The Horn of Africa nation’s trade deficit for fiscal year 2010 was $7 billion , based on $8.7 billion in imports and $1.7 billion dollars in exports.  The trade deficit comprises about 30 percent of Ethiopia’s Gross Domestic Product of about $23 billion a year. The devaluation will result in increasing the inflation rate and will force the thugs to revise the cooked estimated budget deficit, as more local currency will be needed to purchase necessary imports.

The chief thug Meles Zenawi bluff Ethiopia’s economy has grown at a rate of 10 percent based on his cooked book or more in each of the past seven years, though international agencies consider his bluff delusional. The bloody dictator Meles stupidly states, though, that even with double digit growth, the country must run just to stand still, because population growth in the country of 80 million people has been faster than economic growth. Zenawi idiotic explanation about the cooked number of economic growth to AIGA FORUM idiots should have been stated that ” because of the population growth and bad governance there has not been a real economic growth”

A poverty index recently released by Oxford University and the United Nations ranked Ethiopia as the world’s second poorest country, after Niger.

Today we would like to ask you to participate in 1st Annual Run for Birtukan. Whether you choose to walk, run, this event is a great way to get some exercise in support of free Birtukan and all Prisoners of Conscience in Ethiopia.  Birtukan Mideksa, an Ethiopian prisoner of conscience who is facing life imprisonment for speaking out against an oppressive government. Birtukan is an opposition leader of the Unity for Democracy and Justice (formerly Coalition for Unity and Democracy) party and is advocating for democracy and rule of law in Ethiopia. Birtukan has a five year old daughter, Hale Mideksa, in the care of her ailing seventy-five year old mother as she languishes in jail at this very moment.  

Our organization Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia and our task force, Global Campaign and Advocacy Task Force support the Ethiopian Human Rights Committee’s run on September 19, 2010 in Tuebingen, Germany to free Birtukan and other prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia.  Let’s make this day to be gratitude of the daily fight that Birtukan faces in a secluded cell. 

Who is Birtukan Mideksa?

Ms Birtukan Mideksa is unarguably the most prominent female political leader in Africa and currently the head of the biggest opposition party in Ethiopia, a single mother, a prisoner of conscience, and the hope of eighty (80) million Ethiopians. All of this at the very old age of 35.

Birtukan first came to the unwanted attention of the Ethiopian government in her late twenties when she was serving as a judge in Addis Ababa. She famously ruled to release a former Defense Minister of Ethiopia who was in prison for political reasons. In a country where the government routinely intimidates, imprisons, and even murders dissenters, Ms Mideksa brushed aside intimidation and pressure to follow her conscience. When the government ignored her ruling and subsequently and illegally imprisoned the defendant, Ms Mideksa left (systematically fired) her post and joined an opposition political party in order to correct the abuses in the legal system. She led this opposition party to win the now infamous and subsequently stolen elections of 2005.

Why is Birtukan in Prison now?

Birtukan was arrested for the second time on December 29, 2008 and sentenced to life in prison because of a speech she gave in Sweden about the condition of her first illegal incarceration. Yes, Birtukan is now in prison because of a speech. Birtukan was illegally imprisoned for the first time following the disputed 2005 elections. Along with more “than 200 opposition party leaders”, she spent close to two years in prison under the threat of torture and was only released because of international pressure that lead to a politically negotiated settlement with the government. The trumped up charges at that time were treason and genocide.

Now, she is back in prison under the threat of torture because she spoke about the conditions of her incarceration and the circumstances surrounding her release. This unjust, cruel, and inhumane action is meant to intimidate and silence the public as much as to cripple the opposition. Ethiopian prisons have killed thousands of prisoners of conscience through torture, disease, abuse, and the systemic denial of medical care. Let’s stand united behind Birtukan and thousands of other prisoners of conscience like her.

What can you do to help?

Regardless of what you believe in, we know that you know any human being should have the right to exercise and stand up for whatever political view he/she has. Even if you differ with her positions, we plead with you to acknowledge that she is an image of our unified freedoms and human rights.  Open your mind and heart to help Birtukan to obtain her freedom and allow her to be with her elderly mom and Hale and leads us to this new and free Ethiopia we all be equal and to live freely.   We are asking everyone to support and remember Birtukan on September 19, 2010 by taking a part in the Run for Birtukan.

Sincerely,

Aida Hailu,

Leader, Global Campaign and Advocacy Task Force

E-mail:  Aida@solidaritymovement.org

For more info please contact Ethiopian Human Rights Group at 0160-4357232 or email menschenrecht-ethiopia@hotmail.de

Rodney King’s videotaped brutal beating by members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) eventually triggered the L.A. riots of 1992. Rodney made a public appearance on the third day of the anarchy and pleaded in his inimitable style:

“People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids? It’s just not right…. Let’s try to work it out.”

I never thought I would appeal to Rodney King for political wisdom and insight in seeking an end to the internecine warfare in the Ethiopian opposition and plead for reconciliation, understanding and common sense. True, Rodney King is no Martin King, but in this instance I am going to invoke Rodney while pleading Martin to get Ethiopia’s opposition leaders to re-think and re-examine their strategy of mutual assured destruction (MAD).

It was amusing to read this past week a story about criminal charges filed against one faction of the Unity and Democracy Party [UDJ] (Andenet) by another faction of the same party in Ethiopia. Charged with disturbing the peace this past April are some of the prominent leaders and members of the UDJ. It is alleged that the defendants threw rocks at the party office and created disturbances while party members worked inside. Several witnesses testified for the prosecution at a hearing and the matter was continued to a later date.

There had been prior confrontations between UDJ members. In late 2009 when UDJ held its Extraordinary Congress at the Imperial Hotel, it was alleged that certain “expelled” members had attempted to disrupt the meetings. The police were reportedly called to intervene, but failed to show up. The meeting was cancelled and there were no prosecutions. But state-controlled television was on hand to record the bizarre spectacle for broadcast.

I am sure the whole zany rock-throwing affair gave dictator-in-chief Meles Zenawi and his crew much needed comic relief in the weeks before the May 2010 “election”. Today, Zenawi watches a command performance opera buffa of some of the champions of the Ethiopian opposition duking it out in kangaroo court. It is humiliating and embarrassing for many of us to see some of the giants of the opposition who have sacrificed so much of themselves pointing accusatory fingers at each other in the Zenawi’s Halls of Injustice. Of course, one would have expected all opposition leaders to get the message after the “election” and get their acts together. After all, Zenawi won by 99.6 percent, and they “lost” by 100 percent. But that is another matter. I only wish the accusers and the accused could see themselves from the outside as they spar in the three-ring circus of Zenawi’s kangaroo court.

Master Stroke of Public Relations (Act II)

The timing of the UDJ “prosecution” is curious, to say the least. The final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission Team [EU EOM] is expected to be released sometime in September. Staging a three-ring kangaroo circus over a rock-throwing incident to coincide with the release of the EU EOM report is a master stroke of public relations. It provides a nice distraction to the findings and conclusions of the forthcoming report. The criminal case will be dragged out to coincide with the release of the report and cushion the hard landing Zenawi is going to have in the report. We already know from the from the preliminary statements of EU EOM that the May 2010 “election” “failed to provide a level playing field”. Major donor governments have declared the election “does not meet international standards”. That is just diplomatic-speak for a stolen election. Regardless of what the final report will document, the incontrovertible fact is that an “election” that gave Zenawi a victory of 99.6 percent is not an election; it is a travesty of election.

But the sting of the EU EOM report could be lessened and world attention distracted by depicting opposition leaders as a bunch of bumbling and bungling lightweights (or worse) who are not only incapable of leading the country but are spending their time like children throwing rocks at each other. It is a brilliant public relations move by Zenawi to make a complete laughing stock out of some of the most respected leaders of the opposition. Let us just watch Zenawi showcasing the “rock throwers” freak show in his kangaroo court circus as the release date for the EU EOM report draws near: “Come one, come all to the greatest show in Ethiopia! Marvel and thrill at the rock-throwing Ethiopian opposition leaders! Stare in awe… Do you want these guys to run the country!?” Barnum and Bailey never had so much fun!

Justice in Kangaroo Court? (Act III)

Time was that opposition leaders were dragged in chains into kangaroo court to become victims of injustice. Some of the UDJ members in this criminal case were sentenced together to long prison terms in kangaroo court not long ago and served nearly two years before being “pardoned”. It is an eerie feeling to see them now standing on their hind legs pointing accusatory fingers at each other. UDJ members going to kangaroo court to seek justice is like Rodney King going before LAPD’s Internal Affairs to press charges against the cops who beat him to a pulp. It just makes no sense. I am dismayed and embarrassed by the sight of UDJ members brawling in a kangaroo cage match as Zenawi calls the count. What a low-down dirty shame for all who are toiling for democracy, human rights and justice in Ethiopia to view this spectacle. What comic relief for Zenawi and his crew. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I want to laugh too, but it hurts to laugh. In fact, I would like to cry at the sight of these distinguished members of the opposition wagging fingers and exchanging verbal missiles in kangaroo court. What were they thinking?

But to add humiliation to a crying shame, I agonize over the possible outcomes of the criminal case. If the UDJ defendants are convicted and sentenced to jail, who wins? Zenawi does. He will step up to the podium and announce to the world that his justice system worked “fairly” and thecriminal wrongdoers were held to account. He can walk up to his Western donors (a/k/a partners-in-crime) and smugly say, “Behold my opposition (chuckle)! See real justice at work!”

Who loses if they are convicted? The opposition does. The people will shake their collective heads in dismay and disbelief and ask: “What were they thinking? Why can’t they get along? If they can’t get along out of power, how could they get along if they get into power?”

Who wins if the UDJ defendants are acquitted? Zenawi does. He can show the world that justice was served in his court with impartiality and the innocent set free. Who loses if they are acquitted? The opposition does. The people will scratch their collective heads and ask: “Why did they do it? Was it worth their humiliation in kangaroo court?” In short, the kangaroo court criminal case is a win-win for Zenawi, and a lose-lose for the opposition!

But there is a less obvious conclusion to be drawn to the credit of the UDJ members. In the heat of the moment, certain party members may or may not have thrown rocks or exchanged harsh words. But to their collective credit, there was no shooting or extreme violence, as it often happens among opposition elements in so many parts of Africa. The UDJ members did not take to street justice to resolve their disagreements; they went to court (admittedly the kangaroo variety). I applaud them for that. They had the right idea, but went to the wrong place. Courts of law (in contrast to kangaroo courts) are the proper and civilized place to bring disputes for resolution. Independent judges (in contrast to hacks wearing judicial robes) can properly administer justice impartially and neutrally.

But the proper place for resolution of political disputes among Ethiopia’s opposition is never in kangaroo court, but in intra- and inter-organizational mediation and reconciliation processes or other civil society institutions. Throwing rocks or vilifying each other with abusive words is never justified. They do not need to beat each other up; they need to stand together and cover each other’s back. They need to shield each other from the ceaseless barrages of the slings and arrows of an outrageous dictatorship.

So I am going to “sermonize” a little bit here. If the bickering, name calling, rock throwing and all the other silly stuff continues, the opposition will end up in mutual assured destruction as the dictators look on with glee. It is mad to follow the path of MAD. The opposition has far too many important tasks to accomplish. They have already lost precious time in internal strife and fragmentation; they need to be doing more by way of uniting, mobilizing, motivating and inspiring the people with their ideas and plans. The people want to hear messages of hope and redemption from opposition leaders, not accusations and recriminations. The people want to be assured that it is possible, with dedication and effort, to overcome the seemingly insurmountable mountain of dictatorship; that change, peaceful democratic change, is possible and the people themselves hold their destiny in their collective hands. The people want to be shown these possibilities through leadership examples of optimism, dedication, tolerance, tenacity and patriotic zeal. That is the way to do it!

The kind of legal warfare we see in kangaroo court with opposition leaders and members is demoralizing; it is not uplifting for the people. It robs the people of their faith in the future and saps their energy, enthusiasm and hopes for democracy. Opposition leaders should be less concerned about their partisan interests and more engaged in addressing the needs of the masses of unemployed youth, the urban poor that have little to eat; the poor farmers scratching the earth for seedlings; the masses of women who face domestic violence daily; the educated professionals who can barely eke out an existence on salaries that are gobbled up by stratospheric inflation and the state workers who are forced to supplement their incomes by payments under the table. These people are looking for visionary leadership. They want to see clear-thinking and dignified opposition leaders charting the course to a better future. They do not want to see opposition leaders brawling in freak shows in a kangaroo circus court. Stated simply, opposition leaders and parties need consolidation, not fragmentation; they need reconciliation not accusation and recrimination.

Can’t We Just Get Along? (Act IV)

I see no need for opposition leaders to act in a vaudevillian comedy show directed by Zenawi. That is why I am asking them to develop and adopt a voluntary “code of conduct” to govern their relationships as they face a formidable common adversary. Such a code should address matters of civility, tolerance of dissent, non-use of inflammatory language, avoidance of personality clashes, constructive criticism of programs and policies, avoidance of personal attacks, establishment of formal and informal dispute resolution mechanisms, grievance complaint procedures and so on. Under no circumstances should they air their “dirty political laundry” in kangaroo court.

Political leaders and followers who are truly committed to democracy and human rights and work for the betterment of the Ethiopian people need to get along with each other and cooperate for a common purpose. They do not need to agree with each other on all issues or even the majority of issues. It is not even necessary for them to socialize and hang out together; but it is mandatory that they find effective ways of collaboration to advance their common causes of democracy, human rights, accountability, transparency and the rule of law.

Working together requires creating a harmonious working relationship founded on mutual respect, tolerance and understanding. If there are differences on issues, as there should be, all effort must be exerted to discuss and resolve them without degenerating into personal attacks. If issues cannot be resolved, it is best to agree to disagree and move on with other issues.

Teamwork and collegiality among opposition leaders are essential if dictatorship is to be defeated and real democracy established in Ethiopia. When opposition leaders attack and disrespect each other, they not only make themselves laughing stocks for the dictator and his crew but also look silly in the eyes of the public and set a bad example. The kind of dysfunctionality that is visible in the opposition today is not only pathetic but also harmful to the prospects of democracy in the future. Opposition leaders need to answer a simple question: How can they expect to work collaboratively in the interests of the country and fight dictatorship when they have hardened partisan politics among themselves so much? The road of hardened partisan politics leads to MAD. They may have been in separate boats before the May “election”, but now they are all in the same boat cruising up that famous creek without a paddle.

It is time now to transition to the politics of multi-partisanship, cooperation and collaboration. Practically, this means advancing the interests of the people over partisan politics or advancement of one’s agenda, status, career or ambitions. It means showing the people that the opposition is NOT the flip side of the ruling dictatorship. Stated simply, the people need to be reassured that in the opposition they are not swapping Tweedledee for Tweedledum. Democracy and dictatorship are not interchangeable. The most effective way of getting the trust and support fo the people is by proving to them what it means to work together harmoniously while opposition leaders and parties are on the outside, and before they have tasted the sweet intoxicating nectar of power.

That’s why I pose some simple questions to Ethiopia’s opposition leaders: “Why can’t you all just get along? Can you stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids? It’s just not right…. Why can’t you try to work it out?”

As the old saying goes, “Yesterday is gone and tomorrow is not ours, what we have is today.” Can we all begin to mend fences today and come together not only to oppose and defeat an ephemeral dictatorship, but most importantly, to put our collective shoulders to the grind wheel and work for democracy, justice and human rights in Ethiopia? Can we all get along!

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.

Follow Alemayehu G. Mariam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pal4thedefense

(Note to non-Ethiopian readers: Hodam is one who has no conscience, who sells his country, his people, his soul… for material gain. Woyanne is the ruling junta in Ethiopia. Among the hodam class, the second richest person in Ethiopia, next to Al Amoudi, is said to be Samuel Tafesse, a business partner of Meles and Azeb, the Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu of Ethiopia.

Samuel has been known to flash his conspicuously massive wealth by building a palace for himself in the middle of Addis Ababa, and throwing lavish parties.

This week, Samuel Tafesse and friends, including top Woyanne officials, are arriving in Washington DC to attend an extravagant party to celebrate his 25th wedding anniversary. The party will be held next Saturday night, August 28, at the Mandarin Oriental, one of Washington DC’s most expensive hotels.

The who’s who of Woyannes and their hodam supporter, about 500 of them, have been invited to dine, wine, and dance.

The cost for throwing the party is estimated to exceed $200,000.

Etete Restaurant in Washington DC has been hired to cater the Ethiopian food.

Woyannes and the hodam class in Washington DC are busy this week buying party dresses and going to beauty spa in preparation for the party.

The wedding anniversary celebration will be followed by a house warming party for Samuel Tafesse’s mansion that is being built in Alexandria, Virginia, at the cost of $5 million.  Construction crews are currently hurrying up to complete the house (shown below), which is sitting on 2 acres of land, located 20 minutes drive from Washington DC..

Fairfax County public records show that the 2-acre land (see below), located at 6434 Casperson Road, Alexandria VA, was sold to Samuel for $750,000 in December 2008.

When presented with the plan to build such a huge house, city officials were unhappy because the land could be used to build at least 10 townhouses. They urged him to build his mansion in another location further in the suburbs, which he refused.

(The above satellite photo was taken before Samuel’s mansion was built. City planners wanted to use the land to build townhouses similar to those in the area.)

