Lynn Fredriksson,
Advocacy Director for Africa,
Amnesty International, USA
5 Penn Plaza
New York NY 10001
USA
Fax no. 001 212 627 1451

Dear Lynn Fredriksson,

I am writing to you following your presentation on behalf of Amnesty International to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am concerned about the very considerable inaccuracies in your evidence on Ethiopia, and, I have to say, what appears to be apparent reluctance to take note of recent events in Somalia and more specifically in Mogadishu. I regret to say that some of this appears to be specific enough to suggest deliberate bias on your part. Given Amnesty International’s reputation, to which I have no doubt you are fully committed, I trust that I am mistaken. I would, however, add that some of these inaccuracies are extremely serious and, since they have gone into the public record, you should correct them as soon as possible.

To begin with Somalia: I understand you were giving evidence on May 10, and you began by saying: “As security in the capital city of Mogadishu deteriorates and conditions worsen…”. I have to ask if you or your informants have paid any attention to recent events in Mogadishu. This statement is absolute rubbish, and you must have known this to be the case. Two weeks earlier, on April 26/27th, TFG security forces and Ethiopian troops brought an end to extremist activity in Mogadishu. Several hundred extremists and al-Shabaab fighters were killed or captured. The remainder fled. This ended eight days of fighting and three months of daily extremist activity. Since then, security has been largely, if not completely, restored in Mogadishu, even in the three or four districts from which al-Shabaab was operating. People have begun to return to their houses in significant numbers; there has been substantial progress in disarmament, with over 150 businesses handing over weapons. A number of arms caches have been discovered, one last week buried close to a newly built Islamic school included 106 anti-tank mines and 48 rocket launchers; ammunition kits and uniforms from Eritrea were also found. Neighborhood clan groups have been set up in almost all districts of Mogadishu to prevent any attempt by terrorists to return. The newly trained police force of the TFG is deploying on the streets and the police stations have all been re-opened. Troops of the AMISOM peace support operation are now patrolling in various areas, as well as guarding the port and airport. Most of Mogadishu is now beginning to return, if gradually, to relative normality. I would, in this context, emphasize that most of the fighting in the city was confined to only three or four districts in the north-west, and much of the city was able to continue normal life from the end of December. I would also remind you that this was when the clan elders of Mogadishu ordered the Islamic Courts to leave Mogadishu and invited the Ethiopian troops to enter the city – facts of which you appear to be unaware.

You said that “the conflict between Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and its opponents has caused more than 1,000 deaths, most of them civilians, killed by the TFG and allied Ethiopian troops.” This really is disgraceful, and it is, as you must very well know if you have been following events in Mogadishu as closely as you claim, substantially untrue. You must know that the opposition (as you so politely refer to a body made up largely of al-Shabaab fighters, responsible for hundreds of assassinations of moderate Hawiye politicians in the last few years, and foreign mudjadeen from over 20 countries) had been carrying out random shelling and mortar attacks in Mogadishu for months. Many, possibly a majority, of civilian casualties came from this shelling which intensified during the government attempts to oust al-Shabaab at the end of March and again in mid-April. There is plenty of evidence of destruction of houses, hotels, shops, schools, restaurants, hospitals and clinics from these apparently random attacks on non-military targets. You mention that Ethiopian troops have been accused of indiscriminate shelling. You make no mention of al-Shabaab’s extensive and indiscriminate attacks and random shelling, nor of the accusations against al-Shabaab. May I ask, why not? The evidence is incontrovertible and extensive. In the context of your presentation it is surely of crucial relevance. Its absence leads me to suspect your presentation been informed exclusively by information from opponents of the TFG.

A similar lack of concern for accuracy appears to be present in your comments on the Ethiopia Eritrea border, where you seriously misrepresent the position of Ethiopia and the activities of Eritrea. Again, I have to say it is very hard to see how you can manage to do this so comprehensively by accident.

The Ethiopian government has not resisted the implementation of the Boundary Commission’s Decisions, nor has it called for further negotiations. You really should read what both sides have been saying over the last couple of years, not just Eritrea. Can I quote from an exchange at the last meeting of the Boundary Commission with the two parties, in March 2006. (I would incidentally remind you that it was Eritrea which subsequently has refused to attend any more meetings).
“Mr. Picard [Counsel for the Ethiopia Government]: I think everyone on this room is aware that the Ethiopian Government has said it accepts the Boundary Commission’s delimitation decision. We are not seeking a new decision; we are not seeking an amendment to the decision and so let us leave aside this as an excuse for anyone. The task before us is demarcation and so I think we should proceed on that basis and that understanding.
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht [President of the Boundary Commission]: We have taken note of the fact that Ethiopia has accepted the delimitation decision. At one time there was a qualification of that acceptance by the expression “in principle” and we understand that that has now been dropped so it is a complete and unconditional acceptance, so there is no doubt that Ethiopia is willing to move on to the complete demarcation of the boundary and all we are trying to do now is figure how to go about that.”

This is surely clear enough, isn’t it?

