Ethiopian Prime Minister Changes Cabinet to Give Ethnic Balance

By William Davison on November 29, 2012

 

Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn appointed two new deputy premiers to share the leadership of the government between the four ethnic-based parties of the Horn of Africa nation's ruling coalition.

 

The second and third deputies are Muktar Kedir, a former adviser to the prime minister and leading member of the Oromo People's Democratic Organization, and Information Technology Minister Debretsion Gebremichael, who is also deputy chairman of the Tigray People's Liberation Front, Hailemariam told lawmakers today in the capital, Addis Ababa. Demeke Mekonnen, the education minister and leader of the Amhara National Democratic Movement, was appointed as a deputy prime minister in September.

 

The appointments reflect a balancing act within the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, said Jason Mosley, associate fellow of the Africa program at London-based Chatham House. "They've now got all four parties represented within the prime minister and deputy prime minister slots."

 

Hailemariam leads a multi-ethnic bloc from southern Ethiopia in the ruling party. He was appointed prime minister in September following the death of former Premier Meles Zenawi on Aug. 20.

 

Ethiopia, the continent's second-most populous nation, is a key U.S. ally in its battle against al-Qaeda in the region. Ethiopian troops in December invaded Somalia for the second time in four years to join the battle against al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda's Somalia affiliate.

 

Meles, an ethnic Tigray who ruled Ethiopia for 21 years after leading a victorious rebel movement and who oversaw one of Africa's fastest-growing economies, died from an infection contracted while he was recovering from an undisclosed illness.

 

'Awkward Phase'

 

Today's changes confirm that the EPRDF is in an "awkward phase" as it tries to "rule by committee" and replace a leadership dominated by revolutionary fighters, Mosley said in an e-mailed response to questions today.

 

"Hailemariam is not in a position to centralise power, whatever his personal inclinations might be," he said.

 

Among other changes, Tedros Adhanom, the former health minister and a member of the TPLF's politburo, was appointed foreign minister, Hailemariam said.

 

Debretsion, whose ministry oversees the state-owned Ethio Telecom monopoly and who is also chairman of the board of Ethiopia Electric Power Corp., will coordinate the economy as a deputy prime minister, Hailemariam said.

 

Muktar's portfolio as deputy will be governance and he also will become civil service minister, replacing Junedin Sado, whose wife is being tried on terrorism charges.

 

Tedros is succeeded at the Health Ministry by former state minister Kesete Birhan, Hailemariam said. Tedros was given the 2011 Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Humanitarian Award for his leadership of Ethiopia's health program. His strategies helped to reduce the mortality rate for under-5s by 28 percent in the past five years, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Between Journalism and Terrorism: the Curious Case of Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson

 

By Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam

 

Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson, two Swedish journalists, were detained on 1 July 2011 after they were captured in Ethiopia during a fight between rebels from the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and a contingent of the Ethiopian National Defence Forces (ENDF) in Ogaden. The two journalists were charged with violations of the Ethiopia anti-terrorism law and both acknowledged during their trial that they had entered Ethiopia illegally via Somalia accompanied by rebels from ONLF. However, they argued that their contacts with the ONLF were intended to help them enter a region the Ethiopian authorities would not allow journalists to enter. They alleged their purpose was to report on the activities of a Swedish oil company, Lundin Petroleum AB, in the Ogaden as well as allegations of human rights violations. Both of them denied terrorism charges, including claims that they had been given weapons training. They were, however, sentenced in December 2011 by the Third Criminal Bench of the Federal High Court to seven years in prison on the charge of abetting terrorism, which they denied, and another three years and 3 months for entering Ethiopia illegally, a charge to which they pleaded guilty. They were pardoned by the Ethiopian Government on 10 September 2012 and released the next day after serving nine months of their sentences.

 

Dr. Sisay Alemahu is an Ethiopian legal scholar at Åbo Akademi University in Finland. He posted on Facebook, "I have been asked about a hundred times about the imprisonment of the 2 Swedish journalists - with an undertone of 'how did the government of your country dare to do so?'. The funny thing is that almost all those who asked me do not have any idea about the situation of journalists in Ethiopia. For many, it is the 'Swedish brand' that made the whole thing ridiculous. Nobody, including the journalists after their release, talks about their illegal entry into the country, etc. What I found more appalling is their allegation that they would have been 'shot dead anytime along the period of their detention' and their 'degrading treatment' without referring at all to how other Ethiopian prisoners in their situation were treated. I would never condone the imprisonment and mistreatment of any journalist as such, but the whole story about the SWEDISH journalists has been curiously funny. They are now vowing 'to give back' - help Ethiopia realize freedom of the press - I wish them luck."

 

I replied to Sisay in the same Facebook thread, writing that "I think what makes the case of the Swedish journalists curious is not so much their national origin as the charge of terrorism. I beg to differ with your assertions. Getting indicted with charges of terrorism and aiding and abetting terrorism is fundamentally different from that of entering without a visa. How often do you think journalists cross borders in order to carry out their professional duties in conflict zones? How do you think journalists manage to get the news that we watch on a cable TV sitting comfortably in our couches or that we read in the papers sipping coffee almost every day?"

