Abbay Media

By TOM MALITI, Associated Press

NAIROBI, Kenya – Kenya’s president signed a new constitution into law Friday that institutes a U.S.-style system of checks and balances and has been hailed as the most significant political event since Kenya’s independence nearly a half century ago.

Kenya’s new constitution is part of a reform package that President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga committed themselves to after signing a power-sharing deal in February 2008. That deal ended violence that killed more than 1,000 people following Kenya’s disputed December 2007 presidential vote.

“I feel honored to be your President at this moment because this is the most important day in the history of our nation since independence,” said the 78-year-old Kibaki. He was a senior official of Kenya’s independence party, the Kenya African National Union, when Britain handed over power in 1963 to its leader, Jomo Kenyatta.

Odinga said the new constitution was a major step in bridging Kenya’s political and ethnic divisions.

“No one could have thought that out of the bitter harvest of the disputed election and the violence that pitted our people against each other just two years ago, we would be witnessing today the birth of a national unity that has eluded us for more than 40 years,” Odinga said.

Friday’s event comes after an overwhelming majority of Kenyan voters adopted the new constitution in an Aug. 4 referendum. Kibaki’s signature formally marks the end of a decades-long struggle to cut down the massive powers of the presidency.

The government and parliament now must implement the ambitious document, a process expected to take up to five years. The document requires, among other things, the formation of a Supreme Court and a Senate. It also demands that the country’s judiciary be vetted to rid it of corrupt or incompetent judges and that parliament pass 49 new laws.

Patrick Gichuki, a street vendor, painted his body in the colors of the Kenyan national flag and the words “Kenya mpya” — new Kenya.

“We are happy to be Kenyans and we are happy that Kenya has a new constitution,” said Gichuki, who hopes the new constitution will help address the many problems facing Kenyan youth.

Emmy Kosgei, who sang during the festivities and got all the VIPs dancing at the podium, said the signing of a new constitution signified a new beginning for the country and she was proud to be part of it.

“Most of us have grown up reading about such events as history,” she said. “But today we are a part of history.”

Joining African leaders at the festivities was Sudan’s president who faces charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in connection with violence in Darfur, where U.N. officials estimate 300,000 people have died.

It is only the second time that Omar al-Bashir has risked arrest by traveling to a member state of the International Criminal Court since he was first charged in 2009. The ICC has no police force and depends on member states to enforce its orders.

Human rights groups had urged the Kenyan government to bar al-Bashir from the festivities but Kenya’s foreign minister defended al-Bashir’s presence.

President Barack Obama welcomed the new constitution as an important step that sets “a positive example for all of Africa and the world.”

He added, however, that he was disappointed at the presence of al-Bashir, saying in a statement “we consider it important that Kenya honor its commitments to the ICC and to international justice, along with all nations that share those responsibilities.”

NAIROBI, Kenya – Sudan’s president defied an international arrest warrant by visiting Kenya on Friday, causing an outcry from the International Criminal Court which fruitlessly pressured authorities here into arresting the man accused of masterminding the genocide in Darfur.

Rather than arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who was invited along with other regional leaders for the signing of Kenya’s new constitution, officials here treated him with the dignity accorded a head of state. Wearing a dark suit and tie, al-Bashir had a front-row position for the historic ceremony.

The ICC has no police force and depends on member states to enforce its orders. Al-Bashir’s presence in Kenya underscored that the system to bring the world’s worst human rights violators to justice depends on member states and raised doubts about Kenya’s willingness to hand over suspects expected to soon be charged by the ICC for postelection violence that left more than 1,000 Kenyans dead in 2007-08.

Al-Bashir was charged in March 2009 with five counts of crimes against humanity and two of war crimes for allegedly orchestrating atrocities in Darfur, a region of Sudan. In July, the ICC charged him with three counts of genocide, the first time the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal has issued genocide charges.

Darfur’s ethnic African rebels rose up in 2003, accusing Sudan’s Arab-dominated central government of neglect and discrimination. U.N. officials estimated 300,000 people died and 2.7 million were displaced.

In The Hague, Netherlands, where the ICC is based, the judges said in a written order that Kenya “has a clear obligation to cooperate” in enforcing arrest warrants. The court also ordered its registrar to inform the U.N. Security Council of al-Bashir’s presence in Kenya “in order for them to take any measure they may deem appropriate.”

“His presence there is a slap on the souls of the victims of the genocide in Darfur,” said Ahmed Hussain Adam, spokesman for the Justice and Equality Movement, the most powerful rebel group in Darfur.

President Barack Obama said he was disappointed at the presence of al-Bashir, saying in a statement “we consider it important that Kenya honor its commitments to the ICC and to international justice, along with all nations that share those responsibilities.”

