by Alemayehu G. Mariam*
Open letter or open pandering to corruption?
“As I look around the EITI implementing countries, I do not accept
that the situation for civil society in Ethiopia is worse than a great
many of them.” That was the didactic pronouncement of Ms. Claire Short,
Chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in
her “
Open Letter”
to Ali Idrissa, Faith Nwadishi and Jean-Claude Katende who are civil
society representatives on the EITI Board and the Outreach and
Candidature Committee. Short penned her bizzare “Open Letter” to
announce her resolute conviction that EITI should give Ethiopia the
green light because she “passionately believe[s] that the entry bar to
candidates should be clearly and simply whether there is enough space
for civil society to work with EITI, and that compliance and validation
should be a test whether civil society participation is free, fair and
independent.”
Ms. Claire Short, Chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)
Short’s “Open Letter” was stunning for its temerity, effrontery,
insolence and sheer arrogance. Short went to extraordinary lengths to
browbeat the civil society representatives and EITI’s “civil society
partners” in her “passionate” appeal for the admission of Ethiopia. She
made a thinly-veiled accusation that EITI’s civil society
representatives have effectively become the patsy of the international
human rights organizations allegedly opposed to Ethiopia’s admission to EITI. She accused them of being “unhelpfully influenced by strong voices from a
special interest group
with perfectly well-meaning intentions but who have too much of a
‘north telling the south what to do mindset’”. She intimated that they
were in flagrant dereliction of their duties by falling under the spell
of the civil society partners, and hectored them that the fate of EITI
itself hangs in the balance on their decision to admit or reject
Ethiopia’s application. Short enlightened the civil society
representatives that “EITI is not a human rights standard. Our job is
to ensure that there is enough space for civil society to work with and
around the EITI and help drive reform in the extractive sector for the
benefit of the people.” She apocalyptically warned that the decision on
Ethiopia’s application shall determine whether “EITI is an
international coalition with a Standard that serves all countries that
seek reform in extractives, or an organization that is driven by
campaigners.”
In an amazing display of chutzpah, Short enjoined the civil society
representatives from being “tools of campaigners” and hatchet men for
“strong voices from a special interest group.” She even tried to
name and shame
the representatives for their hypocrisy in not “raising a murmur” when
“Occupy protesters from outside St Paul’s Cathedral [were removed] by
force in my own country” and accused them of cowardly duplicity for
their silence over the “existence of Guantanamo and use of torture… in
relation to the US application.” She sermonized that the “approach” of
the civil society representatives and “civil society partners” should be
to “enable [EITI] entry and encouraging locally owned continuous
reform.” She pontificated with a moral equivalence argument that “the
situation for civil society in Ethiopia is no worse than a great many of
them.” She sought to draw comparisons between Ethiopia and other
countries that have poor human rights records to justify her view that
it is morally acceptable to accept the regime in Ethiopia into the EITI
fold despite its long record of gross human rights abuses and decimation
of civil society organizations. She sanctimoniously reassured the
civil society representatives. “I of course support the idea of making
it clear to the Ethiopians, and indeed all new members, that the Board
will expect them to deliver on their commitment on civil society space
and that this will be monitored.” She sternly admonished, “We have to
guard against efforts to use the EITI to serve other agendas, no matter
how worthy.”
Short’s patronizing and thinly-veiled denunciation of the
international human rights
organizations allegedly opposed to Ethiopia’s EITI admission was
incredibly disdainful shocking. She contemptuously reminded those
organizations that but for EITI’s work, their efforts in those
“oppressive” countries would not have amounted to a hill of beans. “I
greatly admire much of the work that many of our civil society partners
have done in challenging the status quo and working for reform often in
oppressive environments” but they should know and be grateful that EITI
has made their work easier by “afford[ing] a space and a platform that
would not otherwise have been open to those campaigning for reform.”
