A congressional hearing on Human Rights and Democracy was held on April 4, 2007 in Washington D.C. to identify ways of minimizing the brutality of greed and corruption that have marred most African countries.

It was a significant meeting because it underscores the vibrancy of democracy and institutionalization of democratic values in the African Continent. It also raises the fundamental question of the importance and purpose of democracy. What are the elements to be found in a democratic government? These are some of the questions that were posed to the three witnesses who testified during the congressional hearing.

In his opening address, the chairman of the committee congressman William Delahunt decried the deplorable conditions African people are forced to live by the same governmentS that are supposed to protect them. He called on the Bush administration and the United States big companies to stop doing business with any African government that its administration is repressive to its citizens. “ USA is playing a role in what is going on in Ethiopia . The Chinese cares about making money all over the continent. No more sending arms, no more violations of human rights, no more blood money from oil. The gangsters running Equatorial Guinea must be stopped” Delahunt said.

The congressman and his colleagues belief that military assistant to Ethiopia has helped to jeopardize promotion for human rights. They said U.S. should advocate for democracy, fair elections, improve on political associations. Democracy in Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia must move forward for a better development of economic growth, self-concept, and a well balanced civil society as a condition for a continued assistant to them.

In his remark, Congressman Christopher Smith (NJ) said that terrorists are born by the lack of these elements, a viable future for the masses, torture, impunity, massive abuse of freedom of movement, of speech or of association, when a country fails its populace on these factors, then what you get is strife, civil disobedience and criminal activities as a revolt against the ruling system.

 Three witness were called among whom Professor Sulayman Nyang of Howard University, Dr. Peter Pham of The Nelson Institute  for International and Public Affairs James Madison University and Lynn Fredriksson, Advocacy Director for Africa Amnesty International USA.

The three witnesses gave very compelling accounts of the inhuman situations in Africa .

Nyang , the first witness, gave a historical perspective on the correlation between colonization, human rights and democracy. Nyang drew a line to connect the dots linking the phenomenon of political tyranny in Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea , saying that, “the contemporary historical narratives about the two countries show that Ethiopia went through several transformations in their quest for political change.  During the heydays of Emperor Haile Selassie, democracy and human rights suffered at the hands of this royal tyranny until in 1974 when a revolution took place but this victory for change proved to be equally if not more seriously detrimental to Ethiopians”.

Again another dictatorship dressed in Marxist garbs replaced the monarchy, but its repressive powers did not go well and soon various opposition groups surfaced and challenged it. This arrangement became very contentious and unacceptable to some Ethiopian ethnic groups in the opposition and the present crisis is as a result of this breakdown in political consensus. For example, the 2005 elections in Addis Ababa gave the opposition victory and control over the local jurisdiction. However, it was unaccepted by the ruling power and hence the opposition leader lost both his job and his freedom.               

In the case of Equatorial Guinea , Nyang said the country faced the same problem of multiple tyrannies as in Ethiopia . After the declaration of independence from Spain the first two decades of national independence for the peoples of this tiny African state was malicious and violent ruled by political gangsters Marcias Nguema , the first dictator who left a legacy of political abuse and ruthless slaughtering of suspected foes. Later his nephew Obiong seized power and perpetuated the old tyranny with familiar ethnic tribalism and modernized electronic surveillance borrowed from the West. Consequently, thousands have fled the country. In order to improve the quality of political live in these two countries, the United States in its position can do much more than what they are currently doing by monitoring and influencing the direction of political changes. The US must be consistent in its stand against dictatorial governments. Like the case of Ethiopia , human rights are negated in favor of military assistant. But Dr.J.P. Pham felt differently; he understood sometimes dinning with the devil is alright, “but you can give the devil conditionality” Dr. Pham said America can benefit from Ethiopian dependent on military aids to pave way for democratic movement by underling the importance of change. If indeed they U.S government claims to be pioneering good governance its policies must genuinely match with its actions. As Delahunt observed, the military supplies given to these governments, have enabled them to terrorize their people and engage in civil wars and ethnic cleansing.

