Who defines Good Governance? The Corrupt Greedy Western Beurocrats or the Parliaments of respective countries?

Dear Patriotic Global Citizens:

Here is the challenge of the Millennium. Can NGOs and QuasiNGOs replace the old Colonial Cartels in Africa?

Is democracy- self administration by the people for the people or that based on transparency and accountability be hijacked by Foreign Policy Interests?

Is this not out right Counter insurgency promoting diplomatic terrorism?

How can we expect few with money dictate terms to others by masquerading as charities when they are really corrupting influences be it monetary, sexual and out right cultural pollution of other societies.

Please read on how democracy can be easily abused by greedy security and diplomatic speculators similar to Energy, Food and Housing speculators that are reeling the global economy into deep recession and out right chaos.

Can we look for alternative global integration of good governance nations against corrupt and cow boy nations? That is the real question.

WatChning the Paris Hilton Presidential Campaign Video Advertisement, it sounds that Holy Wood and the Entertainment industry is better equipped to address the challenges of our time... Hybrid energy and hybrid democracy might be the way for ward.

hERE IS THE eprdf SUPPLORT fORUM PERSPECTIVE AND YOU CAN VOICE YOUR ALTENATIVE IDEAS TOO.




Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front Support Forum
(EPRDF-SF) Inc.
P.O.BOX 77771; Seattle, WA, 98177
Phone/Fax: (206) 666-2037

Email: PRTeam@EPRDF-SF.ORG.
WWW.EPRDF-SF.ORG


The Changing Role of NGOs and US-China Rivalry for Africa It is becoming increasingly obvious that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who started from humble beginnings with humanitarian intentions have transformed into policymaking authorities to protect the interest of their funding countries and major corporations.

Now more than ever, NGOs are being considered as the most important force that can slow down the growing influence and economic prowess of China in Africa. The intention to use NGOs to halt China’s influence is illustrated by the most recent statements made by two US officials condemning the draft Civil Society Organization (CSO) regulation by the Ethiopian Government.

In his recent speech, Senator Feingold said,

“Under the Charities and Societies Proclamation, non-Ethiopian organizations would be prohibited from engaging in democracy, human rights, good governance, or conflict resolution activities, and national Civil society groups would have to forgo foreign funding and submit to strict Government regulation….

If passed in its current format, this bill would have a devastating impact on our foreign policy objectives and Ethiopia's development as a robust democracy.”

One may find it mystifying why a seating US Senator believed the draft Ethiopian CSO law - or any law by sovereign African country for that matter-regulating CSOs will have a devastating impact on the US foreign policy.


The other US official is David Kramer, Assistant Secretary Of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

On his recent press statement on Addis Fortune 2 he said, “We have been extremely impressed with the progress this country has made over the past 17 years… [But] there is concern in Washington, which is echoed here too, that the political space is being closed.” Secretary Kramer’s statement is in relation to the new draft Civil Society Organization (CSO) regulation by the Ethiopian Government.

For the record, as a diplomat, Secretary Kramer was careful not to mingle his words by interchangeably using NGOs and CSOs. Mr. Kramer is very well aware that the new draft law has very little to do with NGOs such as Oxfam that actually do charity work or other NGOs that have remained true to the traditional NGO activities.

Yet he appears to echo Senator Feingold’s concern of US interests.

The question that needs to be asked is: why does a foreign government considers it devastating to its foreign policy objective if it is not allowed to fund Ethiopian CSOs and political parties?

The hypocrisy and insincerity of such statements by US government officials is that they object to the draft law by Ethiopia when they know very well that the US Non-Profit certification law imposes similar regulation.

A US based Civil Society Organization with political objective is prohibited from receiving funds from foreign governments.


The sad fact is that, with the exception of Africa, nowhere in the world do we find a foreign nationals serving as head of NGOs and demanding constitutions to change, laws to be broken, auditing revenue and aid a government gets from a China, criticizing trade policy and insisting on economic reform.

And when African governments refuse to these demands by NGOs, they are certified as non-democratic, get designated as a failed state and a coordinated global blackmailing campaign is unleashed against them.

The donor countries and corporations desire to make NGOs a fourth branch of government or a parallel government in Africa is gaining grounds. Global NGOs are forming their own surrogate NGOs and are grooming existing indigenous NGOs for this purpose.

If there is any doubt that this war has started, a look at recent activities of human rights boutiques from London and New York is enough. In its periodic report titled “Big Dams: Bringing Poverty, Not Power to Africa,” a large international NGO called International Rivers wrote:

“The home-grown New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) proposes at least 13 dam projects. Dams prioritized under NEPAD include Mozambique's Mphanda Nkuwa; the massive Grand Inga project on the Congo River in DRC; Adjarala Dam in Benin, and the Souapiti and Kaleta Dams in Guinea…….

