Comments on Tekeda Alemu and Ahmed Mustafa’s Comments

(Based on their response to Prof. Clapham’s article)

By Haile-Michael Mamo (Ph.D.)

January 3, 2006

---

“All the dead were shot in the chest” – AP (Nov 1, 2005, Addis Ababa)

To get a complete picture of the discussion that ensued subsequent in reply to Professor Christopher Clapham’s assessment of the current situation in Ethiopia after the May 2005 election, entitled: “Comments on the Ethiopian Crisis,“ I direct the reader’s attention to two of those replies: 1) the views published by Tekeda Alemu of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia entitled, “Open Letter to Professor Clapham” and 2) the reaction of Ahmed Mustafa entitled, “Comments on the Article by Christopher Clapham”.

Both Tekeda and Ahmed’s refutations of Clapham’s article are replete with denials of the actual events that transpired after the May elections and denial to recognize EPDRF’s true character based on how it governed the country in the past 14 years. The sole sycophantic purpose of these two replies is to present EPDRF in a good light, regardless of its glaring weaknesses that are widely documented. The two authors carp about errors and omissions in Clapham’s paper and assail the tone of his paper while their own papers contain substantive material omissions about actual events after the May elections and shamelessly indict the opposition for the crimes the establishment in power committed.

At the onset let me say that Clapham does not stop being considered friend of Ethiopia because he gave a truthful assessment of the events that are currently transpiring in the country. As an academician, he is free to present his views, whatever they are. And any contradictions with his previous papers must not be automatically assessed as flaws but must be assessed in light of whether new information supports his changed conclusions.

Ironically, no EPDRF cadre, including high officials of the government like Tekeda that serve as pseudo spokesmen of the regime, cried foul when Calapham presented his research in South Africa in 2002 under the title, “The Challenge of Democratization in Ethiopia,” because the paper contained some upbeat remarks about EPDRF. In fact, for his first paper, Tekeda applauded him by saying, “You were in your best form as a scholar and as an academic.” But when Clapham presented a gloomy assessment of the current predicament clearly citing his reasons for doing so, Tekeda, had difficulty accepting Clapham’s conclusions and went on to assail his professionalism, saying, “no trace of the scholar with 40 years of concentrated labour on matters relating to Ethiopia.”

It is clear that Takeda seems to only want to hear arguments supporting the regime he is serving because he is part of it. The EPDRF regime he is trying to defend is massacring, jailing, and maiming unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators. And journalists that present the opposition’s views are being thrown in jail. In violation of the current constitution of the country, political detainees are not given access to their lawyers. Instead, they are brought before a judge and asked to enter a plea. Is that just?

Takeda defends this despotic regime just like he previously sided with the Megistu administration when he served in the Foreign Ministry. Plainly, Takeda is an unprincipled sycophant.

It does not take just two hours to start a new business in Ethiopia as Takeda claims in his open letter. Talk to any Ethiopian enterprenuer that has a business and you will hear laments of the red tape and bribery one has to go through to start a legitimate business. In fact, the rampant corruption has made it extremely expensive to do business in Ethiopia and is significantly discouraging private initiative. That is why the Gurages, known for their entrepreneurial initiative, are frustrated by the situation and have realized the importance of change in governance if the problem is to be fixed among other reasons for supporting the opposition platform. Former Information Minister Bereket Simon is on record berating Gurages en masse for supporting the opposition.

EPDRF is responsible for the corruption and red tape because it created the climate for corruption to thrive. Its corrupt officials are the direct beneficiaries. As long as their allegiance to the regime is assured, EPDRF gladly looks the other way. But Ethiopia cannot afford to misuse its meager resources in a manner that benefits mainly a few crooked public officials and their acquaintances that are colluding with the regime. This happened during Mengistu’s reign as well and it is happening at a larger scale this time around.

Isn’t it true that the EPDRF has a “monopoly of organized force and has not the slightest hesitation to use it” as Clapham pointed out? What is “so unreasonably harsh” about that comment as Takeda chooses to lament? Has Takeda not heard about security forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, not only during the recent election, but a number of times in the past fourteen years of EPDRF rule? Has Takeda not heard about the thousands of opposition supporters including underage children being rounded up by the security forces and sent to detention camps in remote locations to subject them to pain and suffering under subhuman conditions? How about the numerous unexplained disappearances of a number of persons opposed to the regime? Tekeda has the audacity to complain about Clapham being “unreasonably harsh”.

