Redeem Ethiopia

Reclaiming sophistication in land policy

2010-01-31T21:19:00.002-06:00

The issue of land rights and agricultural policy in Africa is bound to become a political juggernaut in the coming decades. This is particularly true in Eastern and Southern Africa where the legacy of colonial land policy has left, among others, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Kenya politically destabilized. Ethiopia for its part has historically determined its land policy more in response to internal pressures than to external diktats. The 1950s and 1960s saw attempts at privatization while the revolution in 1974 saw a concerted effort at nationalization. At the end of the first decade of the 21st century it appears like an era of skewed privatization has started.

Ethiopia’s ruling party and the opposition groups are locked in a false dichotomy between full government control over land and full privatization in the western context. In reality neither of these options is actually viable. The past century of Ethiopia’s experience has clearly illustrated that such simplistic options work to cause conflict, exploitation and most detrimentally famine and starvation. Other alternatives that are more in resonance with the knowledge, traditions and experiences of Ethiopia’s farmers have to be articulated.

Historical land management

If we look at historical land use and management in the geographic area that is now northern highland Ethiopia we find an extensive and diverse but interconnected system. One could conveniently call this the Rist system of land tenure. In order to understand it, one has to do away with simplistic western notions of ownership. Western societies have afforded such simplistic notions as private ownership because most land users there lacked the sophistication to understand the cultural, political and economic implications of such legal doctrines. In the Ethiopian context multiple experiences with state formation, and a very long experience with agriculture, have combined to create one of the most sustainable frameworks of access to land rights.

For instance the interaction between the farmer and the state is mediated by layers of legal code. Some of these are meant to protect the rights of the state to the resources of the land for purposes of maintaining an army, collecting tax and compensating an administrative class. Others are explicitly designed to protect the rights of the farmer to land ownership, management and the political benefits that derive from such endowment. Still others protect the right of communities or the church to access land and decision making processes against the interests of powerful individuals, families or even the state.

The southern and lowland parts of Ethiopia represent an area where the Rist system was not implemented. Upon acquisition by Emperor Menelik II at the end of the 19th century, much of this land was transferred to military leaders and administrators of the state for management and partial ownership. The farming system however was left intact. Very little industrialization occurred and yields stayed low. The importance of southern Ethiopia to the country’s agricultural future can not be overemphasized. Therefore any future policy has to recognize its inhabitants rights and give them access to the decision making process.

There is a consensus today that increasing the productivity of Ethiopia’s agricultural system is necessary to achieve national food security and enter the global economy. Consequently industrial scale farming is cited as one way to achieve this objective. Where the consensus breaks down is in the evaluation of how industrial scale farming can be combined with a sustainable land tenure system. The Italian and imperial regime’s 20th century attempts at privatizing the land, in the western sense of the term, have proven politically untenable. Moreover complete de jure government ownership of land – where the old Rist system is maintained in the north and collectivization in the south – has also failed.

African land grab

At this point the country faces a deficit of ideas on how to modernize agriculture around an intelligent system of land management. This deficit is so large that political elites have formulated their land policies solely around short term expediencies. The ruling party has consistently rejected land reform so that it can guarantee the political support of farmers who are presently allotted land-use privileges by political apparatchiks; while the opposition groups appear to incessantly echo simplistic western demands to privatize land and allow global corporations to profit from it. Ethiopia’s recent history clearly illustrates that neither of these policies is politically or economically viable over the long run.

As its political legitimacy erodes away, the ruling party has made a radical u-turn. A sneaky prime minister has determined that in order to gain western sympathy, while at the same time neutralizing his opposition, he has to start de facto privatization of land – but only to foreign interests. The timing of this policy shift is helped by the African land grab that has emerged over the past few years. Interestingly it is Asian financial powers that are showing interest in African land this time. And African leaders are responding by signing away control of millions of acres of fertile land on single sheets of paper that can hardly be called contracts.

Many Africans are now predicting a Shanghai or Dubai Conference as a sequel to the Berlin one of 1884. One of the fundamental factors that saved Ethiopia’s land from being parceled away in Berlin was its Rist system. Farmers whose rights over lands had been guaranteed for millennia by established law had strong motivation to fight to keep those rights. This aspect of Ethiopian resistance to foreign rule has for the most part been ignored in historical literature where the political motivation of Emperors has monopolized the agenda.