Resource-hungry China is also ramping up its connections across the African continent, offering to build and finance infrastructure in exchange for oil, minerals, and other raw materials.

Chinese companies are moving heavily into African dam construction, and are currently involved in Merowe Dam in Sudan, whose 174-km reservoir will displace 50,000 farmers from the fertile Nile to harsh desert lands; the 185-metre high Tekeze Dam in Ethiopia, which is expected to increase water-borne illnesses; and a number of others.

China's own poor human rights record and its policy of "non-interference" on human-rights violations in the states it does business” 3 The logic of this NGO here seems to be very confusing.

Are they saying Africans do not need dams because there is an alleged Human Rights violation? Or are they saying that China cannot build dams in return for oil? Or are they so ignorant that they do not know what a dam on Tekeze River can do to help millions of Ethiopians? Or is a Tekeze River dam the only dam in the world that has a potential for water-borne illness?


By the way, International Rivers has campaigned against the Gilgel Gibe dam project in Ethiopia as well. International Rivers does not directly work in Ethiopia but belongs to a network of NGOs, such as Water Aid in Ethiopia, that share the same funding sources.

That is probably how International Rivers managed to get this erroneous information and distorted data to use for such a misdirected campaign. Water Aid is a member of Christian Relief and Development Association (CRDA)3. CRDA is a Christian relief organization but now its activities in Ethiopia appear to have transformed to look more like a CSO than an NGO.


The proof and the intent for using NGOs to play a role to slow China’s growing influence in Africa is found in the most discussed and talked about new US foreign policy direction called “Smart Power.” This being an election year and candidates vying for votes, it would be difficult to forecast or attempt to sift which way this policy is going in the future. However, some policy directions and recommendations are starting to trickle out of foreign policy establishments in the form of advice to
3 http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/africa


the presidential candidates and a Congressional commissioned study to review the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act that recommends new methodology and directions.4
The burning question and much-debated issue in the foreign policy circles is: will Beijing soon become a viable alternative to American leadership around the world?

A Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) commissioned study co-chaired by former Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye, a bipartisan group of former generals, prominent foreign policy advisers, congressmen, private sector CEOs and NGOs recommended the use of a “Smart Power” based US foreign policy to prevent America’s replacement as a leader around the world.5 “Smart Power” is a strategic vision on how to integrate and use soft and hard power together to address current and future challenges.

On the surface, “Smart Power” sounds like the old carrot and stick policy, but has a new highly sought after partner in the playbook: China. The US strategy here is how the US can use China to accomplish its foreign policy objectives. They argue that there is little question about America’s diminished standing abroad and its loss of considerable leverage it enjoyed for a long time.

So many American experts argue that the United States ought to encourage China to join the US as a key stakeholder. While on the surface the Bush administration appeared to be uncompromising in lot of ways, the fact is they have actually been reviewing their policy both as the result of domestic economic pressure and by Democrats after their takeover of the US Congress in the 2006 election.

Still there is a call for a new direction, and the new buzzword in Washington is “Smart Power,” “Regaining America’s Prestige in the world.” This new approach underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions at all levels to expand America’s influence and saving Globalizations form Chinese domination.

Even though it is unusual in election years, it has been a topic of several congressional hearings.

This new policy is not an earth-shattering change as the “New World Order” or “War on Terror;” and has its roots in the traditional and established U.S. foreign policy school of thought:: that is, those who view foreign policy as a tool to improve the U.S. marketplace; and those who are nationalistic but do not fear becoming militarily engaged in order to promote U.S. interests abroad.

The new strategy is in line with a very typical American foreign policy making style; it is incremental and very stealthy and appears in many ways to embrace and integrate the views of recent past presidents such as Bush Senior's "New World Order," Bill Clinton's "Globalization," and George W. Bush's "war on terrorism." The most striking and unusual aspect of this new “Smart Power” policy is the resulting focus on Africa.

Africa, a continent usually relegated to footnotes on major policy papers in Washington, now seems to be a major factor in US versus China chess game.
One of the biggest argument for this new strategy and direction is that “with the US preoccupied in the Middle East, China has deftly stepped into the vacuum left by the United States, primarily to pursue its own economic interests, but possibly also to pursue its long-term strategic goals of 4 http://hose.gov./testimony 5 http://www.csis.org/smartpower/ becoming a global power rather than simply a regional one.” 5

In other words, while United States is losing its leverage of using its soft power, China on the other hand is forgiving debt, and generally offering much needed aid and friendship without attaching political conditions.

What has become known as the “Beijing alternative” provides African nations with an option that places fewer conditions on trade and aid, and asks fewer questions about internal affairs than does Washington. As this resulted in China’s growing global goodwill and political influence, it is fueling resentment in some US quarters.

