With all due respect to those who at the Senate Subcommittee For African Affairs called and organized the timely hearing on “Evaluating US Policy on Horn of Africa”, http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080311a.html , the exclusive presence, without fair representation of any other voice, of the so-called experts and politicians who have been behind the repressive regime in Ethiopia makes it hardly productive or credible, at least, in the eyes of those who have been at the receiving end of the misguided US policy in the Horn.

The presence of department heads or other government representatives is not what is in question since it is the policy of the organs of the Administration that is under review. However, if it was sought to have a fresh look into the US policy options, the last person to be called to testify and recommend policy options is David Shinn, the former US ambassador to Ethiopia when the Woyanes were let loose to destabilize the nascent state of Eritrea . When war broke in 1998, the Woyanes illegally and inhumanely deported close to 70,000 Eritreans and Ethiopian nationals of Eritrean origin; David Shinn was at the fore explaining away those atrocities to the alarmed segments of the diplomatic and development communities in Finfine ( Addis) that the Nazi acts of the Woyanes was justified “for security reasons.” Well, there would be time when David Shinn has to testify in a court of law not as an expert but for his role in those Nazi acts of the Woyanes. Now, back to the present.

Some observers from the public who have attended the hearing on March 11 were disappointed for its lack of balance in terms of fair representation and the depth of the questions asked by the committee members. That is not unexpected at all; the Eritrea file is one of the special cases which certain interest groups who have leverage at the US foreign policy making process systematically insulate all concerned institutions both governmental and non-governmental agencies from getting/producing objective information which contradicts distortions and perceptions they have been peddling for years--at least up to now. In such carefully guarded cases, if not the agenda of the hearings, they set the parameters of the discussions. And as a general rule, as much as successive Ethiopian regimes have been protected, Eritrea has been attacked at any opportunity that they could find or create. It is from this light that the testimony of David Shinn and that of other officials be examined. So, with the objective of undermining Eritrean national interests remaining unaltered only the rhetoric from an ex-political figure was avoided and a sugar coated pill of venom was presented as an analysis from “an expert” of The Horn Politics.

Midway between the time of the signing of the Algiers Agreement and the official rejection of the Verdict by the Woyanes, David Shinn once polemically theorized the exceptionalism of the chosen client state of Ethiopia by which it has to have a port of its own!! on the basis of its population size vis-à-vis the other 13 landlocked African nations. Among other things, David Shinn indirectly supervised the initial stages of the so called border war whose objective was a regime change in Asmara . However, that didn't happen and Eritrea proved itself to be an indomitable nation that its enemies are finding it hard to hoodwink the international community of the real essence of its existence and its role in the Horn. So what David Shinn presented as positive attributes in his crafted testimony is rather a tactical device to appear giving a balanced analysis to his target audience. Moreover, it is not a farfetched speculation to think of his/their posturing to face the inevitable Eritrean reality of a truly independent and viable state that has asserted itself in the Horn and the Red Sea Basin .

<<  The Isaias government accuses Washington of favoring Ethiopia on the border question. As a consequence, it asked the US AID mission to leave Eritrea . Washington has virtually no leverage with Eritrea .>>  

The frustration within the circles that have failed to subdue the Eritrean state was also quite clear in the text of the testimony read by Dr. Jendayi Fraser.

<<  Last year, Eritrea also suspended its membership in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and did not support the region's strategy (actually, State Department's strategy) for achieving a long term solution in Somalia .>>  

David Shinn on his part further elaborates on their frustration:

<<  I have purposely omitted many desirable recommendations that are hopelessly unrealistic or beyond the ability of the U.S. to implement because of its limited leverage in one or more of the three countries .>>  

One wonders what those other recommendations would have been had they managed to have a regime change in Eritrea . How about the realization of a neocolonialist and multifaceted dream of a port for a nation of 70 million! A 99 year lease of Asseb…

Speaking of confessions by David Shinn one can stare with disbelief on a couple of statements or admissions which are at variance with his typical portrayal of Eritrean issues.

<<  On the other hand, for a country that is approximately half Christian and half Muslim, it has managed to preserve cordial relations between these two major religious groups. Eritrea has good relations with neighboring Djibouti and Sudan and even played the principal role in brokering a peace agreement between dissident groups in eastern Sudan and the government in Khartoum .>>

This confession is placed at the end of a paragraph where he listed the major reasons why “ Eritrea presents special challenges for US policy.” He outlined the so called democratic deficit and human rights violations that the State Department and the affiliated agencies list in the so called annual country report. Comparatively, the text read by Dr. Jendayi Fraser was crudely and rhetorically presented.

Before proceeding to the next “confession”, he elaborated how the relationship deteriorated between Asmara and Washington and that it emanated from the fact that “ Eritrea has been particularly frustrated by the inability of the US to convince Ethiopia to accept the 2002 ruling of the EEBC .”

Here, he is not only clouding the legal and moral obligations of the United States , but also pressing the impression that the Ethiopian regime is not totally under the control of the SD.