 

The surest way for a journalist to get the news is to be there, but gaining access to what can be described as a conflict zone is not easy. In order to do their jobs in a conflict zone, foreign journalists essentially have two options: either obtain a visa or enter illegally. Even large media outlets and wire news services such as Reuters, CNN, AFP, AP, and Bloomberg get us the news by maintaining correspondents on the ground at a great personal risk. Sisay may be unclear about this professional hazard as well as, for example, the many foreign journalists who entered Tigray via the Sudan in the company of the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF) to cover the humanitarian crisis that followed the civil war and drought in Tigray in the recent past.

 

Now the issue is whether sovereign states have to hold foreign journalists criminally liable for entering its territory without a visa. Any state has the right to control its borders and to establish entry requirements for foreign nationals, including making illegal entry a criminal offense. But that specific offense is different from the offense of terrorism. The Ogaden region has not been freely accessible to foreign journalists since December 2006 and, according to human rights watchdogs, the region has experienced terrible humanitarian crises since then, in great measure caused by the use of scorched-earth tactics by the ENDF in its operations against the ONLF, as well as to chronic drought.

 

At the risk of being called unpatriotic, I stand with Schibbye and Persson and don't flinch in defending them. You can call them many things, but they are not terrorists. They are journalists exercising the internationally recognized freedom of the press. As the phrase goes, "they gots to do what they gots to do."

 

Dr. Firew Kebede, an Ethiopian legal scholar at Deakin University School of Law, Melbourne, Australia, joined the debate. He wrote, "I think both of you are highlighting different aspects of the issue. Sisay, I hear you when you say that the matter received so much attention because it involved foreign nationals, particularly from the west, while numerous Ethiopians are being sent to prison on the ill-conceived "terrorism charges". But even among Ethiopians, we only tend to talk of some high profile victims of these "terrorism" charges, while there are several hundreds being sent to prisons not only in Addis but also in so many small towns around the country. Elsewhere I stated that it is ridiculous for TPLF to accuse foreign journalists of terrorism while they fully know how western journalists were visiting them in Tigray mountains during the armed struggle without getting visas or papers from the government. They are being disingenuous. Another point, which is mute now, is that weren't the Swedish journalists on a mission to make a documentary on corrupt Swedish politicians connected to a shoddy oil exploration contract in Ogaden? It seemed to me that their goal primarily was not to report on the war itself but on the oil deals? Did this contribute? What do you guys know about this?"

 

In the Ethiopia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' official weekly publication, A Week in the Horn, the Ministry claims, "In fact, Schibbye and Persson were very fortunate in being acquitted of terrorism charges after the court found they had not actually been involved in carrying out any terrorist activity. In fact, luckily for them, as the group they accompanied was clearly on an active mission, they were caught before any such activity took place." An Ethiopian-American attorney, Bereket Tesfu, asserts also in the same vein that the two Swedish journalists were lucky to "(l)et alone be imprisoned, they should be counting their blessings that they survived a military confrontation between the Ethiopian army and ONLF and are already back home with their families." What's so disturbing about this line of thinking is its tendency to reduce the rule of law to good luck or fortune.

 

It would not be a mistake to think that the two Swedish journalists entered Ethiopia via Somalia knowing full well the legal risks of their actions. They were not ignorant nor did they miscalculate. They were aware that if arrested, they ran the risk of being convicted of illegally entering Ethiopia and sentenced to the maximum penalty for that the offense. But it is ridiculous to think that Schibbye and Persson were aiding and abetting terrorism. The Ethiopian Government declares that the ONLF is a terrorist organization and that being affiliated with it is by itself criminal. Well, my response to that assertion is: "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." The Ethiopian Government's terrorism designation of the ONLF could easily have been applied to the TPLF if it had not succeeded in winning the civil war. What say you?

 

The Ethiopian Foreign Ministry also claims by way of a refutation that these two Swedish journalists did not enter Ethiopia to cover the activities of a Swedish oil company as they alleged, because there was no Swedish oil company operating in the region by the time Schibbye and Persson entered Ethiopia. Rather, according to the Foreign Ministry, they were in Ethiopia "to produce 'evidence' of atrocities" committed by the Ethiopian National Defence Forces against the Somali people of Ethiopia's Ogaden region and to derail ongoing peace negotiations between a faction of the ONLF and the government.

 