Short saved her long knife for Diaspora Ethiopians who have opposed
Ethiopia’s admission to EITI. She issued a cavalierly dismissive fatwa
urging that the EITI “should listen to [the]…clear and united voice of
civil society in Ethiopia, rather than opposing voices from the
Ethiopian diaspora.”
It is difficult to say whether Short’s “passionate” “Open Letter” is a statement of her convictions or a window to her soul!
Short “Open Letter” is in violation of Article 12 of EITI’s Articles of Association
In issuing her “Open Letter” and by engaging in “passionate”
adversarial advocacy on behalf of the regime in Ethiopia, Short has
flagrantly violated EITI’s Articles of Association.
The duties of the EITI Chair are enumerated in Article 12 of the “EITI Articles of Association“ and
include “presentation of reports to the EITI Board, Conference and
Members’ Meetings, representation of EITI Board in external matters,
follow-up with the EITI secretariat regarding the implementation of the
resolutions of the EITI Board; and fostering collaborative relationships
between EITI stakeholders.” Partisan advocacy, media-based lobbying for
admission on behalf of a country, letter writing and conducting virtual
online petition and other public relations campaigns for prospective
EITI applicants are not only repugnant to her official duties and role
but also recklessly compromise the integrity of EITI.
By launching a strident public relations campaign on behalf of the
regime in Ethiopia, Short has improperly overreached and effectively
interdicted the deliberative process of the members of the Publish What
You Pay (PWYP) coalition by discussing in the public square matters duly
delegated and entrusted to the designated bodies of the EITI. By
issuing her “Open Letter”, Short has plunged the civil society
representatives and the PWYP into acrimonious global public debate in a
manner that unmistakably denigrates their integrity, professionalism and
capacity for fair and independent judgment. In her “passionately” blind
zeal to support the regime in Ethiopia, Short has divisively
politicized EITI and undermined its global credibility. Short’s “Open
Letter” amounts to an abuse of power and office and is nothing less than
a grotesque attempt to arm-twist the civil society representatives and
heavy-handedly intimidate those civil society organizations who disagree
with her.
Condescending treatment of civil society representatives
I do not speak for the civil society representatives or civil society
organizations who are the object of Short’s “passionate” fury.
However, as a human rights advocate, I deeply resent the fact that Short
should publicly humiliate them as delinquent children who need her
schoolmarmish guidance and discipline. Her condescending tone and
dismissive contempt for the civil society representatives is
intolerable, appalling and outrageous. She caricatures the
representatives as benighted desk-jockeys who cannot think for
themselves and need to be enlightened and shepherded into doing the
right thing. Truth be told, she portrays them as simpletons who could be
easily manipulated, misled and bamboozled by nefarious unnamed
organizations whose secret plan is to hijack EITI and make it “a tool of
[human rights?] campaigners”. Short’s disrespect and unprofessional
treatment of the civil society representatives in her “Open Letter” is
unforgiveable.
Are those who oppose Ethiopia’s admission in the EITI racists?
Short’s “Open Letter” subtly alleges that those organizations that
oppose Ethiopia’s admission into EITI are in effect perpetuating the
practice of the “north telling the south what to do mindset”. The whole
notion of the “north telling the south mindset” is a kinder and gentler
way of saying, “Those non-Ethiopians who oppose Ethiopia’s admission in
the EITI are blathering racists!”
The “north-south” trope is a well-worn code phrase used by those who
do not have the guts to come out and say what they really mean. When the
phrase is decoded in the context of human rights, it simply means that
Western organizations that seek to uphold basic human rights principles
in African and other non-Western societies are arrogantly imposing their
Eurocentric values and ideals. By invoking the “north-south” trope on
the civil society representatives, Short is essentially arguing that
opposing Ethiopia’s admission to EITI is tantamount to “white” people
telling black Ethiopians and other Africans how to run their affairs.
