(MoFA 02/12/09):-Human rights have frequently been the subject of campaigns by activists of various causes who claim to campaign for human dignity, ethical standards, and international and global human rights. On occasions, however, self-appointed guardians of human rights appear to use this undeniably important issue as a cover for hidden political objectives. Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, has a proven track record of campaigning against Ethiopia and almost without exception on the basis of unfounded allegations of human rights abuse. Its latest target is the Charities and Societies Proclamation recently adopted by the House of People’s Representatives after a long, consultative and transparent process. What seems to have provoked HRW on this occasion was a European Union Presidential Declaration on 30 January which while expressing concern about some aspects of the Proclamation, also hoped the law would be implemented in “an open-minded and constructive spirit”. The Presidential Declaration welcomed the thorough exchange of views between itself and the Government of Ethiopia while the proclamation was at a draft stage, and acknowledged the fact that some of its concerns had been taken onboard. It did, however, maintain reservations about some of the provisions, and said it would follow the implementation and impact of the new law closely. The Declaration also recalled, with appreciation, Ethiopia’s adoption of the Africa Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, the second state to do so, as an excellent example for development of democratic processes in Africa.
The EU Presidential Declaration was, as usual, the outcome of a consultation process among all EU member states. Ethiopia respects the views of its EU partners even if it does not necessarily agree with them. It believes that this is what partnership is all about, but it is this spirit of partnership between Ethiopia and the EU that HRW is apparently so angry about. Indeed, on Tuesday it went so far as to circulate an angry and intemperate protest letter to EU member states denouncing the Declaration for timidity, for being unprincipled and for failing in what HRW claims are the EU’s responsibilities and obligations, indeed for being balanced. HRW, characteristically making false allegations of “a deeply chilling environment” for civil society, of intimidation, and of a “brazen attack on independent civil society”, demands the EU should punish Ethiopia with severe economic sanctions just because of the way HRW claims to know what the “intentions” of the law actually are.
Bizarrely, in its letter, HRW even expresses dismay that some elements in earlier drafts of the proclamation were actually amended after consultation with Ethiopia's partners and with civil society organizations. This sort of negative attitude makes HRW’s political motives clear. HRW is objecting to a legitimate law passed by Ethiopia’s sovereign, and democratically elected, institutions. Indeed, by calling for “severe economic sanctions”, HRW is actually attempting to try and divert the attention of the government from its focus on poverty reduction. Exactly how depriving Ethiopia of access to EU development assistance, something certainly critical for poverty eradication, can help protection of human rights is a secret known only to HRW. HRW is trying to drum up support for what can only be described as a wicked scheme, calling the primary purpose and result of the CSO Proclamation the intimidation and prevention of civil society engagement. It is unashamedly urging the EU to force the Ethiopian Government to repeal Ethiopian parliamentary legislation, legislation which has been the subject of discussion and consultation of those who might be affected for months, even years. HRW has not participated in these discussions. Now it is trying to insist that should Ethiopia refuse to oblige HRW, then the EU should impose sanctions and carry out actions that would have serious effects on human rights in Ethiopia, not least poverty reduction. HRW knows very well that poverty has been identified as the main national security threat for Ethiopia and is its major priority. For reasons best known to itself, HRW is apparently opposed to this. It is trying to water down the intensity of our national struggle against poverty by attempting to neutralize some of Ethiopia’s international partnerships. Whatever the political motives behind HRW’s actions, the Ethiopian Government remains determined to forge ahead with its successful drive against poverty. It will not allow it to be sabotaged by HRW. Other African countries might wish to draw lessons from HRW’s behavior and its deliberate attempts to interfere in Ethiopia’s relations with its partners. None of this lies within HRW’s professed mandate and indeed appears to work in contradiction to its supposed aims