The "moral
maze" and duplicitous faces of "relief aid" in Ethiopian
famines.
D. Kebede
January 6, 2003
The
“moral maze” and duplicitous faces of “relief aid” in Ethiopian famines.
By D. Kebede
Arguably, “humanitarian assistance” (interchangeably used
with “relief aid”) is perhaps at its relative ‘pure and simple’ form at the
point of contact between the individual donor and the “charity” that seeks to
facilitate and manage the donation. The process of “relief aid” thereafter,
including the reporting of it, understanding of the underlying causes famines
and the solutions, is fraught with “moral maze” and duplicitous practices. This
is complicated further by some “relief aid” agents’ (NGOs’) self-interest in
seeking to carve up a niche in the aid industry. “Relief aid” then essentially
becomes tinted with “politics”, with many NGOs continuously adapting, wittingly
or unwittingly, to situations that would ensure their place in the industry.
The question therefore is, what “politics” an NGO seeks to promote and the
impact of this on the status of the “oppressed”. The acid test for “relief aid”
ought to be, how seriously it takes the link between “relief aid” and the root
causes of famine, which, in the final analysis, is rooted in the “oppressed”
being deprived of a system of “true democracy” by successive governments whose
pre-occupation had been to stay in power during the famines in 1973, 1984, and
now. This meant the “oppressed” have had no “freedom” to use their resources
fully in order to escape from a perilous survival.
In my previous article, Ethiopia’s famines – breaking the vicious
cycle, which was posted in some Ethiopian websites, I challenged the “donor
community” to support the establishment of a National Executive Committee
(NEC), which also involves the incumbent EPRDF Government. My position is based
on the enormity of the impending famine, with up to 15m people at risk and the
experience from the recent famines that any response which does not mobilize
the nation’s resources to full capacity in a coordinated way and around the
underlying causes, would at best be singing from the same hymn sheet and at
worst, a great injustice to those in imminent danger of death and another
opportunity passing by begging, with cataclysmic proportions.
Many ordinary people in the West who generously donate to “relief aid”
would undoubtedly be asking whether Ethiopia is indeed destined for such
scourges, or its peoples are lazy or whether it is a Malthusian check, with
nature controlling the numbers it’s capable of feeding and so forth. In their
quest for quick answers, they turn to their media, which is generally renowned
for its portrayal of Africa, as a region of conflict, war, famine, instability,
with Ethiopia at the top of the league. In these circumstances, stereotyping is
allowed to breed and expand, with the history and pride of a fiercely
independent people being brutally de-contextualized and the underlying causes
of the problem being sidelined; for instance, Africa serving as a source of
diamonds, copper and other minerals to the West, or the West having some role
in some of the most entrenched problems in the region will scarcely be
mentioned. It is incompatible with such reporting for people to know, for
example, Nelson Mandela’s description of Ethiopia as the African “essence”, as
the beacon of independence and pride.
Jonathan Dimbleby in his recent article (12/11/02) about the Ethiopian
famine, for example, started by talking about hearing one morning “the familiar
tones of Bob Geldof’s appeal and the voices of the victims”, and then described
Ethiopia as “nation which is synonymous through out the world with misery and
suffering on a biblical scale”. This is a typical example of patronizing, de-contextualizing
and stereotyping. He went on to endorsing the EPRDF Government, “visiting in
the summer, I encountered a very different state: instead of secrecy, denial,
corruption and conflict, there is relative transparency and – albeit a
precarious kind – peace as well”. Jonathan Dimbleby appears to be trying to
compare EPRDF and the Marxist regime before it by the number of people they
might have killed (which is a Herculean task to establish clearly). If indeed
that is what he implies, not only such a criterion is morally untenable and
dubious, but also it is insensitive to the experiences of millions of
Ethiopians who feel to be living dead (bekum mot), such is their
bitterness and hurt to witness, their country’s history, culture and
institutions of unity being torn apart by EPRDF’s ethnic policies and
practices.
