Human Rights Watch's latest report:  a political agenda  

Despite this imbalance HRW claims to produce a balanced report, to comment on human rights abuses by all sides. On the evidence of this report, and earlier reports, this is simply nonsense. There is no balance and no attempt at balance. This indeed is the central difficulty of this report. HRW accepts all ONLF claims unquestioningly, and assumes that all Ethiopian statements are false. HRW has long history here of misleading, inaccurate and one-sided comment, and this report continues this approach. It starts with the assertion that Ethiopia has failed to investigate claims of abuse or hold anyone responsible. This is not true. Equally, the claim that : "Ethiopian authorities .stepped up their forced recruitment of local militia forces, many of whom are sent to fight against the ONLF without military training, resulting in large casualty rates," is no more than ONLF propaganda, as HRW very well knows. HRW could easily have found this out had it bothered to probe just a little into its sources in Kenya or the US. The claim that satellite imagery can prove that Ethiopian troops burnt villages is farcical, and illustrates a typical HRW technique. All satellite photographs can prove is that a village has been burnt. They cannot show who burnt the village, why it was done, or how it was done. HRW extrapolates from the single point that a village has been burnt to build an un-provable superstructure of exaggeration Satellite imagery adds nothing to Human Rights Watch allegations and is, of course, valueless in assessing whether the ONLF, villagers or Ethiopian troops or anybody else might have burnt a village or whether the destruction happened by accident or design. In fact, in this specific case, the way satellite imagery is being used, in an attempt to add a veneer of respectability to unfounded HRW allegations, merely abuses science. It cannot, and does not provide any proof of anything. This is why the view that all this might have been motivated by geo-political considerations cannot be ruled out.

The report shows no knowledge or understanding of Somali Regional State politics, of the ONLF, or of the Ogadeen clan. There is no need for Ethiopia to recruit "local militia forces". There are plenty of Ogadeen clan militias which are opposed to the ONLF. They do not need to be recruited or armed by the Regional Government. They are quite prepared to defend themselves against the ONLF, whose efforts to intimidate and pressurize local populations in the zones in which they operate, are well documented. ONLF actions include the killing of clan elders and of villagers, the burning of villages, the destruction of property and animals as well as assassinations of local Ogadeen government officials and regional government supporters, and the bombing of markets and public meetings. It is hardly surprising that ONLF support is very limited.  

It is difficult in fact to accept that HRW is prepared to evaluate evidence seriously. HRW, for example, knows perfectly well that to claim that "some foreign journalists who have attempted to conduct independent investigations have been arrested" is a travesty of the truth. One group of three journalists, from the New York Times, were detained and expelled after traveling for two weeks with the ONLF after the killing at Obole. As was very clear from the articles written by Jeffery Gettleman subsequently, "independent" and "investigation" were scarcely applicable words. He clearly made no efforts to query ONLF claims, nor any attempt to probe their allegations. He is content to parrot the ONLF line, indeed his articles might have been written by the ONLF. 

The report claims Ethiopia was responsible for a food blockade as part of an effort to cut off economic support to the ONLF. Several, and obvious, points might be made. Much of the cross-border trade and much of the food relief operations are carried out by non-Ogadeen traders and vehicles. These, as the report briefly notes, were a 'regular target' of the ONLF. In a remarkably restrained reference to the literally hundreds of landmines that have been planted and the hundreds of human and vehicular casualties, the report merely notes that "[the ONLF] has at times .used landmines in a manner that indiscriminately harmed civilians". In fact, hundreds of vehicles have been destroyed (and drivers killed) by ONLF attacks and by land mines over the years.

The effect of ONLF actions on cross border traffic and on food distribution was far greater than any Ethiopian military activity, though certainly the necessity of controlling cross-border arms supplies (coming from Eritrea via Al-Shabaab and the ARS in Somalia), and of providing military convoys and checking the roads for land mines all made for considerable delays last year. None of this gets into HRW's view of events in the region. The report in fact consistently, and deliberately, plays down the activities of the ONLF and the support it has received from Eritrea in the last year which has been largely responsible for the sudden expansion of terrorist activity. It is hard to believe it is mere coincidence that the ONLF issued another of their invented military communiqués this week to coincide with HRW's report, and with Eritrea's current cross-border incursions into Djibouti territory. 

HRW's claim that NGOs were stopped from entering the region last September is not true. Not even MSF, despite its claims to the contrary, was refused entry. It withdrew from the region of its own volition citing security issues. When attempting to return, it was stopped at a military checkpoint and asked, politely, to clear its movements with the local administration as Fiq, to which it was trying to go, was considered dangerous for foreigners. To elevate this into the claim that NGOs were being refused entry into the region is inaccurate, and dishonest. 

Many of these points have been made to HRW at various times. It has taken no notice of them. Inevitably, Ethiopia finds it difficult to cooperate with an organization which has so very clearly demonstrated its lack of integrity, its bias and above all its political rather than its human rights agenda. HRW's report is not only seriously flawed and obviously biased; it also appears to have a political dimension. The failure to record even the admitted abuses of the ONLF, let alone investigate the many allegations against its activities, suggests it is more interested in what amounts to a vendetta against the Government of Ethiopia. In fact, in its recommendations it makes it clear that what it is after is for the US, and other donors, to change their policies towards Ethiopia. The point is underlined by HRW's naïvely ignorant comment that western governments are fearful that a "robust stance on human rights" will strengthen Ethiopia's ties to China. HRW accuses the US and the UK governments for "one-sided" comments on the Ogaden because they concentrated more on criticizing the ONLF than the Ethiopian government. Ironically it has itself done precisely this, producing a continuous series of one-sided and inaccurate comments, criticizing the Ethiopian government but not the ONLF.  

We would return to a question we have posed to HRW before. Why are you so determined to attack and criticize the Ethiopian government alone, even to the extent of accepting clearly perjured and invented claims from a terrorist organization while refusing to accept clear evidence of human rights abuse by that same organization? You have done this over the Somali Regional State; you have done exactly the same with reference to the fighting in Mogadishu, refusing to accept impeccable evidence of Al-Shabaab terrorism, while accepting without demur any and all claims, however improbable or exaggerated, about  the activities of Ethiopian troops or TFG security forces. The deliberateness with which HRW does this amounts to nothing less than a campaign. Indeed, it is hard to acquit HRW of malice. There seems to be little other credible explanation apart from the possibility that its researchers have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by those who wish to ensure they have sufficient grounds to be accepted as refugees.

As we have frequently said: Ethiopia is very aware of its shortcomings in terms of human rights. Nobody is trying to sweep human rights abuses under the carpet as HRW claims. Ethiopia has, and will continue, to investigate allegations as and when they are made as the reports of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission makes clear. We would ask, not for the first time - has HRW bothered to access these? Police in the Somali Regional State always investigate claims of rape or other abuses when they are made. They will always do if brought to their attention. However, allegations made by un-named members of an armed terrorist movement who are living in the US or outside the country, are difficult to investigate. We are trying hard to improve. This is why we have signed up to international human rights conventions. This is why we set up a Human Rights Commission and an Ombudsman's Office. This is why these organizations have to report to Parliament every nine months. This is why we have been carrying out extensive human rights training of police and military officers. We have to say that unbalanced, politically motivated attacks in the guise of human rights reports, using unsubstantiated allegations obviously drawn from ONLF propaganda, do not help.
 
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs