Torture and Ethiopia

Vicki Huddleston and Tibor Nagy warn darkly in The New York Times of an insidious bill before the congress that "would destabilize the region and bolster radical Islam’s push to build a Muslim caliphate . . . puts Congress unwittingly on the side of Islamic jihadists and insurgents." The bill in question, you see, "threatens to cut off technical assistance to Ethiopia, one of our closest allies, if it does not, among other things, release political prisoners, ensure that the judiciary operates independently and permit the news media to operate freely."

Personally, I'd like to see the list of allies such that Ethiopia comes out as "one of our closest" -- it doesn't seem like an especially plausible claim. The closeness of the partnership seems to consist primarily of using Ethiopia as a site for "renditions" and torture which is not a relationship I'm super-keen on preserving.

Comments

Besides the rendition/torture angle, Ethiopia attacked, with help from the US air force, the Islamic Union forces in neighboring Somalia. Thus Ethiopia, like Pakistan, is an ally in the war on terror.

Posted by Jeff | November 16, 2007 3:30 PM

The closeness of the partnership seems to consist primarily of using Ethiopia as a site for "renditions" and torture

The link you provided does not state that the United States uses Ethiopia as a site for renditions.

Posted by Al | November 16, 2007 3:35 PM

Personally, I'd like to see the list of allies such that Ethiopia comes out as "one of our closest"

Ethiopia came to the assistance of a government (the Baidoa government of Somalia) that was supported by the international community - the UN and the AU - and that was in danger of being destroyed in a civil war. For any country or person who believes in international institutions like the UN and AU, Ethiopia should be widely praised. And, thus, for Ethiopia's service to the international community, Ethiopia should be praised as a US ally.

Remember that institutions such as the UN and the AU are the backbone of our international system. It is sad that people like Matthew intentionally try to undermine that international system by condemning countries like Ethiopia that come to the aid of government supported by the UN and the AU.

Posted by Al | November 16, 2007 3:45 PM

Perhaps the point was that Ethiopia was our ally in the sense that it is fighting a proxy war for us in Somalia. However the authors seem to imply it consists in holding the Christian line against the Saracen hordes.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 16, 2007 3:46 PM

"Ethiopia came to the assistance of a government (the Baidoa government of Somalia) that was supported by the international community - the UN and the AU - and that was in danger of being destroyed in a civil war."

Scummy Al, in a scummy lie.

Posted by Jennifer | November 16, 2007 3:50 PM

Scummy Al, you lying scum, Ethiopia invaded Somalia for no reason other than imperialism, with our encouragement, and there has been death and destruction ever since. Scummy Al, you are a scummy liar. The scummiest liar ever, Scummy Al.

Posted by Jennifer | November 16, 2007 3:54 PM

Hey Jennifer, maybe you could quit making those asinine, juvenile defamation-of-character comments? Because they contribute nothing, absolutely nothing, to any thread you've posted on.

Posted by James Gary | November 16, 2007 4:17 PM

AI:
The link you provided does not state that the United States uses Ethiopia as a site for renditions.

from the link:
"After the release of 16 of them, several claimed torture, and some even claimed that the FBI participated in their abuse."

Aren't you being naive, AI?

From the front page of today's NYTimes: "When Mr. McCain brings up the issue of torture, he is often met by a complex response. Many of the Republican voters he courts do not agree with his opposition to aggressive interrogation techniques that many have condemned as torture. But they are often captivated by his discussion of the issue, in some cases even moved to tears, as was the case in Boone."

McCain knows it's going on while many Republican voters believe it would be stupid not to torture our enemies.

Posted by Peter K. | November 16, 2007 4:20 PM

"Because they contribute nothing, absolutely nothing, to any thread you've posted on."

Oh and that Al is just a gem. /sarcasm. Slimy sophist.

Posted by David in NY | November 16, 2007 4:23 PM

Bizrro Op-ed. They say the US needs to

buttress Ethiopia against threats to its survival

Is Ethiopia in an existential danger? Did they just use an op-ed about Israel and then use "find and replace"?

And why does the US need to trake Ethiopia's side on the Ethiopia/Eritrea border dispute, as the op-ed argues?

Posted by Donin | November 16, 2007 4:24 PM

Al's point, although one of at best minor moral relevance, is strictly speaking right. The article talks about us sending people to other countries to be tortured. And it notes that Kenya has copied us by sending people to Ethiopia for torture. And those people allege that some of our people have supervised the torture (although if that werer true shouldn't it be the CIA rather than the FBI?). But it does not in fact allege that we have sent anyone to Ethiopia to be tortured.

So while it is alleged that we send people to other countries to be tortured, that Ethiopia is an ally of ours, and that Ethipoia accepts people being sent there to be tortured, it does not actually say that we send people to Ethiopia to be tortured.

Posted by Lon | November 16, 2007 4:37 PM

While Al's sudden interest in and appraisal of international law and institutions is certainly commendable, if a bit surprising given his general outlook on things, it seems that he is unfortunately rather misinformed as far as the issue at hand is concerned. Had he taken the trouble to research and evaluate the human rights situation in the Horn of Africa thoroughly and objectively, he would certainly be aware that the Ethiopian troops are barely a notch above the universally despised Janjaweed in that they frequently engage in such actions as ransacking whole villages and indiscriminately raping, torturing and murdering their inhabitants as a way of meting out collective punishment. He would also know that Kenya, Ethiopia and the US government have been involved in secretly detaining, interrogating and torturing more than a hundred people, amongst them women and toddlers. Now since such actions clearly violate both the spirit and the letter of international law, it seems that Al, being the impartial and honest political observer he is, would be forced to either reevaluate his praise for Ethiopia and US support of it or retract his fervent advocacy of international institutions designed to uphold international low.

Posted by novakant | November 16, 2007 4:38 PM

law

Posted by novakant | November 16, 2007 4:40 PM

Perhaps the point was that Ethiopia was our ally in the sense that it is fighting a proxy war for us in Somalia. However the authors seem to imply it consists in holding the Christian line against the Saracen hordes.

Ethiopia would have a difficult time "holding the Christian line" if for no other reason than that it's close to half Muslim itself.

Posted by Peter | November 16, 2007 5:02 PM

Al's point [that the link Matthew provided does not state that the United States uses Ethiopia as a site for renditions], although one of at best minor moral relevance, is strictly speaking right.

Well, it may be of minor moral relevance, given that there would seem to be little moral distinction between rendering someone to Egypt, as opposed to Ethiopia.

Nevertheless, it seems to me to be of great importance in respect of Matthew's argument, since Matthew argued that our alliance with Ethiopia is based on rendition and torture. As I pointed out, Matthew has zero evidence for his assertion, since the "evidence" Matthew provided doesn't say that we use Ethiopia for rendition and torture.

Posted by Al | November 16, 2007 5:02 PM

Time will tell whether Ethiopia is the same kind of "ally" as the regime that Castro overthrew in Cuba. Or the Shah of Iran. Or the Diem regime of South Vietnam. Or Ferdinand Marcos. Or Saddam Hussein. Or the "moderate" Iranians. Or Pervez Musharraf. Or this-or-that faction of Shiites, Sunnis and their uncles.

Even with the best intelligence and the noblest intentions, we Americans just aren't very good at choosing our puppets. With the Bush Administration, our prospects are reduced a hundredfold.

We've a long, bipartisan history of blowback from poorly-chosen proxies. Whether directly through their own corruption and brutality, or indirectly through fallout from their eventual ouster, such "allies" have a way of proving themselves more trouble than they're worth.

To a first approximation, the United States should just avoid these relationships. We need to purge ourselves of George Bush's moral relativism about torture. Torture is wrong. Period. We must stop torturing, stop rendering prisoners to "allies" who torture, and make torturers ineligible for American friendship.

The imaginary torturer who helped diffuse a ticking nuclear time bomb should explain that to a jury. If the jury isn't convinced, he should STFU and accept his punishment, taking quiet satisfaction in his heroic disobedience.

Posted by Jalmari | November 16, 2007 5:16 PM

People like Al make me sick.Unfortunately the Bush administration has many like him who think the same way.

Al I wish you don't comment on things that you have no clue of .

The HR2003 is all about improvement for abuse on human rights because the Ethiopian dictator hiding behing the phony war on terror is decimating people in Ethiopia,Somalia and Eritrea.

Hear are gorry examples if you have morbid facination of what is happening for people that asked for their voice to be heard.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11462551@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethioblogger/

And about the rendetion in Ethiopia by American agents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tf7YdZOqvQ

so please stop waffling and do some research before you put down people that know.

Posted by simon | November 16, 2007 5:18 PM

Personally, I'd like to see the list of allies such that Ethiopia comes out as "one of our closest" ...

The U.S.'s current diplomatic position is sort of like the end of the movie Heathers, where the Winona Ryder character ends up bagging the prom because virtually all of her friends are dead or mad at her. A few years ago, Ethiopia wouldn't crack our top 25. Now, we're just lucky Ethiopia will still sit at our lunch table.

Posted by alkali | November 16, 2007 5:40 PM

Our alliance with Prester John against the Musselmen has been our highest priority since the Crusades.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 16, 2007 6:00 PM

Actually, this medieval idea of opening up a two-front attack on Islam by a united Christendom wasn't just theoretical. In 1306, the king of Abyssinia ("Prester John")sent a 30-man ambassadorial delegation to meet with the pope in Avignon. The record we have of it from an Italian priest suggests this wasn't surprising to Europeans, so there may have been other delegations from Ethiopia to Europe.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 16, 2007 6:04 PM

"Time will tell whether Ethiopia is the same kind of "ally" as the regime that Castro overthrew in Cuba. Or the Shah of Iran. Or the Diem regime of South Vietnam. Or..."

No, we know right now. This is a bloody Communist dictatorship, so it approximates Cuba AFTER Batista and North Vietnam. Except that is govern nowhere as efficiently as more developed Communist countries.

We were always at war with Eastasia. Although it would be nice to get an explanation why should we keep embargo on Cuba.

Ethiopia has some legitimate reason to intervene in Somalia, because it WAS on the receiving end of Somali irredentism. But it is also very represive with urban opposition and has low level civil war going on. They also picked a fight with Erithrea really for no good reason and are reaping the consequences (Erithrea supporting Somali extremists).

It would be nice if a country befriending USA would become less repressive, less stupid about foreign policy, and, who knows, getting less kleptocratic and better at development. It would make aliance much more productive and perhaps popular internally. It is much easier to pander to bloody dictators and use their expertise in torture and the capabilities to maintain a dirty war. But we encourage excesses and assure future backlash, while gains are quite questionable.

OK, so back to the aliance with Communists against Islamofascism. True spirit of Yalta.

Posted by piotr | November 16, 2007 6:27 PM

And, just one more link RE Ethiopia and rendition - the recent Frontline program:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/

Posted by mathew johnson | November 16, 2007 8:55 PM

By the way, Eritrea has been itching to fight Ethiopia over some worthless desert ever since their last (and quite impressive) war in the 1990s. Most African wars are fought without pitched battles between evenly matched armies -- they're mostly massacres of civilians -- but Ethiopia vs. Eritrea was like a miniature WWI (trench warfare) and WWII (tanks). According to the War Nerd, the constant preparation for war is basically a nation-building exercise with some positive domestic results. Eritrea is now among the least corrupt and most effective states in Africa and Ethiopia, a vast empire, is more cohesive than in the past due to having common enemies over the borders.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 16, 2007 8:57 PM

Our alliance with Prester John against the Musselmen has been our highest priority since the Crusades.

Free advice: For the sake of showmanship, Steve, dammit, don't go explaining your jokes once you've made them! If you're gonna name-check Prester John, you gotta have faith that readers here are smart enough to get the reference!

Posted by James Gary | November 16, 2007 8:58 PM

Our goal is to get every nation to work to rid the world of violent radical Islamist terrorists.

Many of those nations, like China, Russia, Israel, Indonesia, and even France with their DST work at it in ways that the progressive Jewish lawyers that dominate human rights groups, and puffed up little Belgian Euroweenie lawyers disapprove of.

What shall we instead do? Demand that Russia and Ethiopia and Kuwait wait until they become so much like perfectly moral Sweden before NGO enlightened schmucks like Ayren Neier, Kenneth Roth sanction it is permissable they do anything about unlawful enemy Muslim combatants? So that Lefty Jews and smug fashionably Red Oxford Dons are happy they are not being hypocritical?

It's hard to remain neutral. Either you support or shelter the Jihadis or you work to stop them. I am quite happy that France gives them nightmares, French-style by the DST. I am happy that China has impressed on it's Muslims that they not dare offer radical Islamists sanctuary in their part of the Himilayas. And that Filipinos have their way, we have ours...

Posted by Chris Ford | November 16, 2007 9:08 PM

Our goal is to get every nation to work to rid the world of violent radical Islamist terrorists.

Yeah, just like back in the Cold War days when we supported every repressive regime that paid lip service to being "anti-Communist." What an effective long-term strategy that was!

Posted by James Gary | November 16, 2007 9:32 PM

Chris,

It is well and good going after radical Islamist, but when you start muddling the issue and go after every body in sight or let leaders of other countries excuse repression and torture for fighting terror, you have problem.

I will give you an example. Eritrea used to be a staunch US ally and was figthing radicals including Bin Laden in the early 90's, way before 9/11 when he was hiding in Sudan.

This is what the defence secretary Donald Rumsfield has to say in 2002.
"Eritrea Could Teach U.S. Much to Combat Terror"
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42407

but few years later, we have managed to alienate Eritrea by siding with the wrong side (Ethiopia) that is refusing to abide by international law, and using the war on terror for its own agenda, rather than fighting the radicals intelligently.

While we pump a massive aid to Ethiopia, when we know they are murdering their own people, flauting international law etc, we are threathening to list Eritrea as sponsor of terror, because it rightly got pissed off with us.

So you can see the logic of our brilliant thinking and excution of the war on terror.

Posted by Dan | November 16, 2007 9:52 PM

Not to mention that we support countries that murder their own people all the time (not to mention being one of them, if a little lagging on the numbers), while proclaiming that it was right to get bogged down in Iraq because Saddam was "murdering his own people".

The hypocrisy is stifling, but very primate.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 16, 2007 10:15 PM

Our goal is to get every nation to work to rid the world of violent radical Islamist terrorists.

Yeah, just like back in the Cold War days when we supported every repressive regime that paid lip service to being "anti-Communist." What an effective long-term strategy that was!
Posted by James Gary

Where were you when the Berlin Wall fell and China morphed into a capitalist economy-commie Politburo nation?

Hugging your portrait of Stalin and crying?

Posted by Chris Ford | November 16, 2007 11:24 PM

Ford, just because you're Gordon Liddy's love toy doesn't mean you can call just anybody a Stalinite.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 17, 2007 12:05 AM

Don't forget using Ethiopia to destroy Somalia.

Ethiopian troops have razed 1/3 of Mogadishu, driven residents from their homes, and pillaged anything that's left standing. They fire on anyone they see, roll through markets flattening people and goods with their tanks, and open up with artillery on the remaining residential neighborhoods -as Jendaye Frazer applauds.

Posted by Nur al-Cubicle | November 17, 2007 12:36 AM

I propose that anyone who takes the threat of a revived Caliphate seriously should be preemptively excluded from serious discourse. (Of course, taking terrorists who might do serious damage because of their delusions that they're going to create a new Caliphate seriously is another matter.)

Posted by Julian Elson | November 17, 2007 1:57 AM

The opening paragraph of the pernitious op-ed:

"Today Eritrea and Ethiopia could reignite their old border conflict. Arms and money from radicals throughout the Middle East, as well as troops trained in Eritrea, have strengthened an insurgency in Ogaden Province, in southeastern Ethiopia."