Jonathan Dimbelby’s remark is also an aberration from the European
Parliament’s (EP) position, which continues to express concern about the
instability and human rights abuses in the country. EP had called on many
occasions for a “national inter-Ethiopian dialogue”, involving EPRDF and all
different groups and individuals, with the view to setting up a “broad-based”
government. Senior Democratic Senators have submitted a petition to President
Bush’s Administration expressing similar concerns. It is in the public domain
that systematic human rights abuse, detention without charge, sham trials and
the application of torture continue unabated. There are detention centers
outside the country’s criminal justice system. The killings of unarmed
university students in Addis Ababa, ethnic related killings in Oromia region in
Gimbi, both in 2001, and in Southern region, Awasa in 2002, are some recent
examples of life under EPRDF’s Ethiopia.
In my aforementioned article, I have alluded to some of the ironies of
such disasters, for instance in the way they tend to catapult individuals into
an enhanced celebrity status, with debris of lost lives, ruined communities and
badly bruised pride in the background. This applies to some extent to many
NGOs. I wrote, “Many have established their academic reputation … many
have written books, made films”. Jonathan Dimbleby and Bob Geldof are
undoubtedly those individuals who fall in this category. The former acquired prominence
following his reporting of the 1973 famine under Emperor Haile Selasse.
Although his film is sometimes disproportionately reported to be in the
pantheon of great documentaries, finding a ”hidden famine” by some miracle,
what he actually did was exposing the magnitude of it. The existence of the
famine was already known and the famine victims had already started to shelter
at Tita and Kutaber locations, following government instructions. In his recent
interview with Ethiop (Vol.4, No. 039, 2002, p.39), Mr. Gebre Tsadik,
who was in the area to set up Jare Children’s Center (and later a political
prisoner under both the Military regime and EPRDF and with considerable
experience in “ international aid and “relief” work), states that Jonathan
Dimbleby was making his documentary in the presence of Mr. Teferi Wossen, a
worker in the English Section of the Radio Dept. with their permission. Every
evening they were watching the documentary the made during the day.
Undoubtedly, the quality of Jonathan Dimbleby’s reporting played a
crucial role in saving lives and exposing the moral decadence and feeble
response of a regime, which was in its political twilight. Incidentally, his
documentary presented the Military regime a valuable propaganda tool in its campaign
to overthrow the Emperor. Bob Geldof’s fame rose meteorically, (it is widely
believed that his late ex-wife, Paula Yates, to have been instrumental in his
involvement) in the 1984 famine. These two individuals, for example, would
arguably have been less known to many had it not been for Ethiopian famines.
History would treat them and others fairly handsomely for their noble role.
However, it becomes deeply uncomfortable when one’s role is seen to be
overplayed so much so it appears to be patronizing, particularly when one
starts claiming a high “moral’ ground and “expertise” in Ethiopian affairs just
because one has played a particular role and had a chat with the Government
officials in the Palace. Most importantly, “relief aid” tends to become entangled
in “moral maze” and duplicity. This is made more complicated by the behaviour
of many NGOs who wish to take or maintain a top spot in the “aid” league by
sheltering under an undeclared “politics”, even when this might mean enhancing
the very “systems” which create and perpetuate the vulnerability of the
“oppressed”. So the question will be, what, if any, could be done about it?
The common thread, which runs through the tragic epochs of 1973, 1984,
and the current one, is the fact of the “oppressed” being deprived of “true
democracy” in a ‘rule of law’, under a leadership which commands moral
authority and exercises integrity. Absence of these qualities had kept the
“poor” for eternity in “subsistence production system” and vulnerable to the
vagaries of periodic famines. Many in the West take the “right to life” for
granted, which is a grave misunderstanding, particularly in a country like
Ethiopia when “the individual” does not “freely” decide where s/he would like
to be, does not know where s/he will be later and/or tomorrow. “The individual”
is therefore in no position whatsoever to make informed choices in terms of how
best to use his/her potential physical, mental and spiritual characteristics in
order to change his/her situation for the better. “Freedom” even in its narrow
sense of “political” and “civil” liberties is non-existent. This negates what
Professor Amartaya Sen in his Noble Prize Winner book, Development as
Freedom, has put so powerfully that, “success of a society is to be
evaluated … primarily by the substantive freedoms that the members of that
society enjoy”, continuing that “greater freedom enhances the ability of people
to help themselves and also to influence the world, and these matters are
central to the process of development”. It is clear that “freedom” is both a
“means” and an “end” in the processes of emancipating the “oppressed” and it is
to be found in a “true democracy”.