In refuting the allegation that they were in Ethiopia to cover the business activities of a Swedish oil company, the Foreign Ministry makes a bold statement to the effect that "Lundin in fact sold its Ethiopian oil concessions to Africa Oil Corporation over three years ago, and Lundin now has nothing to do with any activities by Africa Oil in the Somali Regional State. Africa Oil itself is quite open about its activities and is in fact on record as noting that it hasn't seen any of the violence claimed by the ONLF in the areas in which it operates." The most surprising element of this statement is not so much the affirmation of the cessation of Lundin Petroleum AB's activities in Ethiopia resulting from the transfer by sale of its oil concessions, but the use of Africa Oil Corporation as a witness to the Ethiopia Government's impeccable human rights records in the Ogaden region. Whatever the merits of Africa Oil Corporation's testimonials as to the state of human rights in Ethiopia, the truth of the matter is that Africa Oil Corporation is a subsidiary of the Lundin Group of Companies, which are under the overall management and guidance of Lukas H. Lundin and Ian H. Lundin. Africa Oil Corporation is an oil and gas company with assets in Kenya, Puntland, Ethiopia, and Mali as well as through its 45% equity interest in Horn Petroleum Corporation. The Company's shares are listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol "AOI" and on the NASDAQ OMX First North Exchange under the symbol "AOI". What emerges from the Foreign Ministry's audaciously never-before-heard defense of Lundin Petroleum and Africa Oil Corporation is the whiff of something suspicious about the award of the concessions and its impact on the security of the region. In this regard, I can't help but agree with Dr. Firew Kebede's suggestion that the atrocities were not the only issue that Schibbye and Persson wanted to cover. It seems that they also wanted to cover the oil concessions concluded with Lundin Petroleum, its probably unseemly corporate behavior, and the subtle manner it tried to exit from the scene by transferring its Ethiopian oil concessions to what initially seemed a completely different company. It now seems that the Swedish journalists entered Ethiopia with the double purpose of exposing the atrocities committed by the ENDF and the activities of Africa Oil Corporation, a Canadian company belonging to the Swedish Lundin family. Looming shades of the Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest?

 

On an absurd note, however, what Ethiopian authorities did in response to Schibbye and Persson's media appearance once they returned to Sweden was to block domestic Ethiopian access to the website of the Swedish state broadcaster Sveriges Television (SVT). If these journalists had been Ethiopians, their fate would have been same as Judge Birtukan Mideksa's – revocation of their pardon and reincarceration. It was the speech that Judge Mideksa gave to her supporters in Sweden that got her into trouble again in Ethiopia.

 

What lessons did Schibbye and Persson learn from the Ethiopian legal system? One thing that is too important to ignore, which is that in Ethiopia journalists who investigate the government or criticize its policies and practices, whether home-grown or foreign, are presumed to be terrorists until they enter a plea for a pardon. This is currently the only way to secure a release from imprisonment and the larger prison called Ethiopia, because the Ethiopian authorities make no distinction between journalism and terrorism. Every dissenting journalist is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent. And innocence is only proven by pardon pleading.

 

Sisay's observation can't be downplayed none the less, given that that Ethiopia's own sons and daughters such as Woubshet Taye, Eskinder Nega, and Reeyot Alemu are still languishing in jail for no fault of theirs. The late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi once remarked, "If that is journalism, I don't know what terrorism is." But, all I need to do now is to turn it around, "If that is terrorism, I don't know what journalism is."

Ethiopia: government increasingly intolerant of Islam risks radicalizing muslims

Alemayehu Fentaw

November 16, 2012, African Arguments

The Ethiopian constitution provides for freedom of religion and requires the separation of state and religion. However, the Muslim community in Ethiopia has, for more than a year now, been holding protests at mosques around the country against what is perceived as government interference in religious affairs.  The protesters are demanding that the current members of the Islamic Affairs Supreme Council (Majlis) be replaced by elected representatives and that elections for Majlis representatives be held in mosques rather than in the Kebeles.  Some members of the Muslim community accuse the Ethiopian Government of controlling the Majlis and sponsoring the propagation of Al-Ahbash, a little known sect of Islam.

The Ethiopian Government accuses the protesters of being led by extremists who want to establish an Islamic state in place of the current secular federation. The Ethiopian Government responded against some protests in 2012 with deadly force, most recently in Assassa in April and Gerba in October, resulting in the death of at least seven protesters, a large number of injuries, and the imprisonment of a number of protesters on terrorism charges.

The protests were triggered by the suspension of the Awoliyah Muslim Mission School and the dismissal of 50 Arabic teachers via a letter issued by the Majlis. The Awoliyah Muslim Mission School has been a member since 1993 of the Islamic charitable agency known as International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and has been linked to the Saudi Arabia controlled World Muslim League.

The Ethiopian authorities consider Awoliyah to be a breeding ground for a new generation of radical Muslims, which they refer to as "Salafi-Jihadists" or "Wahabi-Salafists".  However, the Muslim protesters have consistently adhered to nonviolent demonstrations, leaving the Ethiopian Government with little to no evidence of behavior or action that could be described as terrorism.  It is clear to date that the Ethiopian Government is manufacturing a security problem where none actually exists. Concerns about 'terrorism' in Ethiopia (and the wider world) have degenerated into an irrational suspicion of Muslims, which will continue unabated until Ethiopia and its Western partners reflect more critically on their own perceptions.

It is, to some extent, reasonable to argue that Ethiopia's leaders are experiencing a growing fear of Islamic terrorism, given the fact that government is currently combating the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabab in Somalia and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in the Somali region of Ethiopia.  This is buttressed by a universal consensus among analysts that Somalia and Sudan are exporters of both political Islam and Islamic terrorism. Given that Ethiopia is widely considered as a bulwark against Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Horn of Africa, Somalia and, across the Gulf of Aden, in Yeman, one could argue that Ethiopia is not just suffering from siege mentality, but rather that it is a rational fear.

