, and when the opposition alleged there had been cheating in vote counting, riots broke out and about 200 people, most of them opposition activists, were reported killed.
Africa experts say the ruling party in Ethiopia made sure Sunday's upcoming election will not repeat that pattern.
Oberlin College International Studies Professor Eve Sandberg says the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front has made sure its message has been heard by would-be voters. "The current government has been using the media, which they control in a non-stop way to broadcast programs, which talk about how much better this regime is than the previous one and the fact that at least they have built roads, and at least they have painted some buildings, and at least people are not experiencing famine," she said.
Sandberg who recently worked as a political consultant in Ethiopia says, on the other side of the political equation, the opposition has nearly disappeared. "Their leaders are either in jail, in exile, or have resigned because they cannot see any way forward. If they show they are in opposition many of them find that police show up and they are either shot, or detained or harassed," she said.
A series of campaign-related killings in Ethiopia has raised tensions and sparked counter allegations between the government and opposition.
Examples of opposition leaders excluded from the process include Birtukan Mideksa, who heads the Unity for Democracy and Justice. She is in jail under a life sentence after an initial pardon for treason was revoked.
Berhanu Nega, who was elected as mayor of Addis Ababa in 2005, was also imprisoned during the post-election riots. He has since become a professor in the United States and was sentenced to life in prison in absentia for alleged coup plotting.
An expert on U.S.-Africa relations, who was in Ethiopia for the 2005 vote, J. Peter Pham, says major figures of the opposition remaining in the race are divided. "Hailu Shawul who led the opposition coalition the last time around is being opposed by the deputy head of the old opposition, Hailu Araya. They are facing off against each other for the same constituency," he said.
Terrence Lyons from George Mason University says he is disappointed, but not surprised by current political conditions. He says competition is still taking place within the ruling party. "Some of the folks who have been in power for almost 20 years are retiring and a younger generation, some perhaps more technocratic or more professional is coming up. There are endless speculations about what might happen when and if Prime Minister Meles Zenawi were to step down and who might be the successor. So, there are a lot of those kinds of questions that are percolating now," he said.
A former rebel leader, Mr. Meles has been prime minister since 1995. All of the experts interviewed for this report expect his party to win much more easily than in the 2005 election.

The prime minister's supporters say he has done much more than recent Ethiopian leaders in building up the country's economy, health and school system, while also keeping a vast multi-ethnic society stable, even as neighboring countries experienced repeated strife.

Bashing Liberalism: Can “Revolutionary Democracy” be Democratic without Espousing Liberalism?

Yosyas Kifleyesus yosyas.kifleyesus@gmail.com May 16, 2010

I have been following the recent debates in the run up to the 2010 elections in Ethiopia. It is sad to observe that most, if not all, opposition politicians seem to be unable to defend “liberalism” from the ideological attacks of EPRDF politicians. Their inability was most visible when Lidetu Ayalew, the usually witty and gifted orator, could not respond well to Bereket Simon’s characterization of the EDP’s (and other opposition parties’) views on liberalism as an invitation to western domination. What is even more saddening is that the EPRDF and its acolytes including one Adal Isaw attack liberalism as a recipe for disaster in the Ethiopian context.(http://aigaforum.com/articles/revolutionary_demo_view.htm#_ftnref2)

The attack on liberalism is based on confusing two terms: liberalism and neo-liberalism. I do not think that the EPRDF or its supporters unaware of the distinction between these two terms. Adal Isaw’s piece on Aigaforum.com clearly shows that he is aware of the historical and philosophical roots of liberalism as his references to Hobbes and Locke testify. The simple explanation of the confusion is thus that there is a deliberate attempt to befuddle the debate and push an agenda that the EPRDF is not comfortable to pursue publicly.

So what is the difference between liberalism and neo-liberalism? Liberalism is a political ideology based on the belief that the power of the state should be limited by some inviolable rights of individuals. Its roots, as Adal Isaw noted, go back to the Enlightenment in Europe. Its immediate precursors were the religious conflicts and persecutions of minorities in European countries. True, one of the fundamental rights that many liberal thinkers including J.S. Mill thought as fundamental in curbing the powers of the state is the right to property. What exactly constitutes this right, however, is a matter of political discourse, and legal definition. The more fundamental rights that are at the core of liberalism are the rights to life, to liberty, to freedom of belief and expression, and to have an effective participation in the political process. These rights have formed the basis for internationally recognized rights under several international treaties that EPRDF-led Ethiopia has signed. They are also rights that take more than one third of the FDRE Constitution.

