|
US Foreign Policy Saps Human Rights
Improvements in
Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea
Testimony
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
Presented by Lynn Fredriksson, Advocacy Director for Africa
Amnesty International USA
May 10, 2007
Chairman Lantos, Chairman Delahunt, Chairman Payne, distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and
Oversight, the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and the full
Committee on Foreign Affairs, thank you for holding this important joint
briefing and for allowing Amnesty International the opportunity to discuss
serious ongoing concerns regarding human rights violations in and U.S.
foreign policy on Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea.
Introduction: What Has Happened to Political Freedom and Human Rights
Protections in Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea?
I have chosen to begin with this question because much of what I’m about
to report will fly in the face of the seeming success stories—in
Equatorial Guinea which has risen above a legacy of corruption and violent
repression to work with USAID to create the Social Development Fund, and
in Ethiopia which cooperates so well with the U.S. on military and
counter-terrorism operations. But the recent human rights records of
neither country live up to their positive reputation. Does this mean that
the U.S. government lets its close economic and political partner nations
off the hook on human rights in Africa? Are human rights concerns
sometimes trumped by oil interests or plans to counter terrorism?
Human Rights in Equatorial Guinea and the U.S. Foreign Policy Response
Ongoing Political Repression in Equatorial Guinea
Since the mid-1990s Equatorial Guinea, a nation of half a million people,
has experienced robust economic growth due to the discovery of vast oil
and natural gas reserves and a multi-billion dollar international
investment endeavor. The IMF and the U.S. Department of Energy have
estimated that the country holds between 1.77 and 2.5 billion barrels of
oil equivalent (BOE) and between 1.3 and 4.4 trillion cubic feet of gas
reserves. Today Equatorial Guinea produces approximately 420,000 BOE per
day, and over 45 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually. Despite the
vast revenues generated from oil and gas, the misery of the majority of
people in Equatorial Guinea has intensified. Figures from the United
Nations Development program indicate that Equatorial Guinea has the lowest
Human Development Index rating in the world in relation to its per capita
GNP. Even in the major cities of Malabo and Bata, more than 60% of the
population has no running water or access to electricity. The country
lacks a functioning healthcare system, and the educational system is
hobbling on a decrepit infrastructure left from the colonial era.
President Theodoro Obiang Nguema and his extended family have been the
beneficiaries of the national revenue and are reportedly still sheltering
large sums of money in foreign countries, including the United States. In
addition, according to reports from the U.S. Department of State and
Freedom House, as well as Amnesty International, the Government of
Equatorial Guinea continues to engage in significant human rights
violations, acts with impunity, and is fundamentally corrupt, undemocratic
and unaccountable to its citizens. Multinational corporations conducting
business with President Obiang willfully ignore the impact of their
economic engagement in Equatorial Guinea and their role in enabling the
worst offenses of its regime. In its most recent Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor reported about Equatorial Guinea, “The
government’s human rights record remained poor, and the government
continued to commit and condone serious abuses.”
I briefly report a number of specific types of violations under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions
and protocols ratified by Equatorial Guinea.
Forced Evictions
In 2006 the combination of pressure on land, government programs to
rehabilitate major cities and infrastructure, and lack of security of land
tenure led to several mass forced evictions, carried out without
consultation, compensation or due process. Hundreds of homes were
destroyed in Malabo, and hundreds more families were at risk of forced
eviction in Malabo and Bata.
But the threat to forcibly evict over 360 families from their homes in
Malabo on January 2, 2007 was not carried out. This was due to the
pressure exerted by international appeals, according to a resident of one
of the communities under threat, La Vigatana. In a meeting on January 17,
the Minister of Infrastructure and Urban Development reportedly reassured
La Vigatana residents that they would not be evicted until the new area
was ready and the residents had built their new houses in Basapú. However,
plots have not yet been allocated, and it is not clear whether residents
will receive the same total amount of land they currently have.