There is, however, some evidence that the Ethiopian Muslim community has been radicalized, although not in the sense that it has a political agenda, but in the sense that it has attained a higher degree of religious consciousness and has become more aware of its particularistic identity.  In light of 'Arab Spring' events that took place in North Africa and the Middle East, toppling repressive governments, it can be argued that the Ethiopian authorities are haunted by the fear of an 'Ethiopian Spring', which has not only contributed to the current crackdown on the media and the political opposition, but also against the Muslim community.  Ethiopia has increasingly become intolerant of Islam.

There is little evidence to support the Ethiopian Government's claim that its own Muslim community poses a legitimate threat to national and regional security.  It only seems to be driven by a shrewd strategic calculus. Since Ethiopia is a critical partner in the West's 'War on Terror', the government thinks it helps to foment fear of the rise of radical Islam in Ethiopia that would lead to an improbable takeover of power by political Islam.  The current Ethiopian Government seeks to keep Western support and aid flowing into the country through characterizing the Muslim community as linked to Islamic radicals and thus a threat to national security.

To the extent that secularism is a constitutionally enshrined principle of governance, the interference the Ethiopian government is undertaking within religious institutions is unacceptable. Any sponsorship by the government of a religious sect over others or any attempt of privileging one religion over another is illegitimate, be it Al-Ahbash or Wahabi. This is not to divest the government of its legitimate authority to neutralize security threats as they arise.  Recognizing the threshold requires not only good public policy and laws, but also responsible enforcement. If the Ethiopian Government supports a religious group such as Al-Ahbash, it must leave the task of propagating it to the faith-based nongovernmental organizations, rather than the Ministry of Federal Affairs.  The primary problem is that the Ethiopian Government has already legislated civil society out of existence with its charities legislation, so that the legitimate activities of religious groups are constrained.

The threat claimed by the Ethiopian Government, which as yet is not clear and present, does not emanate from radicalization, but from the embrace of political Islam and its concomitant militancy. The threat emanating from radicalization in my view does not call for direct government intervention. It would have been better addressed by civil society organizations. Unfortunately, in Ethiopia today there is barely any civil society, including religion-based and inter-faith NGOs working in the area of peace and reconciliation as they were legislated out of existence by the government itself.

If the current situation is allowed to continue, the protests will surely grow so much so that they overwhelm the government's ability to handle the situation. I don't expect the peaceful Muslim protesters to resort to violent means in the near future. My concern is that the Ethiopian government will eventually resort to more force and repression than is warranted under the circumstances.  While it is impossible to predict the consequences, one thing is certain – hatred begets hatred.  Some thought the protests would simply go away with the Majlis elections, but now we know that a significant proportion of the Muslim community boycotted the polls that took place on 7 October 2012. The Government claimed the elections were concluded successfully.

Another reason why the Ethiopian Government's actions are misguided is because Islam has been historically a decentralized religious institution in Ethiopia.  With the formal establishment of the Majlis by the Ethiopian Government in 1976, it has enjoyed an official governmental status, with its chairman considered by the government as "representative of the entire Muslim community," and is accorded the same courtesies as the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, the Bishop of the Catholic Church and the Head of the Protestant Churches in public ceremonies.  Historically, it has always been the responsibility of local mosques to appoint clerics, which makes the Ethiopian Government's effort to control each and every mosque in the country through the Majlis untenable.

If the Ethiopian Government wants to help resolve this emerging conflict, it should refrain from interference. It should also make a goodwill gesture not only towards meeting the demands of Muslim protesters, but also in promoting a respectful and sustained dialogue among Muslims belonging to different Islamic sects, instead of promoting one sect of Islam to the exclusion of others. A positive first step would be to release the imprisoned elected leaders of the Muslim community and conduct the election of the members of the Majlis at the mosques rather than at the kebeles.  Moreover, it must stop sponsoring Ahbashism at the expense of other sects of Islam as long as they respect the constitution and other laws of the land.

Last but not least, the Ethiopian Government should refrain from unnecessary provocations, which have been abundant in government publications and statements by authorities. After all, the Ethiopian Government owes Ethiopian Muslims all due respect and tolerance.  Tolerance though is not enough. The problem with applying the concept of tolerance to the case of Ethiopian Muslims is that it neglects the rich history of Islam in Ethiopia.  It ignores the fact that Ethiopia's Muslims were early historical converts in the same way as Ethiopia's Christians.

Through repressive interference the Ethiopian Government will only sow the seeds of a radicalized political Islam that it seeks to keep at bay.

Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam is a Horn of Africa Specialist at the LBJ School of Public Affairs.

 

How To End Government Intolerance Of Islam In Ethiopia – OpEd

Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam

11 November 2012, Eurasia Review

The current Ethiopian constitution provides for freedom of religion and requires the separation of state and religion. However the Muslim community in Ethiopia has been, for more than a year now, holding protests at mosques around the country against what is perceived as government interference in religious affairs.  The protesters are demanding that the current members of the Islamic Affairs Supreme Council (Majlis) be replaced by elected representatives and that elections for Majlis representatives be held in mosques rather than in the Kebeles. Some members of the Muslim community accuse the Ethiopian Government of controlling the Majlis and sponsoring the propagation of Al-Ahbash, a little known sect of Islam. The Ethiopian Government, on the other hand, accuses the protesters of being led by extremists who want to establish an Islamic state in place of the current secular multination federation. The Ethiopian Government has responded against some protests in 2012 with deadly force, most recently in Assassa in April and Gerba in October, resulting in the death of at least seven protesters, a large number of injuries, and the imprisonment of a number of protesters on terrorism charges.

