Special Commentary: We've met the enemy!

Editorial commentator: Alemayehu G. Mariam July 28, 2008

Lately, there has been talk about “The Enemy." Some say, the Woyane regime of Zenawi is “The Enemy.” Others say it is not. If woyane is the “The Enemy," what to do? If it is not, then what? Does it matter whether one calls Zenawi's regime “The Enemy”?

It all seems a bit complicated. The word “enemy,” I mean. There are all sorts of enemies. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis killed 6 million innocent Jews as “enemies of the Aryan race”. Jospeh Stalin and the Bolsheviks wiped out 30 million “enemies of the people” by starvation, executions and deportations to the Gulags. Mao Tse Tung and the Chinese Communist Party decimated 60 million “class enemies”. Today, the Chinese supply all sorts of weapons to al-Bashir, despite a U.N. ban, to kill the people of Darfur. A few months ago, they sent a shipload weapons to Mugabe to kill more Africans; but South African dockworkers refused to unload the 77 tons of small arms and grenade launchers destined for Mugabe’s thugs. Who would have predicted the Chinese would be the African Merchants of Death -- the “enemies” of the African people -- just a few years ago? Osama bin Laden declared “the West and Israel are the enemies of Islam” and killed 3,000 innocent Americans.

When Zenawi canned the leaders of Kinijit, human rights advocates and civic society leaders in prison on trumped up charges of treason and insurrection, and jailed without trial hundreds of thousands of other ordinary citizens on suspicion of opposition to his regime, they became “enemies of the state”. Earlier this year, Zenawi said “Eritrea has been actively destabilising the African nations of the Horn. They are on record as saying they would be happy to equip, arm and deploy armed groups in Ethiopia to destabilise Ethiopia.” Eritrea must be the arch “enemy” of Ethiopia, if Zenawi is to be believed. May be not. In international politics, they say, “nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.” The author of the definitive work on war, Carl von Clauswiz, taught the science of war to destroy the “enemy” in battle. Sun Tzu taught the art and philosophy of war to vanquish the “enemy” and achieve victory, and not necessarily on the battlefield.

There are other kinds of “enemies”. Richard Nixon had an official “Political Enemies Project” with the aim of “screwing” his political opponents, including journalists, politicians, anti-war protesters and others who criticized him. Malcom X urged Blacks to “unite against a common enemy, the white man.” John Kennedy said, “Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.” There is the old saying about “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Today’s friend could be tomorrow’s “enemy."

Then there is the “enemy” who is not. Christ taught “Love your enemies and pray for those whose persecute you.” Gandhi said the “enemy” is not out there but resides deep within us and every time we hate, it grows larger until one day it consumes us completely. Dr. King explained that “love your enemy” means “discover the element of good in him”. In the final analysis, King said, “We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Then two mortal “enemies”, Nelson Mandela -- the most feared “enemy” of white South Africans -- and F. W. deKlerk, -- the most hated symbol of white supremacy for blacks in South Africa -- shocked the world when they joined hands and buried the common “enemy” of apartheid; and on its grave built a multiparty democratic government for 35 million South Africans. In the nick of time, two lifelong sworn “enemies” came together to save their country from the annihilation of a race war. Enemies!? Not enemies!?

What does it mean to say the woyane regime is the “enemy”?

Those who say Zenawi’s Woyane regime is the “enemy” of the Ethiopian people point to a mountain of evidence of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide committed against the people of Ethiopia. They point to massive violations of human rights and political repression, rigged and stolen elections, systemic corruption, economic mismanagement and the rapacious plunder of the country’s resources by a syndicate of criminals who try to palm themselves off as a legitimate “government”. They say the top corps of the woyane leadership consists of cunning, ruthless, vicious and stone-cold criminals who maintain themselves in power by force of arms only. They say the woyane regime is far more brutal and cruel than the Italian Fascist army that invaded Ethiopia, and no different in its aims to completely destroy the social, economic and political fabric of the country. They believe Zenawi will never give up power through the ballot box, only at gun point. As illustrative proof, they point to an arrogant invitation once extended by Zenawi himself to the effect that anyone who wants get rid of him must do what he did to the previous regime: Fight all the way from the bush and eject him from power. But a military victory over the woyane would not be particularly difficult, they say, pointing to the fact that the woyane army has been bogged down in Somalia and unable to defeat a ragtag coalition of Somali insurgents.

