from yesterday's senate foreign relations committee hearing, Democratic Developments in Sub-Saharan Africa: Moving Forwards or Backwards?

written testimony of human right watch's chris albin-lackey

This hearing could not be timelier, and Nigeria and Ethiopia both stand as clear examples of the reasons why. The course of events in both countries today has laid bare some basic failings of U.S. policy towards Africa. Nigeria's failed elections in April were a terrible setback for hopes of democratic reform- and a stark reminder of the disastrous state of governance in that country. The Ethiopian government's deplorable human rights record has now manifested itself in military atrocities against its own people in Somali region and against Somali civilians in Mogadishu. In both cases, the Administration's uncritical acceptance of systemic human rights abuses has weakened rather than strengthened the incentives for reform.
...
U.S. silence on human rights issues often undermines the prospects for change by demoralizing domestic activists. Many Nigerians were dismayed at the lack of any appreciable U.S. reaction to the stolen April polls. Ethiopians hoping for greater freedoms will not be encouraged by the fact that the United States will not even publicly condemn Addis Ababa's stated goal of executing its most prominent opposition leaders on trumped-up charges.

In some cases U.S. officials have also argued against applying targeted diplomatic pressure or criticism against governments like Ethiopia and Nigeria because of a fear of damaging relations or "isolating" those countries. Ethiopia is regarded as a key regional ally in the global war on terror, while Nigeria is an increasingly important source of oil, as well as a partner in regional diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts.

It is certainly true that the United States' relationship with countries like Ethiopia and Nigeria involves real and important interests beyond the promotion of human rights. But it is not true that the only alternative to the status quo is "isolation" or a complete and sudden breakdown in bilateral relations. Too often it appears that such fears are reflexively trotted out as a boogieman to justify an indefensible policy of doing and saying nothing. And in some cases the situation is even worse than this; Ethiopia is a good example. Because the Administration supported Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia, its uncritical acceptance of the brutal ongoing military crackdown on civilian populations in the Ogaden and of abuses in Mogadishu appears to place Washington squarely on the side of a brutally oppressive government.

when pitting universal liberal political rights against protecting the interests of private capital and/or the elite's "national interest", the latter wins hands down every time so long as the elite are in control of policy.

Posted by: b real | Jul 18, 2007 11:59:52 PM | 101

rick- notice though that their stance is hardly critical of the u.s. position. it reads more like a warning to me.

--------

edward herman: The Hariri Special Court vs the Imminent U.S. Attack on Iran

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khali- lzad, responding to the UN Security Council vote to set up a special court to prosecute the killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri two years ago, stated before the Council that, “By adopting this resolution, the council has demonstrated its commitment to the principle that there shall be no impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon or elsewhere” (see “UN to prosecute killing of former Lebanese leader,” Globe and Mail, May 31, 2007). This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense, as one of the most obvious facts of contemporary politics and (in)justice is that impunity is a function of power and that there is a very close correlation between the loss of impunity and hostility and targeting by the United States. Syria, a U.S. target, is not a potent force in international affairs, hence it can be subject to a special court. The United States is the hegemon, hence it decides on special courts and is free of any threat that one might be applied to it.

As regards assassinations, while pushing for the Hariri “special court,” the United States openly pays large sums for hired assassinations of its targets, which, as the United States is doing this, are “Rewards for Justice”—language actually printed on the briefcases in which the assassins are paid off (“U.S. hands a $10 million bounty in briefcase for the killing of Muslim leaders,” Daily Mail, June 7, 2007). It bombed Milosevic’s home in Belgrade in an attempt to assassinate him on April 22, 1999. It admittedly tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in its initial “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq and U.S. assassinations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been numerous. (Recall the case in Afghanistan, where a tall man with a beard hunting for scrap metal with two other farmers was gunned down on February 4, 2002, because he looked somewhat like Osama bin Laden, a tiny microcosm of the freedom to assassinate by U.S. armed forces, now used globally (see Michael Mandel, How America Gets Away With Murder). But there is no call by the “international community” to bring these assassins and their bosses to book with a special court or otherwise.

Of course, along with the right to assassinate is impunity for gigantic crimes like aggression—and here also the United States is able to engage in major violations of the UN Charter, as in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not only without the slightest threat of any “special court,” but with the eventual kindly cooperation by the UN in consolidating the conquest (see UN Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, which gives the aggressor in Iraq occupation rights and a UN Security Council blessing).

The U.S. right to assassinate and commit aggression goes back a long way.
...

Posted by: b real | Jul 19, 2007 12:18:10 AM | 102

Mark Steel: Why should Galloway be the only fall guy?

At last a politician has been suspended for their role in the Iraq war. You'd have thought it would have happened before now, and you might have thought when it finally happened, it wouldn't be the politician most prominently against the war.