Kenyan Foreign Affairs Minister Moses Wetangula defended the invitation, saying al-Bashir is the “head of state of a friendly neighbor state.”

Al-Bashir later skipped out on a state luncheon hosted by the Kenyan president. Earlier this year, he traveled to Chad, another ICC member state that also opted not to apprehend him.

Wetangula argued that Kenya did not act on the ICC warrant because the African Union has decided no member should arrest the Sudanese leader. Other AU members such as South Africa, though, have indicated that they would arrest al-Bashir if he visited their countries.

Al-Bashir’s stop in Kenya was kept under wraps until the last minute. A schedule of heads of state sent out Thursday evening indicated that Sudan would be represented by the country’s first vice president.

Al-Bashir is the first sitting head of state indicted by the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal since it was established in 2002. He refuses to recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

While the Kenya trip only marked only his second trip to an ICC member state, al-Bashir has visited Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt and Libya, attended an Arab League summit in Qatar and performed a pilgrimage to Islam’s holiest city, Mecca, in Saudi Arabia.

A top Kenyan human rights activist, Njonjo Mue, said al-Bashir’s visit should worry those seeking justice for Kenya’s spasm of violence more than two years ago.

“If Kenya cannot arrest and transfer al-Bashir, it is unlikely it will arrest and transfer its top politicians and businessmen who may be indicted,” Mue, the head of the Kenya chapter of the International Center for Transitional Justice, told The Associated Press.

ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has said he believes that crimes against humanity were committed during the violence after Kenya’s 2007 election. He has said he expects the investigation to conclude by the end of this year, culminating in charges against up to roughly a half-dozen people who allegedly directed the violence.

United State Senators have introduced a new legislation titled, Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2010. The bill aimed at reaffirming United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.

Read full text of the new bill below.

……..

S 3757 IS

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

To reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

To reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.

This Act may be cited as the `Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2010′.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Despite progress and an estimated annual growth rate of nearly 10 percent, Ethiopia remains one of the poorest and most hunger-prone countries in the world, with more than half of the population of 78,000,000 living on less than $1 per day.

(2) Since the collapse of the Derg and overthrow of the Mengistu regime in 1991, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front-led government has overseen the introduction of a multiparty system and the adoption of a new constitution that guarantees economic, social, and cultural rights and states that `human and democratic rights of peoples and citizens shall be protected.’

(3) Ethiopia and Eritrea fought a bloody border war between 1998 and 2000, and, despite the Algiers Accord ending the conflict and the agreement to abide by the final and binding Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission (EEBC) arbitration, the Government of Ethiopia has refused to comply with the final physical demarcation of the border and the Government of Eritrea has expelled the United Nations peacekeeping force, causing regional instability and keeping alive the possibility of a renewed border war.

(4) According to the March 2010 report by the United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia, `Since the cessation of hostilities between the [Ethiopia and Eritrea] in 2000, Asmara has sought to counter Ethiopian influence in the region and supported armed groups within Ethiopia who oppose the current government. Since 2006, and possibly earlier, Eritrea has supported opposition to the Transitional Federal Government, which it perceives as a proxy for the Government of Ethiopia.’

(5) Sporadic fighting has continued between Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) and armed opposition Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. Stringent restrictions continue to be placed on media and aid workers, making it difficult for independent observers and aid workers to monitor or respond to the humanitarian and human rights situation, including the behavior of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces, allied militia forces, and the Ogaden National Liberation Front.

(6) Credible sources indicate there are ongoing and serious human rights abuses against civilians in the Somali Region, including arbitrary arrests and detentions by military, police and paramilitary forces; allegations of torture in military and police custody, including sexual violence against women and girls; and diversion of food aid intended for civilian communities.

(7) In the run up to the 2010 elections, the Ethiopian Parliament passed a number of new laws, including the Charities and Societies Proclamation and the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, which severely restrict freedom of expression, freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and the right to a fair trial, while broadening the definition of terrorism.

(8) The Department of State’s 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices states that `although the constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment . . . [o]pposition political party leaders reported frequent and systematic abuse and intimidation of their supporters by police and regional militias’ and that `opposition UDJ party president Birtukan Mideksa, whose pardon was revoked and life sentence reinstate in December 2008, remain in prison throughout the year. She was held in solitary confinement . . . despite a court ruling that indicate it was a violation of her constitutional rights’.

(9) In its 2010 Freedom in the World report, Freedom House noted that, in the run up to elections, Ethiopia saw a `narrowing of political activity . . .’ and that `the government cracked down on operations of nongovernmental organizations and . . . a series of arrests of opposition figures’.

(10) The European Union Election Observer Mission noted in its preliminary statement on the May 23, 2010 elections, `The National Electoral Board of Ethiopia administered the electoral process in an efficient and competent manner, but failed to dispel opposition parties’ lack of trust in its independence. While several positive improvements have been introduced, the electoral process fell short of certain international commitments, notably regarding the transparency of the process and the lack of a level playing field for all contesting parties.’