What does it mean to say the woyane regime is not an enemy?

Those who say the woyane regime is not an “enemy” reject the idea of using the word “enemy” in political dialogue to characterize political opponents. They believe the woyane, however misguided or depraved they are, are first and foremost Ethiopians and must be treated as “political adversaries”. They strongly condemn the dastardly crimes and corruption of the woyane regime. But they also see the woyane trapped in an inescapable predicament: Riding on the back of the tiger. They say the woyanes’ hands are dripping with the blood of innocent Ethiopians, and they know they will be held accountable if they give up power. The woyane have also become obscenely rich from corruption and theft of state resources. They simply will not give up the stolen loot without a fight. And most importantly, they say, the woyane are scared silly. “They fear their own shadows. They see man-eating lions in tree stumps. They see hordes of demons in an empty dark room. They see a precipitous cliff over every hill.” They say, possessed by such fear, the woyane leaders will react dangerously and recklessly like wild animals. Political survival requires them to be cruel, depraved and brutal.

But they argue that using the word “enemy” to describe them only plays into their hands 1) by validating and reaffirming the sense of pervasive fear and loathing widely shared among the woyane leadership and their supporters, and 2) by giving the woyane a propaganda windfall to engage in an all-out fear mongering campaign to scare other Ethiopians. They say the woyane will use the “enemy” characterization to tell Ethiopians living in the north of the country, minority ethnic groups and Muslims that their compatriots, and particularly the Christian elites, think of them as “enemies” and given the chance will do them great harm and drive them out of their ancestral lands. They say that is exactly what Zenawi told the Ambassadors' Donors Group on May 9, 2005, and campaigned on in the elections of that same year1:

That in my view can pose a threat to stability in Ethiopia. So long as these groups are on the fringes, they add color and spice. But in the long run, they will create a problem. If we do not have a loyal opposition, loyal to the constitutional order, then the choice for the people will be the EPRDF or chaos. And this is not a good choice, and not good for democracy. But this for me is not the main weakness of the opposition. It is a weakness, but it is not the major one. The main weakness of the opposition is that they have identified a number of scapegoats. These scapegoats are not Jews because most of them have left. These are not Tutsis because we do not have Tutsis here. Despite what the Interhamwes used to say, Tutsis are Rwandans. The scapegoats here are primarily Tigrayans, the Muslims and minority ethnic groups. Even in the very successful demonstration we had yesterday, some of the statements of the opposition was in coded language. What they said yesterday was – “We will send the EPRDF to where it came from.” The EPRDF is tantamount to the TPLF, which is tantamount to the Tigrayans. Because of the numbers in the rally, they became bolder than normally. They had a slogan “Kick the Tigrayans, send them back home.” Interhamwe used to say, “Send the Tutsis home through the Nile dead.” Now these are not the spur of the moment statements. Everyone of us say lots of things when we are nervous. That will not be an exaggeration and should not be taken lightly. These are ideas published in books and are circulating in their thousands, books in the market, articulating these views.

But the facts were different, they say. On the same day (May 9), Ana Gomez condemned Zenawi's "Rwanda talk" and said, "hundreds of thousands of people attended rallies in the capital, Addis Ababa, without incident," an event described in the international press as a "miracle." Indeed, after the polls closed on May 15, it became clear that Kinijit had swept the local and parliamentary seats in Addis Ababa. It was equally clear that the rest of the country had delivered a similar message ending Zenawi's rule. But when Zenawi declared a state of emergency with talk of interhamwe after the elections, the real fear among many Tigreans, particularly in Addis Ababa, was that they would be targets of violence by the woyane forces in the dark of night, which would later be blamed on Kinijit and others to justify woyanes' continued hold on power.

Nonetheless, those who would like to treat the woyane as political adversaries give two reasons to avoid armed confrontation with them: 1) Innocent civilians will be massacred by the woyane in large numbers in much the same way as it is happening in the Ogaden region currently. 2) Removal from power of the woyane regime will merely repeat the violent history of political struggles and change in Ethiopia. They point to the May, 2005 elections as an example of the only way to do it. “Let the people vote in a fair and free election. Respect their judgment. That is the only legitimate way for any government to have and to hold power in Ethiopia,” they say. Otherwise, they argue, the next group that violently overthrows the woyane will be the mirror image of the woyane.