For lack of justification for the recent murders in the streets of Ethiopian cities, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was recently trying to cover-up the crime by asserting that the security forces probably over reacted in the manner they handed the demonstrations after the May elections. This is not just over reaction. The security forces were given orders to shoot any demonstrator that resisted their advance. There is no doubt a crime is committed by the. But as long as EPDRF is in power the perpetrators will not be brought to justice.

The EPDRF is not governing by heeding the voice of the people as expressed via the ballot in the last election. As they have done for the last fourteen years, the government chooses to rule through fear and terror using any and all state resources at its disposal to guarantee its survival. But the EPDRF should not underestimate our resolve to see justice and democracy in our country. The countdown has begun. It is not like Meles said, “the worst is behind us.”

Tekeda, would you accept the results of a fraudulent election if you were in the opposition camp? What is a legitimate form of protest of a fraudulent election other than a peaceful demonstration? Dozens of examples of the types and extent of the fraud that was committed were reported both by domestic and international observers which have made the results questionable at best.

The ruling party was willing to hand the administration of Addis Ababa to the opposition mainly because it was trying to use it to encourage the opposition’s acceptance of defeat in the rural areas where the majority of the voters reside, effectively sealing EPDRF’s continued dominance of Ethiopian politics.

The opposition demanded all the votes be counted accurately in the presence of representatives from the government, the opposition, and other independent observers and all complaints of fraud be investigated by an independent body. What is undemocratic about that? When the regime made it impossible to redress the wrongs via the existing framework and resorted to intimidation and ultimatum, the opposition called for peaceful demonstrations.

But Takeda described the opposition’s reactions to fraud as “contempt for the rule of law” and “mundane greed for power “ because they refused to accept the lies the regime spreads about what the real issues with the election outcome are. Does Takeda realize that we have had unelected leader for the last fourteen years and Ethiopians are saying we’ve had enough? In reaction to opposition protests, the regime has placed the entire leadership of CUD, and thousands of its supporters, and workers from various NGOs behind bars to face trumped-up charges of treason and genocide, among others. Even several Ethiopian-Americans are charged in absentia.

Takeda’s claim that the EPDRF has abandoned its Marxist-Leninist creed is unpersuasive. In market-oriented systems, people have legal right to private property, including land. In today’s Ethiopia you can only lease, not own, land. Takeda claims there is no need for “insinuating that once a Marxist, always a Marxist”, but all one has to do is look at the policies the EPDRF has implemented. If you are identified as enemy of the regime, the government fabricates reasons to justify canceling your lease — throwing your investment down the drain. Isn’t the land policy designed to have utmost control over the peasants?

People that have the capital and know-how to invest in agricultural projects in Ethiopia are unwilling to do so until ownership of land is legal and it is protected by a fair legal system. Remember investors have other alternatives. They will go elsewhere if we fail to create a positive investment climate. That is why the opposition parties were right to raise the land policy of this government as an election issue. We are still unable to produce enough food to feed our people because the EPDRF is in effect perpetuating Mengistu’s botched land policy. By the way, why are rental properties Mengistu confiscated returned to former land lords only in Tigray and not in the rest of Ethiopia? Makes you think, right?

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is no longer the darling of the West. Prominent politicians in the West are heeding to the calls of the Ethiopian people and are speaking up about the violation of human rights in Ethiopia, funding cuts are being considered to deny the regime the resources it unhesitatingly uses against its own people and to guarantee its continued cling to power against the wishes of the people as expressed in their votes, other measures such as travel restrictions are being considered against officials of the regime, and the list goes on.

Like Takeda, Ahmed Mustafa decries that Clapham’s presentation is a “misleading prognosis” of the post election situation in Ethiopia and goes further to accuse the latter of behaving as “spokesman” for the opposition. But can the same thing not be said about the manner in which Ahmed Mustafa rationalized the actions of EPDRF?

Mustafa begins by asserting that “Ethiopia conducted fair and open national elections in May 2005.” You can say fair without reservation if the votes people cast were actually counted and if fraud did not get in the way to create a biased outcome favoring EPDRF. But has Mustafa not read what the independent international monitors of the election reported? It is starkly different from the impression Mustafa was attempting to create.

Mustafa speaks highly of the National Election Board (NEB) as if it is a truly independent body. But who appointed Judge Kemal Bedri as head of the NEB? And if you dispute the rulings of the NEB, who heads the supreme court of Ethiopia to review the complaints? Kemal Bedri, again!!! And it is not an accident that the system was created this way. Its purpose was to guarantee victory for EPDRF at any cost. Who really considers the NEB to be independent? Listen to the BBC interview with Meles Zenawi regarding this issue if you need to refresh your thoughts.