Then, for the people of Africa to really see them as a leading voice for democracy, US government must actualize their rhetoric into action inspired by sincere dialogue between the oppressed and the oppressing. As Nyang said, “ America ’s success in this democratization process is going to depend on how its moral currency is sold to the world. This currency should be as strong as the dollar bill if not stronger.

Pham made a number of points that have consequences for U.S. policy in Ethiopia . In his view, Pham said the relationship with Ethiopia should be seen as “vitally strategic”. This relationship is however handicapped by the nature of politics in Ethiopia , the unsettled relationship between the government and opposition groups such as the Oromos whose anti-government activities have led to the death of sixteen Chinese and several dozen Ethiopians. Again, America ’s interest in Ethiopia is also affected by the state of things within the Horn of Africa. According to Pham , the war against Islamic fundamentalism has put Ethiopia in a position of interdependency with the U.S. Not only does it receive US military and financial support to prosecute the war against Somali Islamists and to support the Transition Government of Somali, but it also faces a serious problem with the Eritrean government worried about the growing power of Ethiopia in alliance with America . Pham believes the Ethiopian government should be looked upon as a partner that has human rights problems and the United States can assist in the amelioration of its situation if it makes the much needed efforts “to take note of the serious existential challenges faced by the government in Addis Ababa , both internal and external”. Pham recognized the fact that Ethiopia ’s political woes are less severe than those of other countries elsewhere in Africa . For this he urged that the 2005 electoral problems “be treated within context”. He insisted that the U.S. policy towards Ethiopia and Ethiopia ’s own goals of domestic and border security will materialize only when the capacity-building structures such as the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) are strengthened through international exchanges and civil society groups.         

Ms.Lynn Frediksson gave a review of the human right situations in both Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea . In the case of Ethiopia she sees a unified coalition of multiethnic parties taking power from the Marxist government of Mengestu in 1991. However, since that momentous day the groups that overthrew Mengestu has disintegrated and fragmented. Because of the authoritarian nature of the government of Meles Zenawi , Frediksson believed that the policies of the government in Ethiopia deserve serious scrutiny and the U.S. should keep a vigilant eye on the state of human rights in the country especially since the two controversies over jailing of opposition leaders and journalists during the 2005 elections. She pushed for the U.S. government to pay closer attention to the trials of opposition leaders, discrimination against minority groups, Ethiopian military presence in Somalia , detention of foreign nationals fleeing Somalia , and to Ethiopia ’s border dispute with Eritrea . She advocated strongly for a regional policy because US interest cannot be safeguarded without such a strategy.  Frediksson sees human rights advancing through the strengthening of civil society and the creation of more bargaining positions for opposition groups in both countries.

As I followed the congressional hearing, what I heard it seems to me is that there is a gleam of light for democracy and human rights in these two countries only if what is put in writing is translated into action. That the US Congress has seen it fit to address the question of human rights and democracy in Africa , then something might be forthcoming. Those who wish to effect change for greater democratization in Africa should maximize their efforts and put greater pressure on their congressmen and senators. The citizens of these lands must also be seriously committed to change.

Robot  Villager

# 1 ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 14.05.2007 11:46

Shoko Loko Bangoshe  Villager

# 2 As I followed the congressional hearing, what I heard it seems to me is that there is a gleam of light for democracy and human rights in these two countries only if what is put in writing is translated into action. That's a biiiiiig if, Eucharia - especially in the case of Equatorial Guinea. What was it they said about the indigenous population during the time of Macias Nguema? "One third were killed, One third fled And one third remained." And of course, like any brutal dictator, Nguema made sure that his targets were the intelligentsia who were most likely to foment revolution. So I doubt that anyone remains to seriously threaten his successor and nephew, the not-quite-so-tyrannical-but-still-brutal dictator Obiang Nguema. PS You seem to write a lot of articles with an international or continental perspective. What's your background, if I may be so curious to ask? Posted by Shoko Loko Bangoshe| 14.05.2007 16:43