Here is the rub: as far as I can surmize, Erithrean leaders do not give a damn about Islamic radicals or Somali clans in Ethiopia. But they have this stupid border dispute. Which lead to a surprisingly bloody war, and arbitration. Here is the rub: Ethiopia rejected the results of the arbitration and keeps some totally inconsequential border town in her hands. Which makes Erithrea seething with somewhat justified resentment etc.

So arming Ethiopia against "danger for her survival" is arming the ruling thugs for the fights they picked themselves to fight. Here is a problem if you make aliance with thugs. Do you say "in case of A, we have the same interest, so we will help in that instance" or you support their darkest follies?

Probably some modes of cooperation with thuggish regimes have to exists, as progressives themselves are advocating. But the neo-connish idea seems to be to divide thugs at those "with us", and fund them without restriction, and those "against us", and plot their demise, usually ineffectively. We could save considerable amount of money and face by restricting both. And gain a lot, because we would cooperate with "agaist us thugs" who can offer constructive help where he have common interest, like cooperating with Iran on curtailing drug production in Afghanistan, inclusing rural development schemes.

We make aliance with thirld-world Communists who are just a notch better than Khmer Rouge, and we call Iranian leader "the worst dictator".

Posted by piotr | November 17, 2007 5:12 AM

Piotr and James Gary,

If you think that the Cold War policy of supporting anti-Communist tyrants was a bad idea (and I think it was an absolutely evil idea, even more than you probably do) then how does it make sense to reflexively oppose 'communist' (or more accurately post communist) third world governments today for no reason other than that they're post communist. The big enemy today is Islamic fundamentalism.

Ethiopia has been holding the line against Islamic aggression for over a thousand years. Islamic infiltration has increased the Muslim population and whittled away at Ethiopia's borders but it is still a Christian state as it was from the fourth century.
The conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia dates back to unprovoked Somali aggression and invasion in 1977. Somalia is an Islamic fundamentalist and highly patriarchal state run by allies of the Taliban. 98% of Somali women are subject to the horrible practice of female circumcision, and the Somalian warlord and fundamentalist factions have succeeded in making their country a hell hole with no functioning government. I don't see what posisble grounds there are for denying that in the Ethiopia-Somalia war, a decent person (and in particular, a Christian) ought to support Ethiopia.

Posted by Hector | November 17, 2007 9:32 AM

“ No regime that terrorizes its citizens can be a reliable ally in the war on terror ”.
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Posted by Simon | November 17, 2007 1:38 PM

American foreign policy is reverting back to policy of realpolitik rather that actively promoting democratic change. A policy based on the appeasement of dictators and despots, that was discredited and failed to secure American interests and security in the past.

Now we send f***ups like Vicki Huddleston,Tibor Nagy and Jendayi Frazer to look after America's interest in the horn of Africa and the middle east. God save them, as the ill conceived lies are disintegrating by the day.

Here is an interesting thing that came out from the neohawk John Bolton's latest memoir “Surrender is not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” that implicated the very same people trying to manipulate things in the Ethio/Eritrea border decision, where America was meant to be impartial arbitrator.

http://www.biddho.com/content/view/481/29/lang,english/

Posted by Simon | November 17, 2007 8:27 PM

Simon or shall i call you the Eritrean agent?
You are trying hard to destablize Ethiopia with your somalian agents and Supporting HR2003.
That is what the article exactly address, the bill only weaken Ethiopia and support the terrorist, that is why Eritrean agents like you working day and nite with Chris Smith to destroy Ethiopia.

Posted by Man | November 18, 2007 10:00 PM

Man,

Don't get your knickers in a twist.

How does stating facts make me an agent ?
How does good governance and improvement of human right weaken Ethiopia ?
Stop barking, by the looks of it your despotic leader (assuming you are Ethiopian) has not heed the warning and he is carpet bombing his own people. Go argue with him and while you are at it check the definition of terrorist.

afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1W9Bso7l6ywtfhIN5fak2Y8JJkg

Posted by simon | November 19, 2007 12:03 AM