Then he concludes that segment with a deceptively positive observation of the preposterous suggestion by the SD of listing Eritrea as a state sponsor of terrorism.

<<  At one point recently, there was even a suggestion in Washington that Eritrea might be added to the list of states that support terrorism. This would have been an unwise decision. It is more important to find ways, as difficult as it will be, to encourage Eritrea to support initiatives that improve peace and stability in the region .<<  

David Shinn sounds like a convert, yet he was insinuating that Eritrea is a difficult nation to deal with regarding peace and stability in the region. The fact that Eritrea has been working to stabilize the region and beyond has to be obfuscated in anyway possible.

There could have resulted in more “confessions” or clear contradictions had they been subjected to serious questioning by the members of the Standing Committee. To the disappointment of those who attended the hearing there were no real challenging questions laid before David Shinn or the convenient façade in Dr. Jendayi Fraser by whom the masters of deception and destabilization manage to send their skewed message to the concerned politicians and to the general public. What David Shinn did was present the outlining points that are crucial to the interests that he represents; the rhetoric or outright lies are left to the sorry façade who seem to have no clue about the chameleons that fire her up to do the dirty job; and in the name of US national interests. Unfortunately, she has no appreciation/comprehension of how Eritrea managed “to curve up a respectable space in the Horn and Red Sea Basin .”

The underling message that has to come through clearly and without equivocation is that Ethiopia is a key ally and that the US has no other ways of securing its interests. Whose interests?

<<  With approximately 75 million people and located in the center of the Horn, Ethiopia is in many ways key to peace and security (or lack thereof) in the region .>>  

Superficially and deceptively defined as a mission for freedom and democracy, the so called US interests, especially after the end of the Cold War, are for a hegemonic view of a world order driven by a tiny group of neo-cons. However, as far as Eritrea is concerned it doesn't make much of a difference since the anti-Eritrean entities remain the same before or after the end of the Cold War.

After all, the enterprise set to destabilize Eritrea and boost the Woyane regime fell apart, especially since 2005. As a result, David Shinn and his likes have been finding it challenging to sell their client regime or in broader terms the mythical Ethiopia that they used to present easily to the hoodwinked American public and its leaders. The Somali invasion blunder, the well publicized electoral fraud and more recently the killings and pillage in the Ogaden region are still in the public eye which have only added to the skepticism among the public to the already discredited Administration and its allies of convenience on the so called war on terror.

So far the “confessional” part of the Shinn testimony was partially explored; lets see how it was crafted in such a manner that those clearly abhorrent or illegal acts committed by the Woyanes find some mitigating factors in either the Eritrean actions, the various resistance and Ethiopian opposition groups or both. By the same token, he tried to portray Ethiopia as the best case scenario in a troubled region where they failed to get a return on their investment in the client state.

He started with the opening sentence:

“ Turning first to Ethiopia , the country is still recovering from the aftermath of the 2005 general election .”

There is no hint whatsoever why it happened, instead it sounds like reporting on a calamity that befell the nation for which it had no control. Well, the gods of the SD sent with a deceptively unassuming title of Charge d' Affairs their emissary, Vicki Huddleston, to supervise over the scuttling of a democratic process off its tracks, thus enabling the recovery of a repressive client regime.

Then he proceeds with the positive aspects of the pre-electoral activities.

“ The run-up to the election and the actual balloting were deemed to be generally free and fair. It was a major improvement over all previous elections . . ..” placing the Woyanes in a commendable position before he goes on to minimize the rigging of the elections just as charges by some opposition parties.

<<  Charges by some opposition parties that the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) stole the election during the ballot counting process resulted in violence that continued sporadically for the subsequent six months>>  

At this point, the violent response of the Woyanes to the peaceful demonstrations of the disenfranchised masses has to be mitigated.

<<In some cases the opposition provoked a strong reaction by government security forces.>>

Now that he has placed enough layers of deceptive phrases and statements he continues on pretending to be objective, finally admitting:

<< Nevertheless, the security forces clearly used excessive force in responding to a number of challenges >>

•  Intervention in Somalia .

Again layers of perceived notions on Ethiopia and an exaggerated role of the Ethiopian regime was presented before proceeding to deal with the real issue of invasion and occupation that clearly incriminates the Woyanes and its supporters.

He attests to the close relationships that Ethiopia has with other client state which to the embarrassment of the SD has played back the sad song of their version of transplanted democracy. Then he continues with a positive spin as if Ethiopia is in the class of relatively stronger nations like Turkey or South Africa .