 

The protests were triggered by the suspension of the Awoliyah Muslim Mission School and the dismissal of 50 Arabic teachers via a letter issued by the Majlis. The Awoliyah Muslim Mission School, has been a member since 1993 of the Islamic charitable agency known as International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and has been linked to the Saudi Arabia controlled World Muslim League. Ethiopian authorities consider Awoliyah to be a breeding ground for a new generation of radical Muslims, which they refer to as "Salafi-Jihadists" or "Wahabi-Salafists". However, the Muslim protesters have consistently adhered to nonviolent demonstrations, leaving the Ethiopian Government with little to no evidence of behavior or action that could be described as terrorism. It is clear to date that the Ethiopian Government is manufacturing a security problem where none actually exists.

A careful consideration of the matter reveals that what's happening in Ethiopia today is a reflection of what has been taking place in the West. Concerns about terrorism have degenerated into an irrational suspicion of Muslims, which will continue unabated until Ethiopia and its Western partners reflect more critically on their own perceptions. It is reasonable to argue that Ethiopia's leaders are experiencing a growing fear of Islamic terrorism given the fact that it is combating the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabab in Somalia and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in the Somali region of Ethiopia. This is buttressed by a universal consensus among analysts that Somalia and Sudan are exporters of both political Islam and Islamic terrorism. Given that Ethiopia is widely considered as a bulwark against Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Horn of Africa, Somalia and, across the Gulf of Aden, in Yeman, one could argue that Ethiopia is not suffering from siege mentality, but rather that it is suffering from rational fear.

There is some evidence that the Ethiopian Muslim community has been radicalized, although not in the sense that it has a political agenda, but in the sense that it has attained a higher degree of religious consciousness and has become more aware of its particularistic identity.  In light of "Arab Spring" events that took place in North Africa and the Middle East, toppling repressive governments, it can be argued that the Ethiopian authorities are haunted by the fear of an 'Ethiopian Spring', which has not only contributed to the current crackdown on the media and the political opposition, but also against the Muslim community. Ethiopia has increasingly become intolerant of Islam.

There is little evidence to support the Ethiopian Government's claim that its own Muslim community poses a legitimate threat to national and regional security. It only seems to be driven by a shrewd strategic calculus. Since Ethiopia is a critical partner in the West's war on terror, the government thinks it helps to foment fear of the rise of radical Islam in Ethiopia that would lead to an improbable takeover of power by political Islam. The current Ethiopian Government seeks to keep Western support and aid flowing into the country through characterizing the Muslim community as linked to Islamic radicals and terrorist and thus a threat to national security.

The fear being cultivated by the Ethiopian Government without basis in evidence has lead to the dubious actions it has engaged in. It would be irrational for a country that has had a history of Islamic terrorism to dismiss the fear of Islamic terrorism. When it comes to Ethiopia, the fear is irrational in light of its recent past and current events. My point is that rational fear can be a guide to sensible public policy. However, it is simply absurd to believe that all Muslims in Ethiopia are fiends and terrorists in disguise. The Ethiopian Government is using irrational fear to justify intolerance of Islam, and all of this because of bad public policy.

To the extent that secularism is a constitutionally enshrined principle of governance, the interference is unacceptable. Any sponsorship by the government of a religious sect over others or any attempt of privileging one religion over another is illegitimate, be it Al-Ahbash or Wahabi. But this is not to divest the government of its legitimate authority to neutralize security threats as they arise. Recognizing the threshold requires not only good public policy and laws, but also responsible enforcement. If the Ethiopian Government supports a religious group such as Al-Ahbash, it must leave the task of propagating it to the faith-based nongovernmental organizations, rather than the Ministry of Federal Affairs. The primary problem is that the Ethiopian Government has already legislated civil society out of existence with its charities legislation, so that the legitimate activities of religious groups are constrained.

The threat claimed by the Ethiopian Government, which as yet is not clear and present, does not emanate from radicalization, but from the embrace of political Islam and its concomitant militancy. The threat emanating from radicalization in my view does not call for direct government intervention. It would have been better addressed by civil society organizations. Unfortunately, in Ethiopia today there is barely any vibrant civil society, including religion-based and inter-faith NGOs working in the area of peace and reconciliation as they were legislated out of existence by the government itself.

My prognosis is that the protests will surely grow so much so that it overwhelms the government's ability to handle the situation. I don't expect the peaceful Muslim protesters to resort to violent means in the near future. My concern is that the Ethiopian government will eventually resort to more force and repression than is warranted under the circumstances. While it is impossible to predict the consequences, one thing is certain – hatred begets hatred. Some thought the protests would simply go away with the Majlis elections. Now we know that a significant proportion of the Muslim community boycotted the polls that took place on 7 October 2012, although the Government claimed the elections were concluded successfully.