Contrary to Mustafa, the CUD is not simply “a hastily organized crude merger” of opposition parties that only have in common the EPDRF as their enemy. It is up to the Ethiopian people to reject it if it is not presenting a cohesive program of government. The opposition camp has recognized the importance of unity and the need to prevent splitting of the electoral vote. They have discussed and debated their divergent views and have come up with a common platform that they presented to the Ethiopian people during the campaign which was received enthusiastically. Opposition politics is still evolving and that is a healthy sign of democracy not a weakness to scoff about.

Mustafa complained that “a number of the leadership and membership of CUD are mostly in America and Europe enjoying the comfort that these advanced countries offer and busy making decisions as to whether elected members of CUD should take the parliamentary seats for which they were elected?” Ethiopians, whether at home or abroad, have the birth right to take part in matters affecting their country. One does not need to reside in Addis Ababa to contribute to Ethiopian politics. One is no less Ethiopian if he resides overseas. Prior to 1991, weren’t a good number of TPLF officials in Europe during Mengistu’s rule?

What Mustafa misses is that the reason EPRDF is “incapable of carrying out the task of reconciliation” is because it has the blood of innocent civilians on its hand. Is it not fair whoever authorized the security forces to murder demonstrators need to be held accountable?

It is shameful to read Mustafa’s remark that “the longevity of his/her stay in power should not be a matter for consideration.” In working democracies, leaders do not stay in power for as long as most African dictators do and there is a good reason for that. Ethiopians thought that their votes clearly indicated that we have had enough and we need change in governance.

We do not need to present statistics to prove that “Tigrayans constitute only a small fraction of EPRDF membership”. What is important is that it is still TPLF that is running the show in Ethiopia under the guise of a representative government. That qualified the EPDRF government to be correctly viewed as a “narrow based government”.

EPDRF, like the Derg regime before it, lasted for 14 years not because it is a representative government accepted as such by the people but because it does not hesitate to use brute force to subdue its opponents. Mustafa makes it sound like a representative government is a prerequisite for a regime to survive for a while. Is that really true? Look around, and you will see dictators all over the world that have managed to hang on to power for decades against the will of their people. You have domestic examples as well including the one you are speaking in behalf of.

It is not as Mustafa alleged that “CUD’s greed for instant gratification in gaining more power” which prevented resolution of the election fraud issues. Rather it was the arm twisting tactics that the EPDRF tried to use to get its way that led to the crisis that we are in today. It is lack of political will and statesmanship that is getting in the way of a positive turn of events.

Mustafa, tried to cast doubt whether Meles Zenawi ever idolized the former Albanian dictator Enver Hozha. The BBC can replay the archive for Mustafa if his memory needs refreshing. It is true.

It is not that TPLF had a Marxist past that makes the leadership of EPDRF still Marxist, it is rather the policies they continue to pursue, such as the refusal to allow private ownership of land, that attest to their communist orientation.

In Mustafa’s effort to present Bereket Simon, the former Minister of Information, in good light, he stated that “He is a man that has passed the test of time in all difficulties of guerrilla warfare, one that has taken the time and the effort to master the domains of his competence.” What Ethiopians remember about his role during his tenure as Information Minister is his insensitivity — and for unfailingly defending the regime that planted him in the position.

If Mustafa chooses to pine as to why Clapham mentioned EPDRF officials by name in his paper, why did Mustafa also mention Haile Shaul and Mesfin Wolde Mariam in the same paper in a demeaning manner questioning their leadership credential?

It is sad that Mustafa even attempted to come up with a justification for the murderous acts EPDRF committed by saying, “If any thing, its restraint in taking the required measures only at the last moment should be taken as an indicator of strength rather than weakness.” Mustafa obviously believes the actions EPDRF took are justifiable and are signs of strength. Mustafa also implies that all other approaches to break the impasse were fully exhausted. I disagree. One day an independent court will formally decide whether a crime was committed and deliver justice unto the perpetrators.

Mustafa boldly states that “the re-election of the EPRDF for another term of five years is in effect a clear testimony that it is an accepted public authority that does not need to recover authority it never lost.” Has Mustafa not read the reports submitted by international observers of this election? Why are Ethiopians demonstrating daily against the regime braving arrest and death if the EPDRF is as popular as Mustafa claims? Do you remember Mengistu too claimed to have held elections and got over 90 percent of the electoral votes? We know better to believe that.

In the end, Mustafa demanded to know “whatever happened to good old-fashioned academic objectivity?” By what measure does Mustafa think he is being objective in the comments he published? I leave the answer to that question to the readers.

Let us hope that, as happened in many free countries before us, the dictatorship in Ethiopia will fail and that democracy, justice, and rule of law will replace repressive rule. We have work to do to make that a reality.