Through time, and the progression of democratic political thought, liberalism has come to characterize the political organization of states not only in Europe and North America, but also in Africa (South Africa, and Botswana to just cite two), Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Chile etc), and Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, India and others). Liberalism is closely related to capitalism. There is, however, no single capitalism in the world. Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia are strongly socialist oriented. Germany, the powerhouse of Europe, as well as most West European states are welfare statists with deep roots in social democratic thought. So also is Canada. In South Korea, and Taiwan,(countries that the EPRDF holds up as its models) the economy is characterized by the strong presence of and direction by the state.

Neo-liberalism, on the other hand, is a designation that has come to characterize the set of micro-economic prescriptions that political regimes in the United States and the United Kingdom (the Reagan and Thatcher administrations) as well as the World Bank and other powerful agents of international development adopted in the 1980s and 1990s. It is composed of a relatively simple set of prescriptions: privatization of the economy, deregulation of the market, and downsizing of the public sector. In other words, governments have to sell state owned enterprises. They have to let the market determine the price of goods and services including essential utilities. They have also to reduce government spending on social services and shrink the size of government agencies by, among others, reducing the number of people employed by government agencies.

The most explicit formulations of neo-liberal prescriptions were the Structural Adjustment Programs of the 1980s and 1990s. Following the realization that these programs had largely failed, the World Bank and other international development agencies have adopted the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process. Ethiopia under the EPRDF had not only carried out these neoliberal reform programs, but in fact had benefitted from them. It may appear a long time ago, but it was after the EPRDF came to power that many state owned public enterprises were sold (often at suboptimal prices).

The EPRDF had also shrunk the size of the public sector through dismantling several public agencies known at the time as Corporations. The most notable of these, of course, was the Agricultural Marketing Corporation (in its Amharic abbreviation E-Se-Ge-D). Many also remember the time of 20/45 when many public employees had to leave their employment if they had twenty years of service or were above 45 years of age. Since 1997, Ethiopia has also been in the process of carrying out the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers through its adoption of the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and the Program for Accelerated and Sustained Poverty Eradication and Development Program (PASDEP). Because of these programs that are designed in consultation with and carried out with the blessing and support of the World Bank and the IMF, the archdeacons of global neo-liberalism, Ethiopia has benefitted from a huge infusion of foreign aid.

It is also interesting to note the claimed resistance of the EPRDF to neo-liberalism. The cases cited as exhibiting the EPRDF’s resistance in this respect are its refusal to privatize land, the banking sector, and the telecommunications sector. While the most preferred position of the World Bank and other proponents of neo-liberalism is that of total privatization and deregulation of the economy, the specific ways in which they propose these measures differ from country to country. In the case of land, their prescription is not that land should necessarily be privatized. Even in the United States, where the Federal Government owns thirty per cent of all land (and that does not include land owned by states and cities), land is not fully privately owned. The demand made on the EPRDF and resisted by it was for security of holding by land users, and transparency and regularity in the administration of land (such as in its leasing). It is these demands that the EPRDF has generally managed to resist. I am not quite sure if the result of its resistance is something that it can be proud of.

With regard to banking and insurance, the EPRDF has managed to resist the demand to open the market for foreign banks. Truth be told, however, whether the EPRDF has succeeded because of its inherent strength or because of the traditional lack of interest by foreign banks to work in a country where the market is extremely limited, the investment environment is fragile, and there are no colonial historical ties, is open to examination.

The resistance of the EPRDF to allow foreign capital to be involved in utilities and telecommunications may be a case of success. Yet, what leads to this success needs closer examination.Furthermore, whether the country’s economy has benefitted from the exclusion of foreign investment in the sectors (especially in the telecommunications sector) is something open to question.

Even in these cases, however, the neo-liberal demand has been more on separating the regulatory power of the state from its role as a market competitor. In other words, what the advocates of neo-liberalism demand is that the state should have agencies to make rules about how utilities and telecommunication as well as banking businesses should be carried out, and other agencies operating on market principles to actually carry out these businesses. Through the establishment of the Ethiopian Telecommunication Agency, and strengthening the supervisory powers of the Ethiopian National Bank, the EPRDF has complied with this requirement.

Whether the allegedly market led pubic companies such as the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, and the Ethiopian Telecommunications Corporation, are really working on purely market considerations is doubtful. I am saying “doubtful” not only because of the apparent inefficiency of these firms, but more significantly, because of the almost rampant corruption within these agencies that the EPRDF led government itself acknowledged on a number of occasions. Another requirement of the neoliberals is that the state should not subsidize the price of utilities like water and electricity. Through successive rate hikes, the EPRDF has been very compliant with these demands too, as anyone who pays for electricity, water or phone services in Ethiopia knows.

If the EPRDF’s practice is not fully antagonistic to the economic prescriptions of neo-liberalism, its recent rhetorical attacks on liberalism-cum-neo-liberalism cannot be anything but attacks on the political ideology of liberalism. What is being attacked is the view that the state should be constrained in its powers and should not be allowed to unduly violate the rights of individuals.