An industry model

This essay is not a call to go back to the Rist system of old. It is a call to modernize and expand it. Many will argue that given the arrangement of global power and Ethiopia’s condition this is not realistic. Ceding control of land use and management to communities of farmers, pastoralists and herders alongside corporate entities seems like a political impossibility at this point. When the inevitable backlash against the present trend develops over the next few decades however it will become a political inevitability. If developed now, the modernized Rist system can serve as a model for other African nations as they emerge from their second decolonization struggles. In one swoop it would refine the meaning of ownership into a bundle of rights that can be distributed between various stakeholders.

A progressive gradation of access to land and its use allows investors and agricultural interests to carry out their work with security and long term vision. Local communities on the other hand can retain a degree of control over the pace and form of development while laying claim to part of the revenue in the form of investments in agricultural post processing of semi urbanized towns. Most importantly such an arrangement prevents a condition of famine and starvation alongside industrialized cash crop production and automatically builds in the required investments for urban development.

Land policy as a political tool

Opposition groups need to articulate a viable alternative to the ruling party’s land policy. One that is based on such a modernization and expansion of the Rist system can serve as a way to build key political constituencies. For instance many local and international investors who are keen on holistic development in order to reduce their risks are more likely to support such a framework. The support that can be gained from farmers, who are presently on their way to being displaced from their land into urban poverty, is another likely opportunity. Lastly the potential for achieving leadership in articulating sustainable agricultural land policy for Africa is an exciting prospect.

The implicit advantage of basing future land policy on development of the Rist system is that it provides a democratic infrastructure whereby the affected populations can have a say in the development of the country. It also lowers the risk of desperate or opportunistic policy blunders by the political elite. While almost all policies that are being proposed today by international interests and local elite have not been tested and verified, the Rist system has withstood the test of time and can serve as the most suited basis on which to form future policy.

In follow up articles we will expand on this complex issue and define two important aspects of this framework that can provide a handle on the problem. The first involves the bundle of rights concept that was briefly mentioned above. The various stakeholders, and the interests that motivate them, make up the second aspect. Eventually policy can be optimized by matching stakeholders with appropriate rights so as to obtain a given outcome. This approach can, one hopes, provide opposition groups with an exit strategy from the false dichotomy that stands today so that they can be relevant to the future of the land policy debate.

Distract and Destruct

2007-06-16T21:04:00.000-06:00

In the months leading up to the TPLF invasion of Somalia last December, this blog along with many others declared that no peace could come of such an adventure. We clearly stated that the true nature of the act was to neutralize all perceived enemies of the Ethiopian regime. These included “an alliance of armed groups in Ethiopia [… such as OLF, ONLF, EPPF, etc…], unarmed groups [such as Kinijit], Eritrea and Somalia's ICU…” [RE, December 28, 2006]. In fact the whole strategy had been crystallizing since October when we claimed that Meles “… has done all that is in his power to provoke the Somalis to declare war on Ethiopia with the same [as Mengistu’s in 1977] hopes of gaining domestic legitimacy and external military support…” [RE, October 10, 2006].

Since then scores of Ethiopians even remotely associated with the internal opposition have been jailed or made to disappear. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of Somali civilians have been imprisoned, displaced, executed and tortured. Most importantly the US has been lured into an unwinnable battle to impose warlords on Somalia when the population has so clearly rejected it. Various media outlets and human rights organizations have declared the Joint Ethio/US military action illegal and verging on war crimes. At a regional level this war has also destabilized Kenyan security by dragging that country into the fray while delegitimized the AU and Uganda by forcing them to rescue Meles’ military mistake by sending their soldiers to replace his.

In short the Meles strategy of drawing strategic political and military support from the US has worked [albeit with much opposition within the US] while he has seen very modest success on the home front. It may actually be argued that the impact of his actions on internal dissent have been negative by forcing him to lose control of Ogaden [see attacks on economic and military installations]. His military is overstretched, his diplomatic initiatives are faltering and he has now lost not only domestic but regional and international legitimacy. Finally, Somalia is now completely destroyed again, which may quite possibly have been his intent all along, without him having gained the expected support from Christian Ethiopian constituencies as a result. More dangerous for him is that he has now inadvertently stimulated a united Somali front against Ethiopian intervention.