So far there has been no discussion or negotiations regarding security of
tenure or property titles. Residents have not been compensated for any
losses nor have they been consulted about a just valuation of their
properties including houses and land, which the authorities have carried
out unilaterally.
Arrests and Detentions
Although there were fewer arrests of political opponents in 2006 than in
previous years, at least 14 prisoners of conscience continued to be held,
including one held without charge or trial since 2003. Members of the
Convergence for Social Democracy (CPDS) and other political activists were
arrested and briefly detained. In October police in Bata arrested four
members of the banned Progress Party of Equatorial Guinea. They were
arrested at home without warrants. They were released without charge in
mid-November. One person, Jose Meviane Ngua, was known to have died in
police custody, apparently as a result of torture. Fernando Esono Nzeng
was publicly executed in April.
All of those detained at Black Beach prison are currently denied access to
medical treatment, after an apparent change in policy in late 2006.
Conditions in Black Beach prison had improved slightly at the end of 2005
as a result of the opening of a new wing and regular visits by the
International Committee of the Red Cross.
At least 35 prisoners of conscience (POCs) and political prisoners at
Black Beach prison in Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, are
currently being denied medical treatment. The precise number of prisoners
held at the prison or the state of health of all of them is unknown, but
it is reported that many suffer from chronic conditions for which they
receive no medical care. Two of the prisoners, Guillermo Nguema Elá and
Donato Ondó Ondó, whom Amnesty International deems to be prisoners of
conscience, are known to be seriously unwell as a result of chronic
ailments, poor prison conditions and the refusal of the prison authorities
to provide them with medical care. Amnesty International is gravely
concerned about their health, and fears that their lives, and those of
other prisoners, may be at risk. Denying sick prisoners access to a
qualified medical officer contravenes the UN Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners.
Combating Corruption, Alleviating Poverty and Managing Oil Revenue
Equatorial Guinea’s oil revenues enrich the President and his family when
they should be used for poverty alleviation. While Equatorial Guinea has
the second highest per capita income in the world, more than half its
population is unable to access potable water. In 2004 a Senate
investigation uncovered over $700 million of the country’s revenues in
accounts at Riggs Bank. President Obiang himself is believed to have
transferred over $16 million from state to personal bank accounts.
In April of last year the IMF reported that the Government of Equatorial
Guinea still holds offshore accounts for oil revenues worth $718 million,
while the Securities and Exchange Commission has been investigating U.S.
oil companies’ potential involvement in Equatorial Guinean corruption
under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Additionally, President Obiang’s
son, the Minister for Forestry and Environment, sold a mansion in Los
Angeles for $7.7 million in 2004, and the President himself owns mansions
worth $2.6 million and $2.0 million in Maryland.[1]
Clearly measures to ensure transparency and accountability in the proper
management of oil revenues is critical to genuine poverty alleviation, and
therefore essential to the economic, cultural and social rights of the
citizens of Equatorial Guinea.
The Social Development Fund
In 2006 USAID and the Government of Equatorial Guinea agreed to establish
a Social Development Fund for the country. Equatorial Guinea was expected
to give $15 million over 5 years for USAID to provide technical assistance
to support implementation of projects primarily on health and education.
Although a good idea in principle, the Fund—which amounts to 1% of
Equatorial Guinea’s annual oil revenue—has not yielded any noticeable
improvements and represents a drop in the bucket when compared with total
revenue.
Bringing U.S. Foreign Policy on Equatorial Guinea in Line with Human
Rights
Equatorial Guinea is the third largest oil producing country and the
fourth largest beneficiary of U.S. foreign direct investment (mainly in
oil and gas) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Two-thirds of the 420,000 barrels of
oil produced daily in EG are exported to the United States. The main oil
companies present in the country are ExxonMobil, Marathon, and Amerada
Hess, all U.S.-based corporations. Of particular concern, ExxonMobil and
Marathon Oil signed new confidentiality clauses with Equatorial Guinea
last summer.[2]
Despite all of the above mentioned concerns, the U.S. Government has
recently chosen to resume military assistance to Equatorial Guinea, and
the President’s request for FY08 foreign operations appropriations
includes $45,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET)
funding.