China’s high-profile role and engagement in Africa has challenged the United States to think far more comprehensively and strategically, and US is seeking to engage China on African matters in the future, effectively courting China to join the so-called “Donor group.” This does not mean that the US policy towards individual African countries will change significantly or China will readily take this new friendship and partnership invitation from the US without pre-conditions, but China may take the bait if it thinks it will benefit it in the long run. In fact, China has started to benefit from this strategy when the State Department recently dropped China from its annual Human Rights review list.

Furthermore, Chinese diplomats in DC are being engaged in a series of dialogs with US think-tanks on how to deal with Africa while African diplomats conspicuously are absent from these discussions.

This comes at a time of major U.S. and Chinese investment in Africa’s energy sector to meet their respective burgeoning energy needs, and it seems the US has finally decided it cannot afford to continue to fight China on the world stage any more. The other aspect of “Smart power” policy calls for the US to plan to circumvent this rivalry without confronting China head-on but by funding nongovernmental sector and civil society firmly established in many countries as an essential partner in any national policymaking deliberations.

This double speak from Washington appears to emanate from the realization that it cannot continue to overtly confront China as it did before, so it assumes China will take the partnership bait and China will join the “Donors Group” In a layperson language the “Smart Power” strategy is: any unfavorable African policy against the interest of Western countries and in favor of China will be met with the scrutiny of partner NGOs and CSOs.

In other words, all aid funneled through NGOs can easily be cut or used as a carrot and the offending African country will be decertified as a democracy, will be declared a dictatorship, and, even worse, it will be thrown into the failed state basket.

The goal here is diverting the majority of aid money pledged for Africa, including some donated by the Chinese, through NGOs under the new partnership. Beyond NGOs, Washington intends to use multilateral organizations to circumvent China’s growing soft Power.

Beijing’s embrace and, at times, leadership of multilateral organizations where the U.S. role has been diminished does not sit well in many foreign policy quarters. Foreign Policy advisors recommend that Washington should also attempt to engage Beijing -bilaterally and through multilateral institutions such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank- as a first step to coordinate aid, relief debt, and to cooperate in activities that ensure environmental protection.

Here, it seems, the intent is to stop China’s huge infrastructure construction investments and other aid to Africa on grounds of environmental protection and sustainable debt. As witnessed recently, many of Chinese funded railroad, hydropower, and irrigation projects in Africa were topics of NGOs and multilateral organizations talking points.

Press releases were published condemning China on grounds of environmental degradation coupled with a patronizing attitude that claims, among others, that the immediate need of Africa is only medicine and food not infrastructure.

How do African leaders view the implication of this influence peddling strategy and the rivalry for resources on the continent of Africa? If what we see happening from Angola, to Mozambique, to Uganda, to Ethiopia is any indication, it seems African leaders have made their choice loud and clear by signing on with many Chinese assisted infrastructure construction and small and large scale industrialization projects.

Some African leaders are saying no to Social Marketing NGOs who peddle water purifiers while lobbying against long-term solutions like hydropower dams and bridges. It is easy to choose Textile factory over a used-cloth peddler NGO. African leaders are fighting back through new and improved guidelines and regulation.

The courage African countries have shown in the most recent rejection of AFRICOM on grounds that it will militarize Africa and eventually infringe on their sovereignty is one good example. To Africans it was obvious that AFRCOM is all about deterring China and not the security of Africa.

African governments will equally reject NGOs who try to violate a sovereign country, its constitution and indigenous values. On the plus side, if handled and managed carefully, this US/Chinese rivalry might be rendered harmless for African countries, and can be turned to benefit the continent greatly. But Africans must be vigilant and scrutinize every agreement they sign.

The strategy to weaken Africa’s diplomatic and economic leverage may not be new, but the use of NGOs is new and different because it uses a non-lethal weapon and employs Mercedes driving Africans on the unpaved streets of Africa to keep Africa from developing by utilizing its own resources.

We believe, when ratified and acted as a new law, the Ethiopian CSO draft law will become a very important tool to counter the changing role of NGOs. Already NGOs have opposed it and have raised what they consider to be the most contentious article and made it their rallying campaign slogan: citizens wishing to engage in service delivery programs and political advocacy activities cannot establish an international organization, secure 100 % of their annual budget from foreign sources and work in the country.

True, the Ethiopian CSO draft law prohibits, as it should, such organizations from engaging in political activities as stated under Article 3(f), (j), (l), and (m) of the draft proclamation.

However, the draft permits citizens wishing to engage in political advocacy activities to establish indigenous organizations and work in the country as long as no more than 10 % of their annual budget comes from foreign sources. This was spelled out on CRDA website in its dialogs with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia.6 6 http://www.crdaethiopia.org/


In our opinion, without such regulations on political activities, it will be difficult for indigenous CSOs and NGOs to balance their loyalty between their two clients: the international funders as agenda-setters and the interest of the people and country they claim to serve. A CSO or NGO with integrity and loyalty should not have a problem with Ethiopia’s draft CSO law.