The small house in the middle of the land (shown above) has now been torn down to build Samuel’s 16,000 square feet gigantic mansion.

One amused neighbor who saw the construction wrote: “It is being built as strong as a bunker. The basement looks like you could practice firing machine guns without disturbing neighbors. The 4 car garage is larger than my townhouse.”

Building big homes and buying luxury items is not a crime. In fact, they need to be encouraged since they help create employment for many people. But when such wealth is accumulated illegally, by crushing other businesses through unfair competition, by bribing government officials and partnering with heads of governments, it is harmful to a nation in so many ways.

As a close friend and business partner of Ethiopia’s brutal dictator Meles Zenawi and wife Azeb Mesfin, Samuel’s company, Sunshine Construction, is the first in line to receive the most lucrative contracts for construction projects around the country. Conveniently, Samuel’s wife is the sister of Public Works Minister Kassu Illala, who supervises all major construction projects in the country.

Samuel Aseffa

Samuel’s partners, Meles and Azeb, whose wealth is estimated to be $1.2 billion, get a cut from all the profit he makes. Since profit is the only motive — and in the absence of  genuine inspection — most of the buildings and roads Sunshine and the other corrupt companies build do not meet quality standards. Some of them are already falling apart. In short, Samuel’s wealth is accumulated through pernicious corruption — the kind of corruption that suck the life blood of a nation.

There are so many hard working, honest Ethiopians who could be as rich. But they are kept down, pushed out and many are leaving the country because they are NOT friends or partners of powerful government officials. It is such corruption and greed on the part Woyannes and their hodam supporters that have created an environment where most Ethiopians are unable to work and earn decent income in a country as rich in natural resources as Ethiopia. Instead of living under such a system, many are fleeing the country, in the process being subjected to the kind of humiliation and indignity as shown below where poor, innocent fellow Ethiopians are forced by Kenyan police to lay on the ground, face down.

The difference between these desperate Ethiopians and the likes of Samuel Tafesse is that the poor and destitute Ethiopians are not friends and partners of the ruling class. They are not any less hard worker or less smart than the hodam class who are flashing their ill-gotten wealth in our face.

Woyannes and their hodam supporters are committing egregious offenses, with impunity, against Ethiopians because the Ethiopian elite, including scholars, religious leaders, the media, those leading opposition parties, have all failed to provide leadership.

Source: Ethiopian Review

Source: Ethiopian Review

What then are the basis to claims about a “double digit growth” in Ethiopia and all the pop and fanfare surrounding the so-called “economic transformation” and “Development” of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi’s regime?

Such persistent and glaring contradictions between the regime’s claims of economic growth and development on one hand and study of other international organizations on the other have prompted a Council of Ethiopian economists and experts to look into the matter even deeper. It is expected that they will make their finding public with regard to Meles Zenawi’ claims to an unparalleled “Double digit economic growth”.

The Voice of America (VOA) has a two part interview with Dr. Getachew Begashaw, professor of economics and head of the economics department at William Ray Harper College in Chicago, IL and Dr. Aklog Birara, a person who has served at the World Bank as a senior advisor for over thirty years.

http://www1.voanews.com/amharic/news/five_year_plan_economic_analisis_08_23_10-101329439.html

German Radio interview with Professor Seid Hassen and Professor Minga Negash
http://www1.voanews.com/amharic/news/five_year_plan_economic_analisis_08_23_10-101329439.html

The Annual Ethiopian Flag raising Festival is a celebratory event that gives Ethiopians, Ethiopian Americans, friends, and supporters the chance to come together not only to celebrate the New Year of Ethiopia, but also to stir the patriotism within the hearts of Ethiopians, so we will never forget our roots, even when we are far away from country. Please join the San Jose City Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members at the unprecedented flag raising ceremony where the Ethiopia flag will fly over in the heart of the Silicon Valley.

This special civic ceremony is an excellent exercise to keep our tradition and respect for the homeland alive in the soul of every Ethiopian. So invite friends and family, dress in green yellow and red and come celebrate with us!

San Jose is the first and the only city in the entire United States of America officially hosting the Ethiopian flag.

Place: 200 E Santa Clara Street

Date: Sep 10th 2010

Time: 12:00 Noon We look forward to seeing you at the event!

Ethiopian Americans Council (EAC)

E-mail ethioamericans@gmail.com

www.eacouncil.org

A Brand Spanking New Constitution

In February 2008, following the ethnically-driven post-election violence in Kenya, I wrote an editorial commentary entitled “The Ethiopianization of Kenya”: 

After a half century of national existence, democratic experimentation and stability, Kenya has degenerated into a tribal/ethnic basket case beset by violence, fear and loathing… Kenya could have easily avoided this calamity. It had all of the tools at its disposal — a functioning and well-oiled electoral process, a civically engaged population, a democratic political culture enriched by prior voting experiences, an active and independent press, and a reasonably professional and independent judiciary, among others. It could have peacefully and amicably resolved the persisting questions of land ownership and redistribution, democratic power sharing, and grievances over issues of ethnic domination… Kibaki understood the implications of the theft of the presidential election for Kenyan national politics. He was fully aware of the potential for ethnic upheavals and widespread violence. He thought he could handle it by replicating the lessons of Kenya’s neighbor to the north, and perpetuate himself in power by introducing the discredited politics of “ethnic federalism.”[1]

The post-election bloodbath in Kenya ended after 1,500 innocent people were killed and 300,000 internally displaced, and  Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga agreed to share power and hold a referendum on a new Constitution, which earlier this month was approved by 67 percent of the voters.

Kenya’s new 206-page constitution[2] replaces the original one engineered by the colonial masters in 1963. It includes a comprehensive Bill of Rights (which encompasses economic, social, and cultural rights). It transfers certain powers to local governments consisting of 47 newly-minted counties, each of which will have a governor and are specially represented in a newly-established Senate. Limits on presidential powers are imposed by requiring parliamentary confirmation of appointees and ending the practice of presidential appointment of judges, among others. The powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are more clearly delineated, and citizen participation in the political process is promoted.  The Constitution authorizes the establishment of a new Land Commission with the power to re-possess illegally-occupied public lands. It guarantees women the right to inherit land. Muslim family (kadhis’) courts are given jurisdiction over matters “relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance” for Kenya’s Muslim minority.

Supporters of the new Constitution argued that these and other changes will usher in a new era of rights for Kenyans (guaranteeing clean water, decent housing, sanitation, and an adequate supply and quality of food and economic rights of inheritance for women), and ensure official transparency, accountability and clean government. According to one recent poll, 91 percent of Kenyans support the new Constitution. President Mwai Kibaki euphorically declared that the new Constitution will be “our shield and defender as we strive to conquer poverty, disease and ignorance.”  President Obama praised it as “a significant step forward for Kenya’s democracy”.  Opponents campaigned against the new Constitution because it “allows abortion on demand,” and recognizes a non-secular (khadis’) court system. The stronghold of opposition is said to be in western Kenya. Some have suggested that opposition to the new Constitution is stoked by politicians who are likely to lose their political and economic grip in the western region under the new Constitution.

Kenya’s voluminous new constitution and its ambitious scope of coverage of rights is long on promises not unlike most African constitutions which offer a cornucopia of rights and accountability provisions. The real question is whether Kenya’s new Constitution will continue the long unbroken tradition of dictatorship of Big Men in Africa or become a real instrument for the creation of a government of laws for the Kenyan people.

Government of Laws, Not of Men

Constitutional government is fundamentally about the rule of law. Organic rules are established to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive exercise of government power, and ensure leaders and institutions are  held accountable under the “supreme law of the land”. Stated simply, in a government of laws, “no man or woman is above the law.” But much of Africa has suffered under the government of men – autocrats, civilian dictators, military juntas, hybrid civilian-military dictators – who have pillaged the continent to line their pockets and oppress the people for nearly one-half century. For instance, Ethiopia for centuries remained under the rule of monarchs who believed they were “elect of God” and operated under the principle that they “can do no wrong” or be held accountable under the law. The maxim which conceptualized the monarch as the supreme law of the land holds, “it is impossible to sue the king or plough the sky.” (Negus aykeses, semay aytares.)  The “divine rule of kings” in Ethiopia gave way to an inhuman military dictatorship, followed by a brutal full-fledged kleptocracy.

The modern idea of legal accountability to check the abuse of political power dates back to the English Magna Carta (1215). The Great Charter was imposed on a reluctant king to safeguard against his arbitrary personal rule and to hold him accountable under the “laws of the land”.  By the same token, modern constitutions are intended to be a bulwark against dictatorship and tyranny by requiring of leaders and institutions observance of the principle of the rule of law. But that has not happened in Africa. African dictators have sought to create the illusion of constitutional democracy while practicing constitutional dictatorship. They sneer at the very thought of being held accountable when they exceed, abuse or misuse their powers. Far from imposing limitations on power, constitutions in Africa have served to expand and maximize the powers of dictators who have used them as “trump cards” to suit their needs. Many African dictators have used their  constitutions as “meal tickets”.  Western donors often refuse to extortion money unless they see the dictators wrapped around a nice liberal-sounding constitution. Domestically, these dictators have used their constitutions to legitimize their dictatorships, provide a “legal” cover for their klepto-oligarchic state, and to protect and preserve their privileges. As offensive weapons, they have use them to sledgehammer the opposition. For instance, in 2005 after Zenawi was defeated in the polls, he wiped out the opposition by charging them with five counts of violations of the Constitution. After he declared victory in the May 2010 election which he “won” by 99.6 percent, he made two public offers to opposition parties and leaders that he would sit and negotiate with them (lol) provided they “respect the will of the people and accept the country’s Constitution and constitutional process.”[3]

Kibaki told a teeming crowd of thousands in Nairobi that the new Constitution will be “our shield and defender as we strive to conquer poverty, disease and ignorance.” We wish the Kenyans the best of luck; but the fact is that in very few places in Africa have constitutions ever been used as shields. They have been used as spears and swords against individuals and as barrages of arrows against dissident groups in society. Kenya’s choices are clear: She can take Ghana’s  path and launch a constitutional democracy, or imitate its northern neighbor and be swallowed up in the quicksand of constitutional dictatorship. The Ghanaian path is the more difficult one to take because it requires translating constitutional rules into daily practice. It requires nurturing a democratic culture complete with all the expressive freedoms. This means going beyond babbling rapturous constitutional rhetoric about a “reborn” Kenya, “shields” and “defensive” armor against poverty and so on. To ensure constitutional success, ordinary Kenyans must take full ownership of their Constitution or it will be swiftly hijacked by the wily and corrupt politicians. Kenyans civil society institutions and intellectuals must take the lead in educating the masses about their new Constitution and help develop structures for popular participation. If Kenyans fail to maintain “eternal vigilance” over the corrupt crooks skulking in the halls of power, they will soon find that the constitution they were told was their shield will have been transformed into spears and arrows of dictatorship, garrotes to choke their civil society institutions and cudgels to trash their human rights.  If they need proof of that ugly future, let them calmly gaze northward.

From the Misrule of Law to the Rule of Law

Is it not a tragic fact that for most of Africa dictatorship is the only game of politics? The real question to contemplate as Kenya begins political life under its new Constitution is whether it will ultimately become a constitutional democracy or constitutional dictatorship. Kibaki has been in the saddles of power since his days as minister of finance in 1969, and is Kenya’s third president since 1963. The stench of corruption in high government places in Kenya reeks to the high heavens. In August 2006, Senator Barack Obama said, “Here in Kenya, there is a crisis [of corruption] — a crisis that’s robbing an honest people of the opportunities they fought for.”

Having lofty-sounding and well-crafted constitutions will not guarantee the crooked politicians will conform their conduct to the supreme law of the land. If mere words in a constitution were proof of the existence and functioning of constitutional government,  Ethiopia’s would be second to none. Kenya now is at the fork in the constitutional road. Whichever road it takes will be  fraught with danger. I am hopeful that Kenya will take the road less travelled — Ghana’s Way — in the rest of Africa. But I have deep concerns over the challenges that lie ahead. Do the Kenyan masses understand their new Constitution? Better yet, do their leaders? I am doubtful that the vast majority of Kenyans have actually read and understand the 206-page Constitution (let alone engaged in vigorous debate over its provisions), despite that country’s 80 percent literacy rate.  Even a studious and learned constitutional lawyer will have difficulty penetrating the dense recesses of the new Constitution. The corrupt politicians thrive in a whirlpool of mass ignorance; and I have a gnawing suspicion that they will find a way to hijack the Constitution and continue to do business as usual. The silver lining in the cloud is the manifest popular excitement and enthusiasm for the new Constitution by ordinary citizens. Only they can save their country from the serrated teeth of the corrupt and voracious politicians.

Long-term political stability in Africa will be impossible without citizens and leaders believing that legitimate governance rests first and foremost on observance of an agreed upon set of ground rules that limit the power of leaders and institutions and guarantee the rights of citizens. The words of most African constitutions are dead letters. They mean nothing, except what the dictators want them to mean. They neither shield citizens from the slings and arrows of ruthless dictators nor guide the people out of the wilderness of failed “statedoms” and thiefdoms (kleptocracies).  These so-called constitutions are “legal” documents but they are rarely legitimate instruments of governance. They disempower the ordinary people from becoming active participatory citizens and rarely serve as tools for greater official accountability, transparency, or protection of human rights. Africa’s dilemma today is whether it will be democratized or continue to be “dictatorized”.  

If the recent polls are any indication, there seems to be a significant attitudinal shift among average Kenyan citizens and the elites that the new Constitution represents a change of power from a group of ethnically-entrenched demagogues to a set of supreme rules. That is a hopeful sign. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Ultimately, the proof of Kenya’s new Constitution will be in its application and dutiful observance by its leaders and citizens. If ordinary Kenyans resolve to defend their new Constitution against the hordes of thieving politicians and kleptocrats, the words written on that paper will be worth more than all the precious jewels in the world. In the meantime, Kenya’s neighbors to the north will be scratching their heads wondering if their Constitution is worth the paper it is written on! North of the Kenyan border the motto is: “For our friends, everything; for strangers, nothing; and for our enemies, the law (constitution)!”   

FREE BIRTUKAN AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.

[1] http://www.ethiomedia.com/abai/the_ethiopianization_of_kenya.html

[2] http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/downloads/draft.constitution.pdf

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ethiopia-beware-of-those_b_682775.html

“Duble digits” are full in his cruel eyes,

Only seen by himself but fake to millions,

His cooked up numbers, non existing figures,

The expert in lies and day light deceptions,

Atrocity maker misery to masses,

How could one just adore “Human like Arios”?

User of statistics for obvious corruption,

Daily looting people for the land’s distruction,

How come you praise evil without any reason?

Your “neanderthal genius” globally ever known,

“Kindibu yamarew” “Beleh yenegerken”,

Can’t you see “buchery” in the Africa’s “Horn”?

“Ruanda’s sad history we won’t repeat again”,

“For racist enemies we never had option”,

“Apart the love we share, that unite us as one”,

Was the best melody in the right direction,

Why now “Midget” adored by brother “Solomon”?

Let history show your way “Wendem Alemachin”!

He loves “Intrhamway” against your own song,

For mass killing people by the use of his Gang,

His favourit lyric “Radio Mille” song,

From within enemy who hate our flag,

By stealing their own wealth who forced millions to beg,

Was that really true love to kiss hands and give hug?

Or his crime horendous upside down should be hunged?

You better sing brother about dear “Birtukan”,

And thousand patriots, who languish in prison,

For your also freedom who suffer severe pain,

May you listen the truth from “chis”, “Esat”, “Tamagne”?

Honest to his mother, “Ethiopia always one”!

Your previous lyrics praised “Enat Hagerachin”,

Though you betrayed us “tewedajochachin”,

Millions to prevail against huge “Seitan”,

We have tried every thing “Ketet new yekeren”!

It is not easy task never lose hope “Wegen”,

“Del be-del” we’ll come as history once again!

(WEGESHAW 14/08/2010 One Ethiopia yesterday, one Ethiopia today & Formever!)

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” goes the old saying. I say beware of those bearing fake olive branches. In many societies, “extending an olive branch” symbolizes an act of reconciliation, goodwill and peace. In ancient Greece and Rome, people gave each other olive branches as tokens of their intention to bury the hatchet and make up. The ancient Greeks are also remembered for the hollow wooden horse they used to outwit their  Trojan enemies and destroy their city.

Following his 99.6 per cent “election victory” this past May, Ethiopia’s dictator-in-chief Meles Zenawi gave a speech offering the opposition a bouquet of olive branches. He solemnly “pledge[d] to all the parties who did not succeed in getting the support of the people… as long as you respect the will of the people and the country’s Constitution and other laws of the land, we will work by consulting and involving you in all major national issues. We are making this pledge not only because we believe that we should be partners… [but also] you have the right to participate and to be heard.” Basically, he promised to set up a special “kitchen cabinet” for the opposition to come in and chit-chat (“consult and get involved”) with him after hours.   

Last week, Zenawi singled out two opposition organization and signaled his intention to move from confrontations to “consultations” and “negotiations”: 

… Concerning negotiations with the OLF (Oromo Liberation Front), Ginbot 7, the main thing has to do with principles. The first principle is peacefully resolving differences which is a civilized and appropriate strategy. Second, the way we can bring peace to our country is to accept the Constitution and the constitutional process and to be ready to pursue one’s aims peacefully. We are ready to negotiate with any organization, group or even disgruntled individual that accepts these principles and is prepared to return to the constitutional fold.