I am outraged by such paternalism (more accurately, “maternalism”)
and thinly-veiled demonization of international human rights
organizations. Short eerily echoes the late Meles Zenawi, who
gratuitously dispensed disparaging barbs against “neo-liberalism”
whenever his record on human rights was challenged. Meles sermonized,
“We believe that democracy, good governance and transparency and
fighting corruption are good objectives for every country, particularly
for developing countries. Where we had our differences with the
so-called neoliberal paradigm is first on the perception that this can
be imposed from outside. We do not believe that is possible.
Internalization of accountability is central to democratisation. The
state has to be accountable to the citizens, and not some embassy or
foreign actor.”
Short’s “Open Letter” affirms Meles’ canard by equating those who
seek to promote human rights in Ethiopia with neoliberal cultural
neocolonialists. Her basic exhortation is that EITI should cut the
regime in Ethiopia some (a lot of) slack by leaving the whole issue of
“governance challenges” to “internal” institutions of that country. Her
proposal is to hold the regime accountable as narrowly as possible by
accepting as sufficient the regime’s declaration of “compliance with the
[EITI] Standard itself”. She wants that regime to be given a pat on the
back for having made “meaningful achievement” merely because it
declared its intent to comply with EITI standards. It is laughable that
an organization that prides itself and is founded on strict
accountability should be urged to practice “accountability with slack.”
I resolutely reject the suggestion that those human rights
organizations and non-Ethiopians who urge and stand by a single standard
of human rights for all people are racists. I do not believe there are
black, white, brown or yellow human rights. There is no such thing as a
special brand of African freedom of association or speech. Press freedom
does not come wrapped in stars and stripes. Nor does it come draped in a
flag with a blue cross against a red background. Every country that has
signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other human rights
conventions is bound by a universal human rights standard. That has been
the mission and work of all international human rights organizations.
They believe a person anywhere in the world has human rights because
s/he is a human being, not because of one’s race, color, gender,
religion, language, country or some other classification.
I do not know if there is anything more racist and deeply disdainful
and disrespectful of Ethiopians than proposing the idea of reviewing
Ethiopia’s EITI application through the prism of the “north-south
mindset”. I am personally offended by any suggestion that there should
be two human rights standards, and that Ethiopia should be governed by
the “southern” standard. I believe those who espouse a “north-south
mindset” on human rights reflect their own deep-seated arrogance that
the people of the “north” are entitled to the real deal on human rights
while the people of the “south” are condemned to suffer a raw deal on
human rights. Short’s “Open Letter” effectively argues and urges that
when it comes to human rights in Africa, those in the “north” should do
nothing more than give lip service and perform elaborate human rights
window dressing ceremonies.
Chairperson of EITI or lobbyist for the regime in Ethiopia?
Short says she is “passionate” in her plea and appeal for the
admission of the regime in Ethiopia in the EITI. My initial reaction
reading her “Open Letter” was simply that the letter must have been
written by DLA Piper, the longtime Washington lobbyist firm for the
regime in Ethiopia. The “Open Letter”, for all intents and purposes, is
indistinguishable from letters and press releases often issued by
lobbying firms. Short’s letter is a blend of advocacy, clarification,
admonition and self-serving exhortation. It has all of the typical
elements of professionally written lobbying letters in cases where
official decisions have to be made in controversial human rights cases.
As a lobbying letter, Short’s “Open Letter” subtly aims to humanize a
regime that dehumanizes its citizens everyday by suggesting that the
regime in Ethiopia “is no worse than” regimes in any “other implementing
country”. It minimizes and trivializes the “work that many of [the]
civil society partners have done” and demands that these organization
demonstrate gratitude for being “afforded a space and a platform that
would not otherwise have been open to th[em] campaigning for reform.” It
demonizes those who champion human rights and oppose Ethiopia’s
application by suggesting that they are not only full of themselves but
also closet racists who “have too much of a ‘north telling the south
what to do mindset’”. It criticizes, marginalizes and sidelines Diaspora
Ethiopian voices who are fighting against human rights abuses in their
country by suggesting that they should be ignored, unabashedly urging
that EITI “should listen to [the] clear and united voice of civil
society in Ethiopia, rather than opposing voices from the Ethiopian
diaspora.” It pleads for what sounds like moderation. “That is why I
passionately believe that the entry bar to candidates should be clearly
and simply whether there is enough space for civil society to work with
EITI.” It romanticizes Ethiopia’s application by suggesting that “EITI
[is] a journey open to most, but that compliance with the Standard
itself should be a meaningful achievement…”
I have read many press releases, letters and statements issued by the
regime’s highly paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. over the years. With
all due respect to DLA Piper, I have to say that they have nothin’ on
Claire Short!