Another reason why the Ethiopian Government's actions are misguided is because Islam has been historically a decentralized religious institution in Ethiopia. With the formal establishment of the Majlis by the Ethiopian Government in 1976, it has enjoyed an official governmental status, with its chairman considered by the government as "representative of the entire Muslim community," and is accorded the same courtesies as the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, the Bishop of the Catholic Church, and the Head of the Protestant Churches in public ceremonies. Historically, it has always been the responsibility of local mosques to appoint clerics, which makes the Ethiopian Government's effort to control each and every mosque in the country through the Majlis untenable. It simply doesn't work that way.

If the Ethiopian Government wants to help resolve this emerging conflict, it should refrain from interference. It should also make a goodwill gesture not only towards meeting the demands of Muslim protesters, but also in promoting a respectful and sustained dialogue among Muslims belonging to different Islamic sects, instead of promoting one sect of Islam to the exclusion of others. A positive first step would be to release the imprisoned elected leaders of the Muslim community and conduct the election of the members of the Majlis at the mosques rather than at the kebeles. Moreover, it must stop sponsoring Ahbashism at the expense of other sects of Islam as long as they respect the constitution and other laws of the land.

 

Last but not least, the Ethiopian Government should refrain from unnecessary provocations, which have been abundant in government publications and statements by authorities. After all, the Ethiopian Government owes Ethiopian Muslims all due respect and equal treatment, if not tolerance. For me, tolerance is not enough. The problem with applying the concept of tolerance to the case of Ethiopian Muslims is that it neglects the rich history of Islam in Ethiopia. It ignores the fact that Ethiopia's Muslims were early historical converts in the same way as Ethiopia's Christians.

However, through repressive interference the Ethiopian Government will only be sowing the seeds of a radicalized political Islam that it seeks to keep at bay. The ongoing interference will do more harm than good.

US Deeply Concerned by Emerging Religious Freedom Violations in Ethiopia

November 8, 2012| By USCIRF

 
 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is deeply concerned about the increasing deterioration of religious freedoms for Muslims in Ethiopia.  Since July 2011, the Ethiopian government has sought to force a change in the sect of Islam practiced nationwide and has punished clergy and laity who have resisted.  Muslims throughout Ethiopia have been arrested during peaceful protests: On October 29, the Ethiopia government charged 29 protestors with terrorism and attempting to establish an Islamic state.

 
 

"These charges are only the latest and most concerning attempt  by the Ethiopian government to crush opposition to its efforts to control the practice of religion by imposing on Ethiopian Muslims a specific interpretation of Islam,"  said USCIRF Commissioner Azizah al-Hibri.  "The individuals charged were among tens of thousands peacefully protesting the government's violations of international standards and their constitutional right to religious freedom.  The Ethiopian government should cease interfering in the internal affairs of its Muslim community and immediately and unconditionally release those wrongfully imprisoned."

 
 

Since July 2011, the Ethiopian government has sought to impose the al-Ahbash Islamic sect on the country's Muslim community, a community that traditionally has practiced the Sufi form of Islam.   The government also has manipulated the election of the new leaders of the Ethiopia Islamic Affairs Supreme Council (EIASC).  Previously viewed as an independent body, EIASC is now viewed as a government-controlled institution.  The arrests, terrorism charges and takeover of EIASC signify a troubling escalation in the government's attempts to control Ethiopia's Muslim community and provide further evidence of a decline in religious freedom in Ethiopia.

 
 

"The U.S. government should raise with the new leadership in Addis Ababa the importance of abiding by Ethiopia's own constitution and international standards on freedom of religion of belief.  USCIRF has found that repressing religious communities in the name of countering extremism leads to more extremism, greater instability, and possibly violence," said USCIRF Chair Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett.  "Given Ethiopia's strategic importance in the Horn of Africa and that Muslims account for more than one-third of all Ethiopians, it is vital that the Ethiopian government end its religious freedom abuses and allow Muslims to practice peacefully their faith as they see fit.  Otherwise, the government's current policies and practices will lead to greater destabilization of an already volatile region." 

 
 

Background

 
 

Ethiopian Muslims traditionally are Sufis.  Article 27 of the Ethiopian constitution guarantees religious freedom and "the independence of the state from religion."  

 
 

However, due to a concern about the rise of Wahhabism in Ethiopia, the government in July 2011 brought al-Ahbash imams from Lebanon to train Ethiopian imams and Islamic school educators on that sect's beliefs to teach their students and worshippers.  The government dismissed from their positions those who refused to be trained in or teach al-Ahbash and closed mosques and schools.  Beginning in December 2011, protests have been held almost every Friday outside of mosques after prayers.  While these demonstrations have taken place nationwide, they are centered at the Awalia Mosque and Islamic school in Addis Ababa.  

 
 

As the protests continued, an Arbitration Committee of 17 Islamic leaders was created this past spring to negotiate with the government about: 1) respecting the Ethiopian constitution's guarantees of religious freedom; 2) ending government imposition of al-Ahbash on Ethiopian Muslims, while allowing al-Ahbash to operate equally with other religious communities; 3) re-opening and returning schools and mosques to their original imams and administrators; and 4) holding new elections for the EIASC, and having these elections take place  in mosques, rather than in neighborhood government community centers, to ensure that the community's selections would be honored. 