Is Zenawi’s offer of olive branches a Trojan Horse to finally put an end to all those who oppose his dictatorial rule?

A Trojan Horse Through the Looking Glass

In a recent commentary entitled, “Speaking Truth to the Powerless”[1],  I observed:

Zenawi knows the opposition like the opposition does not know itself. He has studied them and understands how they (do not) work. Careful analysis of his public statements on the opposition over the years suggests a rather unflattering view. He considers opposition leaders to be his intellectual inferiors; he can outwit, outthink, outsmart, outplay, outfox and outmaneuver them any day of the week. He believes they are dysfunctional, shiftless and inconsequential, and will never be able to pose a real challenge to his power. In his speeches and public comments, he shows nothing but contempt and hatred for them. At best, he sees them as wayward children who need constant supervision, discipline and punishment to keep them in line. Like children, he will offer some of them candy — jobs, cars, houses and whatever else it takes to buy their silence. Those he cannot buy, he will intimidate, place under continuous surveillance and persecute. Mostly, he tries to fool and trick the opposition. He will send “elders” to talk to them and lullaby them to sleep while he drags out “negotiations” to buy just enough time to pull the rug from underneath them. He casts a magical spell on them so that they forget he is the master of the zero-sum game (which means he always wins and his opposition always loses)… For the first time in nearly twenty years, he is now changing his tune a little because the opposition seems to be wising up and Western donors are grimacing with slight embarrassment for supporting him. The kinder and gentler face of Zenawi is slowly being rolled out.

Why “Negotiations” Now?

It is not clear why Zenawi is calling for “negotiations” now. For nearly twenty years, he has recoiled with disdain at the very suggestion of negotiations with the opposition. He apparently sees the need for it now. Why? Could it be because he understands the status quo is unlikely to hold much longer? Is it his way of recapturing some international legitimacy for his rule and regime? Surely, he must know that his Western patron saints who pour billions of dollars to prop up his regime regard him as just another tin pot African dictator who must be tolerated and humored to facilitate their interests in Africa. Long gone are the days of adulation of Zenawi as one of the “new breed of African leaders”.  It is possible that there is quiet donor pressure? The intelligence services of the various donor countries have mapped out alternative scenarios for Ethiopia’s future as Zenawi begins his third decade of dictatorship; and none of them looks pretty.

It may be that Zenawi feels the heat of the long smoldering ambers of collective anger and outrage percolating to the surface? Maybe he realizes that he cannot crush all of his opposition forever, and the tables could turn any day. Maybe he wants to use negotiations tactically to divide and destroy his opposition by co-opting some of them and letting the others self-destruct in dogfights over the bones he will throw at them.  Maybe he sees the despair of 80 million people and is gripped by a gnawing sense of anxiety and feels he must do something before it is too late for him and his regime. It is possible that he may be sending up a trial balloon to see if the opposition will take the bait? Maybe he is just grandstanding. He wants to impress his sugar daddy Western donors that he is a reasonable man of peace, and the opposition leaders are just a bunch of  “extremists” and “terrorists” uninterested in peaceful dispute resolution. Maybe he is playing one of his silly “gotcha” games as he did during the so-called “election code of conduct” negotiations. When leaders of the major opposition parties showed up in good faith to negotiate, he laughed in their faces and told them to take a hike. Subsequently, he threatened to throw them in jail for not abiding by a “code” they did not sign. Maybe he is convinced that he can outwit and outfox the opposition at the conference table. Maybe, just maybe, he is really genuine and wants a negotiated settlement in the “best interest of the nation.” There are recent precedents for such things in Africa. The mule-headed octogenarian Robert Mugabe snagged a deal with Morgan Tsvangirai  in Zimbabwe. Emilio Mwai Kibaki cut a deal with Raila Odinga in Kenya. Maybe it is all or none of the above. I don’t have the foggiest idea why Zenawi is now calling for negotiations, but the whole exercise seems absurd to me.

Can One Reasonably Negotiate With “Terrorists, Amateur Part-time Terrorists and Lifers”?

Zenawi’s offer to negotiate face to face (not in his usual backdoor elder-style negotiations) with the OLF and Ginbot 7 Movement seems disingenuous. For years, he has characterized the OLF as a “terrorist” organization whose “main objective is to create a rift between the government and the people of Oromiya.” He has demonized OLF leaders and jailed anyone vaguely suspected of involvement or association with that organization. He has contemptuously characterized Ginbot 7 as an organization of  “amateur part-time terrorists.” In kangaroo court, he recently sentenced to death various alleged “members” of Ginbot 7; and in absentia, movement leaders Dr. Berhanu Nega and  Andargachew Tsigie, among others. His deputy is on record publicly comparing “opposition” parties with the genocidal Rwandan interhamwe militias. That comment invited sharp censure by the 2005 European Union Election Observation Mission which called it “unacceptable and extremist rhetoric”. Zenawi has jailed Birtukan Midekssa, the first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history, and unquestionably the most important political prisoner on the African continent today, for life. Last December when he was asked if there is a chance Birtukan could ever be released, he categorically and absolutely ruled out any possibility of freedom for her: “There will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” It seems totally illogical and downright dishonest for Zenawi to propose good faith negotiations with opposition leaders and organizations allegedly sworn to remove him from power by force while being so deadest against any negotiation or agreement for the release of one harmless innocent young woman!

What Could Be Conceivable Outcomes of Negotiations?

Assuming there are negotiations, Zenawi has given no indications on the negotiable issues.  Regardless, what are some conceivable outcomes of any negotiations? Release of Birtukan? Release of all political prisoners?  Legalization of the OLF? Commutation of the death sentences of Ginbot 7 members and movement leaders? Fresh free and fair elections? Free functioning of the private press? Establishment of a fully independent elections board? An Independent judiciary? Aha! How about power-sharing a la Zimbabwe and Kenya? (Just kidding!)

A Faustian Negotiation?

The old saying goes, “Give the devil his due.”  Zenawi deserves credit for being a masterful zero-sum game player. Political scientists and economists use special analytical models to understand the behavior of negotiators in different settings. In a  “zero-sum” negotiation, both “players” (negotiators) desire one particular outcome, but only one of them can have it.  One player wins everything and the other loses everything. Stated differently, a zero-sum game is “like arguing over a pie (or injera, the traditional bread of Ethiopia): if one person gets a piece of injera, then the other person gets nothing.” For the past 19 years, Zenawi has been keeping all of the injera to himself, and denying others even a small piece. Now he wants negotiations to share the injera with the rest of the peons who have been watching him eat gluttonously at the dining table of power?

I have tried to logically decipher the type of negotiation Zenawi has in mind, without success.  Generally, when someone calls for negotiations, it means that person has formulated his negotiating points and positions and is prepared to give some indication of the negotiable issues to the other side.  Zenawi’s offer of negotiation is so vague and cryptic that it seems to be almost an afterthought in his press conference. But there is nothing vague about his zero-sum style of negotiation over the past two decades. Everyone who has “negotiated” with him knows that he has two principles of negotiation (and not the two he mentioned as preconditions for negotiations with the OLF and Ginbot 7): 1) “You are gonna do it my way, or you’re gonna hit the highway! Period.” 2) “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable. Period.” These are the two bedrock principles of negotiations  Zenawi has followed for the last twenty years in dealing with his opposition both within his own party and those on the outside. Why would he change now? 

Surely, Zenawi must realize that no one will negotiate with him on a zero-sum basis. It is irrational for anyone to negotiate one’s own vanquishment? It is illogical to negotiate in a “winner takes all” setting when the winner is already known before the negotiations begin. It is not unlike someone running in an election where the winner has been predetermined and the winning margin of victory (say 99.6 percent) already preordained. Why bother?

A real negotiation is a process of give and take, compromise, good will and even empathy for the other side. It does not seem that Zenawi is capable of such negotiating style. He has always looked at his opposition with contempt. He has never regarded them as his legitimate political opponents with whom he disagrees; rather he has always viewed them as mortal enemies that must be totally and completely vanquished. Political negotiations in Ethiopia can succeed only when there is mutual recognition by all parties of their shared humanity, nationality, commonality of interests, sensitivities, and above all that rapturous spiritual feeling called “Ethiopianity”. There is little room for negotiation and compromise with an “enemy” that one considers a “terrorist”, a “genocidal” maniac or a “criminal”.

Negotiations in the Best Interests of the Nation

I believe in negotiations not because someone could misuse it as tactical weapon in a public relations campaign, but because negotiation to me is the art of the possible. Only principles are non-negotiable. I believe it is possible to have negotiations in the “best interests” of Ethiopia and its people. These “best interests” are, among others, avoiding the long term consequences of ethnic conflict, reduction in political tensions, guaranteeing a better future for Ethiopia’s youth who represent over three-quarters of the population, ensuring respect for human rights, institutionalization of the rule of law, accountability and transparency in government, economic development for society and free personal development for citizens and the like. Negotiations in the “best interests of the nation” require “principled negotiations”, which means the parties must be committed to “win-win” (instead of win-lose zero-sum) outcomes. The parties focus on issues and not personalities; they strive to work around common interests and avoid imposing their hardline positions on each other. Principled negotiators generate and consider a variety of possibilities and solutions before deciding what to do. Above all, they work toward a solution cooperatively and come to an agreement that takes into account not only their individual needs but also optimizes their collective  outcomes. Principled negotiators understand that they can attain their goals if, and only if, the others also attain theirs. In sum, principled negotiators cooperate more and compete less, build more trust and work actively to lessen suspicion about each other. It is very possible to negotiate an agreement among those with polarized interests if they can manage to keep their eyes on  “best interests of the nation” instead of their partisan and individual interests.

“Respecting the Country’s Constitution?”

As a teacher, practitioner and student of constitutional law, I was mildly amused when Zenawi said he is ready to negotiate with anyone who “respects the country’s Constitution”. When one wags an accusatory index finger at others, it is easy not to notice the three fingers that are pointing to oneself. Before one can pontificate about the constitutional high ground, one must command it.  Zenawi must not just demand the opposition to respect the Constitution, he must also respect it. In fact, he should teach the opposition respect for the Constitution by example. But he has not been a good teacher: Article 9 (4) of the Ethiopian Constitution provides,  “International agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the law of the land.” Zenawi has trashed all human rights conventions as documented for years in the annual reports of the world’s most respected human rights organizations. Article 12 (1) requires that the “activities of government shall be undertaken in a manner which is open and transparent to the public.” Zenawi has concluded dozens of secret international agreements to give up the country’s land and resources without any transparency or accountability. Article 17 (2) guarantees that “No one shall be arrested or detained without being charged or convicted of a crime except in accordance with such procedures as are laid down by law.” Birtukan Midekssa and thousands of political prisoners remain in detention without due process of law. Article 20 (3) requires “Everyone charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a court of law…”  In practice, every suspect is presumed guilty, and hundreds of thousands of citizens presently languish in prison without charges. Article 29 (2) guarantees that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression without interference…. regardless of frontiers…” Independent journalists in Ethiopia are threatened and jailed by the dozens, and newspapers shuttered. The public media has been reduced into becoming a propaganda machine for the ruling party; international radio and television broadcasts are jammed and internet service kept at the most primitive level  to keep citizens from exercising their freedom of expression.  Article 38 (1) (b) guarantees, “every citizen the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections… ” Zenawi won the May 2010 election by 99.6 percent. There is no greater respect that can be shown for the Constitution than respecting the people’s vote!

Confidence Building Measures Before Negotiations

Negotiations require the art of dialogue. Zenawi can only monologue. I really would like to believe he is sincere about negotiations, and his offer of olive branches is genuine. But he has no credibility. His own words and actions betray him. How can anyone in their right minds negotiate with a man who said:  “There will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” A man who can take such a frighteningly inflexible, uncompromising, unyielding, unbending, rigid and unswayable position on an innocent young woman who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong is incapable of negotiating with “terrorists”, “genocidal” maniacs and “extremists” purportedly sworn to remove him from power.  Zenawi is willing to sit down “with anyone” and “negotiate” an agreement to deal with the super-complex problems of Ethiopia but he will never, ever, agree to even consider discussing the simple case of an innocent young woman?

Birtukan’s case is full of ironies. In 2007 she signed a pardon agreement negotiated over several months by a group of “elders” at Zenawi’s direction. A year and half later, Zenawi used the very agreement she negotiated with him for her release from prison as the basis for her summary re-commitment to life in prison. Is it not equally ironic that Zenawi is now extending olive branches to those he believes are sworn to remove him from power by force while keeping imprisoned for life the one person who can negotiate with him in good faith on the very same principles of constitutionalism and peaceful dispute resolution that he talks about?  But as the great Mandela said, “Only free men (and women) can negotiate; prisoners cannot enter into contracts.” If Zenawi wants to negotiate with the opposition, he must let Birtukan go free because she is the lioness share of the opposition.  

I do not want to be misunderstood. I plead  Birtukan’s case not for any particular political outcome, but because she is innocent and has done nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong. She has committed no crime. She has caused harm to no one. She is a threat to nobody. She played meticulously by the very constitutional rules Zenawi extols as his “principles” of negotiation. It is time to let her join her little daughter and aging mother for the Ethiopian new year in September. Why not also let the others who have languished in prison for years on suspicion of “involvement” with the OLF, and Ginbot 7 “members” who were recently jailed, to go free and rejoin their families for the new year? Why not unjam the Voice of America and stop jamming ESAT (Ethiopian Satellite Television)?  Let the people hear and see and make up their own minds. I know some will laugh at my naivete for suggesting these obvious ideas for it has been said that “fire, water and dictators know nothing of mercy.” But if one cannot take simple steps to build confidence, mere talk of “principles of negotiations” sound hollow and unconvincing. Perhaps Otto Von Bismarck was right:  “When a man says that he approves something in principle, it means he hasn’t the slightest intention of putting it in practice.” As an afterthought, is it possible to shake hands with a man who has fake olive branches in one hand and a gun in the other?

FREE BIRTUKAN AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA!!!

[1] http://allafrica.com/stories/201006101107.html

By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia — Like many in the West, former U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia David Shinn watched the country’s recent elections for signs that democracy was finally taking root . When the results of the May vote were announced, all but two of 547 parliamentary seats went to the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, the coalition that has been in power here for nearly 20 years, or its allied parties.

“How do you win 99% of the vote?” Shinn said. “That’s un-American.” And yet, he said, “Ethiopia remains a darling of the donor community.”

The U.S. gives about $1 billion annually to Ethiopia, more than to any other country in sub-Saharan Africa except Sudan. But even as U.S. and other international aid to Ethiopia has surged in the last decade, activists charge that the government has become more authoritarian.

“There’s been an inverse ratio of rising donor aid and a worsening human rights record,” said Leslie Lefkow, a researcher with Human Rights Watch.

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s government has won a degree of favor from the West for sending troops to fight radical Islamists in neighboring Somalia, but reports of rights abuses and a string of draconian laws that have constricted political space have put donor countries in an awkward position.

“It’s a dilemma for the international donor community, which doesn’t want to walk away from Ethiopia because the needs are so great,” said Jennifer Cooke, the director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Recent allegations of aid corruption have caused further unease among donor countries.

A March report by Human Rights Watch alleged a countrywide pattern of local government leaders denying aid to opposition supporters. Eligibility for many major aid programs is determined by local government officials — almost all of whom belong to the ruling coalition or its affiliates.

One former Ethiopian aid worker, who didn’t want to be named out of fear of government retribution, told The Times that aid is leveraged by local leaders to consolidate power.

“Aid is a tool for development,” the aid worker said. “It is also a tool for politics.”

Ethiopian officials deny such claims. Communications Minister Bereket Simon said Human Rights Watch was “engaged in the continuous fabrication of allegations” and said Ethiopia “has put in place a transparent mechanism for the distribution of food aid.”

Source: L.A Times

A few hundreds of TPLF agents, sycophants and opportunists were out in Washington DC on August 5 to express their solidarity with the genocidal dictator Meles Zenawi. Well, in the US even Neo-Nazist groups have a right to rally like decent groups. So it is a bit confounding to see ETV, Aiga and Ethiopiafirst.com to declare victory for an Al Amoundi-financed rally of the fans and lovers of tyranny. What we have witnessed was not a rally for a cause but for the promotion of crime against humanity.

That dejected singer Solomon Tekelegn was there, among so many like him. A few years back, he sang about Zenawi’s genocidal streak and likened Zenawi with Rwandan genocide masterminds. That was before he went to Addis to bow for the dictator. He wept and begged for mercy and the tyrant granted him pardon that he will take away any time. I guess the despot patted Solomon on the back and asked him to be his fan. That was enough to send the fool singer into frenzy. What was even shocking was that he went out of the Ethiopian tradition and composed a love song for Zenawi. That makes Solomon the first Ethiopian man to compose a romantic song for another man, none other than the infamous butcher Meles Zenawi.  He sang for the endless rule of the “beautiful one”, by way of his eyebrows. Imagine, Zenawi has scary Hitilerite eyebrows. But love is blind, as they say. If Solomon is to be believed, he has an amazing pair of eyebrows that a man like him can fall for.

It is rumoured that Zenawi liked the song very much. But it made Azeb Mesfin so jealous and suspicious that she decided to ban Solomon and his song from the palace. So one can say that laughingstock Solomon’s effort to express his love to Zenawi was a total flop.