The recent sudden ‘guilty’ ruling on opposition leaders is probably better understood in this light. Finding success fleeting on all fronts, the regime may have forced the ruling as an external show of strength on the only ‘enemy’ that it controls. But there is one more card up Meles’ sleeve. Being the MBA that he is, he knows that all bad news can never be good for business. Distracting Ethiopians and the international community with large expensive and year-long Millennium parties is now crucial. Mengistu attempted such a distraction with a large celebration of the tenth anniversary of the revolution, thereby setting off his own demise. Is Meles so inspired by Mengistu’s old strategies that he will do the same?

Masters of Deceit

2007-02-14T18:44:00.000-06:00

The Ethiopian government has demonstrated its capacity for tireless lies. In this it has found willing accomplices in the west like no other African ruling regime. What we find surprising is that even the death, torture, detention and brutal treatment of civilians does not warrant a change of heart in western annals of power. EPRDF’s abuse and wanton neglect of the rule of law goes unquestioned and is in fact supported by otherwise neutral seeming western institutions such as the media, government officials and the international civil society.

The past decade has shown that initiatives taken by Meles will always be supported by some British and US personalities who hold positions of power. The imprisonment of opposition leaders and members of Ethiopia’s civil society on charges of genocide would be laughable had the consequences not been so dire. At this point it appears that Meles and his cohorts come up with reasons for their actions in the midst of drunken parties and email them to their western stooges for global distribution and sponsorship. None of the players attempt to convince Ethiopians and the world why the action is justifiably warranted and the rational underlying it.

In the midst of such an arrogant and ignorant policy making environment we are not eagerly awaiting the court ruling of February 19th to be just and objective. To expect anything other than a politically driven and unjust ruling, that will in some way or other attempt to lengthen the rule of the EPRDF regime is naïve. If there is going to be a ruling, to expect the west to react to it in any objective way is even more naïve. The response of the ‘international community’ to the upcoming court decision will most likely be to distract from the issue by urging African leaders to contribute troops to Somalia so that EPRDF’s soldiers can be freed up [to crush dissent within Ethiopia].

Ethiopians who live in the west , and particularly in the US, Canada and Great Britain, can change this balance by informing lawmakers and officials in the executive branches that western policy on Ethiopia has been taken off track by the swindling leaders of EPRDF and their western patrons who are quickly gaining the ire of Ethiopians. A peaceful campaign of correcting the skewed information that is being pumped out of media and other institutions will save the lives of many Ethiopians and may even pressure Meles and his patrons to step back and contemplate the limits of their deceit and murderous policies.

It is a sad but true fact that a very small number of officials in the west can achieve incredible amounts of power in Africa because they are delegates of powerful economic and military establishments. The only way to neutralize them when they start making such blatant errors is to work hard at informing those who put them in power that peace, democracy and economic development in the horn is in the best interest of all players. The time for control obsessed policies based on the support of dictators should have ended when Mobutu of the old Zaire died. This is not the cold war. The west can afford to allow civility in our region this time.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

2006-12-28T00:37:00.001-06:00

The EPRDF government has always characterized the organizations and people that it considers enemies by using unflattering names. The oppositions leaders in prison are genocidal, armed groups against it are anti peace and most importantly today all anti TPLF Somalis are terrorists. Propaganda works in mysterious ways and some of these catch while others flounder. In the most unfortunate of circumstances for Somalis, the Islamic Court Union label caught. Not with Ethiopians, or other insightful observers but with the most important recipient of Ethiopia's intelligence, the US State Department.

Prime Minister Meles' strategy of launching a large war as a means of liquidating as many enemies as possible has started. He articulated these enemies as an alliance of armed groups in Ethiopia [such as OLF, ONLF, EPPF, etc…], unarmed groups [such as Kinijit], Eritrea and Somalia's ICU. Most sources indicate that the US State Department has helped him to secure UNSC approval for his military adventure while other western nations publicly denounced the resolution as they implicitly supported it.

Most Ethiopian opposition groups have now understood that Meles can do no bad in the eyes of most western establishments. Apart from the occasional pretentious remark, the west is comfortable with the way he deals with his people and the people of the region. In other words, the west has accepted that all people who are bad to Meles are bad to the world without any need to investigate the merits of his claim. The fact that the loosely organized Somali ICU had some leaders who were allegedly associated with terrorists has come to mean that the organization is a terrorist organization. By this measure any one at any location with any political view can be found to be a terrorist simply by irritating Ethiopia's ruling regime.