Knowing and Fighting the “Enemy”

Is there only one way to know and fight “The Enemy”? Ought one fight the “enemy” through an armed struggle? Should one fight the “enemy” by non-violent means? These are not new questions. Modern world history offers compelling insights. First, it is important to understand that to hold a belief is not necessarily to act on the beliefs. Take Mandela, for instance. He founded Umkhonto We Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”) in 1960 in response to the Sharpeville Massacre; and became the leader of the armed wing of the ANC. He planned a guerilla war, coordinated a campaign of sabotage and military action against the apartheid government and was jailed for life for those activities. On the day of his release in 1990, in his very first speech, he declared his commitment to peace and reconciliation with the country’s white minority, but made it clear that the ANC’s armed struggle will go on: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC (Umkhonto We Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.” Soon thereafter he joined hands with deKlerk, and in a negotiated settlement peacefully transitioned South Africa to majority rule!

Martin Luther King waged the civil rights struggle in the U.S. by nonviolent means. He led mass protests and engaged in acts of civil disobedience. Many who actively participated in the fight against segregation, discrimination and racial injustice in the civil rights movement were jailed, beaten, lynched and persecuted. Malcom X, on the other hand, said black people can not negotiate with the “white enemy”. Blacks should fight back and exact an eye for an eye, Malcom said. But Dr. King and Malcom shared common ground; they had a common cause. Malcom said, “Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom!... I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King.” But Malcom was clear about one thing: Black people must have “complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary.” Dr. King’s civil rights movement resulted in massive changes in the American legal system which guaranteed to all Americans, but particularly African Americans, a whole range of civil rights and the mechanisms to enforce them. Malcom’s efforts unleashed the black consciousness movement. MAlcom’s black nationalism kindled a new sense of self-identity in young African Americans and helped engage them in the politics of liberation. Both King and Malcom played critical and vital roles in the struggle for justice in America.


Who is right?

“Who is right?” is the wrong question to ask. It is a matter of opinion. Those who choose to perceive the woyane regime as an enemy have a perfectly legitimate right to hold that belief. Others could disagree with them, but that does not deny the fact that they have an absolute right to hold and convince others of their beliefs. That is the meaning of freedom of expression. Malcom X had as much right to say the “white man is the enemy” to be resisted “by any means necessary” as Dr. King had the right to say, the white man is not the enemy, and that “love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy (white man) into friend,” not violence and war. This is one of the greatest qualities of the United States of America. We all have the constitutionally and statutorily protected right to hold and propagate our beliefs, however sublime or silly they may be, without fear of any government or person.

Who is wrong?

“Who is wrong?” is the right question to ask. S/he who heaps insults on another for believing woyane is the enemy is wrong. S/he who demonizes another for believing woyane is not the enemy is wrong. It is wrong to cast aspersions on someone for believing woyane must be resisted by any means necessary. It is wrong to impugn the motives of another for believing nonviolent civil disobedience is the best course of action. It is wrong to be intolerant and accusatory. But it is not wrong to argue passionately and civilly about the horrible crimes of Zenawi and his regime, or the need for peaceful engagement of his regime. Our ideas do not gain acceptance or face rejection because we embellish the truth, garnish it with insults or spike it with anger. Our ideas rise and fall on the cold hard evidence and the persuasive logic marshaled to support them.

We Have Met the Enemy!

Many years ago, there used to be an old comic strip called “Pogo” which appeared regularly in American newspapers. The funny animal characters in Pogo lived in a swamp community, which figuratively represented the diversity of American society and issues facing it. That community began to disintegrate because its residents were incapable of communicating with each other to deal with the most important and urgent issues facing them. They wasted valuable time on non-issues. One day, Pogo saw the swamp they live in filled with debris and litter. In reflective frustration he sighed, “We have met the enemy. He is us!”

Pogo has a very good point. As members of the Ethiopian pro-democracy movement we should look in the mirror and ask basic questions of ourselves: Why can’t we unite as a global force for justice and human rights advocacy in Ethiopia? Why can’t we build strong bridges across ethnic lines and use the language of human rights to communicate with each other? Why don’t we shout together -- and often -- a mighty shout of protest when the human rights of our Oromo brothers and sisters are trampled by Zenawi day in and day out? Or defend the Amharas when they are maligned as the persecutors of “Tigreans, minority groups and Muslims”? Or speak unreservedly against those who seek to paint all Tigreans with a broad brush of ethnic hatred? Why are we politely silent about the plight of our people in the Ogaden, the Afar and Gambella regions? Where is our outrage -- where are our tears -- when they were bombed, strafed and slaughtered? Driven from their homes and made refugees by the hundreds of thousands? Why aren’t we joining hands -- locking hands -- to defend the territorial integrity of the motherland? And so on… Is Zenawi to blame for any of the above? Pogo is right: “We have met the enemy!”