I think the misdeed of Solomon may be more forgivable compared to that of Biniam Kebede, who childishly calls himself Ben. This one is the worst opportunist I have ever known. The lackey started to heap praise on Sheik Al Amoudi a few years back. The money worshiper owner of hodfirs.com’s prayer was answered as it appears that he is now getting crumbs from the Sheik, whom he thinks to be a god on earth. That is good for him. But what makes the guy look a fool is his servile and emotional reporting. When he had a chance to interview Zenawi a while ago, he was so excited that he missed the opportunity to ask a single serious question. His eyes popping out, he was just naively blabbering as if the tyrant was too much for him.

During this year’s election, he posted a video from Addis. The moron said that the democracy he was witnessing in action was so great that he regretted the day he took a Canadian citizenship. Seriously, he is a real sycophant who will say and do anything to please his TPLF masters. What was even outrageous is that he claimed to have conducted investigation on how Dr. Ashebir Woldegiorgis, the dentist who won one of the two parliamentary seats out of 547. According to Biniam Dr. Ashebir should be sent to jail as he cheated during the elections. He was pouring a crocodile’s tears calling TPLF to make its victory no less that 100 percent. But he never raised a concern on TPLF’s conduct in hijacking the whole electoral process in an illegal and grossly fraudulent manner.

Fast foreword August 2010, here comes Biniam again with his fifty pence videos and half-baked and immature commentaries. According to Biniam, Derg was conquered on May 28, 1991, the day TPLF entered Addis Ababa. Good enough, we all agree! He went on to claim that Derg was again defeated in Washington DC on August 5, 2010. You may be a bit confused, but that is what this soulless and confused opportunist said about the TPLF rally.  For scum bags like Biniam, whose father was a propagandist and member of Mengistu’s ruthless party (ESEPA), the people who have been marching around the world opposing tyranny are remnants of the Derg regime. Sadly there isn’t any difference between Derg and the ethno-fascist regime of Meles Zenawi. So nothing changed for the majority of Ethiopians.

Nevertheless, both Biniam Kebede of Ethiopiafirst.com (aka hodfirst.com) and Solomon Tekelign (aka kindib lover) represent no cause to die for. They are just sacrificing their conscience for the luxury of their belly. These foolhardy idiots do not deserve our attention. They are just too belly-minded morons that shamelessly try to insult our intelligence.  It is just a classic case of birds of the same feather flock together… Solomon and Ben should stop crying for Ethiopia. It has too many decent children who will not waver for the sake of crumbs…

[Watch how hodfirst.com stooped to low http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F1W5ZxKz44 ]

In Ethiopia, the same is almost true but with a disturbing caveat. It is an open secret that the double-digit growth of recent years is supported by dubious statistics.

There are plenty of reasons to be hopeful about sub-Saharan Africa. Progress towards more democratic rule, however, is no longer among them.

Anyone persuaded otherwise needs to take a hard look at recent elections and revisit history for a reminder of the costs of stolen ballots and stifled ambition. These can be heavy in countries where, for all the talk of an expanding African middle class, people still tend to vote on the basis of their ethnic identity.

Rwanda, which held elections on Monday, is a special case. It was always debatable how much the outside world should push for political freedom in a country recovering from genocide.

Western donors, led by the US and Britain, have mollycoddled President Paul Kagame, encouraging the notion that Rwanda’s stability rests on him. They have relied on his good will to get the timing right, in the hope that political space will gradually open.

It should come as no surprise that the reverse is taking place. There are few precedents of authoritarian rulers becoming more benign after 15 years in power. Like other guerrilla leaders whose path to the presidency went through the bush, Mr Kagame has proved ruthlessly effective in stabilising and rebuilding his country. His credentials for presiding over the more liberal environment needed if tensions are to be contained are less evident.

In this kind of instance outside pressure has proved necessary in the past. Western pressure on client regimes played a central role after the cold war in lending momentum to Africa’s political transition. Indeed, if democracy could be measured by the number of elections taking place now then there would be cause to celebrate already. This year voting will take place in 12 of sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 states.

In this context it is tempting to think that even the most entrenched autocracies are being cajoled into more liberal behaviour. Undoubtedly, in the age of mobile phones and internet, it is harder to silence critics and rob the central bank.

Yet far from reinforcing a virtuous circle of more accountable rule, a run of recent polls, Rwanda’s among them, have instead challenged a commonly held assumption: that the more elections taking place, the more democratic and stable the continent becomes.

The arrival of China as a major influence in Africa, and with other emerging nations, a source of finance and trade, has certainly diluted western leverage. But western strategic considerations, in an era of international terrorism and stiffening competition for markets and resources, have also seen electoral fair play drop down the agenda.

The rhetoric has not followed, however, leading to a policy that looks perfidious and silly. With one hand the US, the EU and other donors encourage and finance elections. With the other, they routinely accept the outcome regardless of how dubious the manner in which it is achieved.

In many cases voting simply adds trappings of legitimacy to a contemporary form of one-party rule, in which incumbents use patronage, oppression and control of electoral machinery to maintain power.

No doubt in Rwanda, where counting is under way, the process will be hailed as orderly even though there was no competition. Mr Kagame’s real opponents have either fled, been barred from standing or are lying low.

The results of earlier elections in Ethiopia, in which the opposition were evicted from all but two seats in the 545-seat parliament, were no less pre-ordained.

In both countries, as in much of Africa, western donors justify continued support on the basis of their development record. In Rwanda this is exemplary. The question is whether it will be sustainable as popular frustration at the closed political environment grows.

In Ethiopia, the same is almost true but with a disturbing caveat. It is an open secret that the double-digit growth of recent years is supported by dubious statistics. Yet the same figures are bandied around by development experts arguing that a trade-off between growth and civil liberties is inevitable.

That sounds worryingly familiar to the case used to justify western support for cold war clients. Are African desires for more accountable leadership becoming subordinate again to the opinion of western donors and the commercial and strategic interests of foreign businesses and powers? It is to be hoped that pressure from electorates will ensure that if this is so, it is only temporary. But it is a dangerous time for democracy in Africa.

In the past two decades, electoral transformations in countries such as South Africa, Ghana and Senegal encouraged positive momentum across the board. The opposite is true today. Before Rwanda this year, Sudan, Burundi and Ethiopia all hosted deeply flawed elections with little or no consequence for their relations with the outside world.

The leadership in other African countries where polls are looming will all have taken note: going through electoral motions remains a prerequisite for international acceptance. But there is no need to offer the real thing.

The writer is the FT’s Africa editor

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Source:  http://www.ft.com/

If that happens, it could not only bring another war and more misery to Ethiopia but the Horn of Africa in general! Definitely won’t bring any good to our brothers and sisters of the innocent Tigrayan population or even Eriteans! In this short article I am not going into details of the sinister tactics used by the ruling “government”, as it is already widely discussed in a lot of other articles by many scholars. Neverthless, I found it necessery to mention some of the important tactics they are practising. For their evil hidden but already appearing clearer to all matter, they use our own: people, land, wealth, history, air and rivers to run their cruel regiem in bringing misery, defeat, destruction and at the end disintegration of our motherland the most they hate! Some of the tactics used in destructing Ethiopians and their coutry in generel are:

1. Dividing people by ethnicity & religion in the name of  fighting for their freedom.
2. Leasing vast lands to foreigners by chasing the indegenous people from their own land and even forcing them to work as in the slavery time for their masters or collonisers.
3. Giving away another vast boarder line land to a neighbouring country in order to compromise the sovereignity and at the same time buying long time enemies for the country(good examples could be Sudan, Somale)
4. Monopolizing the countries wealth in the name of “EFFORT”, weakenning all the banks and interprises of the country to accumulate it in the Western Banks.
5. Deforming and errasing our glorious History, Religions and churches.
6. Depriving our people access to media(radio,TV,journalism –Jaming VOA,DW,ESAT)
7. On one hand depriving “Abay river projects” for so long time by collaborating with our historical enemies and now appearing as if they are advocating for it – for their political tactical approach but surely not to improve anything for Ethiopia.
8. Trading in the name of Tigrayans : (Benefiting Tigray at the expense of the other regions of Ethiopia (under the cover of EFFORT ), hence keeping the innocent population who mostly didn’t benefit except the TPLF elits and KADRES who are holding the population of Tigray hostage. Keeping the people in their iron fists to be hated by all (even by our Somalian neighbours, for they too suffered under TPLF ).    
9. Buying as many as possible Ethiopian citizens by giving incentives, land, jobs, scholarships, businesses etc.corrupting them and use them for their sinister hidden evil goal of destructing Ethiopia and its people. In other words taking them also  hostage by mixing them in their daily duty of corruption and atrocities, immercing them into their criminal machine, so that they never come out.
10. Arresting, intimidating, torturing and mass murdering those strong Ethiopians who stood for one and united Ethiopia. They looted wealth, land and Gold of the very Ethiopians who lawfuly inherited a beautiful country from their ancestors and so the enemies are using everything for the destruction of the once blessed country.These and many other tactics have been and still are being used against Ethiopians for the last 20 years. So far many, if not all tactics have been successful for the Enemy regiem from with in and they seem to be closer than ever to build their sinister dream of “ABAY TIGRAY”.Some of the sucsses stories according to the evil enemy regime’s plans are: 

a)      Ethiopia ranking as the poorest of poor in the World,

b)      One of the few failed states,

c)      One of the highest child mortality rate is in Ethiopia,

d)      One of the bigest donation begger Government, etc.

 Let me conclude by emphasizing on the following aspect. The criminal regime has succeeded in forcing our population at home and now that they want also to take the “Diaspora” hostage. From the above mentioned evil tactics of the enemy regiem in Ethiopia tody, I would like to focus on what is in Nr.9 – Buying as many Ethiopians as possible in the “auctionning of Ethiopia” and take them hostage by blackmailing them”. Please open the following links written in Amharic and judge for yourself what kind of circulars have been spread to the World in order to take press Ethiopians be it AKA “HODAMS” or those who genuinly try to help their country by investing in their motherland.Look how the evil regiem is using its Embassies arround  the World in order to spy against Ethiopians for its sinister evil dreams!( open enclousure Doc 1,2,3 below ).Embassies in every country are supposed to help their citizens intersets, support them in time of need and try to comfort them in their lif of misery.By now there are millions of Ethiopian refugies arround the World. What the enemy regiem in Addis is doing is the contrary, hurting them instead of helping! it is using all embassies of the country abroad to spy and opprace “its own citizens”. It is in War against its own people at home and abroad. It has extended its security to the neghbouring countries: (Sudan,Kenya,Uganda,Yemen, etc) and is engaged even in executing Ethiopians by getting in their already unbearable measerable life of refugy. So many of our sisters are telling very sad stories in many Arab countries where they lead a modern slevery like of life in hell, while the so called “Ethiopian Embassy employees” are trading for their individual pockets by ignoring the sufferings of their citizens, on the cotrary hurting Ethiopians who already live in destitution and suffering! Ethiopians around the World have to expose these extreemly wrong doings which is in the proces of killing our brothers and sister refugees!

Our motto of the time should include:

1)      Any Ethiopian Embassy who works against Ethiopians is an enemy of Ethiopia!

2)      No spying against Ethiopian refugees who are already living in sufferings, life in Hell!

3)      Embassy employees arround the world stand for the poor Ethiopian refugees not for the rich looter and evil tyrant!

4)      Embassy employee Ethiopians arround the World, if you couldn’t work for the good of your fellow Ethiopians, then just boycout the tyranical regiem instead of   taking part in its horendous crimes against Humanity!

5)      FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSA AND TENS OF THOUTHANDS ETHIOPIAN PRISONERS!

6)      No land leasing for 99 years in the name of Ethiopia!Tthe agreements should be void!

7)      No boarder line demarcation with neighbouring Sudan or any other country in order to compromise our sovereignty! The fake agreements would be void!

8)      All political parties UNITE! Listen to the people’s voice “TEBABERU or TESEBABERU”!

9)      NO “ABAY TIGRAY” and no trading in the name of our brothers and sister Tigrayans!

10)  Tigrayans, save your motherland Ethiopia by being with your fellow Oromos, Amharas, Sidamas, Welaita and all other etnicities in unisome to deffend your country as you have bravely shown in “ADWA”, THE VICTORY OF THE BLACK RACE!

ETHIOPIA SHOULD PREVAIL! 

( WEGESHAW, for freedom and liberty to come in our beloved mother land! 10/08/2010)

Introduction

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of “communism” as an ideological project in the late 80s and early 90s, there was optimism that political liberalism will spread uncontested around the world.  In the early 1990s the spread of democratic politics in what was dubbed “the third wave” of democratization[2] seem to have confirmed this prognosis. Authors such as Francis Fukuyama declared the end of history in the sense that the ideological divide within humanity has ended with the universal victory of Western liberal democracy.[3] While this prognosis largely holds in a number of countries in almost all the continents of the world, a shrewd and deliberate circumvention of the democratic process by an even larger number of countries particularly in Africa and the Caucus regions of the former Soviet Union has dampened optimism about the democratic resurgence. The ability of authoritarian regimes to conduct meaningless regular elections that they can easily manipulate in their favor while tightening their authoritarian grip on power have underlined the need to carefully consider the real substance of democratic governance beyond the mere conduct of regular elections. Accordingly, a more comprehensive accounting of democratization, that includes the degree to which these elections are genuinely free and fair in addition to the prevalence of the basic rights of citizens, and the limits on government power and its accountability to citizens have found the earlier triumphalism rather wanting.  Furthermore, the emergence of identity politics on the basis of ethnicity, religion and other identity markers in post communist societies (in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, Armenia…etc.) as well as in North Africa, the Middle East and Sub Saharan Africa (Algeria, Rwanda, Nigeria…etc.) and the prevalence of identity based politics in the form of race, gender and sexual orientation even in matured democracies have again raised the issue of the ability of liberal democracy to address these issues adequately or the mechanisms through which it can address them effectively.[4] All these issues have combined to dampen the excitement about the triumph of liberal democracy around the world. More recently, rather than an inexorable move towards democratization, scholars talk about “the democratic roll back,[5]” the emergence of “hybrid regimes,[6]” and “Elections Without Democracy.[7]” According to the 2010 Freedom house survey “ 2009 marked the fourth consecutive year in which global freedom suffered a decline—the longest consecutive period of setbacks for freedom in the nearly 40-year history of the report.”[8] 

The process of manipulation and reversal has become more or less universal and endemic particularly in Africa. Save for a handful of countries (such as Ghana, Benin, Botswana and South Africa) that made a successful transition to democratic politics, the great majority of countries that jumped in the bandwagon of election politics, have reverted back to their authoritarian selves.  All the countries that former president Clinton praised as the young and democratic leaders of Africa in the early 1990s are confirmed authoritarian regimes today. According to the 2010 Freedom House survey “These declines were most pronounced in Sub-Saharan Africa, although they also occurred in most other regions of the world.” [9] Only 9 countries with 19% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population live in a country considered free, while 39 countries with 81% of the region’s population live in a “partially free” or not free environment. 16 countries with 33% of the population live in a suffocating environment of un-freedom.[10]  

The common response of African dictators when confronted with their earlier promise to establish democracy in their countries is that democracy cannot be rushed in Africa. It takes time. They tell their western interlocutors (who seem to agree with the story but are afraid of being labeled racists if they openly say it) that Africans are too primordial and fractionalized to live in liberty. They claim that politics of identity is more important than the issues related to individual rights and liberties emphasized by political liberalism. One of the most common justifications provided by African tyrants for staying in power for so long is the claim that real functioning democracy or more appropriately their departure from power will lead to ethnic chaos and instability in their countries.[11] It is truly bizarre to see African dictators use the dangers of ethnic based divisions as a justification for circumvention of democratic politics while they masterfully and cynically use ethnic cleavages to divide the population and weaken the resistance against tyranny. 

The fall of the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia in 1991 brought hope that there is a possibility for the country to turn a page towards more stable and democratically accountable governance.  Ethiopia was one of the countries praised by Clinton for its transition to democratic accountability. Although formal elections have been held every five years since the adoption of the new constitution in 1994, the country failed to transform its politics to a meaningful democratic system. In fact, instead of inching slowly towards democratic politics, the regime moved further away from democratic accountability and instituted a suffocating one party dictatorship. The political opening that ushered a meaningfully contested election in 2005, all but died with the death of over 200 unarmed civilians that peacefully protested the blatant stealing of the election by the ruling party. Election 2010 that gave the ruling EPRDF a 99.8% victory finally put the death nail on Ethiopian democracy under the current regime.[12] 

While the 2010 election finally cleared any confusion that might have remained about the nature of the current regime in Ethiopia and hopefully puts to rest the delusion of some western analysts about the possibility of democratic transition under Meles, it still leaves a number of unanswered questions about how such a brutal ethnocentric tyranny was able to maintain its tight grip on power for so long. If the regime lacks democratic legitimacy as it has been obvious for so long, what explains its intolerably long tenure in a society where it is overwhelmingly unpopular? Is the regime’s ability to deliver the economic goods the main explanation for its stay in power as the regime and its supporters claim or is it the inability of its fractured opponents to mount a credible challenge that explains its durability? Is western financial support for the regime an important factor as some opposition analysts claim? If the problem lies in the weakness and division in the opposition camp, what explains this paralysis? How important is the ideological and/or ethnic division within the opposition to prohibit a unified and credible challenge to the regime? How much of it is simply a lack of strong leadership within the opposition? All these questions require a careful and detailed analysis that I will not be able to provide in any detail in this short paper. 