For its part, Eritrea has consistently failed to accept that the specific placement of the demarcation pillars requires discussion, as even the Boundary Commission acknowledges. More to the point, over the last year or so, Eritrea has deliberately, and seriously, flouted the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of June 2000, by the movement of substantial numbers of troops and armor, including tanks, into the demilitarized Transitional Security Zone (TSZ), supposedly presided over by the United Nations Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE). It has, as you certainly should be well aware, accompanied these moves by imposing a number of constraints on the movement of UNMEE, forcing it to scale back its activities and rendering UNMEE essentially impotent. UNMEE is no longer able to carry out its functions – functions which are actually necessary for any successful demarcation of the border to take place. I am sure you must have seen UNMEE’s comments on this? Eritrea has consistently refused a series of demands from the UN Security Council to rescind the restrictions on UNMEE or to remove its troops from the TSZ. Both of these activities, it might be noted, are in total violation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and must inevitably put the whole future of the Algiers Agreement of December 2000 in doubt.

You claim that Amnesty International has an interest in the Ethiopia Eritrea border issue because should another conflict break out this will cause severe suffering and by implication this would be Ethiopia’s fault. Quite frankly this appears specious. We would point out that there is no evidence whatever that Ethiopia is likely to start a war on the border. There must be a substantial presumption that any conflict would be started by Eritrea which has an unequaled record of aggression in the region. Indeed, in this context, I would note that Ethiopia has made it very clear that it will never be the first to start hostilities with Eritrea. It did not do so in May 1998; as you well know, Eritrea did. Your strictures would be better addressed to Eritrea which started war against Ethiopia in May 1998, attacked Yemen without warning two years earlier, and has threatened both Djibouti and Sudan with conflict. Most recently, as the UN Report late last year itemized, it was pouring men and arms into Somalia as a means of promoting a proxy war with Ethiopia. One result of this was the appalling massacre in eastern Ethiopia in late April when a terrorist attack left 74 people dead, including a three year old child. I have to say I thought that Amnesty International’s comments (one can hardly call them criticisms) on this terrorist outrage were remarkably restrained. As far as I am aware no effort was made to establish the facts by talking to people in the Somali regional state, or indeed in Ethiopia. The perpetrators were the Ogaden National Liberation Front, an organization known to be supported by Eritrea. It is the recipient of Eritrean arms, training and support; and Asmara is indeed where its leadership currently resides.

Your presentation also included a call for the immediate and unconditional release of those prisoners which Amnesty International considers to be prisoners of conscience, who have not used or advocated violence, and were peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression. This, of course, is exactly the point of their present trial: whether or not they were advocating violence. The judges have now ruled that there is a case to answer for some charges. I can accept that Amnesty International can express doubts about the charges, or even over the fairness of the trial (though I would refer you to the views of the current EU Trial Observer on this), but your demands do appear to amount to an attempt to influence the course of justice. As you are probably aware a significant number of charges have been dropped, and 28 defendants had been released when the judges ruled they had no case to answer. If this is the sort of political trial which AI claims it to be, this would appear to demonstrate a welcome exhibition of independence by the judiciary.

In this context, I am somewhat concerned by Amnesty International’s continuous use of certain phrases: “reportedly still held”, “reportedly detained”, “reportedly pressured”; “political prisoners …still held,” particularly with reference to members or alleged members of armed opposition movements, including the Ogaden National Liberation Front and the Oromo Liberation Front. I do not know whether the people referred to are still detained or not, but nor, I am equally sure, do you; the very use of the word “reportedly” indicates as much. Can I suggest you might actually investigate what the situation is before making such pronouncements.

We do listen to human rights organizations, but I should not have to remind you that they, as all members of society, also have certain responsibilities of accuracy and impartiality, to society as well as to their own mandate. Your criticisms of Ethiopia would be more acceptable if you got your facts right and if you showed some awareness of Ethiopia’s efforts to resolve its problems. You appear to have no understanding, and no information about Ethiopian federalism, nor any awareness of government policies towards the rights of minorities or opposition parties. I would remind you, for example, that virtually all of those opposition MPS elected to parliament in 2005 have long since taken up their seats, and currently play an active and critical role in parliament.

We certainly accept that Amnesty International has a mandate to look at human rights internationally. We are less than convinced that this should allow you to make representations about foreign policy issues outside your competence, and, it would appear, your areas of knowledge.

Be that as it may, I would specifically ask you to try and establish facts before you make comments in future. By any standards, your testimony to the Committee on Foreign Affairs was seriously flawed. You make a number of extremely serious errors. Your presentation demonstrates what can only be described as a serious lack of impartiality towards the Government of Ethiopia and its attempts to improve human rights in Ethiopia. Your testimony underlines precisely my point that Amnesty International does not have an open mind about Ethiopia, and that it makes far too little effort to establish the facts before indulging in unrestrained and all too often inaccurate criticisms. We are not trying to conceal errors; we are certainly aware that human rights in Ethiopia is “a work in progress”, but we would point out that it is actually ‘in progress’.

It appears to us that Amnesty International assumes that all allegations against the Government of Ethiopia are true. We would also note, as you must also very well know, that many such allegations are politically motivated. You make no effort to investigate the reality of the claims as your presentation on May 10th emphasizes all too clearly. To quote the US Ambassador in Ethiopia: “there’s a lot of misinformation about Ethiopia …the problem comes in trying to decide what is fact and what’s fiction.” You do not seem able to distinguish between them.

Yours sincerely

Solomon Abebe, Ambassador
Director General, Press, Information and Documentation Directorate
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

cc. Mr. Larry Cox, Executive Director. Amnesty International USA
Ms. Irene Khan, Secretary-General, Amnesty International, UK
Mr. Erwin Van Der Borght, Acting Director, Africa Programme, Amnesty International UK.