So much
to its commitment to “development”, EPRDF’s first action entailed defining the
country’s politics and culture along ethnic lines. In its next swipe EPRDF
sacked 42 prominent senior university professors and scientists from Addis
Ababa University. Incidentally, after 11 years EPRDF rule the University is
currently in a deep state of crisis. EPRDF imposed a constitution with the
right for linguistic/tribal constituencies to secede from the “ethnic
federation”. Dr Donald Fox, an internationally renowned constitutional lawyer,
said’ “the concept of secession defeats the purpose of constitution, which is
to bring constituents together not to put them asunder. The American
constitution does not allow session”. Not surprising that when bloody
conflicts, such as Sri Lanka appear to be coming to a peaceful conclusion,
Ethiopia remains at war with itself despite EPRDF empty words of “democracy”,
“free press” and “elections” littering its political parlance.
EPRDF has forsaken history and UN resolutions, which assert Ethiopia’s
sea outlets. As a result, the country is now landlocked; something a colonial
power has never done to any its territories. We have a Prime Minster who
publicly said to farmers dingay bela, that is, ‘eat stone’. These
farmers had traveled a long distance from Go jam, Amhara region, to complain
that they were starving due to EPRDF’s land distribution policy, which is
essential is political. It is also on record that not long ago, Prime Minster
Meles Zenawi said that his peoples were having three meals a day, thanks to
EPRDF. Of course if there were true statesmanship he would not say this and would
now have resigned rather than sitting on a 15m human time bomb. The fact of the
matter is that EPRDF is obsessed with “power” and its survival. Everything else
is a sideshow so long as it serves or is made to serve this overall objective.
EPRDF’s “market competition” is strangled oligarchic and mafia like
business firms (dominant in all sectors of the economy). They were originally
set up by TPLF and through massive input of “relief aid” to further a guerrilla
warfare against the Cold War enemy of the West, a Marxist military regime.
EPRDF has resisted persistent calls from multilateral agencies to privatize
them; private ownership of land is prohibited, as it would be against EPRDF’s
ideology of “revolutionary democracy”, which justifies secrecy, centralization
and concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minster and his clique.
There is no coherent pattern of laws; EPRDF is renowned for breaching and
undermining its own laws as well as enacting new ones within a few hours when
it suits it. Obviously Ethiopia would be a fitting example as a ‘Third
World’ country which has not heeded to Hernando De Soto’s powerful message as
it has singularly failed to unlock “the mystery of capital” due to the absence
of a system of laws that nurture private property and provide the
infrastructure for enterprise to flourish. This internationally renowned
Peruvian economist, in his famous book The Mystery Of Capital, articulates
so powerfully that “the total value of the real estate held but not
legally owned by the poor of the Third World and former communist nations is at
least $9.3 trillion”. This meant the “poor” are sitting on a “dead
capital” owing to the absence of such legal infrastructures. This is hugely
important issue for the “poor”, perhaps of more immediate importance than
reforming WTO and the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and something
“humanitarian assistance” could help for the “oppressed” to feed themselves.
Jonathan Dimbleby had a choice to articulate the voice of the
“oppressed” so eloquently, for example, by pointing out the obvious that the
opportunity the demise of the military Marxist regime in 1991 presented for a
“representative” government, with a chance for “true democracy”, was sidelined
by the West, particularly the US, who gave the green light for the current
EPRDF government to take the helm of power. It is also in the public knowledge
that EPRDF, which started guerrilla warfare against the military regime as
Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) (which is the engine of EPRDF), was
nurtured by “humanitarian assistance”. Of all the people, Jonathan Dimbleby who
produced his other documentary, “war of the roads” would have first hand
information about how TPLF used “relief aid” as a political tool, a fact that
is now admitted by senior TPLF officials. Now Jonathan Dimbleby is providing
EPRDF with the justification to use “humanitarian assistance” to bolster its
shaky existence.