One line of argument that the EPRDF suggests is that there is a necessary contradiction between the rights of individuals that liberalism holds dear and the rights of groups, such as nations or other collectivities, to exercise their group rights. Unfortunately, this is also an attack line that opposition politicians seem to be unable to counter successfully at least in the context of the election debates. For the most part, the distinction between individual and collective rights is more worthy of academic discussion on political and legal philosophy. The simple truth is that no state that is not constrained by, and does not respect, the rights of individuals can truly claim to respect the rights of groups. Group rights (to language, to the collective expressions of traditions, cultures, and beliefs, as well as to exercise group self-determination) do not exist in the abstract. They find their expressions through concrete actions by individuals who exercise them.

The liberal protection of individual rights allows individuals to engage in activities that give effect to group rights. Note that liberal though arose because of the denial of groups to exercise their rights to freedom of religion. The right to hold and practice religion is a collective right of a religious group. It is given effect through the exercise of individual followers to practice their religion. In like manner, the right of an ethnic group to use its language and to develop its culture is a group right that can only have meaning and effect when individual members of the ethnic group have the full right to use their language and to engage in cultural activities. No group right can be respected by denying the rights of individuals. What constrain a state from denying the rights of groups including the rights of ethnic groups, is limits on its abilities from denying the rights of individuals – in other words the limits demanded by liberalism.

There may be cases where individual rights and collective or group rights come into conflict. A person’s exercise of his religion’s demand to behead those who do not agree with his beliefs or denying the rights of religious minorities to practice their religion within societies with different dominant religions can be cited as example.

The recent controversy about wearing the Burqa in France is an example. But these are exceptional cases, and liberal societies, from Canada to South Africa, from the United Kingdom to India, have found ways of accommodating them. The more common case is illiberal regimes that violate both individual and through them group rights. The prohibition of the use of languages other than Amharic in schools in pre-1991 Ethiopia is an example that is closer to home. As further illustrations of the equivalence of denials of group and individual rights, one can cite Eritrea’s persecution of minority religious groups, China’s repression of Tibet, Sadam Hussien’s persecution of the Kurds, Iran’s repression of the Baha’i, and hundreds of other denials of group rights by regimes antithetical to liberalism and at the forefront of violations of individual rights.

History teaches us that attacks on liberalism and individual rights are usually harbingers of human suffering on a massive scale deliberately inflicted by repressive regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, from Maoist China to Pinochet’s Chile, from Apartheid South Africa to Mengistu’s Ethiopia, from Eritrea to Rwanda, millions of individuals have been sacrificed for the sake of an abstract collective. You can give that abstract collective any name: in Russia and China it was “communism”. In Chile, it was the “communist threat.” In Nazi Germany, it was the “Superiority of the Aryan Race.” In South Africa, it was the “protecting white culture.” In Rwanda, it was the “Hutu Fatherland”.

In Mengistu’s Ethiopia, it was “the Revolutionary Motherland.” In an Orwellian turn of phrases, in Eritrea, it is called “NETSANET.” There is one thing that is common to all of these and similar other costly follies by dictators. It is the desire, in Adal Isaw’s words, “to empower people more than … to empower the individual [and the belief that] the rights of an individual should not at all tramp the collective rights of a people.” Is this why EPRDF’s attack on liberalism?

Journalists petition Zenawi over media rights

Daily Nation
By RSF
Posted Thursday, May 6 2010 at 19:11
ADDIS ABABA, Thursday

Reporters Without Borders lobby group has voiced concern about the harsh climate for journalists in recent weeks in Ethiopia.
In a letter to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the journalists have asked him to consult with them in order to find ways to amend the code of conduct governing election reporting, that was adopted in March.
The letter also urged the authorities to stop jamming Voice of America’s Amharic-language broadcasts and raised the case of two journalists employed by the Ethiopian Radio and Television Agency (ERTA) who have been detained for more than a week.
“The climate of fear that we condemned in December 2009, when the weekly Addis Neger decided to stop publishing, seems as palpable as ever in Ethiopia as the country approaches the 23 May general election,” the letter said.
“We bring to your attention... what we consider an apparent and intimidating effect of the measures taken by your government on journalists, restricting news coverage, and limiting pluralistic views and open criticism.”
Referring to the two ERTA journalists, the letter said: “We strongly urge the Ethiopian justice to give Haileyesus Worku and Abdulsemed Mohammed a fair trial, one that establishes whether or not the charges brought against them are well-founded. In the meantime, we call for their provisional release.”
Arrested by members of the Federal Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission on 26 April, producer Worku and reporter Mohammed are alleged to have stolen and sold national television programmes to the international TV station Al Jazeera.
They were brought before a federal court on April 30 but were not formally indicted. The judge adjourned the proceedings until May 10.