Excerpt from a recent interview of Sir Michael Jay, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Head of the Diplomatic Service of the British government with Zerihun Tadesse of the Ethiopian Reporter.

Years of observing the mostly self-serving policies of Western governments towards developing nations has made us, the citizens of developing countries, rather cynical regarding positive outcome of similar “supportive” policies. We have seen governments such as Mobutu's propped to the end and the people of countries such as Sierra Leone completely abandoned in their time of need. “Lucky” Kuwait, on the other hand, was rescued from the “undemocratic” clutch of Saddam thanks to its rich oil fields (as the cynics would say). Of course, it did not matter that the Kuwaiti government was (and still is) every bit as “undemocratic” as Saddam's was. A recent example in this line would be the US Secretary of Defence's statement regarding the dismal record of Eritrea's dictatorial leader and government wherein he clearly stated that interests of the US are above all else. It seems that, not only do we have to shoulder brutal governance from our “own” governments, but we must also serve as helpless pawns in a world governed by, as somebody once said, “permanent interests”. Most would agree, I think, that our cynicism is understandable.

Still by and large, Britain's decision to “consider moving to direct budgetary support” to the current Ethiopian government, as Sir Michael is quoted saying, would not have been bad (again, the question of underlying interests notwithstanding). Ethiopia is a very poor country and any help that would improve the welfare of its people would be more than welcome. However, the key issue here is the issue raised by the Reporter: what kind of a government is Britain considering supporting and, by so doing, what policies of the government is it going to assist implementation of? Questions that follow: What are the records of this government? Leaving aside the prime minister's sophistry and panoply of “Masters” degrees “earned” by party cadres, what are the real capabilities of the people heading the government's institutions? Can this government name just ONE policy that it thought out through and implemented with success to the benefit of the nation? What really drives this government—genuine interest in the welfare of the people it is governing or pursuit of petty personal agendas of survival at all costs? The fact that this last question is being asked, by itself, should tell volumes.

The disastrous results of this government's mismanagement and the half-baked policies it managed to formulate/implement are there for everyone to see. The country is faced with the worst famine ever with fully a quarter of the population affected. HIV-AIDS is at a level of biblical proportions, ceaselessly snatching away the country's productive workforce and its youth. The country's educated people have been totally alienated by a government which openly states as its criteria for office ethnic background and loyalty to the party. The economy of the country is in shambles, with the GDP contracting by an unprecedented -3.8% last year—a contraction never seen even during the times of the Dergue. The country's justice system has been irreparably damaged and the courts made a mockery of by the government's manipulation of laws such as the “Anti-corruption Law” and its draconian amendment which abrogated citizens' rights to bail, placed the burden of proof on the defendant and gave wide ranging powers to the government's law enforcement agencies. This last amendment, formulated, “debated” in parliament and published, all in 24 hours (and at the time apparently targeted to keep one political opponent in prison), is now widely accepted as to be one of the most damaging factors contributing to the decline of the country's economy.

And while all this was happening? The same group of people “running” the government thought nothing of paralysing government offices for months at a stretch wrangling among themselves in endless “meetings” trying to (of all things) differentiate between “liberal democracy” and “revolutionary democracy”, debating vague and completely useless topics such as “Bonapartism” and engaging in intricate, all-encompassing feuds to grab/cling to power. Not surprisingly, they are still engaged in the same practice of conducting endless meetings on (to us) completely meaningless subjects in the sense that there are more weighty issues at hand—a case in point being the recent week-long meeting on the “direction” of the country's “foreign policy”(!). (The devastating effect of these endless meetings at the executive level cannot be overemphasized. Based on the Marxist guidelines the leaders of the government still follow, political cadres and even ordinary citizens at all levels have then to undergo “democratic” meetings of their own to “discuss” what has been obviously decided above—thus creating a vicious spiral of wasteful and destructive meetings down to the village level.)

So the question again arises: Which policies of this government is Britain's direct budget assistance going to support? Sir Michael does try to reassure us by stating his government “would have to be clear … that there is a movement towards good governance, democratic processes and that there would be proper accountability for the money afterwards…”. Also, recent actions by some Western governments including Britain with regard to the proposed press law do give encouragement. But then again, if the intent is to really help the people of the country and not to extend the life of a (seemingly) “friendly” government which has clearly failed miserably and, by so doing, needlessly extend the suffering of our people, we ask Sir Michael and Britain to think again, look in some more. We say, walk the talk, ask the hard questions, do get answers. Ask, actually demand as a condition and a gesture of commitment, that the government concretely address just a few of the issues of “good governance” being raised by the disenfranchised people of our country, issues that the government might not necessarily like—admit its massive and disastrous mistakes and take meaningful measures to address their effect including resignations of responsible persons, immediately address the issue of HIV-AIDS, take immediate measures to restore peoples' trust in the rule of law such as striking down the law that denies bail, dismantle its stranglehold on the economy by disbanding party businesses, etc. Would the good diplomat, Sir Michael, be so blunt say, when he meets the prime minister in the upcoming meeting in London he tells us about? Unlikely, unlikely, many of us would say, but people, let's be optimistic for a change and hope to see some action that, who knows, might yet help us see the day we would be cured of our cynicism.