ETHIOPIA – The Politics of “Engagement”

By Engida Fanta*

April 26, 2006 — It has been almost a year since the momentous May 2005 election. The jovial pre-election mood has turned sour and the hope of Ethiopians has dimmed. Scores have been killed, thousands are still in prison and opposition leaders have been charged with manufactured high crimes. In spite of the government’s increasing reliance on its security and military forces the political climate remains very volatile.

Individuals, organizations and influential governments have tried to mediate between the CUDP and the ruling party. Of note are Professor Donald Levine’s intervention and the EU’s mediation effort.

Probably the most concerted and on going effort has been the one undertaken by the US Embassy in Addis. The US has adopted an active and intrusive role to stabilize the government hoping its war against terror will substantially be helped and the ruling party will show flexibility on the Eritrean-Ethiopian problem.

To achieve the goal of stabilizing the situation the US through its Embassy in Addis seems to have made a strategic decision to support the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi without any meaningful accommodation to the opposition and with great peril to the democratization process. To achieve this policy objective the Embassy has adopted the policy of “engagement”. Under the policy of “engagement”, the Embassy has the actively worked to organize a surrogate party, used its considerable influence to facilitate the transfer of the administration of Addis to handpicked individuals, refrained from criticizing the arbitrary detention of elected leaders and waged a concerted media campaign to rehabilitate the ruling party.

In the first track, the US Embassy has facilitated a meeting between the opposition in parliament and the ruling party. According to those who have participated in the meetings an eight point agenda has been adopted. Most of the issues are pertinent only to the interest of the parties in the “engagement”. A good example is the issue of prisoners. On this topic, only prisoners in Oromia or the constituents of the parties in the “engagement” were discussed. The case of the prisoners in Addis, Afar, Harar, Wello etc or those who are supporters of CUDP are not on the agenda. While this could potentially bring much needed relief to the prisoners from Oromia, it does not address the issue nationally.

The second track in the process of “engagement” is CUDP’s participation in the political process. To achieve this goal the Embassy has worked day and night to form a surrogate CUDP in spite of the clear objection of the elected leaders and most of the central committee members of the original Party.

The CUDP leaders in prison have authorized four individuals to legalize the party to continue their engagement in the political process. The individuals to their credit submitted an application to the NEBE which was rejected on technical grounds. Those who participated in this effort were harassed and their property damaged. This opportunity to advance credible engagement was lost because the US Embassy was not interested to use its influence to bring it to fruition. It also failed to condemn the harassment of the individuals involved. Instead the Embassy opted to proceed with the creation of a surrogate party, thereby making it clear that the Embassy will not support an independent party. Another opportunity to show good faith and impartiality to the opposition was lost because the Embassy was unwilling to take any action that is contrary to EPRDF’s interest.

On the issue of Addis the Embassy has followed the same script. It has handpicked individuals who do not enjoy support either from the city residents who overwhelmingly voted for the party or from the party leaders including the duly elected mayor. The Embassy did not even have the courtesy to solicit advice and consent from the elected city council members. This effort has failed to get the consent of enough council members a number of times. The deadline for the transfer of the city has been extended a number of times. The last deadline that was set by the parliament has been extended by the Prime Minster in direct violation of the constitution. This has further increased suspicion about the Embassy’s motives.

A very telling US policy or the lack there of is the US position regarding the prisoners. The US has called for a “speedy, transparent and free” trial. This policy was recently explained by the Chargé d’Affaires Ambassador Vicki J. Huddleston as follows: “And so since this is divisive, we feel, and have felt from the very beginning that the best thing to do is to release them. We know that this is not the government’s view. And we know the government will have the trial, because the government believes it clearly, that they are guilty. And then our response is speedy, transparent, fair trial.”

Translation: The prisoners are innocent and should be released. However she chose a policy contrary to the belief of the US government to accommodate the desire of the ruling party. Rather than drawing a bright line by calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the prisoners the Embassy further undermined its credibility and impartiality by taking the side of the government even on an issue that is easy to call. The Embassy seems to be working to marginalize the prisoners by trying to create facts on the ground – Surrogate CUDP and transfer of Addis Administration.

The issue of the prisoners is the single most important obstacle to the democratization process. As such the US policy on this issue has greatly damaged the likelihood of a negotiated settlement in the near future.