With a new Ambassador to Equatorial Guinea (the first in 11 years) the
U.S. Government has a unique opportunity to monitor expected improvements
in democratization, human rights and social welfare, and to positively
influence the government of President Obiang to carry out promised
improvements more consistently and vigorously.
Recommendations for U.S. Policy on Equatorial Guinea
Given vast U.S. oil investments, the U.S. government has a responsibility
to play a much more constructive role in combating corruption, alleviating
poverty and promoting human rights. The U.S. Government should strongly
and publicly urge the Government of Equatorial Guinea to:
· take demonstrable steps to ensure the return and
legalization of political opposition and professional associations; and
· improve conditions for the creation and participation
of local civil society organizations working for human rights,
transparency and accountability.
The U.S. Government should furthermore:
· actively support civil society and human rights
initiatives in Equatorial Guinea;
· strongly urge the Government of Equatorial Guinea to
create and implement a transparent revenue management system (drawing on
2005 and 2006 IMF recommendations);
· outline benchmarks to measure progress made by the
Government of Equatorial Guinea toward greater fiscal transparency and
accountability, and respect for universally recognized human rights
standards;
· condition further U.S. military assistance (including
IMET) on the full compliance of the Government of Equatorial Guinea with
universally recognized human rights standards;
· actively support the reinstatement of a UNCHR Special
Rapporteur to monitor human rights conditions in Equatorial Guinea; and
· bring its overall foreign policy objectives in line
with its stated concerns for human rights and democratization in Africa.
Human Rights in Ethiopia and the U.S. Foreign Policy Response
In early 2005, leading up to the May 15 elections, Ethiopia appeared to be
turning a corner in its respect for codified international human rights
norms. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi sat on Tony Blair’s Commission for
Africa, which considered an array of issues related to political
transparency and accountability, economic development, anti-corruption
measures, human capacity building and the enhancement of human rights in
Africa. The Government of Ethiopia was allowing some—albeit
limited—international press access and space for political opposition
rallies, particularly in Addis. Yet since the disputed 2005 elections,
around which accusations of electoral fraud emerged alongside mass
demonstrations in protest, political repression greatly increased.[3] In
several days of demonstrations in June and November 2005, government
security forces shot and killed 187 people and wounded 765, including 99
women and several children. Six police officers were also killed in
clashes with demonstrators.
In its most recent Country Report for Ethiopia, the U.S. Department of
State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor reported human rights
abuses including: unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment
of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison
conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those
suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition;
restrictions on freedom of the press; restrictions on freedom of assembly
and association; and discrimination against religious and ethnic
minorities, among other human rights violations.
Amnesty International has been closely following the subsequent trials in
Addis Ababa as they are a window into overall human rights conditions in
Ethiopia. All who have been on trial were arrested in November 2005 and
have now been in prison for over 18 months.
Separately from these trials, a parliamentary inquiry was established in
December 2005 to investigate the same disturbances. It initially concluded
that the security forces had used excessive force. However, as you know,
the chair and vice-chair of the inquiry fled the country after receiving
threats aimed at making them change their findings. The remaining members
endorsed a report accepted by the Parliament in October 2006 that the
actions of the security forces had been "legal and necessary." No member
of the security forces has been arrested or charged with any offense.
Defendants are being held in different sections of Kaliti prison on the
outskirts of Addis Ababa. Conditions in the worst sections are harsh, with
severe overcrowding, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene.
Correspondence is prohibited and private consultation with lawyers is not
allowed. However, families can send food, books and small items.
The principle remaining charge against these detainees is "outrages
against the constitution." Several CUD defendants are also still accused
of "obstruction of exercise of constitutional powers" and "impairing the
defensive power of the state." The charge of "inciting or organizing or
leading armed rebellion" has been withdrawn from most defendants.
