Back to Front Page

Is Ethiopia’s state of emergency any different?

Is Ethiopia’s state of emergency any different?

By Bereket Gebru 10-20-16

The state of emergency declared recently by the Ethiopian government to restore peace has been met with mixed response from within and outside of the country. It’s normal that an act splits opinions but the comments put forth by some foreign governments or their officials are characteristic of their policy of double standards. There are states that are currently under state of emergency in Europe, the US, Latin America, Africa and Asia with largely the same rules imposed through them. Therefore, singling out Ethiopia’s fitting move to declare a state of emergency as a concern is bizarre to say the least.

The most notable of such comments by foreign government officials is that of John Kirby - Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson of the U.S Department of State’s Bureau of Public Affairs. In his press statement, the spokesperson said: “We are troubled by the potential impact of the decision to authorize detention without a warrant and to further limit freedom of expression, including by blocking Internet access, prohibiting public gatherings, and imposing curfews.”

In the first place, the U.S. is well known for its long standing state of emergency itself. Over a month ago, USA today reported: “The post-9/11 state of national emergency — declared by President George W. Bush three days after the 2001 terrorist attacks — will continue through the end of the Obama presidency.” That means the U.S.A has been in state of emergency for the past fifteen years with the decree extended for yet another year. Other sources also indicate that the state of emergency is more likely going to be extended further by the next President.

The U.S.A today article goes on to announce that “there are now 32 states of national emergency pending in the United States, with the oldest being a 1979 emergency declared by President Jimmy Carter to impose sanctions during the Iran hostage crisis.” It is baffling that the U.S. would be concerned about another country’s twelve-days old state of emergency considering its longest pending state of emergency is thirty-seven years old. It’s highly hypocritical of the U.S. to come up with statements as the one the department of state released recently. Although it continuously portrays itself as the standard of democratization, ethics and basically anything good, the whole world has come to know the U.S. for what it is – an agent of war, instability, injustice, racism and inequality.

On the kind of decisions the state of emergency entails, the U.S. claimed to be troubled by the decision to authorize detention without a warrant, to further limit freedom of expression, including by blocking Internet access, prohibiting public gatherings, and imposing curfews. Just to check if these decisions are especially relevant to the state of emergency declared by Ethiopia, I run through emergency declarations by other states.

Accordingly, an article posted by qz.com stated:

In the wake of the attacks in Paris last November, which was Europe’s worst terror attack in 10 years, President François Hollande declared a state of emergency. This gave authorities the power to set curfews, limit public gathering, establish so-called secure zones and extend police powers to carry out house searches without judicial oversight and confiscate certain classes of weapons, even if they’re being owned legally.

As the state of emergency declared in France shows, the decisions included in the Ethiopian version of the declaration are identical apart from the restriction of internet access. Another recent state of emergency has been the one in Turkey. On the decisions included in that declaration, Aljazeera reported: “curfews could be enforced, and gatherings and protests could be banned without official consent, under the declaration. Media could also be restricted, while security personnel could conduct searches of persons, vehicles or properties and confiscate potential evidence.”

If the above couple of examples of recent states of emergency show anything, it is that the Ethiopian declaration is identical to any other. The enforcement of curfews, the ban on gatherings and protests and extension of police powers to conduct house searches without judicial oversight have all been included in the states of emergency declared by France, Turkey and Ethiopia. The Turkish declaration, on the other hand, states that ‘media could also be restricted,’ proving itself stricter than Ethiopia’s blockade of internet access. In the case of Ethiopia’s declaration, it only blocks internet access and not the media in general as social media are widely being used to incite violence.

It is important to note that the U.S. was not troubled at all by the potential effects of France’s state of emergency while it was deeply worried about the scope of Turkey’s declaration as it reportedly led to the arrest of 7,500 people and the firing of 9,000 police officers, 2,745 judges, and 49,000 government workers.

Considering the declarations by France, Turkey and Ethiopia are similar while the actions taken afterwards have different scopes, it would have been better if the U.S. had been concerned about the implementation and not the declaration itself. However, in its press statement following Ethiopia’s declaration, the superpower clearly stated that it is troubled by the decisions themselves. As the decisions are basically identical, it is troubling that the U.S. views these identical decisions differently. Therefore, the statement is a clear testament to America’s application of double standards, favoritism and inequality.  

Another segment of the department of state’s press statement states: “We reiterate our longstanding call for the Government of Ethiopia to respect its citizens’ constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of expression and association, and to release those detained for peacefully exercising those rights.”

Although it is bizarre that the U.S. seems to depict itself as a more concerned party about the well-being of Ethiopians than the government of Ethiopians itself, it should understand that the declaration of emergency has a constitutional basis in itself. Chapter 11, article 93 of the constitution deals with declaration of the state of emergency. Sub-article 1 (a) of the article states: “the council of ministers of the federal government shall have the power to decree a state of emergency, should an external invasion, a breakdown of law and order which endangers the constitutional order and which cannot be controlled by the regular law enforcement agencies and personnel, a natural disaster, or an epidemic occur.”

The constitution also identifies the kind of political and democratic rights to suspend and not to do so during a state of emergency. Accordingly, sub-article 4 (b) of the article states: “the council of ministers shall have the power to suspend such political and democratic rights contained in this constitution to the extent necessary to avert the conditions that required the declaration of a state of emergency.” Sub-article 4 (c), on the other hand, decrees: “in the exercise of its emergency powers the council of ministers cannot, however, suspend or limit the rights provided for in article 1, 18, 25, and sub-articles 1 and 2 of article 39 of this constitution.” Accordingly, article 1 deals with nomenclature of the state while article 18 and 25 deal with prohibition against inhuman treatment and right to equality respectively. Sub-articles 1 of article 39 states: “every nation, nationality and people in Ethiopia has an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.” Sub-article 2 of the article states: “every nation, nationality and people in Ethiopia has the right to speak, to write and to develop its own language; to express, to develop and to promote its culture; and to preserve its history.”

As has been shown above, the state of emergency declared in Ethiopia is similar to other declarations by other states. It also has constitutional backing as the national supreme law provides against inhumane treatment and inequality. 

 


Back to Front Page