Is the soul of EITI in the balance in the decision to accept
or reject Ethiopia’s application? Will civil society organizations
vanish from Ethiopia if Ethiopia’s application is denied?
In her “Open Letter” Short (melo)dramatically argued that the
survival of EITI and civil societies in Ethiopia depends on the decision
to admit or reject Ethiopia’s application. The decision of the civil
society representatives on Ethiopia’s application will determine whether
“EITI is an international coalition with a Standard that serves all
countries that seek reform in extractives, or an organization that is
driven by campaigners.” She prophesied, “Rejecting Ethiopia’s
application will leave Ethiopian civil society with nowhere to go.” Is
the END really near!?
Will EITI suddenly come apart at the seams if Ethiopia’s application
is rejected for the second time? Will EITI suddenly become a “campaign
tool” of the international human rights organizations if Ethiopia’s
application is rejected?
EITI has survived and flourished since its establishment in 2002,
without Ethiopia’s membership. It became a more robust organization in
2011 after it issued its revised standards. It has maintained a high
reputation for integrity and effectiveness (though I am not sure if that
will continue be the case after Short’s “Open Letter”).
Frankly, Short’s “Open Letter” reminded me of the fable of Henny
Penny (sometimes known as Chicken Little) who was once hit on the head
by some object from above. She believed the world was coming to an end
and ran all over crying out, “The sky is falling!” The sky did not fall
and neither will EITI if Ethiopia’s application is rejected for the
second time.
Short’s test for admission in EITI
Short stated in her “Open Letter” that she believes there should be a
three-pronged test for EITI admission: 1) She “passionately believes
the entry bar to candidates should be clearly and simply whether there
is enough space for civil society to work with EITI”. 2) “Compliance
and validation should be a test whether civil society participation is
free, fair and independent”. 3) “There should be more emphasis on
continuous improvement” in determining compliance.
Is there “enough space for civil society in Ethiopia to work with EITI?
What excatly is “enough space”? Short’s implicit suggestion is that
the EITI civil society representatives are so much under the spell of
the “strong voices from a special interest group” and human rights
“campaigners” that they have effectively forfeited their intellectual
faculties to make the delicate determination on what is “enough space”.
Short’s notion of “enough space” for Ethiopia’s civil society
organizations reminds me of Martin Luther King’s disappointment over
those white liberal clergymen who exhorted him to “wait” for change. He
wrote, “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear
of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always
meant ‘Never.’”
Does Short’s notion of “enough space” for Ethiopian civil society
organizations mean, “Wait until there is enough space. Wait until the
regime decides to make enough space available to you.” How much space is
just enough or more than enough for civil society organizations in
Ethiopia? When is “enough space” for civil society organizations in
Ethiopia not enough? Does “enough space” mean “Never”? When is enough,
enough?
The whole notion of “enough space” in Short’s letter reflects a
common cynical moral relativism among some who believe there is really
no right, only gradations of wrong. In practice, it means “just enough
space” is good enough in a situation where there is no space. It is a
view founded on the idea that expediency should trump principle when
practical necessity demands it. Such haughty moral relativism is the
kind of thinking that deadens our consciences and paralyzes us from
acting and doing the right thing at the right time. Such moral
relativism is the foundation of moral cowardice which prevents us from
confronting evil and the perpetrators of evil while conferring upon us
the privilege of sanctimonious moral arrogance to blame the victims of
evil. Such moral relativism makes us principled hypocrites who are
willing to sacrifice principle on the altar of expediency at the drop of
a hat.
