By Balcha Huressa
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been making various allegations against Ethiopian people governments for centuries. However, the worst has come since 1991, the time when EPRDF came to power toppling down the military rule for good. Despite the number of stories made by HRW, only the recent allegations have discussed herewith.
Background
HRW severely attacked the government of Ethiopia in the aftermath of election 2005 for what it called rights abuses and use of unbalanced force in the violence. The report uttered no word of the catastrophe opposition parties caused although they instigated the illegal violence to change the constitution in unconstitutional means.
However, the government and people of Ethiopia managed to bring the criminals to justice having brought the damages they committed to the open, which invalidated the report made by HRW that described as if the opposition political party members were deprived of their rights. HRW continued accusing the Ethiopian government and urging their immediate release even after the court’s verdict of life time imprisonment.
In 2008, HRW reported on the Human Rights situations in the Somali Regional State in which it listed a number of people and described as if they were tortured, murdered, and imprisoned. That report was so regrettable that it revealed the ins and outs of HRW.
The whole report turned out false as the persons whom HRW described murdered appeared and witness that they were alive having revealed the fabrication that put the credibility and neutrality of HRW into question.
In its 2008 report, HRW used source from refugee camps in Kenya. Some of the witnesses were members of the ONLF and OLF who fled after they were hit by the Ethiopian people for their anti-development activities in the region.
Its flawed report left HRW shameful in the face of the international community.
Then, the US State department’s Human Rights report came. It also criticized the Ethiopian government for the imprisoning, torturing and murdering of opposition political party members in various areas of the country. However, that was also disproved with ample evidences.
Government communication Office of Ethiopia published evidences confirming the fabrication of that allegation.
The government of Ethiopia made clear that any comments and criticisms in connection to Human Rights situations in the country with tangible grounds could contribute for the democratization process. However, all the reports so far contribute nix to improve either the Human Rights situation or the ongoing democracy in the country. Neither does it help the government to learn from its mistakes. Of course, that was not the major aim of HRW in reporting such fabrications. Its aim was/is to disrupt the peaceful situation and the upcoming election. HRW report of March 2010 also lack accuracy, balance, objectivity and social responsibility contributing nix to the democracy in the country.
Perpetual allegation
A month ago, I visited Ato Bokona, my uncle, who lives some 85 kilometers away from Addis Ababa. It was just six years later that we met. We talked on various issues. The status of opposition political parties in Ethiopia was one among the issues we discussed.
I had full confidence to answer all possible questions raised by veteran uncle.
He asked me to tell him the opposition political parties in Ethiopia and their status. I elaborated that there are two categories. One group comprises those who struggle peacefully and the other one consists of those who preferred arm struggle. I have also told him the lists of the parties.
However, he asked me to add one more. “That is all what I know and I am sure that there is no other political party other than what I have mentioned,” I said.
“You are just behind the times that your access to recent information seems limited,” the old man said. “What about HRW?” he added. “Sorry, is that a political party?” I asked him politely. “Yes, as far as it serves being an instrument for other political groups or meddling in Ethiopian political affairs, it is”.
If one thinks that way, nothing is wrong with it. HRW has been working against the political developments in Ethiopia. There is no end for its fabrications to destabilize the country. In its report of March 2010, it brought the old wine in a new bottle.
It said, ‘"One hundred ways of putting pressure: violation of freedom of expression and association in Ethiopia". When we heed into the whole story, it is similar with its previous reports.
The major sources of the report were people in London and Washington DC. Besides, those it described as tangible sources and named them with common names like a teacher from Awasssa, a student from Bahirdar, an opposition party member in Addis Ababa and the like. HRW preferred that approach for it failed in describing alive people as murdered. Those individuals it described murdered came and witnessed that they are alive. Now, it has systematically shifted its resource citing method.
HRW may deceive some innocent people saying that it did not want to disclose the sources of the information for security cases. But that is unrealistic and dishonest approach.
Had HRW had made a research on the Human Rights situations in Ethiopia, it could have come with standard approach: appropriate data gathering, presentation, analysis and interpretation. Then, sound conclusions and recommendations so that the stakeholders could learn from it.