Also separate from the trials is the likelihood that Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi and the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)
have been attempting to conflate criticism of their incursion/presence in
Somalia with opposition criticism of the regime overall. The EPRDF is
also reportedly intensifying its censorship of Ethiopian press once again,
including blogs.
CUD Trials and Prison Conditions in Addis Ababa
One year after their trial opened in Addis Ababa on May 2, 2006, 48
members of the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) party,
human rights defenders and journalists are still in prison. Most charges
carry possible death sentences. They are on trial for allegedly inciting
violence in opposition demonstrations in 2005 protesting alleged electoral
fraud.
Amnesty International welcomes the release of several prisoners of
conscience, who included seven of the 14 journalists from the private
media, one of whom, Serkalem Fasil, was six months pregnant when arrested
and denied adequate medical care, and Kassahun Kebede of the Ethiopian
Teachers Association. Several other CUD members were also released.
Of an initial list of 111 defendants, 76 had been on trial since May 2006,
with 25 exiles being tried in their absence. On April 10, 2007, 28
defendants were freed when the judges ruled they had no case to answer
after the prosecution had presented its case.
Charges of treason and "attempted genocide" which had been laid against
most CUD officials were all withdrawn. Other charges were withdrawn from
some defendants. Five exiles still remain on trial in their absence.
Amnesty International is also concerned about three other concurrent and
related trials which are proceeding in Addis Ababa against dozens of other
CUD members, some of whom are or may be prisoners of conscience, including
elected Parliamentarian Kifle Tigneh. Judges have ignored complaints by
several co-defendants in this trial that they were tortured.
Amnesty International reiterates its call for the immediate and
unconditional release of those defendants whom it considers to be
prisoners of conscience who have not used or advocated violence and were
peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, association
and assembly, as guaranteed by the Ethiopian Constitution and
international human rights treaties which Ethiopia has ratified.
These POCs include:
CUD leaders, some of whom were elected to the federal parliament or Addis
Ababa city assembly, including Dr. Berhanu Negga, an economics lecturer;
Dr. Yakob Hailemariam, a law professor and former UN prosecutor for the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Ms. Birtukan Mideksa, a lawyer
and former judge; and retired geography Professor Mesfin Woldemariam,
founder and former president of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council.
Two civil society activists and human rights lawyers, Daniel Bekele,
policy manager of the Ethiopian office of ActionAid, and Netsanet Demissie,
founder and director of the Organization for Social Justice.
Seven journalists from the independent media who are charged on the basis
of published articles which to Amnesty International’s knowledge did not
advocate violence.
We are also concerned about issues of fair trial and the possible
imposition of the death penalty.
I briefly report several additional areas of great concern for human
rights in Ethiopia.
Discrimination against Minority Groups
In 2006 in the Oromia region there were large-scale arrests during
anti-government demonstrations, led particularly by students. Some
protestors called for the release of Driibi Demissie, a Mecha Tulema
Association community leader on trial since 2004. Amnesty International
considers Driibi Demissie to be a prisoner of conscience.
Hundreds of Oromo people detained in November 2005 were reportedly still
held during 2006 without charge or trial, and others were detained in
previous years for alleged Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) connections.
Numerous people accused of Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF)
connections were reportedly detained in the Somali region, and many
political prisoners arrested in previous years were still held without
charge or trial.
In Gambela region there were scores of arrests of members of the Anuak
ethnic group. Hundreds of people arrested during mass killings in Gambela
town in December 2003 were still detained without charge or trial.
Some 60 peaceful demonstrators belonging to the Sidama ethnic group were
arrested in Awassa and other towns last March.
Ethiopian Military Presence in Somalia
Amnesty International has recently called on the UN Security Council to
protect civilians in Somalia from escalating violence and deteriorating
security that threatens humanitarian assistance. As security in the
capital city of Mogadishu deteriorates and conditions worsen, the civilian
population is facing severe human rights abuses. We are deeply concerned
about this most recent upsurge in violence in and around Mogadishu and its
deadly impact on civilians.