 
 

By July, the negotiations had failed and the protests increased in both size and frequency.  In response, the Ethiopian government started to crack down on and intimidate the demonstrators, surrounding them with armed guards and conducting house-to-house searches.  Between July 13 and 21, the government arrested all 17 members of the Arbitration Committee and at least 70 protestors. (While the government has confirmed 70 people were arrested, demonstrators place the number in the hundreds).  Human rights organizations reported that the police used excessive force against individuals during the arrests and while in detention.  While many were released after being held for a short time, nine of the Arbitration Committee members remain in jail.  

 
 

The charges the government leveled on October 29 were the first issued against any of the arrested protestors, including the nine Arbitration Committee members who were not released with their colleagues in July.  The individuals charged were first detained and held in Maikelwai federal police detention center, which frequently houses political prisoners and is known for abusing prisoners, including torturing them during interrogations.  The individuals detained also were charged under the nation's anti-terror law which has been used to target dissent, rather than to stop terrorism. 

 
 

Protestors now hold up yellow or white placards to signal that they are peaceful and to condemn the arrests and charges.  While the demonstrations largely have been peaceful, there have been a few violent incidents:  On October 21, 2011 four Muslims were killed as they stormed a jail attempting to free protestors and in April 2012 five people were killed protesting the dismissal of an imam who refused to propagate al-Ahbash.

Ethiopia Abusing Religious Freedom of Muslims: U.S. Body

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - A U.S. panel on religious freedom accused the Ethiopian government of trying to tighten control of its Muslim minority amid mass protests, saying it is risking greater destabilization of the Horn of Africa region. ... However, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) accused the government of arresting peaceful Muslim protesters, noting that 29 of them had been charged last month with what the authorities said was "planning to commit terrorist acts". Read the full article here

On the Current Muslim Protests in Ethiopia: A Conversation between Jenny Vaughan of AFP & Alemayehu Fenatw of the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas

Note: This conversation took place between Jenny Vaughan, the AFP correspondent based in Addis Ababa and Alemayehu Fentaw, a visiting scholar at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, via email between 8 and 24 October 2012 regarding the current Muslim protests in Ethiopia.

 

 

Jenny Vaughan:       What does the government's response to the Muslim protests tell you about religious tolerance among the ruling regime in Ethiopia?

Alemayehu Fentaw: What's going on in Ethiopia is a reflection of what's happening in the West. Fears of terrorism in the West have deteriorated into an irrational suspicion of Muslims, which will continue until the West turns its critical eye inwards. Since Ethiopia is a critical partner in the US war on terror, its government thinks it helps to appear terrified by the prospect of the rise of Islamism and an improbable takeover of governmental power by political Islam. That way, Ethiopia hopes to keep Western aid flowing into the country.

Fear with no basis in evidence leads to dubious actions such as the one the Government of Ethiopia is engaged in. It'd be irrational to dismiss the fear of Islamic terrorism, given that a country has had a history of Islamic terrorism. When it comes to Ethiopia, nonetheless, that fear is irrational in the light of its recent past and current events. Rational fear ought to guide sensible public policy. It's simply absurd to believe that all Muslims are fiends in disguise. Look at the protests. The authorities make no distinction in disappointing the Muslim community based on sects. They are being intolerant generally of all Muslims without distinction, and all of this because of a bad public policy.

There's no doubt that the Ethiopian Muslim community has been radicalized, not in the sense that it has a political agenda, but in the sense that it has attained a higher degree of religious consciousness and hence become aware of it particularistic identity far more than it used to be in the past.  And in light of events that took place in North Africa and the Middle East that came to be known as the Arab Spring, it can be safely assumed that the authorities are being haunted by fear of an 'Ethiopian Spring'. As you can see, that fear of a possible 'Ethiopian Spring' has resulted not only in the current crackdown on the media and the opposition, but also on the Muslim community. Ethiopia has increasingly become intolerant of Islam.

Jenny Vaughan:          Do Muslims in Ethiopia pose a legitimate (extremist) threat to the country and region?

Alemayehu Fentaw: There's very little evidence to support the claim that Ethiopian Muslims pose a legitimate threat to national and regional security. However, there's a universal consensus among analysts worth the name that Somalia and Sudan are exporters not only of political Islam, but also of Islamic terrorism. This again is not a universal claim about Muslims in Ethiopia. There could be individual Muslim proselytizers bent on using violence. There were a few incidents of violence, but it takes an independent commission to investigate into the claims. I don't personally buy the government's claims.

Jenny Vaughan:         Some members of the Muslim community say there is no real government pressure to impose Al-Ahbash, while others say the imposition is indeed there and unconstitutional. In your assessment, do you think the government is legitimately trying to impose the sect?

Alemayehu Fentaw: The Muslim community is claiming in unison that there's uncalled-for governmental interference in the internal affairs of Ethiopian Muslims. To that extent and to the extent that secularism is a constitutionally enshrined principle of governance, the interference is unacceptable. Therefore, any sponsorship by the government of a religious sect over others or any attempt of privileging one religion over another is illegitimate, be it Al-Ahbash or Wahabi. But this is not to divest the government of its legitimate authority to neutralize security threats as they arise and recognizing the threshold requires not only good public policy and laws, but also responsible enforcement. If the government feels like Al-Ahbash, it has to leave the task of propagating it to the faith-based nongovernmental organizations, rather than tasking the Ministry of Federal Affairs with a non-governmental mandate. The problem is the government has already legislated the civil society out of existence. Evangelists or what have you could also do some work, but thanks to the charities legislation, their activities are constrained.