Instead, I will concentrate on one important aspect of the political discourse in Ethiopia in the past couple of decades that, in my view, has contributed enormously to the weakness of the political opposition to the Meles regime and to the EPRDF’s ability to stay in power for almost two decades. I will argue in particular that the prevalence of identity politics partly as a remnant of the socialist discourse of the 1960s student politics in Ethiopia, the inability of political regimes to effectively address the demands for political inclusion by various ethnic groups, combined with the failure of the democratic opposition to effectively articulate the legitimate concerns of ethnic communities within the larger context of liberal democratic politics has enabled the current regime to effectively divide and weaken the democratic opposition in Ethiopia. The false dichotomies between individual rights and group rights or between national unity and ethnic identity have been deliberately nurtured by the regime, and sadly uncritically absorbed by the opposition to make effective resistance against tyranny very difficult. I will further argue that the most recent, and probably the most obscene election of 2010 have brought the possibility of a more productive dialogue among a broad array of political forces to develop a shared vision for the country’s future. Such a vision must necessarily provide for a more profitable compromise between the requirements of identity politics with that of the more universal desire for individual liberty and political equality among Ethiopian citizens. Forging such a common vision, I would further argue, can form an effective basis for a practical, coherent, and effective resistance against tyranny in order to usher a more stable, inclusive and democratic Ethiopia for future generations. 

The remainder of the paper has five sections. The first section sets the stage with a brief background history to isolate the roots of the divisions that more or less inform the various currents in Ethiopian politics today. Section two discusses the background for the prevalence of identity politics in Ethiopia and its inability to incorporate the changing global and national political environment which prohibits a change in political attitudes and reformulation of its political strategy. This section also critiques the more defensive and reactive positions of Ethiopian nationalist forces for their failure to sufficiently appreciate the pains and concerns of historically oppressed and marginalized ethnic communities.  The third section presents a discussion about identity politics and political liberalism. In the fourth section, I will present my own suggestions for establishing a common ground between the democratic forces that prioritize identity based politics and those that are genuinely committed to political liberalism within the framework of a shared political community in a rather diverse and complex web of cultural identities. Based on these suggestions, this section also lays out the lessons of the most recent Ethiopian election and the opportunity it created for a unified democratic resistance. The fifth section concludes. 

The context: Ethiopia after 1941 and the nature of the opposition to the Monarchy 

Ethiopia is a country that has never had a meaningful democratic politics in its history. The country’s recent history has moved from a rather benign but centralizing monarchy to a variant of Marxist dictatorship to an overtly ethnocentric tyranny in a spate of a little more than seven decades following the restoration of the monarchy in 1941. For the purpose of this paper and to better clarify its central argument, it is useful to briefly summarize the main features of the post-occupation history with an eye on current political divisions in the country. 

The first important point to note about the post occupation history of Ethiopia is that Haile Selassie’s restoration more or less meant a continuation of the pre-occupation polity with all the contradictions that it contained. The power base of the imperial regime remained the powerful regional lords or their descendants that were instrumental in Menelik’s expansion/centralization of the country to take its modern geographic shape. The agricultural economy, which was the mainstay of the country’s economy with its moribund semi feudal ownership structure, remained unchanged. The ethnic, regional and other divisions and disparities with their pent up grievances were not addressed. The political and economic relations that obtained before the occupation were not in any meaningful way disturbed by the occupation and there were no political forces that emerged to challenge the legitimacy of the monarchy or demand any alternative socio political arrangement.  Neither modernizing elites nor groups with ethnic based grievances pressured the monarchy to change its ways. 

The second point to note about this early history is the failure of the ruling elite to introduce gradual reforms. Attempts at addressing some of these issues by introducing a new constitution in 1955 fell far short of what is needed to address the accumulated problems. The attempt by the more modern sectors of the aristocracy and the educated elite to transform the polity to a constitutional monarchy failed because of the resistance from the more powerful traditional power structures, including the emperor. The parliament established by the new constitution was too timid to check the power of the emperor and its more conservative allies. It miserably failed to even introduce minor reforms related to the obviously unjust and inefficient land holding system that subjected the great majority of the population to a miserable life of poverty and contributed to the country’s underdevelopment. 

The absence of credible reforms combined with the changing regional and international political environment contributed to radicalize the opposition to the imperial regime. The small educated class was disappointed with the perceived slow economic and social progress of the country even compared with other African countries. Educated elites from oppressed ethnic groups started to better articulate the concerns of their groups along nationalist lines and demanding social and political justice. Peasant unrests in various regions of the country started to question the legitimacy of the land holding system and in some places started to rebel against economic injustice and regional mal administration. While all these local grievances were brewing, the international environment was changing as radical movements started to gain momentum in various parts of the world including in western democracies and some of the newly independent African countries. These movements had significant influence in shaping the ideas that informed the anti systemic movements that dominated both pan Ethiopian and identity based opposition politics in Ethiopia at the time. 

While the opposition to the imperial regime during the two decades after the adoption of the new constitution in 1955 was rather broad and universal, it didn’t mean that the reasons behind the opposition and the proposed alternatives were the same. In fact, at the expense of some over simplification and keeping in mind that there could be crossovers from one category to the other, we can categorize the opposition to the Haile Selassie regime into four distinct categories: 

1. The liberal/traditional modernizing but pan Ethiopian nationalist opposition (exemplified by the Neway Brothers)
2. The Radical/socialist and pan Ethiopian nationalist opposition (gives primacy to Ethiopian nationalism although is deeply committed to socialism as well. Roughly exemplified by the leftist groups that joined the Derge and radicalized the military)
3. The Radical socialist “internationalist” opposition (The dominant current in the student movement exemplified by Walleligne’s famous paper and organizationally gathered around the EPRP) and
4. The Radical socialist but “ethnic identity” based opposition (That essentially took the leadership of the ethnic based movements, including the TPLF, OLF…etc.)

 One of the most puzzling aspects of the opposition to the imperial regime in Ethiopia by the late 60s and early 70s was the significant radicalization of the educated youth. Even by African standards, where the anti-colonial struggle took a radical anti capitalist posture in many places, the Ethiopian opposition to Haile Selassie was extremely radical.[13]  Even more puzzling was the conspicuous absence of a moderate liberal opposition that could put its mark in the debate at the time. By the time of the 1973 famine, which marked the beginning of the end for the imperial regime, the liberal/traditional modernizing opposition to the imperial regime was largely gone, seemingly with the failed coup attempt of the Neway Brothers. The field was almost totally occupied by the radical Marxist left in terms of its ideology, but with crucial difference on how to handle the “national question” but even more importantly on the question of who has the legitimate right to claim political power within the ambit of leftist ideology. Political liberalism did not figure as a serious contestant in this ideological debate let alone in the more practical power struggle. In other words, a politics centered on individual liberty and justice along with market friendly economic policies didn’t figure in any meaningful way in the debate to shape the future of the country. This absence was even more visible in relation to the debate on “the national question” at the time. 

When the junior officers of the Derge finally made their move to overthrow the emperor, they were without any coherent ideology, but ready to be influenced by any group that can help them ride the wave of discontent among the population. The only political requirement for them was a clear position on Ethiopian unity and, of course, a limited political ambition in terms of not challenging the junior officers for power. Other than that, the officers were willing to take any radical “anti-feudal” and “anti- imperialist” policy measure as well as addressing some of the key cultural demands of hitherto oppressed ethnic groups. They made their willingness to radically depart from the ancien regime early on by promulgating a radical land reform program that established their radical credentials. Naturally, this position appealed to the radical pan Ethiopian left that sees the possibility of implementing its socialist program by allying with the junior officers, while at the same time ensuring the country’s unity. It is important to note here that leaders of this group (some of who are from oppressed ethnic groups themselves) genuinely believed that the “nationalities question” in Ethiopia could be adequately resolved through the socialist programs they espouse. This position also appealed to some of the more moderate ethno nationalist forces from the South including some Oromo nationalists who saw the “land to the tiller” proclamation as a positive move in the right direction which can potentially destroy the economic base of ethnic oppression in the country.[14]   Accordingly, after two years of a rather murky but strictly political tug of war, the battle lines were drawn between the military officers allied with the radical pan Ethiopian left and moderate ethno-nationalists, on the one hand, against the radical “internationalist” left and the radical ethno-nationalist forces on the other. 

Identity politics and the radical “internationalist” left in Ethiopia. 

The brutality with which the Derge dealt with its political opponents along with the rigid ideological posture of the left opposition to the regime made any kind of rapprochement almost impossible once the political struggle between these forces took a violent turn. The rather opportunistic push by the Somali government to forcibly settle the border dispute between the two countries, the intensification of the resistance by Eritrean nationalist forces combined with the internal political opposition to the government created a siege mentality among the officers. The military and their allied left cadres violently lashed out against any one they suspected of opposing them by branding them as anarchists, reactionaries or secessionists. The indiscriminate killings of the red terror further alienated all kinds of forces even when they are not ideologically opposed to the regime or when they essentially support the economic policies of the regime. In the mean time, as the pressure on the “internationalist” left from the government intensifies, and the government officially joined the cold war by allying with the Soviet Union and Cuba, the anti-Derge left made a short term common cause alliance with left ethno-nationalist forces under the terms broadly outlined by Walleligne’s famous 1969 paper “On the question of Nationalities in Ethiopia.[15]” A paper which served as the litmus test for genuine Marxist internationalism as opposed to the “reformist” or “pseudo Marxist” position of the radical pan Ethiopian socialist forces. 

Walleligne’s paper is probably the most influential short paper that shaped both the views of the radical “internationalist” left and the ethno-nationalist movements in Ethiopia. As its recent distribution in some nationalist websites indicates[16], its influence in some quarters is still strong and for these reasons alone it merits a careful discussion. As the author himself admits, it was not a terribly analytical paper and it suffers from “Generalizations and inadequate analysis.”[17]Neither did it bring a new analytical perspective on the question. In fact, analytically, the paper was fundamentally a rehash of the Bolshevik position on the issue uncritically adapted to the Ethiopian situation. The power of the paper, however, emanates from the boldness of its position, its willingness to tackle “very risky and inconvenient” issues and more importantly its very serious practical implications. Before I discuss the paper’s practical implications let me summarize the basic points contained in the paper. 

Walleligne’s paper can be summarized in some seven interrelated propositions. 

• That Ethiopia is not one nation but a country made of a “dozen” nationalities. Each with its own language and cultural identity
• Ethiopian Nationalism is “fake” and advanced by the ruling class and “unwillingly accepted and even propagated by innocent fellow travelers.” Furthermore, this “fake” nationalism is nothing but the supremacy of Amhara-Tigre. This is attested by the symbols of Ethiopian Nationalism such as Amharic music, Orthodox Christianity, the Amhara-Tigre Shamma, and the like
• The cultural and economic oppression of nationalities by the Amharas and their junior partners, the Tigres is not because Amharas and Tigres have inherent imperialist tendencies. Rather it is a historical accident. If the others (for example the Oromos or the Wolaytas) get a chance, they would have done it and they have tried to do so.
• Ethno-nationalist movements by themselves could not deliver the equality we seek, because these movements are exclusive in character and generally led by the bourgeoisie and/or feudal lords. So, we don’t expect ultimate deliverance from them.
• Still, we should support these nationalist movements because they weaken the state and thus prepare the ground for a socialist revolution, even if they are secessionists.
• Secession is OK as long as it is led by socialists (workers and peasants) and “believes in its internationalist obligations.” This is especially true if the rest of society is not ready for a socialist revolution.
• The key issue is the commitment of the movement to socialist ideology, not national integrity.  Because “in the long run, socialism is internationalism and a socialist movement will never remain secessionist for good.” That is why, North Korea’s secession from the South, for example, is supported by the left. 

I don’t wish to evaluate the accurateness of his historical presentation in this paper. What is important to note here is that his understanding of the national question is essentially utilitarian. Surely he, like all progressives of the time, was concerned about the national oppression that prevailed in the country. I suspect this concern for equality among cultural communities is equally shared by the pan Ethiopian socialists as well. Walleligne’s willingness to accept secession clearly was conditional on its instrumentalist value in helping the socialist cause in Ethiopia. In other words, as we saw later with his followers in what I dubbed the “internationalist” left, when the limits of identity politics goes beyond its subscribed position or is led by “non-socialist” groups and starts to take its identity claims seriously, then the question of secession becomes undesirable or even reactionary.[18]This position, of course, is not unique to the Ethiopian left. The Bolsheviks which articulated the radical left’s position on the national question have responded in an even more brutal manner when their power was questioned by nationalist forces; however legitimate the original source for their grievance. Stalin decimated the Georgian nationalist opposition to the Bolsheviks, when they asked for the right to secession that was clearly stipulated in the constitution. 

What is extremely significant, and in the long run most damaging in this discourse, is its inability or unwillingness to engage identity politics in its own terms within the specific context of Ethiopia. Could such politics contribute to stability or breed instability in Ethiopia? Could it ensure or meaningfully contribute to broader freedom and justice in the country? Could legitimate ethnic grievances be used by unscrupulous politicians to further sow discord among communities for the sole purpose of gaining political power? If so, how could one check such potentially destructive ambitions? What cause is most important for the long run health of the political community? What are the practical lessons from countries that addressed the problem of identity politics from differing ideological perspectives?…etc. A discussion of these issues would have been more illuminating and thus productive. Instead, the debate, if one calls it that, deteriorated into the familiar polemical discourse where opponents were smeared with labels such as “chauvinists”, “narrow nationalists” or even worse while wisdom and righteousness is supposedly assured by finding the appropriate quotation from the accepted dogmas enshrined in the “books” of the international socialist movement. 

For the pan Ethiopian left the solution for the national question is not secession. In fact, toying with the question of secession in diverse multiethnic countries such as Ethiopia is playing with fire. In this position, it is in sync with all countries in Africa that emerged from colonialism, across the ideological spectrum. Rather, the solution is to be found by eliminating the root causes of ethnic oppression and establish a polity that is based on equality and class solidarity. An Oromo working class has a lot in common with an Amhara working class rather than an Oromo feudal lord or bourgeoisie and vice versa. Furthermore, the Amhara working class has no particular interest to culturally oppress the Oromo working class. It is only the ruling classes that benefit from ethnic based oppression and use these ethnic cleavages to divide the poor and rule. Thus, talk about secession within the socialist movement could be divisive and dangerous. It could even make the socialist movement vulnerable to a possible alliance of the bourgeoisie and the working class in some ethnic communities weakening the power of working people. In other words the difference between the Walleligne position and the pan Ethiopian position was one of tactic rather than strategic and substantial. The difference is that Walleligne and his group has confidence in the unifying power of Marxism and class solidarity even when confronted with identity politics. So, the promise of secession is useful in weakening the class enemy but ultimately undesirable or even downright distasteful under socialism. On the other hand, the pan Ethiopian left seems to appreciate the potential mobilizing power of identity politics and was not willing to take the risk of potential disintegration and civil war on the basis of ethnic identity by taking Stalin’s theoretical prescriptions seriously. They felt Walleligne’s position to be rather naive and reckless. This, of course, is not taking other doctrinaire differences between these different factions of the left in to account. 

Contrary to its cool reception by the pan Ethiopian left, Walleligne’s paper was overwhelmingly popular among those that give primacy to identity politics simply because it validated their position. For Marxist ethno nationalists who believed in the overpowering aspect of class conflict in the long run, the ethnic conflict and contradictions took precedence over class conflict at that particular juncture in Ethiopian history. For the non ideological ethnic movements Walleligne’s paper provided protection from the leftist charge of “narrow nationalism” or tribalism. In either case, ethnic based politics was mainstreamed within the left movement. Those opposing ethnic based politics, be it from the pan Ethiopian left or from other Ethiopian nationalists are now categorized by the ethnic based movements as groups that are unsympathetic to their cause at best or, even worse, reactionary chauvinists.  Along with this, opposition to secession became a test of one’s commitment to ethnic equality in Ethiopia. As name calling and labeling took precedence over rational discourse in the heat of practical politics, and the multi-national left forces engaged in a rather destructive fratricidal war that decimated both the pan Ethiopian left and the “internationalist” left, the conflict within Ethiopia’s body politics slowly moved from the class based political discourse of the 1960s and 70s to the dominance of identity politics at least in the opposition to the Derge regime. On the other hand, Ethiopian nationalism was unfortunately represented by the Derge regime, which was thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Ethiopian public for the unmitigated economic and political disaster it brought on the Ethiopian population for some 17 years. 

Ethiopia Under EPRDF: Identity politics and Dictatorship 

So, when the TPLF came to power in 1991, it came with a determination to make identity politics the mainstay of Ethiopian politics. Its Marxist ideology always secondary to its Tigrean identity and with Marxism going in disrepute after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only thing left was to pursue the ethnic agenda with a pseudo democratic mask. In addition to creating allied ethnic organizations representing various ethnic groups, it invited primarily ethnic based groups to discuss and determine the future of the country during the conference establishing the transitional government. [19] Being an ethnic based organization representing a small minority, the TPLF was conscious of two potential dangers threatening its power. The first was the emergence of any kind of pan Ethiopian nationalist politics. The second was the emergence of a strong ethnic based organization that is independent of TPLF influence in the sense of having its own ambitions for power both at the national or regional level. 

