War and Peace-keeping

Si vispacem, para bellum is a well-worn Latin adage that translates as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war." However to prepare for war, one must have an idea of the likely threats as well as which to prioritise. According to the Kenyan Ministry of Defence, the two-fold mission of the country’s armed forces, as defined by the Constitution, is “to deter aggression and should deterrence fail, defend the Republic; provide support to civil power in the maintenance of order.” But what does it mean to defend the Republic?

Kenya’s National Security Intelligence Services Act defines “a threat to national security” as espionage, sabotage, terrorism or subversion directed against the country’s interests; the destruction or overthrow of the constitutionally established system of the Government; violence promotinga constitutional, political, industrial, social or economic objective or change in Kenya; and “foreign-influenced activity” that is detrimental to the interests of Kenya.

Thus the military’s mandate does not preclude its intervening in internal matters to preserve and defend the state. In fact, the prospect of military intervention is domestic matters is not new in the region. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda have been host to numerous coups d’etat by the military establishment, in most cases to the detriment of society as the military administrations proved to be much worse than the civilian regimes they deposed. In fact, two of the region’s leaders, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, came to power via military force and thereafter sought to legitimize their rule through elections.

More recently, addressing an East African security meeting in October 2009, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni called for the creation of an East-African defence force to counter threats both from within and outside the region. And during Kenya’s post-election conflagration in 2008, Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, drew the wrath of the Kibaki administration when he urged the Kenyan army into action saying that he did not oppose military intervention when “institutions have lost control”. Ironically, according to the Financial Times, President Kibaki had himself considered imposing a state of emergency but the army resisted, fearing a split in their own ranks.Instead the army preferred a low-key role, distributing food and opening up blocked roads, though on at least one occasion it did step in to separate fighting mobs. According to a paper by the Kenya Human Rights Commission Executive Director, Muthoni Wanyeki, Agenda Item One of the mediation processes contemplated the possibility of preventive military deploymentto immediately end the violence.

However, in its interventions, whether internally or facing an external foe the military falls under the same limitations as described by Jakkie Cilliers of the Institute for Defence Politics in the case of the South African Defence Force. “It is part of the executive arm of the Government. It therefore does not have autonomy of action, or unlimited scope in defining its own role in society at large, except in so far as such actions or roles support, and are within the guidelines of national policy and objectives.”

A paper by Carolyne Pumphrey for the US Department of Defence states that while the traditional view of national security is that it is concerned with the preservation of state sovereignty (most especially its monopoly of force) and the protection of national interests, these interests are not confined to countries’ borders. If one compares Kenya’s territory to its ecological footprint- the amount of resources the country needs to maintain itself- the latter is far larger than the former.Therefore a threat to the country’s ability to secure supplies from without its territory, such as that posed by Somali pirates to shipping destined for Mombasa is a threat to its national security.

While the military can be seen as an instrument available to a sovereign government to provide security for its citizens and defend the nation’s vital interests, in the 21st century it may be necessary to modify this traditional approach, for more and more in today’s world protecting a way of life has moved well beyond the use of military power. According to Col. Dan Smith and Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information, “interlocking if not competing political, economic, social, and environmental interests are tying together as never before the fate of sovereign states. In turn the freedoms of citizens in an ever growing number of nations are becoming intertwined in such a way that individual security is becoming increasingly linked to the achievement of security at the international level through the reciprocal implementation of policies driven by national priorities.” To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, insecurity anywhere is a threat to security everywhere.

Therefore, a new paradigm of security has emerged which stands the Westphalian system, and its designation of the nation-state as the focal point of security, on its head. Referred to as “human security,” it decrees that the individual (or the collection of individuals known as the nation) is supreme, and not the institutions of governance. In this conception, the military’s purpose is not the protection of the state but rather the citizen. Within this paradigm, it is easy to understand the Kenya military’s queasiness about the proposed declaration of emergency during the post-election conflict. As one person, at the time described by the Financial Times, as being close to the senior command, put it, “The question the army has been asking is, is this a legally elected government? If not, and they deploy, are they supporting a ‘civilian coup?’”

However, this should not be taken to mean that the army always behaves itself when it comes to civilians. It has been accused of systematic murder, torture and scores of other human rights abuses in its interventions to quell insurgencies in Sabaot and in the country’s restive North Eastern Province. Similarly, Uganda’s military was accused of terrorized the very civilians it was supposedly rescuing from the clutches of the psychopathic LRA.