Beyond Enemies and Foes: Let’s Talk About Us!

There is a future for Ethiopia that is beyond enemies and foes. It is a future that we can all shape, mold, create and build for ourselves and generations to come. It is a future free of fear, violence, hatred and religious and ethnic bigotry. It is a future firmly founded on the consent of the people, the rule of law and vibrant democratic institutions. It is a future very much similar to the one envisioned by Nelson Mandela for South Africa: “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.” It is a future about a society where government respects the rights of its citizens and protects individual liberties; and leaders are accountable to the people and the law of the land. It is a future where our young people will take over the helm of state and society.
We are wasting too much time and energy talking about enemies from without. We should be talking about us -- our cause, who we are and who we are not, what we stand for and believe in, how we can help each other and avoid harming ourselves, cooperate and collaborate with each other to help our less fortunate brothers and sisters. We should not have a conversation about enemies. Our victory is in our unity, not enmity. We should be talking about friends who seek to reach the same destination at the end of the rainbow of green, yellow and red. We should be talking about the pot of priceless treasure at the end of the rainbow: human rights protected by law, democratic institutions sustained by the consent of the people and public accountability secured by the rule of law and law of the land. But we can not get to our destination traveling the same old road paved with accusations, recriminations and insults. Nor can we get there on the wings of bitterness and pettiness. We must take a different road, the road less traveled. In the verse of Robert Frost:
... I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Now that we have met the enemy, let’s hold hands in friendship and head into the future on the road less traveled by, the road not taken. It will make all the difference for us as human beings! It will make all the difference for us as a people, and as a nation!

One Ethiopia Today. One Ethiopia Tomorrow! One Ethiopia Forever!
---1Do we know Meles Zenawi?

----The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. For comments, he can be reached at almariam@gmail.com
Recent editorials

Response to Professor Mesfin and the issue of enmity

By Seifu Tsegaye Demmissie: July 21, 2008

I have found the piece by Dagmawi Dawit to be thought provoking and touching on one of the seminal issues (whether or not to treat TPLF-Meles as an enemy ) facing the struggle for democracy and freedom in Ethiopia.

I think this issue has made its own contribution to the division of the leadership of kinijit and the opposition as whole. The softening position and political tone of some former leaders of Kinijit after their release from Kaliti have puzzled many. One can speculate that they have something to do with the conditions and terms of the so called pardon which led to their release. Even so they can quit politics and seek other means of livelihood.

I know some have their own businesses and can enjoy a high standard of living.In my opinion serious analysis and understanding of the true motives and nature of the TPLF are among the critical elements missing in some opposition groups in Ethiopia. There are circles who put the blame squarely on the deceptive methods of Meles Zenawi. The fact of the matter is that Meles Zenawi himself has been consistently clear and loud enough when it comes to political power in the country. He has told the opposition to go to the bush and fight their way to the palace as he had done. Thus the issue of Meles Zenawi relinquishing political power through the ballot box will remain to be a mere wish. There can be different reasons for the failure of some political circles to realize this simple fact. The possible scenarios of some joining the fledgling opposition and causing disarray for the sake of pursuing their personal interests, can not be excluded. Party formation as a means of gaining access to the crumbs or loots of Meles and Co. is becoming apparent. If it were for the sheer number of political parties, Ethiopia could be a free and democratic country by know. Defining and treating the TPLF-Meles as the forefront enemy, mobilizing the population accordingly and pursuing the struggle with determination and resolve, are indispensable for the struggle to succeed.

Taking part in the periodical dramas (so called elections) of Meles Zenawi and receiving seats kindly given by him do not serve any other purpose than earning one a relatively comfortable live in the land of misery. This business of forming escorting and loyal opposition to lend indirect supporting hands to Meles Zenawi should be stopped.

