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 19 2007 3:59 utc | 101