In your letter to Congressman Christopher H. Smith you introduced yourself as one who has “…been following Ethiopian politics for twenty-five years, having traveled there in 1982 and periodically returning in various professional capacities.” Had you been up front and revealed your professional associations or affiliation or even interest, your readers would have had an idea as to who you are and the real nature of the letter.
But I think for sinister and very calculated reason you have left that to the readers’ imagination. For an inquisitive and curious mind however, deciphering your motive and intent is not a very difficult task. That motive is to cast doubt and aspersion on the hearing conducted by the Chairman. You indeed said you are “…writing this letter not to convince you to change your views on the current situation in Ethiopia. Rather, I would like to express my shock and dismay over the conduct of the March 28th hearing.”
This is typical of TPLF/EPRDF. They revert to ad hominum and character assassination when and if their view of the world is challenged. It is a characteristic on their part to assume monopoly of the truth. Any one who contradicts that assumption does so at his/her own peril. There is a plethora of evidence to corroborate this contention. The undiplomatic and un-statesman like response by the Prime Minister to Mrs. Ana Gomes’, European Chief Election Observer in Ethiopia and also their vehement and vitriolic response to Professor Christopher Clapham are only short memory we all remember.
As you have said, and I think many will agree, that you are within your right to have a “very
different interpretation of recent Ethiopian history” than the Congressman. It is however disingenuous on your part to want to impugn his motive and character when yours appears to be a suspect.
It is not by coincidence that not only your interpretation but also your perspective on many of the salient issues that transpired during the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights
and International Relations hearing on “Ethiopia’s Troubled Internal Situation” jibes completely with Ambassador Fesseha Tessema’s outlined in his sophomoric letter to the Congressman. As a result instances to verify and ascertain this contention is in order. And to that end, I have taken
the liberty to quote from your respective letters to the Congress man.
Ambassador: It was clear from the outset that the hearing was going to be unbalanced-
this was apparent from the initial list of witnesses, which included unabashed opponents of the Ethiopian government and neither a detached academic or think-tank expert on the Horn of Africa nor a representative of my government….Prior to the hearing, we conveyed
information to the subcommittee staff that at least two of the witnesses on the announced agenda lacked credibility. One was the member of the opposition charged with serious crimes including being instrumental in organizing the violent demonstrations last June …
Elias: It was obvious that given the list of witnesses providing testimony, the members of the committee had already made up their minds. Three of
the four other witnesses were either directly or indirectly associated with the opposition party, the CUDP. The fourth witness was a representative of Amnesty International….Indeed, it is ironic, to say the least, that the very judicial system that Mr. Andargachew Tsege made mockery of in his testimony released him on bail following his detention on charges of instigating violence that led to the deaths of 36 Ethiopian civilians and 7 Ethiopian policemen.
Ambassador: At our insistence, you graciously, permitted the Embassy to present both oral and written testimony, but only when there was little time available to prepare for the event. (Invitation was extended to us a day before the hearing whereas the other witnesses were listed about a week before the hearing).
Elias: Moreover, the committee had agreed only at the last minute to allow the testimony of Ethiopian Ambassador Fesseha Asghedom Tessema.
Ambassador: It has also been my expectation that oversight hearings are conducted with the same decorum as a court of law: respect shown to all participants, with appropriate solemnity on the part of observers. In every other proceeding of this sort that I have observed, when the audience becomes demonstrative ( whether through cheers and applause or through boos and catcalls), it has been the responsibility of the chair to gavel the room to order….I was taken aback at the hostile, disrespectful and sometimes condescending tone of you own line of questions…
Elias: Congressman Smith, again with all due respect to the office you hold in the United States Congress and your twenty-five years of service to this country, it was distressing to hear some of your remarks and observe your conduct towards the Ambassador of Ethiopia. As you are well aware, the hearing room was packed with members of the opposition party. Congressman Smith, you played to the audience and were rewarded by the applause and even laughter at the expense of the dignity of a great nation…. I am certain that this was not your intention but your combativeness towards the Ambassador, raising questions about the veracity of his responses, and the ridicule directed towards him was a poor reflection on the United States Congress.
Ambassador: Particularly troubling to me was your demanding that certain questions be responded to immediately, on the spot, that would have been inappropriate for me to do so. Foremost among these was your asking me for a commitment regarding the special rapporteur for torture: as a
diplomat abroad, I can speak only about past and current policies of my government….A request to permit a special rapporteur to conduct investigations, regardless of the issue involved, must be submitted through established channels and procedures…
Elias: You asked the very same question of Ambassador Fisseha —twice–knowing full well that he does not have the authority to agree to a visit by the U. N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and can only pass on the request to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Ambassador: It was insensitive of you to compare Ethiopia’s current government to that of Romania under the brutal Nicolae Ceaucescu,….
Elias: Your statement comparing Ethiopia to Romania, the Soviet Union and Vietnam was not only inaccurate but also offensive given the recent history.
Ambassador: When I finished my testimony, the panel that followed consisted of three people who are political opponents of the Ethiopia government and one who represented a reasonably detached organization, which has been outspoken in its criticism of U. S. government policy regarding the misuse of the death penalty and the torture of captured prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and other detention centers.
Elias: As you recall, Amnesty International’s 2005 report on the United States claimed that the U. S. “held hundreds of detainees without charge or trial at the U. S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay,”“…thousands of people were detained during U. S. military and security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and routinely denied access to their families and lawyers.” The report cites “allegations of torture,” “deaths in custody and ill- treatment by U. S. forces” as well as alleging that “the U. S. administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the U. N. Convention against Torture.”
Ambassador: When fanciful claims were made against Ethiopia’s leaders, you failed to ask for evidentiary support for these claims.
Elias: You made no effort at all to question the other witnesses on the evidence they have to support these serious allegations against the Government of Ethiopia–some patently ridiculous.
Now that your claim to be an independent observer of Ethiopian politics has been debunked and that you have been exposed for what you are—a mouthpiece of the brutal government – please
allow me to raise some pertinent issues that you might want to consider. Before piously
pontificating, have you taken your time to ponder why an independent Organization like Amnesty International would be a party to this mischief? Had you written the Organization to enquire why it joined the Congressman in this sinister exercise, which I am sure you think the whole exercise was? I know you hadn’t because you know what the answer will be.
The other question that I want to leave with you is : don’t you think it is out of line for a person who only has a “professional” interest in the country to not only vouch for the judicial system of Ethiopia but also to equate Mr. Andargatchew’s “crime” with that of Zacarias Moussaoui’s? Since you interjected this diabolic man, I will say the following: if Mr. Moussaoui were to go to Ethiopia, I am more than sure that he would feel at home and very welcome by the leaders of the country. I refer to you the various reports by Amnesty International and also Human Rights Watch that eloquently and graphically depict the terrorized and hellish life that the Ethiopia people are condemned to endure.
And on that note, why haven’t you or the esteemed Ambassador not made any fuss or protestation about the grueling questioning by the Committee that tongue-tied and frustrated him. He could neither explain nor justify his government’s characterization of the CUD leadership’s “crime” as genocide. He said he is not a legal person. But neither the Prime Minister who was the first to characterize their “crime” as genocide. The prosecutors were told to prosecute them as such. This simply indicates that power in Ethiopia is personalized and not institutionalized. The prosecution, supposedly the learnt and expert in the law, had to agree to the Prime Minister’s instruction. As you very well know grand jury is an alien concept in the Ethiopian judicial system. Had there been one and a hearing was conducted, the Prime Minister would have been told that there was no merit to that politically motivated charge. But again the grand jury could also have been cowed by the omniscient and omnipotent Prime Minister to agree with him as others are.