(11) In testimony before the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson stated that `[w]hile the [Ethiopian] elections were calm and peaceful and largely without any kind of violence we note with some degree of remorse that the elections there were not up to international standards,’ and that `[i]t is important that Ethiopia move forward in strengthening its democratic institutions and when elections are held that it level the playing field to give everyone a free opportunity to participate without fear or favor’.

(12) On May 25th, 2010, the National Security Council’s spokesman Mike Hammer, released a statement which noted with concern that `The limitation of independent observation and the harassment of independent media representatives [in Ethiopia] are deeply troubling . . . [and that an] environment conducive to free and fair elections was not in place even before Election Day.’ The statement also noted that `[i]n recent years, the Ethiopian government has taken steps to restrict political space for the opposition through intimidation and harassment, tighten its control over civil society, and curtail the activities of independent media. We are concerned that these actions have restricted freedom of expression and association and are inconsistent with the Ethiopian government’s human rights obligations.’

It is the policy of the United States–

(1) to support and encourage efforts by the people and Government of Ethiopia–

(A) to achieve a participatory multiparty democracy, an active and unhindered civil society, rule of law and accountability, judicial capacity and independence, freedom of the press, respect for human rights, and economic development; and

(B) to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat extremism and terrorism in a manner consistent with international law;

(2) to promote peace and stability, equal access to humanitarian assistance regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or political views, and good governance, transparency, and accountability;

(3) to seek the unconditional release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia, and the repeal of laws that enable politically motivated arrests without due process;

(4) to prohibit funding to any unit of the Ethiopian security forces if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, unless the Secretary certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Ethiopia is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice; and

(5) to seek a resolution of the ongoing dispute between the Government of Ethiopia and the Government of Eritrea consistent with the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission arbitration decisions on border demarcation, to press the Government of Eritrea to cease all support for armed opposition groups in Ethiopia and the region, and to urge both Governments to contribute constructively to stability throughout the Horn of Africa, especially in Somalia.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should–

(1) build on successful diplomatic efforts that contributed to the October 2007 release of political prisoners in Addis Ababa, and press the Ethiopian government to release Birtukan Mideksa, as well as other political prisoners;

(2) urge the Government of Ethiopia to repeal or at a minimum amend the Civil Society Proclamation, the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, and the Mass Media and Freedom of Information Proclamation in order to genuinely protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of all Ethiopian citizens;

(3) press the Government of Ethiopia to allow human rights and humanitarian groups, as well as the media, to have unfettered access to areas of concern throughout the country;

(4) encourage and assist the United Nations and other independent organizations and the media to investigate credible reports of gross violations of human rights or international humanitarian law in the Somali region of Ethiopia, to publish any information of serious abuse, and send consistent messages to the Government of Ethiopia that the continuation of such violations or impunity in this region, or Ethiopia more generally, has consequences for relations between the United States and Ethiopia; and

(5) encourage the Governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea to immediately take steps to lessen tensions, physically demarcate the border in accord with the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission decision, and promote normalization of relations between the two countries.

(a) Conditions-

(1) PROHIBITION OF FUNDS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, assistance may not be provided to the Government of Ethiopia unless the Secretary of State certifies annually that the Government of Ethiopia has taken demonstrable steps–

(A) to ensure the autonomy and fundamental freedoms of civil society organizations to pursue work on civic education, democratization, good governance, accountability, human rights, and conflict resolution, without excessive government intervention or intimidation;

(B) to respect the rights of and permit non-violent political parties to operate free from intimidation and harassment, including releasing opposition political leaders currently imprisoned;

(C) to strengthen the independence of its judiciary, including developing the capacity of the judiciary at the national, regional, and local levels;

(D) to allow Voice of America and other independent media to operate and broadcast without interference in Ethiopia;

(E) to promote respect for human rights and accountability within its security forces, including undertaking credible investigations into any allegations of abuse and ensuring appropriate punishment; and

(F) to ensure that humanitarian and development entities, including those of the United Nations, have unfettered access to all regions of the country without prejudice to the political views of recipients.

(2) WAIVER- The prohibition included in paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Secretary of State certifies in writing to Congress that waiving such a prohibition is in the national security interest of the United States.

(b) Exceptions- The prohibitions in paragraph (1) shall not apply to–

(1) health and HIV/AIDS assistance;

(2) humanitarian assistance; or

(3) emergency food aid.

(c) Report- Not later than 120 days after exercising a waiver pursuant to subsection (a)(2), and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees assessing progress made by the Government of Ethiopia in the areas set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection (a)(2).

In this Act the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means–

(1) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.