The TPLF is the personal tool of Meles Zenawi and he can use it for any of his purposes. Volumes can be said or written about the anti-Ethiopian deeds and policies of Meles Zenawi which are jeopardising the sovereignty and survival of the country. It is on the bases of his sinister motives that all the concerned citizens of the country have classified and targeted him as the enemy of their country. Given their anti-Ethiopia doctrines and position, TPLF-Meles can not be regarded as ordinary political forces. The continued and never changing detrimental policies and positions of the TPLF-Meles have even frustrated political circleswho have been giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Like any other citizen, Professor Mesfin has every right to his opinion and stand with regard to TPLF-Meles. On the other hand I do not think that all the destructive and hostile acts of TPLF-Meles are lost to the clever and respected professor. However, his recent statement referring to the TPLF-Meles as a non-enemy is not helpful to the democratic struggle. The proponents of peaceful struggle need to understand that it is not about pacification and pleading with TPLF-Meles for our rights. It employs a range of options including boycotts, civil disobedience and disrupting or sabotaging the life lines of the enemy.Removing TPLF-Meles and securing the well being or existence of the country are the preconditions for building a democratic, free and prosperous Ethiopia. Other wise all the talks of democracy and the rule of law will be gone with the wind.

Professor Mesfin and the Issue of Enmity

By: Dagmawi Dawit, ethio_dagmawi@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION

We have heard from few committed North American Diaspora Community members and media outlets known for wide and courageous coverage expressing disappointment against the speech delivered by the renowned human right activist, geographer, poet, historian, politician, and seasoned academician Professor Mesfin Woldemariam. He reportedly said, “EPRDF is not an enemy [of UDJP].”


PEACEFUL STRUGGLE

Make no mistake, for a party which is registered at the National Board of Election (NBE) submitting itself to a peaceful struggle, EPRDF is an opponent and not an enemy. UDJP is registered at NBE and pursuing to a peaceful struggle. Therefore, EPRDF is an opponent of UDJP, an adversary in contest. UDJP’s goal is to contest through ballot. Parties in the western countries, like the Democrats and Republicans of USA, are widely opponents. They compete for the voice of their people, literary contest to win. Their power emanates from their people by way of ballots. On the same token, UDJP is set to be part of establishing a democratic system in Ethiopia by contesting in election(s).

As we all know, it is the core value of a peaceful struggle to set parties contest for the people’s voice against their opponents (i.e. adversary in contest). Both winners and losers stay in what they achieve and loose. They will have seats in the same parliament and enact laws as a unit. The only difference between the winners and looser is that the winners gets to have its message through enacted laws, policies and regulations. Furthermore, it will take over the executive branch of the government. The judiciary branch of the government and the defense force including the law enforcement agencies suppose to stay neutral. Are we there now? Not yet, but that is what it takes for peaceful struggle

ARMED STRUGGLE

On the other hand, for those parties/fronts that are not registered at NBE and chose to pursue armed struggle, EPRDF is their enemy (i.e. a party/front who hates or seeks to harm them). For these parties/fronts, EPRDF is a party/front and a military force that fights against them in combat or battle. If they win, they will assume government power and bring EPRDF’s existence to end. They are not going to share parliament with EPRDF. Their power emanates from their barrel of guns and not from the voice of Ethiopian people via ballot. Unless they give a way to multiparty system, they may end up establishing another dictatorial government. We may not know at this point if they are for multiparty system or not.

Armed Struggle/ Peaceful Struggle (“Hulegeb Tigil”)

EPRP claims, “Despite the party's open and public declaration of a readiness to struggle peacefully and legally,” EPRDF lacks willingness to see EPRP as opponent and kept it EPRP out of the multiparty system it wishes to be partaker. It must be as a result of this that EPRP’s means of struggle could neither be considered peaceful or armed. No body has any knowledge if EPRP is for armed or peaceful struggle. The only sure thing we know is that EPRP without fail calls for “Hulegeb” struggle. In doing that, EPRP has aligned with Professors Beyene Petros and Merrara Gudina’s parties, parties which registered at NBE and have a seat in the parliament by pursuing peaceful struggle. On the other hand, it often calls for establishment of transitional government. At times, it calls for insurrection and public uprising and for the downfall of EPRDF. Hence, regardless of being the first party in our history, the writer is not sure how EPRP chose to pursue its struggle.