We have witnessed Ethiopia's suffering of the past 18 months being ignored by all the important institutions of the world including the AU, UN, Humanitarian organizations and most importantly western governments. Most of us cried foul at the hypocrisy of these institutions and disparaged at the cowardice of many people who would not speak up. We can not do as they did at this time. Which ever way one analyzes the present situation, Somalis are being invaded by a neighboring country's irresponsible government that wishes to impose street gangsters masquerading as politicians on them.

The ICU may have had some terrorists, but removing those individuals was much easier than executing a full invasion of a country that had just emerged from 15 years of chaos and insecurity. One only needs to think of what their home town would be like under similar condition with women unable to walk the streets and warlords manning streets for bribes. Religion and Ethiopia's national interest have nothing to do with this invasion. Everyday it is becoming clearer to all who wish to open their eyes and see that this war is about creating the conditions for the frustration of Ethiopia's democratic march.

We are ashamed that this war is being fought in the name of Ethiopians because history will surely remember it for its most devastating result; the destruction of Somali society and their most basic hopes of statehood and peace. Ethiopians in the US in particular have to work hard at changing the course by helping to remove US support for the regime. There are many political means of working towards this. The most important of these is to show people in power that US interests are not being served by the suffering of regular people in the horn. Ethiopians need to tell the truth now in order for their truth to be heard later.

Revisiting Starbucks

2006-12-07T00:36:00.000-06:00

Since our last posting on this issue, there has been a welcome explosion of debate about the Starbucks-Ethiopia confrontation over trademarking Ethiopian specialty coffee brands. In line with modern trends, the economic, political and business aspects of this confrontation have been mixed in various combinations to articulate arguments for and against Starbucks. The role of Oxfam, the main speaker on behalf of the Ethiopian government, has also been denounced or lauded in various writings.

Our position on this issue has been formulated by separating the various players and analyzing their motivations and likely future path under various scenarios. These players are the EPRDF representing the Ethiopian government, Oxfam on behalf of the Ethiopian government, Starbucks, Ethiopian coffee farmers and the affluent consumers of this coffee, among whom are many of the debating bloggers.

Some have argued that EPRDF is in this battle, not for the good of the country, but as a business for the benefit of the party leaders. We agree with this assessment as there is ample evidence of corruption within the party businesses. It is to be noted that Ethiopia, one of the poorest nations in the world, is presently one of the leading African depositors of personal and business assets in the London banking system. This brings much support from western financial interests in protection of the existing system of rule in Ethiopia and this has much to do with EPRDF’s illegitimate survival.

Starbucks, like all businesses, will maximize its profits by expanding its market and reducing cost. Reducing cost implies finding ways to cut production and distribution expenses. Part of this expense is paying royalties to owners of intellectual property [IP]. Our position is that the specialty coffee brands are IP of the Ethiopian farmers. The fact that their government has been hijacked by EPRDF thugs does not mean that the IP doesn't belong to them. Thus, we separate the issue of finding ways to make sure that they are paid royalties from the issue of who owns it. In essence Starbucks can argue that there is no mechanism to pay them but can not argue that they can not have rights to the IP.

The struggle over harmonizing IP laws around the world has been led by the World Trade Organization [WTO]. Most African countries have been left on the raw end of the IP deal by giving away all their rights to western corporations. Even Teff, a grain grown by people in the horn for millennia, is granted breeders’ rights protection as the property of Teff Corporation of America. Under conditions of power parity African societies would reject WTO proposed IP laws until they can get appropriate returns on their property. With the present reality however, they have accepted the skewed arrangement specifically because most are led by governments whose leaders are only marginally more legitimate than the EPRDF.

This brings us to Oxfam. Powerful NGOs have turned into the only force that fights western corporate power in Africa. The struggle over production of Aids medication in South Africa is one good example of this. Most NGOs have operations that would normally be carried out by governments or businesses in African societies. In other words, rather than temporary organizations for the purpose of alleviating poverty, they have become fixtures in the political and economic domains of most poor countries. It is easy to see how this pits them against large businesses who are potential competitors in most NGO ventures and Oxfam is no different.