Jenny Vaughan:         Will the government's relationship with Muslim community change now that Hailemariam Desalegn has taken over as PM?

Alemayehu Fentaw: It seems to me the replacement of a Marxist Prime Minister by a Protestant Prime Minister would not do much in realigning the Muslim community with the government. What is crucial is putting in place a sensible public policy, competent public service, and proper enforcement, which is badly wanting in Ethiopia today.   

Jenny Vaughan:         Do you think there is potential for protests to grow and threaten government? Or will they go away now that council elections are over?

Alemayehu Fentaw: The protests will surely grow so much so that the government becomes too frustrated to handle the situation. But, I don't expect them to resort to violent means in the course of their protests. My fear is that the government will eventually resort to more force than is warranted under the circumstances. And you never know what will happen after that.

The protests won't go away easily. They will stick there as far as the protesters demands are not met. It's too stupid to think that they'll go away once the Majlis elections are over. And I guess that's what the authorities are thinking.

 
 

Jenny Vaughan:         What should the government response to protesters' demands be?

Alemayehu Fentaw: Cessation of interference and making a gesture towards meeting their demands is the solution. And the first step would be to release the imprisoned elected leaders of the Muslim community and conduct the election of the members of the Majlis in the mosques rather than the kebeles. Finally, it has to stop sponsoring the propagation of Ahbashism at the expense of other sects of Islam as long as the Wahabis or whatever you call them respects the constitution and other laws of the land.

The government has also to stop using the current Islamic protests to crackdown on political dissent emanating from whether within the ruling coalition or the opposition from the largely Muslim constituency found in much of south Ethiopia.

The government's interference has been totally unacceptable and served as a recipe for conflict. And to continue to interfere in the internal affairs of the Muslim community will do more harm than good.

 

Jenny Vaughan: Anything you'd like to add?

Alemayehu Fentaw: If there's anything I'd like to add, Islamic militancy posed a threat to Ethiopia's national security at different times in the remote past. … But, the gravest of all the threats came with the advent of Ahmad Gran. In all instances, it was a reaction to oppression by the Christian State. But Islamic revivalism, which is positive in itself, and radicalism, which is undesired and a spillover effect, came as a result of the sacralization of identity politics, which is not such a bad idea in and of itself. So radicalism is one thing, but militancy is different. The threat, which as yet is not clear and present, does not emanate from radicalization (which is purely religious, not political), but from the embrace of political Islam and its concomitant militancy. The threat emanating from radicalization in my view does not call for direct government intervention. It would have been adequately addressed by civil society organizations. (Wait a minute; let me ask you just for once: do you believe that the current interference by the government is justified?) So what's lacking? As you might already have suspected, what absent is a vibrant civil society organizations, including religion-based and inter-faith NGOs working in the area of peace and reconciliation. Alas, they were legislated out of existence by the government.

Aiga published this provocative article following the peaceful conclusion of the Majlis elections and the passing of a Jum'a without protests in Addis, albeit the protests took place in mosques in some rural areas. A conversation I had with inside sources, however, indicate that Eid is only a week from today and hence it's a little too soon for any triumphalist celebration by the government. A cable news reporter, whose identity I can't disclose for security reasons, surmised the Muslim protesters seem to be suffering from "strategic indecision", which was also confirmed to me by inside sources. I for one wish to warn the authorities against uncalled-for provocations.
http://aigaforum.com/articles/the-election-that-broke-extermist-backbone.pdf

 

Jenny Vaughan: As you know, many Muslim protestors accuse the government of appointing teachers and preachers to promote al Ahbash in schools and mosques. The government denies this. What I am wondering is who is normally responsible for the appointment of clerics and/or teachers in mosques and schools--does that task fall to the Islamic Council or simple the local Muslim community?

Alemayehu Fentaw:
The Awoliyah Muslim Mission School, belonged since 1993 to the Islamic charitable agency known as International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and has been linked to the Saudi-controlled World Muslim League. Therefore, it's the responsibility of the management of the school, and not the government, to hire and fire teachers and Islamic scholars. However, this is not to deny the government's responsibility to supervise charitable organizations. It seems that Ethiopian authorities consider it to be a breeding ground for radical Muslims, whom they refer to as "salafi-jihadists," "Wahabi-Salafists," and what not. I think there's too much securitization of the matter on part of the government.

 
 

In Ethiopia Islam has been institutionally speaking decentralized, albeit the Islamic Affairs' Supreme Council (Majlis), formally established in 1976, enjoys a degree of officialdom and its chairman is considered by the government as "representative of the entire Muslim community" and accorded the same courtesies as the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Bishop of the Catholic Church, and Head of the Protestant Churches in public ceremonials. Therefore, it has always been the responsibility of local mosques to appoint clerics. Put differently, you can't control what each and every mosque in the country does by controlling the Majlis. It doesn't work that way.