If we innocently accept what it cited as sources, the report faces sampling flaw. How one teacher in Wollo could represent the people of Wollo? How could a student in Oromia Regional State represent the population of that region? The methodology doesn’t meet international research standards. What Human Rights Watch called a research is not a research. It is simply an opinion lacking logical argument and filled with lots of fallacies.
One of the fallacies in this report is hasty generalizations. HRW says, “Mr. X is an Ethiopian living in a certain village. Mr. X said there are Human Rights abuses.
Therefore, there are Human Rights abuses in Ethiopia”. No more no less. The people in Washington DC and London, whom HRW quoted as its sources, are also those people who have no real information about the situation on the ground in Ethiopia and by no means could be credible sources for HRW.
No doubt that HRW composed these stories sitting at comfortable chairs and using modern lab tops in the 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York. It created characters that it thought smell Ethiopian in the fiction it created. The 2010 HRW report entitled as “One hundred ways of putting pressure” is as flawed as many of its reports in the previous times.
Government Vs Party
When we heed to the content presentation, the report described election 2005, local election 2008, legislation in 2009, and 2010 pre-election period in the background in which it also put its conclusions instead of bringing the real situation of the country into view so that it could lead the readers to the analysis and interpretation.
In this part, HRW failed to draw differences between government structures and the political party. How on earth? Why is it necessary for HRW to create such confusion in this regard.
Is there any country without government structure? The government structure usually accomplishes the daily administrative routines serving the people. In the report, HRW intermingled the two, which is really far from truth in saying no one is employed unless s/he is member of the EPRDF.
“You get work if you are EPRDF. When you apply for a job you are asked for a letter from an organization within EPRDF”.
If we take Addis as an example, there are so many employees working even within the EPRDF offices and other key organizations. For instance, it is simple to take the opposition political party leaders Dr. Merar Godina and Professor Beyene Petros who have been working in the university. How could the government be impartial for members while the figures were working in various universities and organizations? It is shame for HRW to argue the employees in Ethiopia in any organizations are members of EPRDF. It also considered capacity building of civil servants and public officials as if trainings were given to them to favor the party. But that is erroneous. The training aims to promote good governance enhance democracy, ensure accountability and transparency. It has nothing to do with political membership as it is purely the case of customer centered service delivery training.
Pre election 2010
The other issue raised is the narrowness of the playing field. It could be appropriate if HRW also mentioned the grounds that contribute for that. But it simply concluded saying the playing fields for 2010 pre-election period is unfair.
In the 2010 pre-election period, all political parties have registered their candidates, the electoral code of conduct was also adopted, and debates are began so that political parties could introduce their political agendas to the electorates. Opposition political parties have been using the public media, they have also taken finance shares allocated for political parties by the Federal Government. Besides, various private press are running in the country. People are freely moving from one place to another, no one is intimidated due to his/her political activity and the like. So, what else is done rather than this even in the so called democratic countries? It is, therefore, groundless to describe the pre-election period of election 2010 as unfair.
As the situation on the ground differs from what HRW has alleged. Despite the elections of Human Rights Watch, opposition parties witnessed that there are lots of cooperation on behalf of the administrative personnel and EPRDF members in facilitating everything for their campaigns. A typical example is the public gathering called by the Forum in Mekelle. Professor Beyene Petros said the regional administration had facilitated all the necessary things for the realization of the public gathering. But where is the HRW? Do they have ears to hear, eyes to see and mind to imagine? No! Not by a long chalk! It is distributing its fabricated legends from New York.
HRW undermined the recent law of electoral code of conduct and said there are more than 90 parties in the country that could take part in the upcoming election. That statement is erroneous. The number of parties is 79 not 90. The fallacy begins from that very simple data.
The reality on the ground witnessed that there are positive developments in the country’s politics. The Electoral Code of Conduct is one significant step taken by the Ethiopian political parties.
Ambassador Norman Ling also agrees at this idea. He said, “I believe this Code of Conduct will benefit all parties in Ethiopia. The Codes of Conduct have been shown to be very useful instruments to provide open, free and fair elections in many countries around the world".