The marriage of convenience between EPRDF and Oxfam, one for profit and the other for influence, can potentially secure the trademark of the specialty coffee brands in the name of the Ethiopian government. This will irritate Starbucks and allow a greater flow of funds into London banks after it is robbed by EPRDF leaders. But the trademark will stay with the Ethiopian government for when farmers can get their own representatives into power. Ethiopian farmers could care less if $80 million dollars goes to Starbucks or London banks in the mean time. All they care about is that they secure rights to their property for when they can exercise that right.

As for Starbucks’ reaction to such PR negotiations fear has been expressed that it will retaliate by dropping Ethiopian coffee from its product selection. This is a highly unlikely scenario. An important component of Coffee brand marketing is showing how poor farmers are helped by the western company selling the coffee. The possibility of Starbucks dropping the promotion of the specialty brands is very low because such a decision would expose the company to severe competition from others who will claim to be helping poor farmers even more by paying royalties, utilizing brand names that Starbucks has spent millions promoting.

The logical conclusion is thus for consumers to threaten Starbucks with boycotts until it allows for the trademarking of Ethiopian specialty brands even by the illegitimate representative of Ethiopian farmers. This is consistent with the intent to promote ethical world trade where product quality and not power has the ultimate say on who profits and who starves. People in the US have an economic, political and moral obligation to level the playing field for the millions of coffee farmers who are on the verge of starvation due to the workings of a consortium of powerful corporations, NGOs and corrupt local African elites.

Democratizing the Ethiopian government is a separate initiative. It should be pursued with equal vigor by lobbying companies like Starbucks to convince the US government to stop supporting the EPRDF. In that case we promise to drink more coffee to support the company.

Losing The Horn

2006-11-03T01:00:00.000-06:00

These days it is easy to conclude that the US is losing the horn. This loss has many dimensions, the most important of these pertaining to influence in the political, economic and military spheres. This thesis assumes that the US supports, in its national interest, the growth of the region in order to develop viable economies that its businesses can leverage in a sustained manner*.

The vast majority of the population in the horn presently believes that US policy in the region is misguided. This political deficit translates into lost investment and development opportunities when people progressively lose hope and exert their energies away from productive activities towards finding means of escape. Finally this makes violence and suffering tolerable to those determined souls creating a security nightmare that turns into military confrontations.

This is not simple theoretical hyperbole. We are witnessing the phenomenon unravel in the horn as we write. It is not too far from the truth to say that the only full hearted supporters of US policy in the region have dwindled down to die hard TPLF supporters. This should scare the wits out of US policy makers as the quality of that support is questionable because it is based on fear of impending loss of undeserved privilege.

The rest of the people in the region are waiting to see if the US will finally side with the desires of regular folks and allow for relaxation, and maybe even resolution, of TPLF induced tensions. This affects issues ranging from internal Ethiopian persecution against political dissent to the border tension with Eritrea and the Somalia debacle. In short, the TPLF has become a liability in this project of globalization by pursuing policies that inflame populations and keep peace at bay.

At the urging of the sparkling blogger ET Wonqette we started reading the book authored by the US trained economist Berhanu Nega who is currently in an Ethiopian prison for his political views. The answer for US policy makers to the horn’s conundrum was glaring out of the first chapter. Adopting democratic systems in the region will very likely prevent the present explosive condition from recurring if the present unstable episode passes safely. Democracy starts at home however so we ventured to guess at what regular folks from the region would answer to the question of what needs to be done first to bring about democracy.

Will it come as a surprise to anyone if regular Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis said that the TPLF has to go before they can start negotiating with each other and amongst themselves on how to democratize their societies peacefully? If this was to be true, and it would take minimal effort on the part of policy makers to verify the validity of this assumption, then would that not signal that it is time for the US to stop supporting the TPLF?

Such gnawing questions are crying out for urgent answers. Regional collapse, destitution and intractable wars, with a religious tone at that, can not possibly be good for US driven globalization. Even the war on terror can only be useful to US interests if people of the horn believe it is directed at terrorists and not at their fundamental democratic rights. If not revised, the current path followed by US policy makers can easily create a region that is highly averse to US interests, perhaps even giving birth to African Chavismo.

_______________

*The reader may retort that this is precisely the definition of colonialism. Being diasporas and interested in the furtherance of our host nation’s global interests, we will not acknowledge such associations and instead call the present arrangement by its proper name: Globalization. That is why we preferred the use of the term ‘leverage’ instead of ‘exploit’.