Short talks about “enough space”; but I talk about free space — free
space to think, to worship, to write and to associate. I beg forgiveness
if I sound oversensitive on the issue of “space”. Short may be
satisfied with “enough space” for Ethiopians. I am not. What Short must
understand above all else is that “sapce” is the one thing Ethiopians
need more than anything else today. For over two decades, they have been
corralled like cattle in a space called “killil” (kililistans), a
modern version of Apartheid’s bantustans. They have been forced to move
from space to space in their own country because they are told they have
the wrong ethnic stripe. They have been moved from space their
ancestors had occupied for millennia because that space is now needed to
produce harvest to feed the people of Saudi Arabia and India. They live
under a regime that prides itself in depriving citizens access to
cyberspace. Enough space? No, free space!
Is “civil society participation in Ethiopia free, fair and independent”?
Short seems to be in total denial or is willfully ignorant about the
situation of civil society organizations in Ethiopia. She exhorted the
EITI must “listen to the clear and united voice of civil society in
Ethiopia”. What “united voice of civil society” is Short talking about?
Two weeks ago,
the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia for 2013 reported,
“The implementation of the law continued to result in the severe
curtailment of NGO activities related to human rights. In July 2012 the
UN high commissioner for human rights expressed concern that civil
society space ‘has rapidly shrunk’ since the CSO law’s enactment.” That
report concluded, “The government continued restrictions on activities
of civil society and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) imposed by the
Charities and Societies Proclamation (the CSO law).” Is Short talking
about the same civil society organizations that the U.S. State
Department and the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner are reporting on? Is
Short referring to the make-believe civil society organizations created
by the regime to enable its supporters to set up shop and extort money
from international donors and others?
The “free, fair and independent nature” of civil societies is not
measured by exhortations to “listen to the united voice of civil
society” but by well-established criteria. Does the system of political
governance permit legitimate access to and use of civic space and
resources? Does it maintain fairness within the existing political and
judicial systems by promoting and protecting the welfare of the people?
Does it allow for the existence of civil society institutions, groups
and networks that are strong, active, vibrant and diverse? Does it
enable community stakeholders to hold economic and political actors
accountable for outcomes of policy decisions? Does it promote the
“common good,” with particular concern for inclusion of those currently
marginalized?
None of these questions can be answered in the affirmative with
respect to the charities and societies law of the ruling regime in
Ethiopia. With all due respect, Short’s
ex cathedra exhortation to use the standard of a “united voice of civil society” to determine the existence of a
free fair
and independent civil society institutions in Ethiopia calls into
question not only her intellectual acumen but also casts serious doubt
over her ability to undertake elementary due diligence to discover facts
before opining in public.
What constitutes “continuous improvement” in the regime’s treatment of civil society organizations in Ethiopia?
Short argues that one of the primary criteria for EITI admission
should focus on “continuous improvement.” The fact of the matter is that
the regime has had three years to show “continuous improvement” since
its first application was rejected. It has not shown continuous
improvement; it has shown continuous regression. Since 2010, “the number
of CSOs in Ethiopia has been reduced from about 4600 to about 1400 in a
period of three months in early 2010. Staff members have been reduced
by 90% or more among many of those organizations that survive according
to my informants.” In the same year, the regime froze the assets of
Ethiopia’s Human Rights Council, Ethiopia’s oldest human rights
organization, and the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association, effectively
incapacitating these two vital institutions; indeed for all intents and
purposes outlawing them.