Jonathan Dimbleby might be surprised to hear that, or, might he? Such
basic life support as “food” is still being used by EPRDF as a political
instrument. Fabrice Wiessman of the Paris-based Medicines sans Frontiers (MSF)
Foundation recently reported, “The coalition in power [EPRDF] is controlled by
a minority party, so they want to use their power to stay in government. Food
aid is used to satisfy the sectors that legitimize their political survival”.
This is a Foundation very remote from the Palace in Addis Ababa but in the
midst of the real famine victims. Interestingly, referring to the persecution
of journalists under the guise of “ethnic federalism”, The Economist
(16/08/97) had warned early that “obsessed with control, the government [EPRDF]
is narrowing the basis of freedom”; “Apparent devolution – while real power is
retained at the center and used repressively – may even increase disharmony of
Ethiopia’s nationalities”. One of the architects of EPRDF’s “ethnic
Federation”, Herman Cohen, confirmed The Economist’s early assessment when,
after a few years, he declared openly that EPRDF’s ethnic experiment has failed
and that it does not represent the majority of Ethiopian peoples. EPRDF’s
pretensions of promoting “democracy”, “free” press, and so-called “elections”,
remain a publicity stunt and very remote from what Robert Dahl terms as
“essential conditions” of “democracy”, which is to do with open political
competition, participation of the populace, and respect for “political” and
“civil” rights, in a “rule of law”. The Prime Minster himself has publicly
admitted to EPRDF’s "mebesbes", that is, it is rotten. The
problem is, he presents more dose of “revolutionary democracy” as a panacea, as
if it was not at the root of the rot in the first place.
The “moral maze” and duplicitous characteristics of “relief aid” meant
the ventures have largely succeeded in perpetuating famine. What the
“oppressed” need to break the cycle of famines is for the NGOs and individuals,
like Jonathan Dimbelby and Bob Geldof, to listen to their desperate voices of
powerlessness and accept (unless one takes a position that what Ethiopia needs
is food and not “democracy”) that the vicious cycle could ultimately broken by
a political system which embraces “true democracy” in a “rule of law” and not
by a “radical reform” of WTO and CAP, as Jonathan Dimbleby seems to suggest. As
to dealing with the current crisis, a “humanitarian assistance” strategy, which
would mobilize all the country’s resources (opposition groups, individuals,
academics, ‘civil’ societies) under a NEC, should be launched.
The NEC ought to have wide briefs to look into agricultural and land
distribution policies, cultural and religious practices, the distribution
of “relief aid“, including determining the very nature of it. EPRDF
should then commit itself both to furnish NEC with appropriate facilities and
to carry out the recommendation of NEC without any delay, with an international
committee to monitor developments. Any “humanitarian assistance” outside such a
framework, particularly one operating by so-called “independent” NGOs or
excluding those outside EPRDF, whatever the justifications, would only mirror
the familiar “moral maze” and duplicitous practices of “relief aid”, which
would provide EPRDF “political” and “moral” cover and the NGOs involved a
status in the “aid” league. This would be as good as sowing the seeds of the
next famine. Channeling “relief aid” to a Government, which is extremely
dependant upon its security forces for its day-to-day survival, would be
turning a blind eye to the chilling remarks of Fabrice Wiessman about EPRDF
using “food aid” for political purposes. To do so on the basis that EPRDF
might have killed less people than the military regime would, at best, be
tantamount to insulting the “oppressed” and at worst morally reprehensible. The
vast majority of Ethiopians are so incensed by EPRDF’s divisive ethnic rule,
they would not hesitate to vote with their feet even for the ex-Marxist
military regime, which they so despised.
02/01/03.
(D. Kebede, contributed
and has sole responsibility for the content on this article.)