 In relation to the former, it started a very vicious propaganda campaign against any form of Ethiopian nationalism. Taking its cue directly from Walleligne, it used the mass media that it controlled to push the line that there is no Ethiopian nationalism as such.  It is a fake nationalism. Any one speaking in the name of Ethiopian nationalism is simply an Amhara chauvinist (or a Neftegna) that is trying to reinstate the old order. In pursuing this line, the TPLF used not only the other ethnic organizations that were allied with it, but also the independent ethnic organizations, who believed that the main enemy against their ethnic aspirations was still “Amhara chauvinism” although that political current has been out of power for a very long time. In other words, this assessment essentially asserts that the 17 years of Derge rule is simply a continuation of the imperial period when it comes to the issue of ethnic oppression. The various measures taken by the Derge to address the economic and cultural basis of ethnic oppression,[20] in this view, have not changed one iota the fundamental structure of Ethiopian politics. Furthermore, the TPLF worked diligently to ensure that identity is defined in one and only one form in its legal and political manifestations; that of ethnic identity with language as the primary marker. This position was pushed to such an absurd level, that citizens with mixed ethnic heritage were forced to choose one of them to get official identification in places like Addis Ababa.[21]  In making this identity as supreme, this position also relegated other competing identities (for example class, gender, religion…etc) to a meaningless secondary role. The propaganda was so relentless and the political marginalization for those who refuse to play this game so serious, that some Ethiopian nationalists decided to organize as Amharas to participate in the political process.[22] This part of TPLF’s activity can be seen as largely successful, at least till the 2005 election. 

Among the many things that changed in 2005, probably the most important for our discussion here is the emergence and articulation of a liberal politics for the first time in the country’s history. As I suggested earlier, although there were liberal opponents of both the imperial and Derge regimes, they were almost totally muffled by the dominance of radical Marxist and ethnic political discourse.[23] This liberal political plank took advantage of the relative opening of the political space and presented its case to the public effectively exploiting the opportunity presented by the election.[24] What is important about this position was that it brought two critical issues to the forefront. The first was the issue of individual rights while also respecting the concerns of identity based groups. This was presented along with respect for human rights, political equality, justice…etc. as an important requirement for a genuinely democratic politics. As rights issues, these were issues that even those that give primacy to identity politics can easily relate to. The argument that respect for individual rights does not and should not conflict with group rights and that on the contrary those that claim to respect group rights will not genuinely commit to such rights without accepting individual rights had resonance to a wide audience including those that were intensely partisan to identity politics, but who suffer abuses from the TPLF regime. The second plank, that of national integrity within a democratic framework, was also presented in a more sensitive and practical manner rather than as a rigid dogma that supersedes the respect for basic rights and the political equality of citizens. The secession of Eritrea and the numerous internecine conflicts among ethnic groups even after the official acceptance of ethnic based self rule, the endless fratricidal conflict within the same ethnic group in neighboring Somalia, clearly revealed the dangers and the potential rough edges of identity based politics. For many ethnic minorities, it was very natural to feel more secured within the ambit of the broader nation/polity than with a multiplicity of ethnic based states. Accordingly, the increasing hostility towards the EPRDF regime, combined with the appeal of these liberal positions to a larger than expected populous mostly in urban areas but also in rural regions heralded the serious ideological and political challenge to identity based politics in Ethiopia since the 1970s. To be sure, this presentation of the liberal position in the 2005 election has served as a broader tent to disparate groups to come together to challenge the EPRDF rule. Some in this broad coalition might espouse more radical positions towards the question of integrity or might have very little tolerance to identity based politics. Some could even be down-right chauvinists covering their deeper identity based positions under the ambit of liberalism or national integrity. The fact remains, however, that in the realm of ideas the liberal ideas I presented above were the organizing ideas of that movement. 

The second part of TPLF’s activity aimed at weakening or even eliminating any kind of independent ethnic politics that it cannot control. After eagerly pushing the independence of Eritrea to eliminate a potentially powerful rival for power if it stays within the union, it didn’t wait long before it pushed the OLF and the small agglomeration of Southern parties out of the transitional government. [25]Other ethno-nationalist forces such as the ONLF quickly followed as it became clear that their aspiration is not going to be achieved under TPLF. It more or less decimated the unprotected army of the OLF by force and made it clear that it has no tolerance to any one, no matter what their ideology or political views that can challenge its power and the control over resources that this power bestows on it. Showing footages of the brutality allegedly committed by OLF activists, it presented the OLF as a reactionary secessionist force bent on dismantling the country and brutalizing all other ethnic groups if it gets a chance. Since, in addition to the conscious promotion of cultural communities that started after the revolution, the TPLF also provided pseudo “self government” for ethnic groups, it couldn’t see any legitimate reason for complaint against its rule. Secession is a legitimate issue only when it is a response to ethnic oppression. Under a “progressive” regime that recognizes ethnic rights including self government, the constitutional right to secession is there to appreciate the generosity of TPLF to oppressed ethnic groups but not to be seriously practiced. 

We now have the rather odd situation where by the political organization that firmly established the primacy of identity politics in Ethiopia and that characterized Ethiopian nationalism as a reflection of Amhara chauvinism brutalizes ethnic groups that wish to genuinely administer their own affairs, in the name of national integrity in order to protect its power and continue pillaging the country. Its brutal actions in the Ogaden, Oromia, Gambella, Keffa-Sheka, Afar, Amhara, Sidama, Benishangul and other ethnic communities where there was some challenge to its rule or some semblance of independent activity, confirms that when it comes to its power, it has no mercy. With a voracious appetite to pillage and benefit a narrow group that it claims to represent, it cannot settle for equitable share of national resources that genuine equality would necessarily imply. What is made clear from this experience is that such regimes could bring all kinds of opportunists from all identity groups to share the loot, it could even allow cultural communities to develop their cultural heritage, but it will never provide the liberty for individuals to live in freedom or for groups to genuinely administer their own affairs. This is because these two rights are interrelated and that both rights emanate from a broader understanding of the sovereignty of citizens in a political community.  As I will try to argue later, only a meaningful liberal democratic politics is capable of weaving through the maze of conflicting identities and provide individual liberty while also protecting and nurturing diversity.  But, for that to happen in Ethiopia, a real meaningful and sensitive conversation has to take place between those that espouse political liberalism with those that prioritize identity politics as their destiny is thoroughly intertwined. 

For such a conversation to occur and hopefully lead to a profitable cooperation, it is important to take stock of the past difficult relationships between these groups that make constructive engagement near impossible. In my view, the difficulty emanates from both the underlying inherent conflict between these two positions and more practically because of the dominance of the more extreme views in each category to dictate the tone of the debate. I will briefly discuss these two issues next. 

Political Liberalism and Identity politics: Conceptual Issues and Practical Problems. 

The myopic and rather destructive politics of TPLF in the past 19 years has brought havoc to the country’s body politic and alienated a large section of the population. Organized opposition to the TPLF led regime comes from a variety of groups and a multiplicity of political views and positions. For our discussion, we can categorize them into four major groupings: 

1. Ethnic based political groups that have maintained the old and more extreme position of secession as a solution to the ethnic problems of the country. In other words those who do not see any change in the nature of the political question in the country since 1974, save for the replacement of the Amhara by a Tigrean ruling elite;
2. Moderate ethnic based political groups that wish to renegotiate the nature of the political community to address ethnic based concerns, particularly related to the implementation of genuine federalism within the context of Ethiopia as a political community;
3. Political moderates who are uncomfortable with identity politics and are very much concerned with the integrity of the nation but feel that the solution to the country’s problems can be addressed within the framework of political liberalism that acknowledges the diversity of the country but that wishes to build the political community within the framework of citizenship and:
4. Radical integrationists who feel vindicated by the mess that is created by the TPLF and contend that the experience of the last 19 years is nothing but a confirmation of the dangerous nature of ethnic politics. Even more, in its extremist version, it is a position that rejects the claims of ethnic oppression by ethno-nationalists. This voice simply rejects any kind of ethnic based political engagement including ethnic federalism. It also rejects any cooperation with such forces as it sees such cooperation as a recipe for the future disintegration of the country. 

This, of course, is not an exhaustive categorization. But I believe it is sufficient for the purpose of this paper. There are variations within each group and there might even be groups that might be difficult to put under any one of the above categories. But, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is their relative insignificance both in the debate that is shaping contemporary politics and their practical political significance, we can concentrate on the four categories above without losing much by way of clarity or practical import. 

Of the above four political positions and persuasions, the first and the last are, in my view, more ideological than practical political propositions. I say this not because of a total rejection of the validity of their claim, although there is quite a bit in their respective positions that are intellectually disagreeable. A selective reading of history that exaggerates their own claim while totally ignoring or rejecting relevant history that counters their position is a very common feature of these groups. Instead, it is their limited practical value in resolving the political conflict that reduces their practical import. Their fixation with history and their unwillingness to look forward; their inability to empathize with the concerns of the other and their almost total obsession with their own pain make it very difficult to find common ground for solving contemporary, practical and urgent political problems. Their willingness to sacrifice the interest of the current and future generations for the purpose of settling historical scores; their almost religious like certainty about the rightness of their positions and their unwillingness to entertain solutions less than their ideologically defined optimum prohibits a rational give and take politics that the time requires.  A politics dominated by such extremes will never lead to an amicable solution. Since my ultimate concern in this paper is to outline the possible route for constructing a more peaceful, tolerant and free political community in Ethiopia, I will not spend time in analyzing these extreme positions. Instead, in the remainder of this paper, I will concentrate on the two moderate positions and try to address both the theoretical and practical impediments that hitherto prohibited the possibility of a unified action against tyranny despite the fact that they are all victims of the same political system. 

In the realm of ideas, the first and important point to note is the inherent exclusiveness of identity based politics. By definition, identity politics is a politics of difference. Its very existence requires defining itself in opposition to the other. And its political claims are always presented in the form of protecting or promoting the rights of a particularly defined group in relation to the larger political community. The reason for particularly defining that group as opposed to another could be based on a particular historical event, a uniquely defined cultural tradition, a result of the economic position of the group or whatever. We can agree or disagree on the basic premise of the issue that caused it. The important point is that it is uniquely defined and can be presented in separation to the other. On the other hand, political liberalism presumes political communities that are essentially diverse and different on most basic and fundamental values, and hopes to create a political community on the basis of citizenship, where every individual in that society is presumed to be equal in politics and in law. These conflicts in the realm of ideas present a host of issues that are practically relevant in establishing stable functioning democracies.  In the introduction to a book entirely dedicated to this topic Seyla Benhabib presented this politics of difference and the problem it poses to democratic politics in the following way: 

 “Since every search for identity includes differentiating oneself from what one is not, identity politics is always and necessarily a politics of the creation of difference. One is a Bosnian Serb to the degree to which one is not a Bosnian Moslem or a Croat…What is shocking about these developments is not the inevitable dialectic of identity/difference that they display but rather the atavistic belief that identities can be maintained and secured only by eliminating difference and otherness. The negotiation of identity/difference…is the political problem facing democracies on a global scale”. [26]

 For liberalism, the first challenge that identity politics presents is the choice of identities and the value that one gives to the multiplicity of identities that we all possess. In fact, the real issue is the degree to which an individual human being can be uniquely categorized to belong to a single identity (be it on the basis of religion, ethnicity, gender…etc.) or the rationale behind picking one particular identity and provide it with a privileged position compared with other competing identities. This “solitarist approach” according to Sen, emanates from the “odd presumption that the people of the world can be uniquely categorized according to some singular and overarching system of partitioning.”[27] But such partitioning will not help us to understand fully the real identity of a person. In fact as Sen put it: 

 “A solitarist approach can be a good way of misunderstanding nearly everyone in the world. In our normal lives, we see ourselves as members of a variety of groups—we belong to all of them. The same person can be, without any contradiction, an American citizen, of Caribbean origin, with African ancestry, a Christian, a liberal, a woman, a vegetarian, a long-distance runner, a historian… Each of these collectivities, to all of which this person simultaneously belongs, gives her a particular identity. None of them can be taken to be the person’s only identity or singular membership category. Given our inescapably plural identities, we have to decide on the relative importance of our different associations and affiliations in any particular context…Central to leading a human life, therefore, are the responsibilities of choice and reasoning.”[28] 

This of course is an issue that requires deep understanding in relation to specific conditions. The existence of multiple identities in Ethiopia is obvious. For moderate pan Ethiopian nationalists the primacy of ethnicity based on language (as opposed to religion or even specific cultural practice for example) is problematic as it will not answer the whole question of identity that prevails in the country.  Such definitions of identity, when insisted upon as a political basis, say for self government, then bring a host of questions related to practicability. Why should we have nine ethnic based federal regions, when there are over eighty different language based identities in the country? Why is a Sidama with 3.5% of the population or a Gurage with 4.3% of the population is not a federal region with self government rights while the Afar, (1.9%) the Benishangul Gumuz, (0.9%) the Gambella (0.4%) or the Harari (0.2%) have their own self administrative regions?[29] What would it mean if people want to categorize their identity on the basis of religion than ethnicity, for example? These are thorny practical questions. To raise these issues is in no way to undermine one’s ethnicity or to belittle the identification of the group. It is only to raise the complicated nature of the issue we are dealing with and even more to emphasize the need for choice and reasoning to tackle these issues. 

To raise the theoretical and practical problems related to identity should, of course, not lead to summarily dismiss the problem altogether. It is equally a mistake to presume that this complexity means that we are all the same and that we should simply ignore our differences. Just as the insistence on a singular identity diminishes us by forcing us to give up all the richness that other identities provide us, the alternative categorization that we “are all the same” and thus we should not even talk about identities is patently not true. Ethiopia is a society with diverse identities both in terms of differing cultural communities and in terms of differing identities within each cultural identity.  It is, however, equally important to recognize the fact that multi ethnic national identities could be important markers for individuals over and above narrowly defined ethnic identities. In fact, that is why all multi ethnic communities seek to forge a national identity that supersedes ethnic identities. One aspect of our identity could prove to be more important than another aspect of our identity depending on the circumstances. In periods of war, for example, national identities take overwhelming importance compared with narrowly defined cultural identities.  The task for moderates from both sides is to identify the common elements that we share while also acknowledging and respecting the differences that we surely have. 

The other issue that comes to the fore when we try to address the question of identity politics within a liberal political project is the potential conflict between individual rights and group rights. If we accept groups as specific categories with uniquely defined rights, what is the relationship between the rights of the group as a whole and the rights of the individual within the group with multiple identities? For example, if a group is provided with rights to practice its culture without impediment, what happens when an individual in that group or a group of individuals with a different identity feel that their rights are trampled upon by this cultural practice by an identity group that they also belong? What if the culture that defined the identity group, for example, is hostile to the rights of women? Who has priority when these rights clash? These are very important issues that define the nature of the political community. If the ultimate solution to the political problems of the country is to come from a renegotiation of the political community as Lencho Letta[30] suggests, these negotiations must address and settle these problems embedded in the politics of identity squarely. Political liberalism does not have much of a problem with these issues as it is based on providing primacy to individual rights, in the sense that respect for group rights are valid only in so far as they don’t trample upon the rights of individuals or groups with different identity markers. For liberals, a genuine respect for individual rights and liberties is the only guarantee that ensures the respect for group rights. In the Ethiopian context, these issues are not entirely settled because they are not carefully discussed. Only reasoned discourse and sensitive negotiations among moderate forces could help us move forward on these issues.  

Finding a workable solution to the thorny political problems of our country is not going to emerge from an academic settlement of the issues that I outlined above. Given the nature of our collective misery, developing a workable theoretical postulate to address the conflicting claims of identity politics and political liberalism will not be extremely hard especially within the two moderate forces that I outlined above. The issues that elude solution are the practical and behavioral problems that these long conflicts have engendered. Although we are all victims of oppression by brutal tyrannies, the various political traditions that emerged out of the struggle against tyranny, the divisions and hatred deliberately fomented by those in power for the purpose of divide and rule, the petty politics that permeated our politics in the past, the unsavory characters that resided over opposition politics…etc. have all taken their toll in creating a rather hostile environment for constructive discourse and cooperative action. 

Probably the most important of these behavioral damages, in my view, is the complete lack of trust within the larger Ethiopian community. Trust, as we all know, is a very important social capital that societies need for any kind of constructive action. Although the declining level of trust is apparent even within particular cultural communities, it is obviously at its lowest level across cultural communities. Even meaningful dialogue has become increasingly hard seemingly with the intensity of the repression by the regime. For a long time, there hasn’t been any meaningful intellectual engagement between ethnic communities in the Diaspora for example. There is a manifest inability to try to understand the problems of the other. Part of the reason for that, I believe, is the dominance of extremist positions in the oppositional discourse. As reasoned engagement is pushed out of stage by passionate sloganeering, as reasonable intellectuals and thinkers get pushed to the margin by simple minded extremists, as politicians learn that it is much more profitable to appeal to peoples’ passions rather than their heads, these positions end up dictating not only the tone of the debate, but also the course of practical politics. In this kind of political environment, finding common ground becomes near impossible. If we are going to develop and strengthen the level of trust in our communities, one of the immediate tasks that moderates from both sides have to do is to reclaim the tone of the debate and put it firmly in the realm of rationality and within the ambit of what is achievable and what has been achieved so far. 