<<  Nevertheless, Ethiopia has offered both helicopters and troops to the UN/African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur . This has ingratiated Ethiopia with the U.S. and presumably with Sudan .>>  

Before getting into the real problem caused by the Woyane intervention, he offers another positive spin:

<< Ethiopia has established a good working relationship with Somaliland, which declared its independence from Somalia in 1991 but has not been recognized by any country >>

The often repeated deceptive line used by SD officials is then introduced to give it an aura of legality to the invasion and occupation:

<< Ethiopia 's military intervention in Somalia in 2006 at the request of Somalia 's Transitional Federal Government (TFG)…>> 

Then he goes on with a significant spin that the intervention no matter how bad it may be has a valid purpose:

<< If Ethiopian troops left Somalia tomorrow, however, the TFG would almost certainly collapse. >>

This way the intervention is not only justified but he also points out to a more dangerous consequence for which he subtly accuses Eritrea :

<< The leaders of most Somali groups opposing the TFG are in exile in Asmara, Eritrea, where they formed the Alliance for Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) and receive support from Eritrea. >>

It is a double edged sword by which he mitigated the invasion while steering the blame towards Eritrea which is hosting “the spoiler groups”; a more pronounced false denounciations has already been regurgitated in a frustrated tone by the sorry façade.

<<  Its (Eritrea) activities include supporting and hosting Hassan Dahir Awey, a UN and US designated terrorist; supporting Somali extremist elements associated with the now defunct Council of Islamic Courts and supporting and training the Ogaden National Liberation Front(ONLF) in Ethiopia.>>  

 •  Massacre & Pillage in the Ogaden

Once the intervention in Somalia was mitigated he avoided to even mention the Ogaden Woyane atrocities by conveniently wrapping it up with the role that they deceptively ascribe to Eritrea .

<<  Ethiopia 's intervention in Somalia has also led to increased conflict in its Somali-inhabited Ogaden region in the southeastern part of the country. There is strong evidence that Eritrea is supporting the dissident Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in the Ogaden .>>  

Then he deceptively sounds as giving a balanced view:

<<  The withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from Somalia and the end of Eritrean support for the ONLF would reduce, but not eliminate, conflict in the Ogaden between ONLF and Ethiopian government forces>>  

As stated before, he basically gave the outline of the distortions and the sorry façade (Dr. Jendayi) had vigorously tried to paint a picture that the Ogadeni armed resistance would stop immediately if Eritrea were to stop helping the ONLF.

•  “ The War on Terror”.

David Shinn makes some references to sound policy choices which the US should adopt in the fight against the so called war on terrorism.

<<  So long as the U.S. effort in Somalia remains essentially to capture and kill bad guys, and there are some in Somalia , the U.S. marginalizes its ability to impact in a positive way any long-term solution to the Somali problem .>>  

It is just repeating the obvious that such recommendations and policy suggestions have been quietly advanced by the GoE way before they have become fashionable now that ordinary American citizens are starting to demand their leaders for a change in that direction. As for David Shinn it can not be other than an act of posturing by stating a progressive lingo that doesn't fit with his past and present actions of supporting a terrorist state.

From the outset, in his testimony he had already set the tone on the image of regime that he wants to sell and reinforce to his audience.

<< Ethiopia has also earned praise in Washington for supporting U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region >>

His mentioning of the Ethiopian participation in Darfur peacekeeping operations also gives him latitude to present the client regime in an optimum light which is further amplified by its support for the US counter terrorism efforts.

Intriguingly deceptive, in the section of his testimony on the analysis of efforts to address of what he called threats to American security and regional stability, he casts doubt on the seriousness of all parties involved except Ethiopia :

<< All governments in the Horn give lip service to countering terrorism, but with the possible exception of Ethiopia their support for this goal is not always convincing .>>

Obviously, the most appealing selling pitch of the terrorism card was also repeated when Dr. Jendayi read the text of “her” testimony; however, as David Shinn has also indicated they retreated from their threats of designating Eritrea in a category which their client state really fits in its totality.

•  UNMEE's Expansion

At the end of his testimony he listed a number of recommendations out of which one is exceptionally peculiar that merits further exploration. It is quite intriguing to see what implications it could have to the long term peace and stability of the Horn. On UNMEE, he recommends:

<<  * Following the departure of UNMEE from Eritrea , insist that it maintain observers inside Ethiopia along the border so that it can assign blame for any military incursion across the Ethiopian-Eritrean frontier.

* If requested by the UN, assign a significant number of U.S. personnel to this effort, certainly more than the tiny number that has participated in UNMEE.>>  

It is a clear sign of desperation on the part of the masters of the Woyanes that they are contemplating of going further to protect their client state not only through proxy institutions and other shadowy agencies, but by direct intervention. Are they worried about possible Eritrean defense initiatives in the future? Are they pushing America further for another mess in the Horn? Many questions could be asked, but as much as ordinary Americans are tired of such instigations we have also to do our part to expose these deceptive elements.

Finally, despite all the platitudes and confessions and deceptions in his testimony there is a very revealing admission; it inadvertently explains one of the main reasons why the US policy in the Horn especially with regards to Eritrea has had no chance of an authentic review.

<< Going back many years, however, the U.S. record for accurate intelligence in this part of the world is, unfortunately, not very good >>

In simple words who has been supplying false intelligence and distorted narrative on the Eritrean cause? And who has positively and effectively challenged those distorted policy outputs? David Shinn among others is a living witness who can answer both questions, albeit under a different hearing.

 

Awet nHafash!

Haileab Luul Tesfai

Toronto .