Home | EthioNL English pages | EthioNL Dutch pages | Back to documents index |

H.R. 2003! Symbolic Gesture or Stern Measure?

Much to the surprise of many observers, the United States (US) House of Representatives unanimously voted on Tuesday to approve a piece of legislation heralded by critics of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s administration as a means for holding the Ethiopian government to account for alleged human rights violations.

Two opposition leaders, Brehanu Nega (PhD) and Bertukan Mideksa, testified to the US Congress a day before the October 2 vote, while Jendayi E. Frazer (Prof), the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Africa, defended the US administration’s policy toward Ethiopia. Frazer’s efforts, however, did little to change the minds of members of the lower house.

“There was a feeling that Ethiopia, being an ally of the United States, should have an opportunity to correct some of the wrongdoing, and that has not happened,” Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ), a main sponsor of the bill, told the BBC after the House approved it.

The bill, known as H.R. 2003, must still pass through the US Senate and then receive the endorsement of the president to become a law.

The move was characterised by Ethiopia’s Ambassador to the United States, Samuel Assefa (PhD), as an “irresponsible” act, while senior government officials in Addis Abeba described the decision by American lawmakers not only as an interference in the business of a “sovereign country with a proud history of independence,” but also as an act motivated by “personal grudges.”

“This is a personal vendetta,” Bereket Simon, public relations advisor to the Prime Minister, told the VOA English Service last week. “This is a sovereign country which has never bowed to any foreign aggression. We assure these congressmen that this is not going to blackmail Ethiopia in any form.”

He was not the first senior administration official to express this view. At a press conference back in July, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi called sponsors of the bill “neo-liberals who want to run Africa from a distance.”

“This country is incapable, unable and unwilling to be run like a banana republic from Capitol Hill,” Meles said.

A similar bill was first submitted to the House following the electoral disputes of May 2005, when 193 people were shot dead by security forces, including seven policemen killed by a mob of protestors, and tens of thousands of opposition Supporters and politicians were arrested. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the bill to the 109th Congress under the title “Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005” on November 18th of that year.

The bill, however, was stalled in the House’s International Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, which is chaired by Congressman Payne. Another bill with nearly identical intentions was subsequently introduced on June 26, 2006 (H.R. 5680), and Mr. Payne himself eventually submitted the current proposal (H.R. 2003), entitled “Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007,” to the 110th Congress on April 23, 2007.

All the three bills introduced to the House since 2005 have declared an interest to “encourage and facilitate the consolidation of peace and security, respect for human rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia.”

H.R. 2003 was co-sponsored by 85 other lawmakers, including Mr. Smith, and states an objective to help Ethiopia achieve democratic advancement and economic development. The eight-page bill would allocate a total of 40 million dollars over two years to achieve these goals.

If approved, the bill would cut off security-related support to Ethiopia until such time that the US Executive certifies that Ethiopia’s government is adhering to the 11 ascribed conditions.

Within two months of its enactment, there would also be travel restrictions to the US imposed on Ethiopian officials who have allegedly been involved in “giving orders to use lethal force against peaceful demonstrators or police officers in Ethiopia; or against whom there is credible evidence of gross human rights abuses or violations,” as well as “on security personnel who were involved in the June or November 2005 shootings of demonstrators; or those responsible for murdering Etenesh Yemam; and for murdering prisoners at Kaliti prison in the aftermath of the election violence in 2005.”

Conditions for certification include the release of political prisoners and the return of their property, greater independence for the judiciary and greater freedom of media. The document also calls on Ethiopia to bring security personnel involved in human rights violations to trial, and to lift restrictions on Internet access.

Samuel, Ethiopia’s ambassador to the US, said the bill’s approval would be “destructive to regional security in the Horn of Africa.”

And although Mrs. Frazer expressed the US administration’s concern over recent events in the Ogaden region, she said the bill ran in contradiction to signs that the Ethiopian government is taking steps to ensure the protection of human rights. She cited the pardoning of 71 CUD leaders, the revision of parliamentary rules of procedures, and reforms made on the electoral board as recent developments that have “helped create a positive environment in Ethiopia”.