Political Liberalism and Identity Politics: Looking Ahead

One of the great achievements of the 2010 elections, in my view, is its almost total obliteration of the illusion of change that might come from the regime in power. This illusion is destroyed both for moderate liberals who hoped for a smooth transition to democratic politics within the existing structure and those that are organized around ethnic identities who hoped that the regime might live up to its claims of ethnic equality and genuine self governance.  More than anything else it proved that in the Ethiopian context (as in other places) the issue of individual liberty and cultural freedom are inextricably linked. One has no basis to expect a settlement of the legitimate aspirations of cultural groups including freely administering their own affairs, in an environment of tyranny. A respect for individual freedom is a necessary condition for respecting group rights. This means, Ethiopians across the broad spectrum of their differentiated identities have very strong conceptual and practical reasons that unifies them. This unity is forged not only because of geography and collective suffering. But also because of the commonality of the solution to their anguish. It is not only the despair of the past that unites them, but also the hope of the future. 

 In other words, it is only through a coordinated multi pronged struggle that people in Ethiopia can achieve their liberty. A call for a unified struggle against tyranny is now so common that it is a cliché. The discussion has now moved to the more appropriate and practical question of defining the objectives and modalities of this unified struggle. It is also clear that a meaningful and effective unified struggle has to incorporate both the moderate forces of unity and those that insist on identity politics. It is amply clear by now that the extreme radical ideology that informed opposition politics in the 60s or the moribund politics of the imperial era cannot provide for a hopeful future. 

What is needed is a careful and rational negotiation about the country’s future. The starting point, in my view, is a clear definition of the political community that citizens wish to construct that can address the concerns of the country’s diverse communities. How can political forces construct a well ordered society? What are the minimum requirements for constructing a viable, free and peaceful community? I strongly believe that political liberalism provides the initial basis for such an agreement. I believe it is only on the basis of justice and equality that one can hope to construct such a political community. As John Rawls succinctly put it: 

“Although a well-ordered society is divided and pluralistic…public agreement on questions of political and social justice supports ties of civic friendship and secures the bonds of association.”[31]  

That political and social justice should be the basis upon which the future political community in Ethiopia must be based should not be very controversial, at least in theory. It can also be agreed that political power at every level should emanate from the will of the people. These are issues that both sides of the moderate political forces can surely agree. These are the basic premises of liberal politics. On the other hand, liberal politics is also struggling in addressing the issue of how to appropriately incorporate the demands of identity politics. The idea of creating a political community on the basis of particular identities, within the process of forging a larger political identity on the basis of citizenship is not an easy task. But, we must understand that the very appeal of liberal politics comes from its explicit recognition of difference. This difference is not on the basis of some minor issues, but in fact on most substantive issues. We can’t ignore the presence of deep rooted identity based loyalties, by exclusively concentrating on individuals. It requires careful negotiations between these contending claims till we achieve the right balance. It is going to take time. But it should be taken as an objective that can be achieved if democratic forces are committed to lay the theoretical, institutional and behavioral grounds for its success today. 

This ground work for the community’s collective salvation can begin in the unity that is forged during the ensuing bitter struggle for liberty. This is the arena where contending political forces can communicate better, they can listen to each other and can even learn to share each other’s pain. It is through this collective struggle that they can develop the trust that is crucial for success. It is only when there is trust that all their efforts are to forge a better future for their children rather than to settle past scores or to open old wounds that they can effectively begin their march to genuine liberation. 

My argument for forging a viable political community within the framework of political liberalism should not be mistaken for an attempt to impose some Western political ideas on a fundamentally non western African community. Far from it. As Amartya Sen said there is “nothing exclusively “Western” about valuing liberty or defending public reasoning…there is, in fact, a long tradition of participatory governance in Africa as well”[32] This certainly is not a debatable point for the Oromo community as the Gaada is the perfect example of this tradition in our own region.[33] That is why I am optimistic that children who came from this tradition will not find it difficult to forge such a unity for this lofty purpose.

[1] Paper Prepared for the Oromo Studies Association (OSA) 24^th Annual conference. Howard University, Blackburn Center, Washington DC, July 31^st –August 1^st 2010.

[2] Huntington used the term to describe a series of over 60 democratic elections that took place since the end of dictatorship in Portugal and the implementation of democratic politics following its “Carnation Revolution” of 1974. See Samuel P. Huntington “Democracy’s Third Wave.” The Journal of Democracy, 2(2) 1991.

[3] Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press, 1992.

[4] On the theoretical debates dealing with the issue of democracy and identity politics see the collection of articles in Seyla Benhabib (ed) Democracy and Difference:Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1996.

[5] See Larry Diamond, The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State. Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008.

[6] Larry Diamond, Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 13, no.2. April, 2002, pp.21-35.

[7] Andreas Schedler titled his article on this topic as “The Menu of Manipulation” to underline the kind of manipulations that take place to circumvent the democratic process and to show that these elections are conducted mainly to get temporary legitimacy, particularly in the eyes of the international community. See Andreas Schedle, The Menu of Manipulation. Journal of Democracy, Volume 13, no.2, April 2002, pp.36-50.

[8] Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2010 Survey Release. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=505.

[9] Freedom House, op.cit.

[10] See, Freedom House, Map of Freedom:Sub-Saharan Africa, 2010. http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Map_Africa.pdf. Last visited July 21, 2010.

[11] For a biting criticism of the numerous authoritarian regimes in Africa that have been touted as emerging democracies in the 1990s and some of the justifications given by their western supporters, See Jason McLure’s recent article on News Week Why Democracy Isn’t Working: Despite an Economic Renaissance, much of Africa is drifting toward a new age of authoritarianism. News Week, June 18, 2010.

[12] The official figure announcing EPRDF’s victory says that the ruling party and its allies won 545 out of 547 seats in parliament. However, only one seat is won by an official opposition to the ruling party. The other seat is won by an “independent” candidate who has officially declared that he is an alli of the ruling party and was only opposing the individual fielded by the ruling party in his constituency. Which makes the winning percentage of the ruling party and its allies 99.82%.

[13]An old Ethiopia hand, Rene Lefort, I believe correctly, calls the student activists of this period “the strongest and most radically Marxist in all of black Africa.” See, Lefort, op.cit.

[14] It is important to note that some of the top leadership of the OLF in the late 80s and early 90s were individuals who were in this category, including people like Abiyu Geleta, Ibbsa Gutema, Zegeye Asfaw, Dimma Negoo etc.

[15] Walleligne Mekonnen, On the Question of Nationalities in Ethiopia. Arts IV, HSIU, November 17, 1969. http://walilegnfordemocracia.com/onationalqu.pdf. Downloaded, July 15, 2010.

[16] Gadaa.com, for example republished it in its website on June 27,2010 with a short editorial comment saying “it’s probably the most famous article in Ethiopian politics.” http://gadaa.com/oduu/?p=4613#more-4613.

[17] Walleligne, op.cit., p.1.

[18] Note the conflict between the “internationalist” left as represented by EPRP and the radical ethno-nationalist left in Tigray (both ardent followers of Walleligne), which led to an armed conflict that led to the ejection of the EPRA from Tigray in 1977. 

[19] Only a handful of the 27 organizations represented in the transitional conference were pan Ethiopian. The rest were all ethnic based organizations.

[20] These measures include the land reform that totally abolished the “neftegna” system, the purposeful cultivation and promotion of ethnic music, tolerance, if not active promotion, of non Amharic languages including Oromiffa and Tigregna radio programs, even changing the names of regions to reflect local language such as Arsi, a much more forceful implementation of religious equality…etc. Not differentiating these issues with the larger question of power and discussing its implications to identity politics in Ethiopia is one of the lacunae in the debate about identity politics in Ethiopia.

[21] The confusion created by this policy of singular identity, led to the absurdity of the formation of a political party representing people with mixed heritage during the first election in 1995.

[22] It is to be noted that most of the members, including those in the leadership of AAPO, have repeatedly argued that they were forced to take the Amhara label to protect Amharas and other settlers in the south from persecution rather than believing in the Amhara political identity as such. This sentiment was strong enough to finally force the organization to adopt an Ethiopian nationalist posture when it changed its name to AEUP in 2003?. Of course, this was taken as a confirmation of the charge by ethnic nationalists that Ethiopian nationalism was nothing but Amhara nationalism.

[23] One such early intervention, was Haddis Alemayehu’s Ethiopia Men Ayenet Astedader Yasefelegatal. Published in Amharic, in Addis Ababa, 1975.

[24] I have written in detail elsewhere how and why this political opening was made available by the TPLF/EPRDF. See, my Amharic book, Yenetsanet Goh Siked, Addis Ababa, 2007, and my more recent article Ethiopia’s Despair. Current History, Vol.109, NO. 727, May 2010.

[25] In June 1992 the OLF left the transitional government and in March 1993, members of the Southern Ethiopia Peoples’ Democratic Coalition left the government.

[26] Seyla Benhabib “The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference. In Seyla Benhabib (ed) “Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political”.  New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996. P.3-4

[27] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: Penguin Books, 2006, p.xii.

[28] Sen, ibid, pp.xii-xiii.

[29] I am aware of the contentions about the reliability of the most recent Census data. This, however, will not affect the point I am making. For data on the most recent (2007) census see Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Population Census Commission: Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census. Addis Ababa, December 2008, Table 1.2, p.11 and Table 2.2, p.16. http://www.csa.gov.et/pdf/Cen2007_firstdraft.pdf. Last visited, July 25, 2010.

[30] See Lencho Letta’s recent interview on ESAT television. http://www.ethsat.com/ Last viewed, July 27, 2010.

[31] John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory, quoted in Will Kymlicka’s Three Forms of Group-Differentiated Citizenship in Canada. In Benhabib (ed), op.cit., pp.163-164.

[32] Sen, op.cit.,p.99.

[33] For a detailed treatment of the Gaada system and the participatory democracy practiced by the Oromo, see Asmarom Legesse, Oromo Democracy:An Indigenous African Political System. Trenton: Red Sea Press, 2006.

Note: This is the fourth installment in a series of commentaries I intend to offer on U.S. foreign policy (or lack thereof as some would argue) in Ethiopia. In this piece, I argue that the Obama Administration’s recently announced Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative to go after corruption in Africa and elsewhere could prove to be an extraordinarily effective tool to improve human rights on the continent. By focusing on corruption, the Obama Administration could reasonably demand good governance practices of African “leaders” while maintaining cooperation on counter-terrorism and security issues.

The Africa Kleptocracy Project 

In June 2008, when presidential candidate Barack Obama was a few months away from electoral victory, I warned those dictators who survive by pickpocketing the American tax payer of the arrival of a “new sheriff” in town and advised them to clean up their acts and “shape up”[1]: “A new sheriff is coming to town. He does not carry a six-shooter but carries a law book. And he’s laying down the law for all the tin-pot dictators of the world.”  In April 2009, I “read the tea leaves”[2] again and urged Africa’s panhandling dictators to “ride out before the big roundup” because the “new sheriff and posse are in town.” I am glad to say I read the tea leaves just right.

Barack’s Posse was a little late but finally showed up in Kampala, Uganda last week to lay down the law to Africa’s top kleptocrats (thieves masquerading as “heads of state”) gathered at their annual summit.  President Obama’s “undersheriffs”, Attorney General (A.G) Eric Holder and Johnnie Carson, U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, told the huddled kleptocrats that a special Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative (KARI) has been established in the U.S. Justice Department to recover the money they and their criminal cohorts have stolen from their citizens and restore it to its intended use:

I am pleased to announce that the U.S. Department of Justice is launching a new  Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative aimed at combating large-scale foreign official corruption and recovering public funds for their intended – and proper – use: for the people       of our nations. We’re assembling a team of prosecutors who will focus exclusively on this work and build upon efforts already underway to deter corruption… I know that prosecution     is not the only effective way to curb global corruption. We will continue to work with your governments to strengthen the entire judicial sector…  We must also work with business    leaders to encourage, ensure and enforce sound corporate governance. We should not, and           must not settle for anything less… As many here have learned — often in painful and   devastating ways — corruption imperils development, stability, competition and economic   investment. It also undermines the promise of democracy… Like President Obama, I         believe that the 21st century will be shaped by what happens here in Africa. Your security    and prosperity, the health of your people and the strength of your civil society, will have a direct and profound impact on the world’s communities and on the advancement of human  rights and human progress everywhere.

A couple of months ago, A.G. Holder addressing the 35-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris said:

Put simply, corruption undermines the promise of democracy. It imperils development, stability and faith in our markets. And it weakens the rule of law. Corruption erodes, even destroys, the faith of citizens in their governments. As I speak, a corrupt official somewhere is enjoying undeserved and illegal proceeds. He may be driving a brand-new luxury car. She may be filling her off-shore bank account with tainted cash. They may be traveling first-class on all-expenses-paid holidays. Bribery in international business, for example, may center on shell companies and wire transfers, but no matter where — or how — it happens, the corrosive result is the same: stymied development, lost confidence and distorted competition. The result is unfairness, not justice; the consequence is economic decay, not development.

African Kleptocrats as Organized Criminals (Mafia)

In my commentary “Africorruption, Inc.”, I argued that the business of African governments is corruption.[3] In other words, the majority of African “leaders” seize political power to operate sophisticated criminal enterprises to loot their national treasuries and resources. President Obama’s approach to dealing with corrupt African governments is consistent with the informed view that corruption is not only the lifeblood of African dictatorships but also the most important single factor that accounts for gross violations of human rights and violent suppression of democratic institutions on the continent. Just like any organized criminal enterprise, be they street-level or Mafia-style gangsters, African kleptocrats have used threats, fear, intimidation and violence to maintain and perpetuate their corrupt financial empires. In that context, A.G. Holder’s announcement was nothing short of breathtaking. It was as though he was addressing the national convention of the “Commissione” of all the Mafia families from New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Atlantic City, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. In Kampala, he was talking directly to the African equivalents of the Godfathers of the Bonnano, Columbo, Gambino, Genovese, and Lucchese crime families in one place. It was almost surreal.

Though A.G. Holder told the African kleptocrats that he has a posse of special corruption prosecutors saddled up, he omitted telling them what tools he would be using to bring them to justice. They can rest assured that he will be coming after them armed with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as the RICO Act or RICO; 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968). RICO was originally enacted to prosecute the Mafia and others actively engaged in organized criminal activity. Over the years its use has been expanded to cover corporate and other crimes; and now its application is likely to be expanded even further to go after the corrupt and thieving African dictators who launder hundreds of millions of dollars every year in the U.S. buying businesses and homes and making  “investments” in legitimate commercial enterprises. Section 1962 of RICO provides in part:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity… to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (b)… through a pattern of racketeering activity… to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce… (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity… (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

Simply stated, African kleptocrats who rob their nations blind and bring their stolen loot to the U.S. to launder it will be tracked down and forced to disgorge and face jail time as well. What is potentially devastating to African kleptocrats is the fact that a RICO charge could be brought not only against them, but also their his associates, business partners, investors, and any others in the U.S. or elsewhere who “directly or indirectly” facilitate their criminal enterprises. The penalties are severe: up to $25,000 and 20 years in prison per racketeering count. The racketeer must give up all of the gains from their criminal activity including the hundreds of millions tucked away in U.S. banks.  RICO also allows private individuals damaged by the racketeer to file a civil suit and collect treble (three times) damages if they are successful. Proving a RICO charge in court is considered to be relatively easy as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts. Since conspiracy is one of the charges that could be brought in a RICO case, the kleptocrats underlings, accountants, business associates and partners and collaborators could be prosecuted.

Fixing Human Rights Violations by Prosecuting Kleptocrats

A.G. Holder says the Obama Administration is committed to battling corruption as “one of the great struggles of our time.” Holder’s words, if translated into concrete action could have a huge impact not only on governance in Africa but also in improving human rights protections. Corruption is fundamentally a human rights issue. As Peter Eigen, founder and chairman of Transparency International has argued,  “[C]orruption leads to a violation of human rights in at least three respects: corruption perpetuates discrimination, corruption prevents the full realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights, and corruption leads to the infringement of numerous civil and political rights. Beyond that, corruption undermines the very essence of the rule of law and destroys citizens’ trust in political leaders, public officials and political institutions.”

The fascinating thing about the Obama Administration’s approach is its creative use of U.S. criminal statutes to deal with African dictators as organized criminal enterprises. Simply stated, the Administration has decided to deal with African dictators as Mafia bosses! If the U.S. could effectively investigate, vigorously prosecute and aggressively seize the assets of Africa’s kleptocrats, the continent may finally begin to see significant improvements in human rights and governance, a dramatic reduction in corruption and generate significant resources from recovered assets for investment in infrastructure and other social programs for the African population.

As I have previously documented[3], Transparency International [TI] (the global coalition against corruption) in its 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) again bestowed upon Africa the dubious honor of being Kleptocracy Central, the continental home of the world’s most corrupt governments in the world. Leading the parade of kleptocracies are the regimes in Ethiopia, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya and the warlords of Somalia. These countries scored an atrocious 3.0 or less on the index. In certain countries, the corruption trend appears to be irreversible. For instance, in 2002, Ethiopia received a dismal score of 3.5 on the corruption index. In 2009, eight years after the ruling regime had established the “Federal Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission” (FEAC) with great fanfare and after periodic reports of “major accomplishments” in combating corruption, Ethiopia’s score dropped to an abysmal 2.7.