Additionally, the Embassy has given political support to the ruling party in a number of avenues. The considerable influence and resource of the Embassy have been used to explain away the brutality of the government, to exaggerate the shortcomings of the opposition and to discourage other governments and international organizations who attempt to play a more even handed role.

The recent media blitz by Ambassador Huddleston provides clear evidence of this strategy. She talked about the economic boom in a way that brings smiles to the ruling party: “In the first few years of 2000s, Ethiopia’s coffee prices were high; it had no major external disruptions. And it began to diversify its exports, lowering its birth rate, bringing health and education to more people. There is improvement in education, there is improvement in health, and population birth rate is coming down.” She praised the political reforms in spite of the continued hemorrhaging of the political space: “full commitment to institutional building, discussion of Parliamentary rules, a review of the media, reviewing the National Election Board.” ”Now is the time to put the past behind.” counseled the Ambassador. Never mind that innocent people have been killed, elected leaders and civil society members are in prison with trumped up charges. Problems: do not worry you are in good company”the United States has problems; none of us have perfect nations.” Democracy: in spite of the opposition “I think in the democracy as in the development, Ethiopia is climbing up that tide. I think that, had the opposition had better eyes on the future they could not have avoided the saying “let’s’ go into parliament, let’s take this city, let’s get this kind of experience, lets’ prepare for the next elections”

The well intended but damaging effort has failed. The Ethiopian people and the opposition including those “engaged” believe the Embassy enabled the ruling party to obstruct the democratization process and use the security and judicial process to marginalize the opposition. Issue after issue the Embassy has formulated policies that are favorable to the government and brought pressure on the opposition to accommodate the demand of the ruling party. There is not a single issue where the Embassy has supported the demand of the opposition let alone pressure the ruling party to change its ways. Contrary to the ideals of America and transformational diplomacy the Embassy has traded freedom for stability. In doing so the Embassy has alienated a large segment of the population and most of the political class.

After all these missteps the US remains an indispensable player if a negotiated settlement that preserves the gains made in the last election and guarantees the stability of the country is to be realized.

So what is to be done?

First the US Embassy has to recognize it needs to reestablish trust between the Embassy and the people of Ethiopia. For this the Embassy needs to reassess its communication strategy, objectives and policy,

The communication strategy should shift towards more engagement of civil society and the people of Ethiopia. Sure the Embassy needs to effectively communicate with the government, the ruling part and the opposition but its emphasis should be to outreach to the community. This will allow the people of Ethiopia to understand the real motive of the Embassy.

The objective of the US effort should be to promote freedom and democracy for all. The Embassy might benefit from Secretary Rice’s statement: “I would define the objective of transformational diplomacy this way: to work with our many partners around the world, to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. Let me be clear, transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership; not in paternalism. In doing things with people, not for them; we seek to use America’s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens better their own lives and to build their own nations and to transform their own futures”.

The Embassy has to realize the interest of the US will not be served by its uncritical support for the ruling party. Freedom and democracy are the best instruments to advance the interest of the US. The Embassy should stay true to the ideals of America. That will serve America and Ethiopia well.

Last but most important the Embassy has to reassess it policy with regard to the prisoners and the democratization process. The policy of “speedy, transparent and fair” trial has proven counterproductive. This policy is based with clear disregard to the nature of the arrests and charges to please the ruling party. The US must call for an “immediate and unconditional release” of the prisoners.

To move the democratization process the policy of engagement must be modified to include the following:

A non-coercive environment: The Embassy must call for an environment which is conducive for a give and take based on the interest of all parties, not on fear, intimidation and threats. The current environment even for those who are not in prison does not provide this environment. The government should be pressured to provide this environment.

Trust of the people: The process of the engagement must gain the trust of the people of Ethiopia. The government and the opposition must refrain from inflammatory statements and propaganda. The Embassy must show that it is motives are the respect for the will of the people and it is an impartial facilitator.

Political space: The political space has shrunk significantly since the election. The ruling party has used all the institutions of government to sideline and marginalize its political opponents. The media, the courts and the security apparatus should not be used in a way that impacts the negotiations.

*The writer can be contacted by writing to [email protected]