CONFUSED (MEHAL SEFARI) MEANS OF STRUGGLE

Sadly, from all corners of the aisles of Ethiopian political groups/fronts/parties, there are several people who do not know or want to understand the distinguishing features of peaceful struggle vs. armed struggle. If party chooses peaceful struggle, that means it submits itself to the core value of democracy and will contest to hold power through ballots. If it wins, it will hold a government power, form a government and pursue the policy of its choosing through the laws enacted prior to its coming to power or will enact anew.
However, few supporters of parties who chose the peaceful route tend to make grave mistake by considering EPRDF as enemy. For example, by his own admission a staunch supporter of CUD, a party registered at NBE and pursuing peaceful struggle, once wrote, “… [Any] one who does not consider this vicious Woyane Tigreans enemies of Ethiopia is an enemy of Ethiopia himself/herself.” (Please see http://www.kinijit.org/content_JIL.asp?ContentType=Opinion&contentid=2787.) And yet again, some media outlets were viciously collaborating in the attack against few vocalists. What I could not understand is that UDJP is in Ethiopia and pursuing peaceful struggle. What is wrong with singing about unity (Andnet) and Balager? (Please view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6nnCFKyIXM&feature=related; and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb3b3SlVE9k and be a judge to yourself.)


MISGUIDED AND UNFORTUNATE COMMENT

Some really good people made huge mistake by calling Professor Mesfin, “Politically Ignorant.” I respectfully dissent from this comment. Choosing a peaceful struggle does not make ignorant. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were for peaceful struggle, and we all know they were the icons of the 20th century. Talking in line with peaceful struggle and walking the walk is not wrong. From the get go, Professor Mesfin is no fan of armed struggle. He is consistent and has not been flip-flopping between armed and peaceful struggle. Furthermore, I don’t think that we have to be reminded about who Mesfin is and his accomplishments. To call this beacon of peaceful struggle and staunch defender of human rights “ignorant” is very unfortunate.

We all know Mesfin is an Ethiopian peace activist, who has been actively engaged in a peaceful movement to bring justice, equality and peace for all the people in his country. He is a founding member of the Ethiopian Human Rights Counsel (EHRC), and later founded the Rainbow Ethiopia: Movement for Democracy and Social Justice which was the instrumental for creating Kinijit, the party which has been adored by millions of Ethiopians. He has published several major publications and won several awards for his contribution to humanity in general and Ethiopia in particular. How many publication of each of us have? What did we do for our country comparable to Mesfin’s five decades service and commitment to our country? We all know the answer, and I am not going to put it down here.

Once again, for parties who chose the peaceful route, “EPRDF is not [their] enemy.” He is right. With respect I would like to ditto the speech of father of our nation, the beacon of our history, the hope of our future democracy, Professor Mesfin Woldemarim!

Ditto Sir!

God bless Ethiopia!

WILL OBAMA BE THE 21ST CENTURY PRESIDENT CARTER OF ETHIOPIA’S CAUSE?

GOP’s Haunch: Zenawis’ Lobbyist Richard A. Gephardt of DLA Piper to Become Obama’s Running Mate

By: Seblewongel Iyosedeq July 3, 2008

We have heard the US Republican Party presumptive nominee John McCain calling his rival Democratic Party Presumptive Nominee “Carter alike.” Yesterday, GOP predicted Gephardt as Possible Obama's Running Mate, believing the former House majority leader could appeal to key constituencies, but his lobbying work may rule him out.

As we all know, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP brought Congressman Richard Gephardt, who then retired from Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District, to join the firm’s Government Affairs practice group as senior counsel. Gephardt, who was a leader of the House Democrats for nearly 14 years, is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He has been leveraging his extensive legislative experience to advice clients on international trade, business, financial, tax, corporate pension plan, legislative, political, and health care matters, mainly lobbying for foreign governments like Turkey and Ethiopia’s.

It is believed that Senator Barack Obama would choose Congressman Gephardt so that he could pick up more votes in the coming November US Presidential Election from blue-collar workers.

Gephardt is expected to help Obama score well among the types of voters Obama is trying “to reach out to—lower and middle-class workers, laborers, and minorities.” It is also believed that Gephardt presents a friendly face of liberalism that would be hard to attack. Gephardt has a deep well of support among House Democrats, who they believe would rally around an Obama-Gephardt ticket, especially the allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The Unlikely Choice

However Gephardt’s Former aides were heard saying that while they would like to see him on the ticket, it is unlikely because of his recent lobbying work. Regardless of this, in a new poll from the marketing firm Affinnova, Gephardt ranks high on the favorability rating, just second among those polled behind Colin Powell as the choice for Obama's running mate.