In October 2012, the regime announced closing down 10
non-governmental organizations and announced that 17 other
organizations were under active investigation. The regime further
alleged 400 organizations were operating in violation of the
Proclamation and affirmed that appropriate action would be taken against
them. In November 2012, the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a German NGO
which promotes democracy and human rights, packed up and left in protest
against restrictions on its activities. In February 2013, the regime
banned three NGOs including One Euro, the Islamic Cultural and
Research Centre, and the Gohe Child, Youth and Women Development
Organisation accusing them of conducting “illegal religious
activities”. In 2013, “out of 29 charities funded by US Agency for
International Development, 27 can’t comply” with the Proclamation.
As a student of policy analysis, I am quite familiar with theories of
“continuous improvements” which occur over time, “incremental”
improvements which occur episodically and “breakthrough” improvements
which occur all at once. Can Short point to a single instance of the
regime’s “continuous improvement” or intent to show continuous
improvement over the past three years in the area of civil society
institutions? Can Short point to a single instance of an incremental or
breakthrough improvement by the regime in the area of civil society
organizations?
The fact of the matter is that the regime still criminalizes and
chokes civil society organizations in the country. To expect “continuous
improvement” on the regime’s draconian civil society law is like
expecting “continuous improvement” on Apartheid laws. Some laws and
policies are so abominable that the only type of “continuous
improvement” that can be made on them is to continuously junk them!
Short’s argument of “continuous improvement” as an admissions standard
should be seen for what it is — a canard, a false and misleading
argument that over time a bad law can become good. Bad laws are not like
good wine. They get worse as they age.
Taking cheap shots at Diaspora Ethiopians?
Short delivers a body blow to Diaspora Ethiopians by urging EITI to
ignore “opposing voices from the Ethiopian diaspora.” Her remarks are in
line with the views of the regime’s apparatchiks and die-hard
supporters. When I and many others Diaspora Ethiopians engaged in
grassroots advocacy efforts to pass HR 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and
Accountability Act of 2007) in the U.S. Congress, the regime, its
supporters and lobbyists worked overtime to cut off our voices. Back
then they called us the “extremist Diaspora”; today we are described by
the kinder and gentler label “opposing voices”. Diaspora Ethiopian
voices may be silent and even silenced, but we are not deaf. We get
Short’s message. We do not mind the labels because we believe that being
“opposing voices” or “extremists” in the cause of liberty and human
rights is a virtue and not a vice.
There may be some Diaspora Ethiopians who may feel insulted and
disrespected by Short’s cavalier and hubristic dismissal. They may be
angered by a manifestly petulant, provocative and inflammatory remark.
That is understandable. After all, Short proclaimed to the world that
Diaspora Ethiopian voices do not matter. Apparently, it is not enough
that the regime in Ethiopia has silenced opposing voices in the country.
Short now piles on by openly advocating suppression of “opposing
voices from the Ethiopian Diaspora.”
I am not sure where Short got such haughty moral authority to silence
and dismiss the voices of millions of Diaspora Ethiopians with a single
stroke of her pen. Perhaps such arrogance is a privilege of high office
for the high and mighty. I am afraid Short’s ostentatious display of
self-righteous arrogance will likely nurture bitterness and invite
incivility from the targets of her verbal arrows. Ultimately, it will
likely breed ill-will against EITI. I believe Short owes an apology to
Diaspora Ethiopians.
I take no personal umbrage from Short’s abysmally uninformed
statements and assertions in her “Open Letter”. I am accustomed
(actually deafened by) to listening to the “voices of ignorance”. I have
tried to speak truth to the arrogance of ignorance for years with the
same effect as dripping water on a slab of New Hampshire granite. In my
commentary two weeks ago,
Dignifying Mining Corruption in Ethiopia Through EITI?,
I argued with full factual support that the regime in Ethiopia is
engaged in gamesmanship with EITI and that it aims to weasel its way
into the organization so that it can legitimize its corrupt mining
sector. The evidence for my analysis and argument came from a voluminous
report of the World Bank.