Such tactics, which breed resentment and anger, do little to further the military objective of pacification, as the US and its allies are discovering in Iraq and Afghanistan. More and more, the talk there has moved from the macho “winning,” with its visions of tidy victories and foes who know when they are beaten, to the softer “winning hearts and minds,” which recognizes that insurgencies are not defeated by capturing cities and bridges, but by embracing the people. It is a lesson the AU is yet to learn in Somalia, where it strives to secure a feckless government instead of the suffering populace. In Iraq, the troop surge, an emphasis on capturing and holding cities instead of withdrawing to the relative safety of green zones, as well as engaging with locals bore fruit. The AU should consider doing the same in Somalia.

This does not mean that insurgencies should not be fought militarily. According to Jane’s Information Group, the terror strikes on US and Israeli targets in Kenya in 1998 and 2002 highlight the fact that the country is at risk of attack by international terrorists. The country's geographical location bordering the conflict zones of Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan has also made it vulnerable to infiltration by neighbouring rebel groups for use as a rear base or transit country. Similarly, Rwanda is threatened by former genocidaires who are also causing chaos on the other side of the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The LRA continues to make Northern Uganda and parts of the DRC ungovernable. All these threats need to be met squarely and the countries should not shy away from military confrontation if such is called for.

But, whether it is confronting Al Shebbab on Kenya’s borders or the Interhamwe on Rwanda’s, the focus of policymakers should be to extend the fruits of peace to the populations that breed and host these elements. This might mean working with the more reasonable elements of these groups, or, in the extreme, direct military intervention. It would also require that the military starts to provide security and services to the beleaguered peoples on their side of the borders to prevent them falling under the spell of armed groups.

General Sir David Ramsbotham of the British Army notes that every military operation is, in itself, a man-made disaster because “the use of force is bound to result in damage, not just to life and limb but also to national infrastructures. Having inflicted or received that damage, the military are trained, equipped and accustomed to repairing it. Furthermore, they are accustomed to functioning under the Law of Armed Conflict, so conforming with the dictate of international law is not strange to them either.” Our troops, with the experience of policing war zones on other continents, should prove no less adept at doing it at home.

Snake Mail

In addition to this email that M has dispatched with deserved contempt, I also received the following FAQs from our churches. My reactions to both underneath.

Kenya Christian Leaders Forum
Frequently Asked Questions on Contentious Issues in the Constitution Review Process