The Lobbying Dirt

Obama has been promising to bring change to the White House. However, with Gephardt as his running mate that change may be unlikely to come. It is still fresh in our memory that in over the $100,000 a month the government of Turkey paid the DLA Piper Lobbying Firm, Mr. Gephardt had lobbied on Turkey's government behalf, in direct repudiation of his seemingly passionately held belief that Turkey ought publicly to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915. Mr. Gephardt's clients required him to fight vigorously against the same resolution calling for Turkish recognition of the genocide that he fought so hard for while in Congress. The educated guess then became that the seemingly principled stand for truth and human rights was not more than a calculated move to gain political support from a key constituency in his district..

Furthermore, H.R. 2003 which deals with Freedom Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia was reintroduced in the House after a journey that had some treachery in it. After clearing the House Foreign Relations Committee, it was tabled by then Speaker Hastert. Even under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, it was thought that it might suffer the same fate as it did during the reign of the Hastert Congress.

The Current Government in Ethiopia has a serious image problem. Its actions were criticized in a report by Human Rights Watch several times. It released 38 political prisoners that were mainly members of the Political Opposition after an unfair trial. And the Red Cross was asked to leave the Ogaden region of the country. Also the country faces increasing scrutiny after its US Backed Incursion in to Somalia. Oddly in the past few weeks, Zenawi has been seen trying to hide a widespread famine, and he is believed set to massacre civilians if questioned for giving a controversial border land to Sudan. Apparently, news has it that Zenawi has given Sudan a land as big as Norway, not just a small tract of land.

Zenawi in order to shore up his image after the 2005 election debacle retained one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington, DLA Piper, involving two former members of Congress Dick Armey and Richard Gephardt to lobby the Speaker in an effort to prevent the bill from being voted on. Had the bill become a law, Zenawi could have lost substantial Economic and Military Aid. And now, Senator Obama is considering this very same Gephardt to be his running mate.

Will Senator Obama be the 21st Century Carter for Ethiopia? Here is the President Carter’s Role in Ethiopia’s last 40 years horror as directly told by National Review, (unedited). Please read and be a judge to yourself and know what we may face if Gephardt becomes Obama's VP!

The award of the Nobel peace prize to former president Jimmy Carter is a manifestation of selective memory. What follows is a story about how the precepts of the Carter administration's human-rights policy-and that president's aversion to the use of force in the defense of moral principles-became an impediment to possibly saving 30 million Ethiopians from the undertow of totalitarianism.

The story begins during the Nixon and Ford administrations, when the murderous Ethiopian Dergue ("Committee") and its merciless leader, Mengistu Haile Mariam, rose to power concomitant with the domestic distraction of Watergate and the fall of South Vietnam. The Dergue began executing its own followers and threatened to do the same to more members of the Ethiopian royal family. Since Mengistu's ruthless and dynamic regime seemed unlikely to fall, the outgoing U.S. secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, trying to keep an iron in the fire, continued some of the military assistance that had been going to Addis Ababa. If the United States were to give up all its leverage in Ethiopia, the country would simply take the next step and become a Soviet satellite, with vast and unpleasant consequences for its entire population.

President Ford and Kissinger were replaced in January 1977 by Jimmy Carter and his new secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, with Andrew Young as U.N. ambassador adopting a high profile on African affairs. They wanted a policy that demonstrated more concern for sub-Saharan Africa but with less heavy-handedness. In the Horn of Africa, that translated immediately into asymmetry because the Soviets were becoming more enterprising and brazenly aggressive than ever.

With Ethiopia riven by revolutionary turmoil, the Soviets helped their irredentist Somalian clients to plan an invasion of Ethiopia's Ogaden Desert; the aim was to use Somalia to pressure Ethiopia into the Soviet orbit, and then to call off the Somalian invasion. Somalia was at the time a country of only 3 million nomads, whereas Ethiopia had a more urbanized population ten times the size-excellent fodder for the
mechanized African satellite that gradually became Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev's supreme objective. The Soviets, while threatening Ethiopia with a Somalian invasion, were also offering it military aid-the classic carrot-and-stick strategy. Yet, thanks partly to the M-60 tanks and F-5 warplanes that Mengistu had been receiving from the United States as the Ford administration was leaving office-as well as American spare parts coming to him courtesy of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin-the Ethiopian leader was hesitant to go through the disruptive task of switching armorers for an entire army.