I would like Short to know that I am not particularly concerned that
my “Diaspora voice” is unheard. I have often said that preaching human
rights and the rule of law to the regime in power in Ethiopia and its
advocates and lackeys elsewhere is like preaching Scripture to a
gathering of deaf-mute and blind Heathen. I may not be heard but I
shall not be silenced by the stroke of Short’s pen. Paraphrasing Omar
Khayyám’s verse, “my moving finger shall continue to write; and, having
writ,/ Move on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit/ Shall lure it back to cancel
half a Line,/Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
I will be charitable to Short and overlook her contemptuously
dismissive comment in like manner as William Buckley. “I won’t insult
Ms. Short’s intelligence by suggesting that she really believes what she
wrote about listening to the ‘united voice of civil society in
Ethiopia’ and ignoring ‘opposing voices from the Ethiopian diaspora.’” I
do, however, take solace in Dr. Martin Luther King’s observation that
“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than
absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”
As one Ethiopian Diaspora voice representing many Diaspora Ethiopian
voices, I am glad to engage Ms. Short in any policy debate on human
rights in Ethiopia. I want to make it clear that I respect her opinion
and her right to express it in her “Open Letter” though I could not
disagree with her more. I urge all Ethiopians to respect her right to
express her opinion and to disagree with her without being disagreeable.
Despite differences on virtually everything on the EITI application of
the regime in Ethiopia, Short and I share one thing in common. Passion.
She is “passionate” in promoting the regime in Ethiopia. I am equally
“passionate” in my opposition to the gross human rights abuses of the
regime, its decimation of civil society, incarceration of journalists
and closing of all political space.
Time will tell who has been on the right side of history.
Though Short advises EITI to ignore “opposing voices of the Ethiopian
Diaspora”, I advise her not to ignore the voice of history that
appeasement of dictatorships and rewarding dictators for bad behavior
only emboldens them to inflict more pain and suffering on their victims.
Appeasement does not humanize dictators; it hardens them and reinforces
their conviction “they got one over.”
Of all people, Short should remember that the “desire for peace in
our time” led to a horrible war. Appeasement expressed in terms of
“enough space” (I guess it was once called “
lebensraum”)
dangerously subordinates human rights to the politics of expediency and
aids in the unleashing of suffering and misery on those trapped in
Ethiopia’s kililistans. I believe that when international organizations
professedly committed to enforce accountability and transparency begin
to turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity, they become not only
appeasers but also accessories before and after the fact.
Oh, yes! I almost forgot…
What about the regime’s application to EITI? I will not waste time
commenting on it. Suffice it to say that it is the biggest package of
padded fluff I have seen in a long time.
The “candidature application” consists of 25 pages of text full of embarrassing typographical and syntactic errors.
Much of what is in the application would make sense only in a world
of nonsense. As I scrutinized the application for substance, I chuckled.
It reminded of Alice’s puzzlement in Alice in Wonderland. “If I had a
world of my own,” said Alice “everything would be nonsense. Nothing
would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And
contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn’t be, and what it wouldn’t be, it
would. You see?”
I cannot imagine how any self-respecting bureaucrat or regime would
proffer such an application for EITI consideration, unless of course it
was submitted tongue-in-cheek.
Perhaps the cruelest joke played on
EITI in the regime’s application is the inclusion of the “Ethiopian
National Journalists Union” as one of the five members of the local
civil society oversight group formed to ensure proper implementation of
the EITI protocols if Ethiopia’s application is approved. Yes! The
Ethiopian National Journalists Union?! The Committee to Protect Journalists has described Ethiopia as the “the second-worst jailer of journalists” in Africa.
What an insult to the intelligence of the members of the EITI Board! Is Short seriously urging EITI Board members to “listen to the clear voice” of the Ethiopian National Journalists Union?
The application itself is full gobbledygook. Here are a few examples.
“Of course, the board was cited that, proclamation No.621/2009 will
affect CSOs participation in the implementation of EITI in Ethiopia.