1. Why is a National Constitution important?
The Constitution of a nation is the most important governance document. It is the mother and father of all laws. Any law that is in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. It defines the people, their values and the nation and its destiny. Kenya 's current constitution was written in London with the help of the British colonialist. It is under review to correct past anomalies and ensure justice, fairness and equity for everyone.
2. Why are Christians against Kadhis Courts in the Draft Constitution?
Christians are against the inclusion of Kadhis Courts because it is an outright injustice to other religions. Kenya is a multi-religious society! Christians' objections to the inclusion of Kadhi Courts were ignored by the government, the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, the BOMAS gathering, the Committee of Experts and most recently the Parliamentary Select Committee. Christians are left with no choice but to vote against the new Constitution unless the Courts are removed.
3. Are Christians against Muslims?
No. Christians are not against Muslims. They are against injustice and unfairness in the draft constitution perpetrated by the Government and the review organs.
4. Why didn't Christians request for Christian Courts?
Christians seek for a just society for all Kenyans, not only the rights of Christians. They advocated for an effective executive with an accountable President, an effective Parliament, an efficient judiciary, and respect for the rights and responsibilities that promote an equitable, just and moral values based society. The Constitution must set up a Judiciary that is good for all Kenyans.
5. How come Kadhis Court was not identified as a contentious issue by the Committee of experts?
Christians submitted thousands of memoranda to the Committee of Experts rejecting the inclusion of Kadhis courts in the constitution. The Committee of Experts deliberately refused to identify Kadhis Courts as a contentious issue. Instead, the Committee of Experts that was supposed to be impartial, was partisan and openly campaigned for inclusion of Kadhis Courts in the constitution. We now think it was deliberate because Muslims have dominated the Committee of Experts and the Parliamentary Select Committee.
6. Are there Christian MPs in Parliament who can speak for Christians the way Muslim MPs do?
There are Christian members of Parliament, but they have been silent. They have not stood for what is right and just. Church leaders are calling on Christian MPs to stand up and be counted. In future, we urge you as a citizen to vote for those people who will not sit by and watch as our country is sold out. Meanwhile, Christians must organize themselves under the Lords guidance and speak the truth even if MPs fail us.
7. So what do Christians want?
It is not what Christians want but rather what Kenyans want. Kenyans want a constitution that defines how society is organized on the basis of justice, truth, fairness, effective checks and balances, and an effective bill of rights for all Kenyans. With regard to religion, it should be one that provides for freedom of worship to people of all faiths under the Bill of Rights. The Constitution of Kenya must remain neutral with regard to religion, in order to offer equal protection to the people of all religions.
8. Why are Christians opposed to Kadhis courts yet they have not harmed any body?
The fact that the Kadhi Courts did not harm non-Muslims does not mean it was right for them to be included in the Constitution. It was wrong and discriminatory against the people of other faiths from the beginning. Kenyans' patience since independence must not be taken for granted. It is time to correct all wrong things. Muslims should by now be an integral part of the Kenyan community not requiring special treatment or protection! The constitution must not divide the people along religious or other lines. Kenyans want one nation, one land, one law that caters for all irrespective of religious affiliation. This is the practice in stable democracies around the world. We should not let a new constitution to perpetuate past injustices. Christ said: "And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins” (Mark 2:22). Inclusion of Kadhis Courts in the new constitution is like pouring new wine into old wineskins. It will burst the skins.
9. Who qualifies to be a Kadhi?
A Kadhi is a Muslim judge or magistrate. While many claim that the Kadhi is a purely judicial officer who serves in a Kadhis Court , they in Kenya they perform religious functions. The Chief Kadhi declares the beginning of Ramadhan a major Muslim religious festival. As an officer of government, it is discriminatory that, to be a Kadhi, one must profess the MUSLIM RELIGION. This means even if a Christian possesses knowledge of the MUSLIM LAW applicable to any SECTS OF MUSLIMS, he cannot serve as a Kadhi, meanwhile Muslims can preside over cases of non Muslims!
10. What law does Kadhis Court enforce?
Kadhis Courts enforce Islamic law commonly referred to as Sharia. Sharia is the Arabic word where our Kiswahili word Sheria is borrowed from. Sharia is the law system based on the the Koran, the Sunna, older Arabic law systems, parallel traditions, and the work of Muslim scholars over the two first centuries of Islam.
11. What are the implications of the inclusion of Kadhis Courts in the Constitution?
The inclusion of Islamic Sharia courts in the constitution divides Kenyans along religious lines. It would reinforce two classes of Kenyans, Muslims and the rest. Kenyans are seeking a constitution that unites.
12. Is the draft constitution Christian?
No. The draft Constitution is a collection of all just and fair laws from any source where they may be found. It draws from Judeo-Christian principles of equality, fairness, justice and equity does not make it Christian! These are values recognized by people from all religions, ethnic communities or professional backgrounds. We as Kenyans do not want a Christian or Muslim or Hindu constitution. We want a Kenyan constitution made by all Kenyans for all Kenyans. Unfortunately, as it is now, the constitution appears to be Islamic! It mentions the word Muslim 6 times, and Kadhis 5 times. It does not mention the word Christian at all!
13. What have Christians proposed?
That the Constitution recognizes every Kenyans freedom of worship. That every Kenyan worships and submits to the religion they choose at their own cost and not government's cost. We appeal that all religious beliefs and practices be left to the Churches, Mosques and Temples where they belong.
14. Did Jomo Kenyatta agree with the Sultan to entrench Kadhis Court in the constitution?
No. Kenyatta undertook to the Sultan of Zanzibar to only preserve the jurisdiction of Kadhis courts. The Kadhi was to operate in the ten mile Coastal strip. While Section 66 of the current constitution provides that the Chief Kadhi and the Kadhis “shall each be empowered to hold a Kadhis court having jurisdiction within the former Protectorate or within such part of the former Protectorate as may be so prescribed”, the government violated the constitution and established Kadhis Courts in areas which are outside the ten mile coastal strip like. Christians filed a case in court to challenge this wanton violation of the constitution of Kenya .
15. If Christians succeed in rejecting the constitution during the referendum, will we not still have Kadhis Courts under the current Constitution any way?
Christians are actively involved in this matter and will not stop at a No vote at the referendum. Christians filed a case in the High Court in 2004 to declare Kadhis Court unconstitutional. The hearing ended in February 2009. It is regrettable that time has lapsed and the High Court is yet to deliver the judgment. Christians will next sponsor a motion in Parliament to amend the current constitution to delete section 66 which provides for Kadhis Court .
16. Should Kenyans reject the draft constitution just because it has Kadhis Courts?
Yes. If you had a soda with a small amount of poison, would you drink it? Let us not be deceived by people who either do not have the interest of Kenya at heart or are unable to see divisiveness of this issue. If they are serious and want us to accept the new constitution, let them delete all references to the Kadhis Court in the constitution.
17. Is it true that the Bill of Rights shall not apply to Muslims?
Yes. Muslims are the only Kenyans who are allowed to violate the Bill of Rights. Kenyans should not allow this to happen. Let every Kenyan be equal before the law of the land and particularly the Bill of Rights.
18. If Christians succeed in rejecting the Kadhis Court, will the Muslims unleash violence?
No. Christians and Kenyans in general should not allow themselves to be manipulated and intimidated by the threat of violence. Kenya is a democracy, Muslims must argue with ideas and the ballot box, not violence. In any case, it is hoped that Muslims in Kenya are peace loving and will respect the decision of Kenyans. The threat by some Muslim leaders to secede from Kenya is a matter that the security forces are able to handle.
19. What about abortion?
Abortion is the willful termination of a woman's pregnancy on the basis that it is unwanted. A woman may herself be under pressure because she desires to hide the fact or may be under pressure from other person(s) for the same reasons
20. When does life begin?
Life begins at Conception. All doctors who claim that life begins at birth are professionally untrustworthy, because the fetus in the mother's womb are usually alive. Whenever a fetus dies, it is always an emergency to operate and to remove it.
21. What do Pro-abortionists want?
Their interest is to make money from vulnerable women. In the course of the abortion process the life of the woman is endangered, their conscience and faith are trashed and they become guilty of murder.
22. What does God say about the life of the unborn?
The unborn babies are complete human beings created in the image of God. Any one who aborts them is a murderer. God called Jeremiah in the mother's womb (Jer. 1:4-5). When Mary after she became pregnant met Elizabeth , John leaped in her womb to rejoice at Jesus. (Lk 1:41-44). God commanded that His people in the sixth commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.' (Ex 20:13) Abortion is murder, the killing of the unborn innocents.
23. Does anti-abortion law hinder the practice of medicine?
No. The constitution allows a doctor, upon medical examination of a pregnant woman, to terminate a pregnancy if the life of the mother faces a medical condition that leads to the death of both mother and baby.
24. What about Marriage?
The Constitution must state that Marriage in Kenya is between two adults of the opposite sex. It must not allow any type of marriage which God calls an abomination. For us as Kenyans, let us pray that God blesses our men and women to form godly and healthy marriages.
25. What can I do as a Kenyan?
As a citizen of this nation you must make your voice heard on these matters! You also need to do the following:

• You must read and understand the draft Constitution personally
• Petition your Members of Parliament to delete all the sections referring to Kadhis Courts, or that introduce any unacceptable laws in the Constitution.
• Register yourself as a voter, and ensure all your friends register as voters. If Kadhis Courts, pro-abortion laws are included in the constitution ensure that all your friends and yourself vote NO at the referendum.
• Photocopy this paper and pass it to at least 10 more people in your area.
• Pray that God will defeat all the efforts of the people seeking to perpetrate an injustice against Christians and other religions by entrenching the Kadhis Court in the constitution.

Issued by Christian leaders from all Church Denominations, all Umbrella Organizations and all other Christian Organizations in Kenya . These include all Churches and organizations under the NCCK, the KEC, the EAK, the UCCK, and the FEICCK. For comments or further enquiries, contact: info.kcl2010@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or communications@ncck.org

It is not very Christian to impute improper motives on others especially when you have not bothered to provide a shred of evidence. To suggest that the head of the IIEc is biased simply because he is a Muslim or that abortionists are simply after vulnerable women's money is beyond contempt and unworthy of people that claim to be dedicated to truth. You have every right to disagree with them, but casting aspersions was something the Pharisees, not Jesus did. Outright lies, such as the one that "persons of Somali ethnicity now out number any others in Kenya" are unbecoming of people claiming to be followers of Christ.

On the merits, the draft constitution is clear. Abortion is illegal. I happen to think that this is wrong as a matter of public policy, and causes more harm than good, but this are not considerations the church burdens itself with. Banning abortion, as has been the experience worldwide, will not stop it. The restriction has little to do with protecting babies (which it doesn't) and everything to do with declaring a self-righteous statement of principle at the expense of our women and girls. While they die in their thousands at the hands of quacks, the churches prefer to listen, not to their screams, but to its own voice.