In the spring of 1977, despite the military threat from Somalia, Carter cut off all arms deliveries to Ethiopia because of its awful human- rights record. The Soviets next dispatched East German security police and Cuban advisers to Addis Ababa to help Mengistu consolidate his regime, and invited the Ethiopian ruler to Moscow for a week-long state visit. In the coming months, with the help of the East Germans, the Dergue would gun down hundreds of Ethiopian teenagers in the streets in a process that came to be known as the "Red Terror."

There was still some hope, though. The Ethiopian revolution, leftist as it was, and despite Mengistu's diatribes, showed relatively few other signs of overt anti-Americanism, nor were there any foreign hostages, as would be the case in Iran. Israel's new prime minister, Menachem Begin, in an attempt to save Ethiopian Jews, pleaded with Carter not to close the door completely on Ethiopia, but to give Mengistu some military assistance against the Somalian advance: for the Soviets, having unleashed the Somalians, were failing to engineer the cease-fire between the two countries that became part of their overall game plan.

Carter refused to resume the arms relationship with Mengistu, which was somewhat understandable given Ethiopia's tilt toward Moscow. Still, in principle at least, he was very interested in helping the Somalians, whose hell-bent irredentism was providing Washington with a fresh and different kind of opportunity to muddle the outcome in Ethiopia. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, to his credit, wanted to give the Somalians arms, deploy the U.S. Navy in the region, and link Soviet behavior in the Horn to progress on nuclear-arms talks. But in the end Vance's State Department won this particular policy battle, proclaiming that as long as Somalia was illegally occupying territory in another country, it could not be helped. As for Ethiopia, State offered it a negotiated settlement, but with no carrot or stick held in the background. The Soviets were less aloof and legalistic: They simply gave Mengistu the military aid the Americans wouldn't, and Ethiopia began to turn the tide of the Somalian invasion. It was an early example of a presidency with a self-canceling foreign policy, the result of which was less appeasement than ineffectuality.

Even if Ford had been elected in 1976, it is doubtful whether his instincts and those of Kissinger would have been enough to save Ethiopia. What's clear, though, is that the Carter administration played its hand terribly by relying on statements rather than force or genuine pressure. The upshot was that Ethiopia went from being yet another nasty, left-leaning regime to a full-fledged Marxist state, in which hundreds of thousands of people were to die in crackpot collectivization and "villagization" schemes, to say nothing of the million or so people who would die in famines that were as much a consequence of made-in-Moscow agriculture policies as they were of
drought[…..]

Vance and Young had wanted an African solution to an African problem, which in the context of the times meant a Soviet solution. For in poor and populous Ethiopia the Communists could implement policies that, with the exception of Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania, they no longer dared to try in an already-restive Soviet bloc.

The linkage between Carter's heartfelt but ineffectual foreign policy in the Horn of Africa and the mass deaths that followed in Ethiopia is more direct than that between President Nixon's incursion into a rural area of Cambodia-in pursuit of enemy sanctuaries to help ease the withdrawal of American troops-and the Khmer Rouge takeover six years later. As for the Nixon administration's culpability in the 1973 coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power in Chile, an issue that has become a particular concern of the international Left, here-without meaning to disregard the importance of even one human life-the dreadful fact is that we are talking about a few thousand deaths, rather than hundreds of thousands.

Ethiopia may well have been beyond saving, whereas the Nixon administration actively supported the Chilean coup. But we should also not forget that this same Chilean military regime, in the first seven years of its rule-while the rest of Latin America was dithering in socialist experiments-privatized all but 25 of 500 state companies: an action that would lead to the creation of over a million jobs and the reduction of the poverty rate from a third of the population to a tenth, while also lowering infant mortality from 79 per 1,000 births to 11 per 1,000. The Ethiopians should have been so lucky as to have a Pinochet. Had Carter promptly armed the Somalians, he might have moderated the behavior of both Mengistu and the Soviets in the Horn. His decision not to do so made for a policy that was more sanctimonious than virtuous. Now that he has won the Nobel peace prize, Carter will likely step up his criticism of using force against Iraq. But as the example of Ethiopia shows, when it comes to dealing with brutal regimes, his instincts are not to be trusted.