“The Government of Ethiopia has taken steps to improve respect for human rights and democratic practices following the setbacks in 2005,” she told the committee.

Congressman Payne and many of his colleagues who voted across the partisan line, however, were not convinced.

“Two years later people are still being imprisoned. There are still problems in the Ogaden region. People are having food kept away from them. That is why we finally said we need to move forward with it,” Payne told the BBC.

Leaders of Ethiopia’s opposition bloc seem to be very supportive of them.

“Your recent actions in the consideration of H.R. 2003 have demonstrated to the American and Ethiopian people, and indeed the world, that democracy and human rights are paramount importance in the relations between our two countries,” Birtukan Mideksa, first vice president of the former CUD, said in her testimony to the House Subcommittee on Tuesday. “I thank you all deeply for your efforts.”

She was joined by her political allay, Brehanu Nega, in praising congressmen in what he said was a relentless effort to secure their release from jail.

“I . . . use this opportunity to thank the committee, particularly the chairman and the ranking member for your unflinching support for the causes of liberty and democracy in Ethiopia,” said Brehanu, in his five-page impresivly composed testimony before the Committee.

Close to home, their enthusiasm is shared by Bulcha Demeksa (MP-OFDM) who believes the bill, if passed, will promote and sustain democracy, freedom and accountability in Ethiopia.

“I’m happy to see it passed in the House because it puts a hold on the government’s abuses and massive violation of human rights,” Bulcha told Fortune. “It will not harm Ethiopia and will not affect humanitarian aid.”

Indeed, the bill’s journey is far from over. It has passed three of the five stages in the US legislative system. It remains for the bill to be approved on the Senate floor by a majority vote of 100 senators before being sent to the President for signing into law.

Debates at the Senate are known to stretch on endlessly unless a deadline for closure is attached to a bill. Hence observers see the possibility of much longer delay in the Senate, and perhaps even a ploy to “talk it to death.” Another possibility is that the President Bush may refuse to sign the bill considering the objections his administration has already raised. Ambassador Samuel described the US administration’s position as “a carefully considered opposition” to the legislation.

If vetoed, the Senate would have to vote in a two-thirds majority for it to become law. Yet Bulcha does not believe the diplomatically cautious Senate will pass the bill even with a majority vote. Bereket and Samuel agree that the bill will not advance any further than it already has.

Meanwhile, debate and lobbying on both sides of the political divide have continued amid doubt as to the extent of the bill’s potential influence in shaping political developments inside Ethiopia.

Ethiopia’s path towards a democracy meeting Western standards is a difficult one, according to Meles, who spoke at a joint press conference on Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Some officials in his administration have gone so far as to say US lawmakers may be seeking to take a similar tack toward Ethiopia as they have toward Cuba with the Helms-Burton Act.

Others have instead downplayed the bill’s importance.

“This bill, as far as I’m concerned, is more symbolic than effective,” Prince Dagas Fuga, a reporter for VOA’s English to Africa Service, who has been following the development of the bill, said.

Bereket also believes the current debate is more about form than substance.

“We’re not against what the bill aspires to achieve,” he told Fortune. “But it can’t be shoved down our throat. We receive support from our international development partners so long as they fit into our programmes.”

Of the 1.7 billion Br the Ethiopian government is expecting from bilateral donors as direct grant during the current fiscal year, USAID will contribute 4.49 million Br, as opposed to Canada’s pledge of 296.3 million Br, 210.2 million Br from the UK and 206 million Br from Japan, according to this year’s budget.

The total support from the US to Ethiopia, however, is a little over 300 million dollars, much of it dedicated to humanitarian assistance and to finance programmes such as in healthcare. Annual monetary support to military and security-related matters does not represent even 10pc of contributions.

“It is unclear how much would be affected by the bill,” reported the Financial Times last week.

The bill gives exemptions for humanitarian assistance, healthcare and emergency food aid, and the US President has been granted latitude in the bill to waive any of the bans included in the Act. The fifth section of the bill also says of security-related assistance and travel permits: “The President may waive the application of [the bans] on a case-by-case basis if the President determines that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”

Click HERE to go to the source of this article.