What does this have to do with Ethiopia?
The conflict between Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and
its opponents has caused more than 1,000 deaths since late February, most
of them civilians, killed by TFG and allied Ethiopian troops. More than
300,000 have fled the conflict—a third of the population of Mogadishu.
Amnesty International has called on the TFG and the Ethiopian government,
which provides its military support, to protect the civilian population
under their commitments to international law.
The new cycle of violence arose mainly from the resumption of a TFG/Ethiopian
security operation in early April. TFG and Ethiopian forces are fiercely
opposed by remnants of the Council of Islamic Courts (CIC) and other
fighters opposing to the presence of Ethiopian troops on Somali soil.
Ethiopian troops have been accused of indiscriminate shelling in civilian
population areas, leading to hundreds of civilian deaths and mass
displacement in Mogadishu.
Detention of Foreign Nationals fleeing Somalia
The Ethiopian authorities have acknowledged detaining 41 of more than 80
people who were arrested trying to cross from Somalia into Kenya since
January 2007, and have said 29 will be released. The whereabouts of the
remaining detainees is unknown.
One of those detained, Bashir Ahmed Maktal, who is of ethnic Somali
origin, is suspected by Ethiopian authorities of having links with the
ONLF, and they have reportedly pressured him to confess this publicly.
Amnesty International is concerned he may be ill-treated or tortured to
make him ''confess.'' He is believed to be detained incommunicado at the
police Central Investigation Bureau (Maikelawi) in Addis Ababa, and has
not been charged with any offense.
Two Eritrean journalists who are also being held, Tesfaldet Kidane
Tesfasgi and Saleh Idris Salim, were shown on Ethiopian TV and on a
website called Waltainfo.com on April 13. They were accused of being
Eritrean soldiers sent by the Eritrean government to fight in Somalia
against Somalia's Ethiopia-supported government. Like Bashir Ahmed Maktal
and others detained with them, they have had no access to legal counsel or
their families, and have not been charged with any offense.
Ethiopia’s Border Dispute with Eritrea
In regard to Ethiopia’s domestic human rights concerns, the elephant in
any room remains the unresolved border dispute with Eritrea.
Despite the fact that the Government of Ethiopia has stated that it
accepts the Boundary Commission ruling, it has resisted its implementation
and called for further negotiations. Not surprisingly, Eritrea has stood
its ground and refused to allow the Boundary Commission ruling to be
re-examined. The potential for massive abuses of human rights and
humanitarian law in the event of renewed active combat along the border is
significant. Uncertainty and threats of violence have already had dire
effects on the livelihood, health and right to movement of local
populations. According to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report,[4]
ongoing failure to implement this binding agreement is negatively
affecting the complex and interwoven political dynamics of the Horn.
U.S. Foreign Policy toward Ethiopia: The Need for a Regional Policy[5]
The U.S. and other western powers have given the Government of Ethiopia
fairly free rein to perpetrate serious human rights violations with no
political or economic consequences. Ethiopia has developed close ties by
way of relief and development assistance, military cooperation,[6] and
growing U.S.-led counter-terrorism operations in the region.
Not only is the Government of Ethiopia responsible for obstructing
implementation of the Boundary Commission ruling, it has also recently
intervened—with U.S. backing—to determine the outcome of a domestic
conflict between the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the Council
of Islamic Courts (formerly the Islamic Courts Union) in Somalia by
carrying out a full scale military incursion. Equally disturbing from an
international human rights perspective, scores of human rights
defenders—from elected parliamentarians to journalists, students, and
opposition party leaders—are still facing unjustified charges in several
concurrent trials dragging on in Addis Ababa.[7]
Consecutive U.S. administrations have preferred to conduct foreign policy
with a cooperative and stable regime in Addis, despite clear signs of
disturbing trends toward political centralization, repression, shrinking
political space for civil society, and an incapacity or unwillingness to
resolve ongoing conflicts with politically marginalized
groups—particularly in the Oromo and Somali regions—which have resorted to
armed violence around the country. The U.S. government has consistently
and unquestioningly provided a range of assistance to the Government of
Ethiopia beyond critical Economic Support Funds, Child Survival and
Health, and Transition Initiatives funding—including Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET).