The church opposes sex education in schools and the free provision of contraception under the guise of protecting our adolescents morality, burying its head in the sand when confronted with overwhelming evidence that they (our young ones) are having sex regardless. I would much prefer they did it with the knowledge of how to protect themselves, but churchmen rather like to listen to themselves talk.

Kenyans have striven for a new constitution for 2 decades, shedding a lot of blood, sweat and tears in the process. The document we will be presented with at the referendum will not be perfect; no constitution ever is hence the amendment procedure. But because of Kadhi courts, which the churches themselves admit have not harmed non-Muslims (see no. 8 in the Frequently Asked Questions on Contentious Issues in the Constitution Review Process below), the whole constitution-making project is imperiled. This is narcissism in the extreme. So as we sing out for a new constitutional dispensation, the preachermen are enchanted by their own song.

Finally, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere had a word of advice to his cadres that the churches would do well to heed. "Argue, don't shout!" he told them. The churches may think that they will carry the day because they have the loudest voice, but they are grossly mistaken. For years they have refused to engage in intelligent debate on social issues, preferring instead to shout from their pulpits. This time, their demagoguery will be laid bare.

Of White Elephants and Ivory Towers

The construction of the Gilgel Gibe III dam on the Omo river in Ethiopia has been condemned by conservationists and indigenous rights campaigners as a white elephant, a monument to government myopia, incompetence and greed. In return, the authorities accuse these “do-gooders” of romanticising rural misery from the comfort of their ivory towers. In between are the people of the region, whose interests both sides claim to be championing.

Such controversy is not new. The World Commission on Dams, which reviewed the effectiveness of large dams, seemed to capture both sides of the issue when it wrote, “There can no longer be any justifiable doubt that dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development, and that in too many cases an unacceptable and often unnecessary price has been paid to secure those benefits, especially in social and environmental terms, by people displaced, by communities downstream, by taxpayers and by the natural environment.”

In the case of the Gilgel Gibe dams (there are five in total, two of which have been completed), the touted benefits to the country and region are compelling. Ethiopia, the continent’s second most populous country, has one of the world’s lowest levels of access to modern energy services. According to the World Bank, only 12 per cent of Ethiopians have access to electricity. Its installed capacity as of 2006 was less than 800 MW, nearly 90 per cent of which was generated by hydropower. By contrast, the country has one of Africa’s highest hydropower potential, estimated at 30,000-45,000 MW. To tap this potential, nearly 300 sites have been identified for possible future development.

Surrounding countries are also hungry for that power. According to Emmanuel Nzabanita of the African Development Bank, which is considering financing Gibe III, the power systems of East Africa are still in their infancy, with insufficient installed capacity to satisfy domestic demand. Overall electrification rates are miniscule (around 10 per cent on average) and per capita energy consumption is one of the lowest in the world. Hydropower from Ethiopia would come at half the cost of that from other plants being built in East Africa; moreover, the planned interconnection between the Ethiopian and Kenyan systems as well those of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, eastern Congo, Tanzania and Zambia will enable the development of the huge hydropower resources in Ethiopia at a considerably lowered cost due to the economies of scale thus realised.

For Ethiopia, ranked 171 out of 182 countries on the United Nations Development Programme's 2009 Human Development Index, and where 39 per cent of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day, the revenues to be earned from exporting power are not to be sneezed at. The World Commission on Dams report noted, “Groups bearing the social and environmental costs and risks of large dams ... are often not the same groups that receive the water and electricity services, nor the social and economic benefits from these.” In the case of the Gilgel Gibe dams, many of these costs will be borne by the marginalised groups living downstream of the dams and by their equally neglected compatriots on the other side of the border in northwestern Kenya.

These communities, comprising nearly half a million people, are entirely dependent on the Omo River and Lake Turkana, which it feeds. They face the immediate loss of traditional means of survival, such as annual floods that bring fertile silts and allow the growing of crops in an otherwise barren and waterless land. Though desirous of the benefits of modern amenities, many of which are powered by electricity, they are sceptical of promises from governments in faraway capitals that have only been too content to ignore them in the past.

This fear — arising from past experience — is what needs addressing and is why preliminary studies, including environmental and social assessments, are vital. They are not about stopping or curtailing development but enabling it. For development is not about dams and electricity, but about people. Societies should be measured not by the numbers on balance sheets, but by how those numbers translate to a better life for all their people.