Publicly-owned assets are acquired in Ethiopia by regime-supporters or officials through illegal transactions and fraud. Banks loan millions of dollars to front enterprises owned by regime officials or their supporters without sufficient or proper collateral. Businessmen must pay huge bribes or kickbacks to participate in public contracting and procurement. Those involved in the import/export business complain of shakedowns by corrupt customs officials. The judiciary is thoroughly corrupted through political interference and manipulation as evidenced in the various high profile political prosecutions. Ethiopians on holiday visits driving about town complain of shakedowns by police thugs on the streets. Even the U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelley stated last year that the U.S. is investigating allegations that “$850 million in food and anti-poverty aid from the U.S. is being distributed on the basis of political favoritism by the current prime minister’s party.”

Over the past three years, high profile corruption cases in Ethiopia have been reported in the media. In one case, it was established that “USD$16 million dollars” worth of gold bars simply walked out of the bank in broad daylight. The official “anti-corruption” agency described the heist as a “huge scandal that took place in the Country’s National Bank and took many Ethiopians by surprise [in which] corruptors dared to steal lots of pure gold bars that belonged to the Ethiopian people replacing them with gilded irons… Some employees of the Bank, business people, managers and other government employees were allegedly involved in this disastrous and disgracing scandal.” In another case involving a telecommunications deal with the Chinese, a high level regime official was secretly tape recorded trying to extort kickbacks for himself and other regime officials. The same “anti-corruption” agency reported that “there was another big corruption case at the Ethiopian Telecommunications Corporation that took many Ethiopians by surprise” which involved the “competitive tendering for the supply of telecommunication equipment.” After an investigation, FEAC “found out that nearly 200 million USD has been lost to corruption through the entire fraudulent and corrupt process.” No high level official in good standing with the regime has ever been investigated or prosecuted for corruption.   

The poor and powerless bear the brunt of corruption in Africa. The devastating impact of corruption on the continent’s poor becomes self-evident as political leaders and public officials siphon off resources from critical school, hospital, road and other public works and community projects to line their pockets.  As for President Obama, it seems that he has finally found the silver bullet to deal with Africa’s corrupt thugs. In a pun, no more cash and KARI for Africa’s kleptocrats.

To be continued….

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.

[1] http://www.ethiomedia.com/all/6070.html

[2] http://www.abugidainfo.com/?p=8693

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/africorruption-inc_b_367268.html

War Lord Meles Zenawi hired those picketers who were brought from different part of the US, Canada and Ethiopia to Washington to goose up a bogus demonstration about Nile. The demonstration  failed to achieve the goal of misinforming Obama’s administration about the totalitarian regime because of the low turn out and idiotic message. 

Except few idiots, such as Washera (Kefyale) and representatives to the crocodile liberators in the Embassy, most who did arrived from many places are now unemployed. Washington is free from tribal thugs and egotistical loyalists to war criminal Meles Zenawi. 

Based on the evidence gathered, only hand full of the TPLF supporters from DC area were present to support war criminal Zenawi . Despite high number of Ethiopian residing in DC, TPLF had to hire most of the protestors from far away places outside the Capitol. 

The majority of the thugs received shelter and per diem from Almoudi’s slaves (YECHIN GERDOTCH). Al moudi’s, YECHIN GERED (Abinet), hired most picketers for dictatorship to walk in front of the White House and the State Department. 

Despite a free T-Shirt and a per diem that was being paid by War Criminal Meles Zenawi and the Viagra addict idiot Al moudi ,  the low turn out from DC metro area was reportedly a big blow to the servant the Ethiopian rulers who are accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Despite the  financial aid and per-dim, the crocodile liberators failed to bring more than 150 people from the US, Canada and Europe.

Evidence to be posted soon.

According to  TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer Toby Sterling,  Judges rejected a last-minute protest from former Liberian ruler Charles Taylor, clearing the way for British fashion model Naomi Campbell to testify at his war crimes trial on Thursday.

The reluctant Campbell has been subpoenaed to testify about a diamond Taylor allegedly gave her after a dinner party hosted by Nelson Mandela in South Africa in 1997.

Taylor’s lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, had argued that Campbell should not appear until prosecutors provide a summary of her likely testimony.

But judges rejected that in Wednesday’s ruling, saying it was not reasonable to expect prosecutors to obtain a statement beforehand from Campbell, who is essentially a hostile witness.

Prosecutors say that if Taylor really gave Campbell the diamond, it would help show he received diamonds from Sierra Leone rebels in exchange for weapons during Sierra Leone’s 1992-2002 civil war.

Prosecutors say that from his seat of power in Liberia Taylor armed, trained and commanded Sierra Leone rebels who murdered and mutilated thousands of civilians across the border. Taylor has said he is innocent of the 11 war crimes charges he faces including murder, rape, sexual enslavement and recruiting child soldiers.

He has also denied involvement in the diamond trade in general, and specifically said he did not bring any diamonds to the celebrity-studded dinner he and Campbell attended in South Africa in September 1997.

The story of the diamond gift surfaced via actress Mia Farrow, who told prosecutors in a statement that Campbell told her the morning after the dinner that Taylor’s men had come to her room during the night and presented her with a rough, or uncut, diamond. Farrow is due to testify in person Aug. 9.

However it is far from clear what Campbell — who has a lengthy history of her own, less serious legal troubles — will say in court on Thursday.

She declined to cooperate with prosecutors until judges last month ordered her to appear or face a maximum sentence of seven years for contempt.

In April, she told ABC news she “never received a diamond” from Taylor and didn’t want to talk about it. In May, she told Oprah Winfrey she didn’t want to be involved in Taylor’s case and feared for her safety if she were.

Judges have ordered special security measures for Campbell, saying her fears for her safety and privacy are legitimate because of her high profile and the intense media interest in her appearance.

The hot-tempered Campbell, 40, is no stranger to courtrooms, having faced a series of minor lawsuits and criminal cases over the years.

In June 2008 she pleaded guilty in an incident where she cursed, kicked and spat at police at London’s Heathrow airport in a rage over a missing piece of luggage; she was sentenced to 200 hours of community service.

She also did a week of community service sweeping floors and scrubbing toilets in a Manhattan garbage-truck garage in 2007 after pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault for hurling a cell phone at her maid because of a vanished pair of jeans.

In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to an assault charge for beating an assistant who said the model whacked her on the head with a phone.

A few of Campbell’s former aides and maids have sued her, accusing her of violent outbursts; some cases have been settled on undisclosed terms.

Campbell became one of the world’s highest-paid models after being discovered while shopping in London at age 15.

Note: This is the third installment in a series of commentaries I intend to offer on U.S. foreign policy (or lack thereof as some would argue) in Ethiopia. In this piece, I argue that while some credit is due to the Obama Administration for rhetorically  promoting human rights  throughout the world giving hope to millions suffering under tyranny and dictatorships, lack of follow up action could transform that hope into despair and anti-Americanism.  I further suggest that the U.S. needs to take actions to improve humans rights in Ethiopia or risk moral condemnation for prolonging and sustaining the rule of a criminal dictatorship.

The Human Rights Ledger of the Obama Administration

President Obama has been sharply criticized for his “inability” to deliver on his human rights “promises.”  Some say his support for the cause of human rights and those struggling against oppression has been rhetorical, and lukewarm at that. He has been unable to translate lofty words into concrete actions to improve human rights. They say his basic approach is flawed because he is trying to reform and rehabilitate nasty dictators into wholesome democrats. A few have suggested that in the post-9/11 world, President Obama has made it his mission “to atone for America’s sins” instead of re-asserting a strong leadership role for the U.S., particularly in the area of human rights. He has been charged with “hypocrisy” for not speaking out against   China, Hosni Mubark’s three-decade rule of Egypt under a state of emergency, the fizzling of  human rights activism in Iran following the elections last year and the military coup in Honduras. His critics say that he has gone out of his way to accommodate the bloodthirsty Burmese military dictators despite the fact that the democratically elected leader of that country, Aung San Su Kii, has remained in detention for two decades. The vast majority of Ethiopians are disappointed in President Obama’s silence over the unjust imprisonment of Birtukan Midekssa, the first woman political party leader in Ethiopian history, and arguably the most important political prisoner on the African continent today.

Although President Obama and his administration could have done a lot more in the field of global human rights, I am not inclined to join the ranks of his critics and blame him for everything that has gone wrong in human rights worldwide during his eighteen months as president for two reasons. First, his administration has been weighted down by a domestic agenda of epic proportions and distracted by a variety of policy crises of unprecedented severity. Moreover, he had to manage two major ground wars and the global war on terror.  Second, I do not expect decades of official neglect of human rights to be addressed in a span of eighteen months. Rather, I am inclined to telescope his overall involvement in the human rights field and make some inferences on his potential to make a great “human rights president” in his first term. I find some encouraging evidence that he could play an extraordinary role in global human rights.

Few would argue the fact that over the past eighteen months, President Obama has restored considerable credibility to U.S. global human rights leadership following gross abuses of human rights in Iraq. He banned the use of torture (or “enhanced interrogation techniques”) immediately after taking office. His speeches and public statements in Ghana, Egypt and Turkey and other places promoting human rights and accountability have given hope to millions. His Administration has fully supported the work and activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and even Kenya where the prosecutor acting on his own initiative for the first time is investigating that country’s 2007 post-election violence. (A similar ICC investigation into the massacres of hundreds of people in Ethiopia after the 2005 elections is overdue and fully warranted.) In a symbolic but unprecedented act, President Obama in a special White House ceremony honored women human rights activists from Zimbabwe by awarding them the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award for their struggle against the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. He has thrust human rights as a central part of the debate on U.S. policy around the world. These facts in my view are significant in light of his predecessor’s ritualistic obsession with elections regardless of whether they were rigged or stolen. As Secretary Clinton’s recent human rights speeches demonstrate, the Obama administration is emphatic on the issues of free expression, free press, clean elections and civil society.  Overall, the evidence from diverse opinion surveys worldwide suggest that that in numerous countries opinions about the United States are about as positive today as they were before 9/11, principally because of the emphasis on human rights.

I am also mindful of Senator Obama’s successful sponsorship of the “Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act” in 2006.  That Act aims to help promote and reinvigorate the political process in the Congo and meet the basic needs of Congolese citizens and targets the elimination of sexual violence against women and children.  I recall the fact that Senator Obama would have fully supported H.R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act) had it been brought for a vote on the Senate floor following its passage in the House of Representatives in 2007. On a personal level, I have confidence in Mr. Obama that he will stand up for human rights not because he is president but because he is first and foremost a constitutional lawyer. Challenging those who abuse power, flout the rule of law, sneer at justice and thumb their noses at due process are encoded in the DNA of every genuine American constitutional lawyer.  None of the foregoing should be viewed as an “apology” for any failures on the part of President Obama or his administration. I will not hesitate to challenge the Administration’s human rights policy in Ethiopia (or elsewhere) as I have done in these series of commentaries.

The Insanity of Doing Nothing

It was Albert Eisnsten who said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It could equally be said of U.S. human rights policy in Ethiopia over the past decade that doing NOTHING over and over again and expecting results is insanity, sheer madness. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. for all of the billions it has given to the dictatorship of Meles Zenawi over the past two decades has been unable to curb his gross human rights violations. Indeed, the U.S. has shied away from strong and sustained criticism of Zenawi’s dismal human rights record. The Obama Administration must realize, if it has not already, that the current status quo – rigged and stolen elections, warehousing of large numbers of political prisoners, intimidation of opposition parties and leaders, decimation of the independent press, the climate of fear and loathing for the citizenry, denial of expressive freedoms, enactment of repressive anti-civil society laws,  jamming of Voice of America broadcasts, provocative accusations of the U.S. Government as the soul mates of the genocidal thugs of Rwanda’s interhamwe — cannot and must not go on so long as American tax dollars are being used to bankroll Zenawi’s dictatorship. It should also be crystal clear to the Obama Administration that quiet diplomacy, soft-pedaling on human rights and attaching human rights as an afterthought to negotiations on counterterrorism, security, etc., will not work. The status quo will be damaging both to U.S. strategic interests in Ethiopia and the Horn and undermine the democratic development of Ethiopia.

The dilemma that President Obama is facing today over human rights in Africa is the same one that his predecessors have faced over the decades. The U.S. has never really developed an African policy that tethered human rights, security, trade and governance issues. Historically, U.S. policy in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular has been haphazard and episodic dominated by a concern with the role of colonial powers, containment of communism, and now defeating global terrorism. “Realpolitik” has always trumped Wilsonianism. It was President Woodrow Wilson who during and after WWI undertook the mission “to make the world safe for democracy”. He believed international peace and America’s pre-eminent role in the world could be secured by promoting democracy and human rights and spreading the virtues of individual freedom, limited government, and popular sovereignty.

The Cold War threw cold water on Wilsonianism after WW II as the struggle to contain totalitarian communism became the core ideology ion U.S. foreign policy. It was the Carter Administration that gave human rights a real boost by emphasizing democracy and human rights as practical objectives of U.S. foreign policy. Not unlike President Obama, President Carter raised the hopes of millions around the world.  President Carter followed up with action imposing export and import restrictions on South Africa , Ethiopia, and Uganda and by linking economic and military aid to human rights violations.  But “realpolitik” caught up with him quickly and the specter of communist insurrections forced him to negotiate for military bases in Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan despite the poor human rights records of the ruling regimes.  The Reagan Administration showed interest in human rights at the cusp of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was the administration of the senior George H. Bush that elevated the human rights rhetoric to new heights by unapologetically declaring that the world was not divided along an east-west axis but “between those committed to democracy and liberty and those against.” President Bill Clinton dubbed Africa’s dictators “new breed” of African leaders and built his “strategic initiative in Africa” so that African could serve as U.S. military proxies while using development aid and the international lending institutions to promote democratization.

President Obama is facing the same dilemma his predecessors have faced. His challenge now is to develop an effective strategy to transition his moral advocacy of human rights to practical application of human rights principles in U.S. foreign policy. If he fails to make the transition, he will be criticized for dashing the hopes of millions around the world and judged harshly by history for perpetuating American “hypocrisy” and spreading cynicism and despair.

Walking the Human Rights Talk: Accountability

It is high time for the U.S. to begin walking its human rights talk in Ethiopia. No doubt, striking the right balance between human rights concerns and “pragmatic” strategic interests will be no easy task. For the past  decade, the U.S. has thrown human rights in Ethiopia under the bus in its pursuit of the global war on terror. Despite gruesome revelations of gross human rights abuses in Ethiopia by the official U.S. global human rights watchdog, the U.S. has consistently dismissed, ignored, disingenuously deferred, or promised action which never came to pass. It is time for the U.S. to fish or cut bait in Ethiopia.

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in her recent speech in Poland said there are four elements to the Obama Administration’s approach to “putting our principles into action” in American global human rights policy. The first pillar is accountability, which means “governments [must] take responsibility by putting human rights into law and embedding them in government institutions; by building strong, independent courts, competent and disciplined police and law enforcement.” Over the past decade, the U.S. has shown an almost pathological and reflexive aversion to the very idea of holding dictator Zenawi accountable. When Zenawi came out and declared that he had won the May 2010 election by 99.6 percent, the White House put out a statement bleating, “We are concerned that international observers found that the elections fell short of international commitments [and ] U.S. Embassy officials were denied accreditation and the opportunity to travel outside of the capital on Election Day to observe the voting.” Over the past five years, the U.S. has soft-pedaled gross violations of human rights. When Zenawi slaughtered hundreds of protesters following the 2005 elections, the U.S. made the mind-numbing statement: “The deaths as a result of the actions surrounding these protests are senseless. The United States calls upon both side to engage in a peaceful dialogue.” When Zenawi jailed tens of thousands of people that same year, the U.S. said, “We urge the government to respect the rule of law, international principles of human rights, and due process with regard to those arrested or detained.” This is not “accountability.” It is pusillanimity.

Accountability means holding someone responsible for their acts or omissions against a clear standard. Someone must be held accountable for the deaths and severe injuries of hundreds of peaceful protesters in  2005, the massacre of hundreds of Anuak people in Gambella in 2004 and the untold deaths and destruction in the in the Ogaden. The Obama administration must take the same moral leadership in Ethiopia as it has in Kenya by supporting the International Criminal Court investigations in Kenya for the deaths that occurred in the post-2007 election period and the genocide in Darfur. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If ICC action is good enough for Kenya and the Sudan, I say it is good enough for Ethiopia.

By Secretary Clinton’s own words, accountability applies not only to the tin pot dictators of the world but also the U.S. That is why Ethiopians in the U.S. must hold the Obama Administration itself accountable under Section 116.75 (a) of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. That provision plainly states:

No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or de-grading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons,76 or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.

Similarly, Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976 mandates:

[E]xcept under extraordinary circumstances no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.

Is there a country that cries out more for the rigorous application of these provisions than Ethiopia?

Walk the Human Rights Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick

President Obama has raised the hopes and democratic aspirations of millions around the world. He will have to give human rights the importance it deserves in U.S. foreign policy. Whether in Ethiopia or elsewhere, the issue of human rights could not be left to some embassy functionary who juggles other duties. Human rights should be given the same attention and importance given to counterterrorism, security, development and trade with African dictatorships. It must not be a side issue or an afterthought to other policies. President Obama in his speeches has awakened the world’s oppressed masses; and they fully expect that he will stand up with them and not those who oppress them. In Africa, he has a clear choice: Africa’s tin pot dictators bound for the dustbin of history or Africa’s youth. In his own words, “it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa’s future. Above all, it will be the young people – brimming with talent and energy and hope.” I am hopeful that the Obama administration will use creative approaches to put American “human rights principles into action” in the foreseeable future.

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.