U.S. foreign policy’s focus on counter-terrorism has also played a
significant role. It has contributed to the glaring absence of public
statements and policy decisions in response to diminishing political space
and the abusive treatment of prisoners of conscience and other political
prisoners in Ethiopia. Given the close and long-standing relationship
U.S. government policymakers have enjoyed with the Government of Ethiopia,
are we left to assume that they have chosen to ignore universally
recognized human rights norms in exchange for military bases, political
intelligence and the façade of national stability?
U.S. policy toward Ethiopia should make the protection of all human
rights, including the fundamental rights of physical integrity,
expression, assembly and fair trial central to U.S. relations with the
Government of Ethiopia and Ethiopian civil society. And it should
recognize—even if the government in Addis Ababa currently does not—that in
order to achieve Ethiopia’s goal of domestic and border security, both the
Government of Ethiopia and the international community must listen to and
respect the rights of minority groups and opposition parties—and in
particular leading human rights defenders—whose perspectives on national
priorities and the nature of their own rights have been too long ignored.
Any successful U.S. policy toward the Horn that will promote peace,
stability, and human rights not only regionally but also globally, must
begin with a serious and genuine consideration of regional dynamics, local
perspectives on human rights, and the way in which U.S. policies impact
these factors.
Unless the United States develops a comprehensive and principled strategy
that is more sensitive to regional complexities and fairer to the rights,
perspectives and political and humanitarian needs of the Horn populations
and their governments, greater strife and suffering are likely to result.
Recommendations for U.S. Policy on Ethiopia
Amnesty International calls on the Government of the United States to:
Make human rights central to U.S. relations with the Government of
Ethiopia and Ethiopian civil society.
Request that our new Ambassador take actions necessary to press the
Government of Ethiopia to release all prisoners of conscience immediately
and unconditionally, including the above named.
Actively monitor all political trials in Addis Ababa and other places in
Ethiopia, demand that they fulfill international standards for fair
trials, and actively monitor the treatment of all prisoners of conscience
and political detainees.
Continue to press the Government of Ethiopia to do everything in its power
to avoid conflict with Eritrea and in Somalia and to protect all citizens
in the region.
Continue to provide the levels of humanitarian assistance required to
provide for the basic needs of the Ethiopian people.
Actively support judicial and security sector reform in Ethiopia.
[1] Amnesty International would like to acknowledge the research and
analysis of Publish What You Pay and Global Witness, with whom AIUSA works
closely on human rights advocacy on Equatorial Guinea.
[2] Ibid.
[3] As reported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the U.S.
Department of State, these violations included mass arbitrary arrests and
detentions, torture, extrajudicial killings, repression of ethnic
minorities, intimidation of students and teachers, suppression of press
freedom, and the less reported practice of targeting peaceful political
opposition in the countryside.
[4] From Avoiding Conflict in the Horn of Africa by Terrence Lyons
(Council on Foreign Relations Press, December 2006).
[5] Please see upcoming article in the Africa Policy Journal, “Regional
Politics, Human Rights and U.S. Policy in the Horn of Africa,” by Tricia
Redeker Hepner and Lynn Fredriksson, for further analysis on the need for
a regional U.S. policy for the Horn.
[6] By way of example, Ethiopia contributed troops to the Coalition of the
Willing during the 1991 U.S.-led Gulf War with Iraq, and the U.S.
maintains military bases in eastern Ethiopia.
[7] Amnesty International has always considered the original charges
against all of these individuals—including treason and other capital
offenses—to be without merit, and has called for the release of all of
these individuals, whom the organization has designated prisoners of
conscience.
|
|