However, as we clearly explained to the board, unless the board defines
it differently, the proclamation is not a matter or an obstacle for CSOs
to participate in the application of EITI rules in Ethiopia.” Say
what?! The application states, “Even though, Ethiopian application
with regard to the communicated EITI sign up was differed or
pended by the board, the government through the custody of the
initiative is sustainably performing to attain the maximum
privileges of the initiative.” Huh!? It further explains,
“Accordingly, the custody of the [EITI] initiative was made different
workshops and trainings for stakeholders to enable them to speak freely
on transparency and natural resource issues without any restriction, and
tried to cope up their understanding to use their right to communicate
and cooperate with each other to talk about the natural resource issue
boldly on the large EITI meeting & else-where.” A fine literary
example of mumbo-jumbo that makes sense only to those “who have a world
of their own”.
I pride myself in speaking truth to power and those who abuse power.
The regime’s EITI application could best be described with a word that
momentarily eludes me, but I believe it starts with bull.
Ms. Short must resign!
By issuing her “Open Letter”, Ms. Short has gone rogue on the EITI
Board. She has overreached and acted beyond the scope of her authority
as set forth in Article 12 of EITI’s Articles of Association. She has
engaged in conflict of interest by subordinating the institutional
interests of EITI to her personal crusade to get admission for a
particular regime. She has irresponsibly plunged EITI into a global
controversy by maliciously attacking civil society organizations and
national stakeholders of a prospective applicant country. She has chosen
to openly debate the internal affairs of the organization in the public
domain by engaging outside groups who now feel they have legal and
moral standing to demand disclosure of internal EITI decision-making
processes. She has compromised the integrity of EITI by acting as a
lobbyist and partisan advocate for a particularly country. She has
further compromised the integrity of EITI by publicly presenting herself
as an agent and (un)official representative of the regime in
Ethiopia. She has abused the privileges of her office and brought
contempt and ridicule to EITI’s civil society representatives. She has
engaged in an outrageous vilification campaign against international
human rights organizations and others. She has dehumanized and
demonized Diaspora Ethiopians who oppose the EITI application of the
regime in Ethiopia.
When Short resigned from her position as International Development
Secretary in 2003, she blasted Tony Blair for the false “assurances
[he] gave [her] about the need for a UN mandate to establish a
legitimate Iraqi government have been breached. This makes my position
impossible. I am sad and sorry that it has ended like this.”
What was good for the gander then is good for the goose now. What
Short has done in her Open Letter is an egregious breach of EITI’s
Articles of Association and a flagrant dereliction of her duty as chair
of that organization. Going forward, her “Open Letter” makes her
position with EITI impossible. We will all be sad and sorry that it must
end this way, but Clare Short must do the right thing once again. She
must resign from her position as Chair of the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative.
Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at
California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense
lawyer.
የሽረ
እንዳስላሴ ከተማ ባለስልጣናት ከ450-500 የሚሆኑ የባጃጅ ሹፌሮች ሰብስበው ኩንትራት (ኮንትራክት) እየጫናቹ
ነው፤ መንግስት የማይፈልገውን አገልግሎት እየሰጣቹ ነው በሚል ሰበብ ማስፈራራታቸው ተከትሎ የባጃጅ ሹፌሮች የስራ
ማቆም አድማ በማድረግ ባጃጆቹ ከከተማ ዉጭ በማስቆም ተቃውሞአቸውን እየገለፁ ይገኛሉ። የመንግስት አካላትም አድማው
ተከትሎ ባለባጃጆቹ መንግስት ባዘዛቸው መሰረት ለመስራት ፍቃደኛ ካልሆኑ ፍቃድ እንደማይሰጣቸው በመግለፅ
እንዳይንቀሳቀሱ አግዷቸዋል። አሁን ባለባጃጆቹ አድማ ላይ ናቸው፤ መንግስትም አግዷቸዋል። በከተማው ምንም የባጃጅ
እንቅስቃሴ አይታይም።