A second advantage of doing your due diligence is that it stops good projects from evolving into white elephants. The World Commission on Dams points out that large dams have a tendency to come in late and over budget. Properly done, preliminary studies can help mitigate this; you ignore them at your peril. The Ethiopian dams have proven to be no exception.

Gibe II, the second in the series, is a case in point. Inaugurated in January 2010 after shoddy planning had led to a three-year delay and a total cost of $0.5 billion, it suffered a catastrophic tunnel collapse barely two weeks later, which will cost another $25 million to repair. The Ethiopian embassy in Kenya insists that this collapse was expected and that the contractors, Salini Constrotturi S.p.A, would bear the cost of fixing it. But Salini’s own website ascribes the collapse to “an unforeseen geological event” and International Rivers, a group opposed to the construction of Gilgel Gibe III, suggests that “the dubiously negotiated contract for Gilgel Gibe II exempts Salini from geological risks,” meaning the Ethiopians will get stuck with the tab. As Caterina Amicucci of the Italian group CRBM put it, “Gilgel Gibe demonstrates that cutting corners does not speed up development, but can rather produce costly disasters.”

It is a lesson that governments and funding agencies are loath to learn. For example, during her visit to Kenya in November last year, World Bank vice-president for Africa Obiageli Ezekwesili raised concerns about the manner in which the Ethiopian government was managing the project, in particular the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) which was not conclusive (a group of scientists calling itself the African Resources Working Group has completely rubbished it) and the award of the contract to Salini without competitive bidding. Three months later, Ken Ohashi, the Bank’s country director for Ethiopia and Sudan, while confirming that the omission of a competitive tender meant the Bank couldn’t loan the Ethiopian government money for the project, nevertheless declared the its willingness, "to help mobilise financing from the private market ... by providing a guarantee."

A document prepared by the Italian embassy in Ethiopia enumerates another lesson from Gibe II. “The Project was defined without a comprehensive sector support strategy,” it says, and lists as possible negative consequences, “limited scope for supporting best practices for (socio) environmental impacts of large infrastructures.” In this regard, the World Bank, the EIB and the AfDB are co-ordinating their activities on Gibe III. The three institutions have fielded at least four major missions together in Ethiopia as part of their due diligence. The AfDB and the European Investment Bank have jointly financed an Economic, Financial and Technical Assessment of the project, which was undertaken in consultation with the World Bank.

Transparency, a feature of successful projects, is missing from Gibe III. When the Kenyan government sent a fact-finding delegation to Ethiopia, they pointedly left out the organisations, such as Friends of Lake Turkana, who had called for it. Their finding that the dam poses no threat to the lake, comes as cold comfort to the communities there.Within Ethiopia itself, people opposed to the dams are afraid to speak up. Those interviewed for this report even feared the identification of their communities. Not surprising in a country considered only “partly free” by Freedom House and which in 2006 was ranked 160 out of 168 in the Reporters Without Borders’ Worldwide Press Freedom Index.While, for this report, the Ethiopian embassy did provide the opportunity for a short interview with Yelibu Lijalem, the deputy head of mission, as well as a statement extolling the virtues of the project, this misses the point. It is not the press that needs convincing.

In the end, the controversy over the Gibe dam revolves around trust. As Terri Hathaway of International Rivers put it, the question is, “How do the governments demonstrate their political will to provide for their citizens, if you've broken promises in the past or you're taking actions to disempower those people, then there's no trust or belief in what's going to go forward.”

For example, according to the 2008 ESIA, authorities managing the dam would be obliged to release moderate amounts of water to create an artificial flood as mitigation for the loss of the natural one. The Ethiopian authorities maintain that the dams are necessary for controlling natural flooding but ignore the dangers the dams themselves present. Thus, when in 2006, heavy rainfall led to serious concerns over the amount of water in the Gilgel Gibe I dam and there were emergency releases, these came at the height of the natural flood downstream, contributing to a deluge that killed over 400 people downstream. Conversely, while authorities are again obliged to release a minimal flow during the dry season to maintain life on the river, according to the activists, they may not do it because they need the water to generate power.

Over the last century, people living downstream of large dams, especially indigenous, tribal, and peasant communities, have suffered disproportionately. Impacts include extreme economic hardship, community disintegration, waterborne diseases and the loss of natural resources upon which livelihoods depended. Unless these people feel that they have been consulted in the conception, design and management of dams, to require that they happily entrust their future to them is the very definition of living in an ivory tower.