HRW also said, “EPRDF has pursued a vigorous strategy of shutting down opposition parties’ offices.” No opposition party in Ethiopia has so far reported to the Electoral Board about closure of any office. So, where did HRW bring it? Ato Tesfaye Mengash from the Electoral Board of Ethiopia said that there is no single office that the ruling party has closed. Neither is any death report except the one in Tigray for a case purely not politics.
Opposition parties could open offices anywhere they want to contest. No restriction at all. For instance, AEUP has more than 100 offices in various parts of the country. It is also the same for other parties.
Safety net program
HRW said no one is allowed to enroll in the safety net program unless s/he is member of the EPRDF. According to evidences from Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the number of people involved in the safety net program is about 7.8 million. These people are those who don’t have food for more than three months. The people in every village determine who has to be enrolled in the safety net program. In the safety net program there are two ways of helping the people. Firstly, those able to work, work for eight hours and provided with three kilos of cereal or ten birr at daily bases. Second, those in some critical health problems and also pregnant women, the community allowed them to get the help. The major criterion for the safety net program, therefore, is whether the farmers have produce for more than three months or not, which is approved by the community. In this regard, the argument of HRW cuts no ice.
Many of the diplomats residing in Ethiopia who frequently visit and monitor what is going on at the grass roots level, not those who were talking from New York, said that there is an effective and efficient use of both food and development aids in Ethiopia. One among these diplomats is Ambassador Dino Sinigllia, Head of European Union Delegation in Ethiopia that Ethiopia has effectively using both emergency and development aids.
Ambassador Norman ling, British Ambassador in Ethiopia, has also a positive evaluation about the developments in Ethiopia. “On the back of effective use of aids and positive developments, my government has been happy to channel much of its development assistance through federal and regional government structures in order to provide assistance at grassroots level.
Membership and proclamations
It is shame for HRW to criticize the EPRDF for collecting contribution from its members. Party contribution is the minimum commitment that members of any party can do for their organization to help it run its political activities.
HRW also considered contributions made by EPRDF members as Human Rights violations, which indicates how the report is rubbish.
Human Rights Watch also criticized the amassing of EPRDF members although it is so irrelevant. If the case is raised, let’s see the argument. Having it says 4.5 million members is too large for a political party.
It failed to equate with the number of the Ethiopian population, which is nearest to 80 million. Therefore, that number is not too large to be criticized.
HRW is also much concerned about the Charities and Civil Society proclamation. It clearly expressed that the government should reconsidered it as it is restrictive.
That tedious argument has been raised since the drafting period although it lacks substance and logical argument.
But why is now HRW brought that dead issue? The law never restrict the participation of NGOs practically there are various organizations working hard to fill the development gaps in the society. Currently, 1615 NGOs have registered and working in accordance to the law. All these shows that HRW doesn’t worry for the developments in Ethiopia neither does it for the human rights situations rather it has been working to realize its hidden political agendas.
Conclusion
Election 2010, no matter what pessimists and groups who want to see the country being destabilized unlike what the HRW predicts, will be free, fair, democratic and peaceful. Ethiopians don’t run elections for the sake of the developed countries. Neither do they conduct election to show off. But they do the election because they the political of the people is ensured and that were the reason for the sacrifices made so far.
Someone may ask why HRW has come with such distorting report at this time. The answer is crystal clear that it is serving the enemies of Ethiopia who never ever want to see its unity, development, peace and democracy. Some members of the Diaspora, Derg regime and some exiled criminals are defaming the overall situation in the country.
HRW is not an independent international organization that strives for the betterment of Human Rights Situations but it is an institute using that name as a pretext to implement its hidden political agendas.
We don’t want to realize sustainable development for the sake of the foreigners, we don’t want to enhance democracy so that developed countries will help us built it is crucial to our people and country.
It is because thousands of people scarified for its flourish. Therefore, most Ethiopians don’t want organizations like HRW to witness the fairness of political field in the country but the people of Ethiopia. So, the fabrications hold no water and it is just like shouting in a forest where there is no one to listen; but better to give HRW a deaf ear as all of its reports are white-lies.
Walta Info