Posted by: Rick | Jul 19, 2007 12:21:37 AM | 103

b real, ...their stance is hardly critical of the U.S. position
Yeah, the story in the WSJ acting as a warning. But with Murdoch's close ties with Blair, I was sort of surprised at this story being in the WSJ considering jobs at the WSJ may be eliminated. Almost a “last hurrah/f$#k you” came to my mind. Maybe some wishful thinking on my part I guess.

Posted by: Rick | Jul 19, 2007 12:51:48 AM | 104

Antioch college: Bob Fitrakis has published an interesting story on this hotbed of peace activism, which is shutting down (for a least a few years, and probably forever) in 2008. Fitrakis notes the presence of some spooky types on the college's board, and he wonders if they intentionally subverted the institution.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 19, 2007 1:01:50 AM | 105

thanks bea #81

Posted by: annie | Jul 19, 2007 1:08:20 AM | 106

@101

a minor point of distinction:

Ethiopia is a proxy & Nigeria is not

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 19, 2007 1:38:22 AM | 107

okay,this almost made me throw up.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 19, 2007 2:00:27 AM | 108

jony_b_cool @107 -

wrong. the u.s. uses nigeria as its proxy in certain "peacekeeping" roles & as a partner in the GWOT. it's one of the excuses given for the u.s. not pressing further on the blatantly-rigged april elections. nigeria is a proxy.

for instance,

july 06: Sierra Leone People’s Democratic League: Sierra Leone Threatened by US World Imperialism

Our attention has been drawn to an evil plan by United States imperialist agents in the region to invade and annex oil rich southern towns and villages of Sierra Leone. This vicious, subversive and anti-African plan, we are reliably informed has the support of the government of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Monrovia.
...
The plan to invade Sierra Leone, according to our reliable source began in 2003 with the creation of one of the US secret prisons in the country and the brutal invasion and annexation of the Eastern town of Yenga and surrounding towns and villages. Since then, we have witnessed arrests and incarceration of Muslim business men in Sierra Leone, whom Washington claimed are agents of the Hezbollah group in Lebanon. We also witness the merciless looting of Sierra Leone’s resources by Western multi- national companies, causing the country to lose over 7 billion United States dollars yearly.

In spite of complaints to the international community about the day-in-and-day-out deteriorating political and security situation in Sierra Leone, no voice, not even the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, European Union or the Commonwealth is showing concern about the plight of the Sierra Leonean people. On the contrary, we are seeing Western support for the corrupt, despotic, illegal and rogue government of the dictator Tejan Kabbah in Freetown.

The international community is aware of the fact that there is currently no legal government in Sierra Leone, and that the so-called elections for August are not only a bogus program, it is also a mockery of constitutional order, democracy and rule of law. We reiterate our position that, any government foisted out of the current illegal and subversive arrangement would be unacceptable.

By this statement, we wish to protest strongly against the US vicious agenda to invade and annex parts of Sierra Leone. Our intelligence sources show that the recent one thousand Nigerian dogs of war that were secretly airlifted to Freetown are part of the US agenda. Like the Guinean forces of aggression occupying the eastern territories of Sierra Leone, the Nigerian dogs of war currently stationed outside the capital, Freetown are catered for by the Bush Administration in Washington. These do not include those in Liberia waiting for orders to march into Sierra Leone with lethal weapons supplied by the US.
...
Unfortunately, countries like Liberia, Nigeria, and Guinea that are supposed to act in the spirit of African solidarity have joined Washington’s vicious plan against fellow Africans Sierra Leone.

We want to warn President Ellen Johnson of Liberia to rescind her agreement to allow her country and nationals to be used by the US against the people of Sierra Leone. We warn Guinea and Nigeria also to withdraw their unwanted and un-mandated troops out of our country, because their stay in Sierra Leone is not only an act of aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, it is also criminal and dangerous threat to peace, security and stability in the entire region.

What we want Nigeria, Guinea and Liberia to understand is that the people of Sierra Leone have no hatred towards anybody. On the contrary, the Sierra Leonean people have continued to extend hospitality to all regardless of colour or nationality. Like any other Africans on the continent and the diaspora, Sierra Leoneans are victims of US imperialism.

We want to make it crystal clear that any proxy invasion of Sierra Leone be it from Liberia, Guinea or Nigeria, or elsewhere would be resisted by Sierra Leoneans. We see the Ethiopian led proxy genocide on Somalia for US military domination and the confused state of affairs in the oil-rich Sudan Darfur region for control of the resources. Sierra Leone will not be allowed to be the Somalia or Sudan of West Africa. Every Sierra Leonean is prepared to defend the homeland against any criminal war or aggression.

Posted by: b real | Jul 19, 2007 10:39:49 AM | 109

b real@109

this is news to me. and I will definitely follow this. Would especially like to understand whats-up with the "secret airlift".

also, Nigeria has a 50/50 Muslim/Christian ratio (like Ethiopia) but its very well balanced and has never subscibed to any form of anti-Muslim agenda. Nigeria also now has a Muslim president (his election was pretty shammish though) but most think he's a pretty decent guy.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 19, 2007 12:55:02 PM | 110