The Lures of War

2006-10-10T23:06:00.000-06:00

Siad Barre, Somalia’s last president, made a blunder when he decided to go to war with Ethiopia in 1977. Not only did he initiate the deterioration of relations with the Soviet Union, a formidable arms supplier, but he also gave Ethiopia’s then leader, Mengistu Hailemariam, the context within which he could militarize his revolution.

Mengistu’s militarization of Ethiopia’s revolution forever changed the nature of the revolt from a civilian one supported by the Military to a Military one forced onto civilians. The Somalia war became the central element with which Mengistu and his supporters gained legitimacy by denouncing civilian revolutionaries as weak potential rulers who couldn’t protect their country from external aggression. The same war also gave him free reign to invite Soviet intervention in the arming and running of military operations and the governance system as a whole, thus imposing a quasi colonial relationship.

It seems that Meles has been a good student of history. He has done all that is in his power to provoke the Somalis to declare war on Ethiopia with the same hopes of gaining domestic legitimacy and external military support. The fact that there is no formidable Somali government, military or immediate threat to Ethiopia has made his job much harder than Mengistu’s. He has literally had to partially invade Somalia to get mostly empty threats from Somali Islamists, who can at best remove his soldiers from some Somali territory.

Unlike 1977, Ethiopians are not readily mobilizing for Meles’ war. Most seem to have read the Somali threat for what it is - non existent. The external actors for whose benefit he’s orchestrating this hoopla however seem to have been taken by it all. Most western policy makers are surely a lot more naïve than the Ethiopian populace when it comes to reading the motivation of Ethiopian leaders. For instance, it has still not sunk in for most US policy makers that to support Ethiopia in Meles’ provocative invasions of Somalia can only strengthen the Islamic court by giving it a lot more legitimacy than it could muster on its own.

Of course, at the end of the day, local people alone will decide the final outcomes of political and military confrontations. Both Ethiopians and Somalis will end up supporting leaders of their choosing. The challenge lies in convincing the west that this is better done using democratic means rather than war lords, militias and guerilla forces. Supporting Ethiopia’s democratic process will have incredibly more yield than supporting its internal and external security operations. It avoids the death and suffering of millions and does not discourage economic development, health initiatives and schooling.

Ethiopia’s relationship with countries in the region has shifted with time. Historically political and economic interests have driven the cooperations and confrontations. Rearticulating these relationships around the concept of religion is a formula that can only work to defeat the essence of Ethiopia which is a country consisting of a great deal of diversity.

A constant barrage from western media about Ethiopia being an old Christian civilization that has to defend itself from Islamic Somalia is false at many levels. Emperor Menelik confidently accepted a diverse empire that was inclusive of many Islamic emirs. Furthermore, Ethiopia has lived as a neighbor to Saudi Arabia, a declared Islamic state for generations. It is time to accept that for the most part, if at all, the Somalis are becoming radical not despite Ethiopia but because of its actions.

Who is the Enemy?

2006-09-01T23:46:00.001-06:00

To say that the horn has turned into an unpredictable area of great instability is an understatement. Reading conventional news one would be left with the impression that half the governments and countries in the region are on the verge of collapse. Those that are stable would seem to be Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. The others have rulers that are either Islamic fundamentalist, genocidal or simply lunatic.

Upon closer inspection of the region however a different picture emerges. While all the governments are slowly weakening, those of Sudan, Eritrea and the new powers in Somalia seem to be growing more defiant in their attitude towards the west, while Ethiopia and Kenya have remained compliant but are internally divided and in a serious crisis that threatens their essence. Djibouti in turn has returned to its colonial days of hosting large western military bases in return for royalty payments to its local nobility.

This brings us to the question of how the west is hoping to secure the area and introduce stability that is to its benefit. It now seems that the efforts to introduce ‘peace keepers’ into Sudan and Somalia have been thwarted by their rulers. Furthermore, the existing UN forces in Eritrea have now been completely crippled by that country’s government. Considering the progress of the war in Iraq and the recent conflict in Lebanon, the introduction of military forces from the US or other client states does not seem to be viable without the consent of local powers.

While the two obedient governments in the region, those of Ethiopia and Kenya, scramble to contain their own internal crisis as well as the regional defiance, they are falling prey to ‘overstretch’ and impending collapse. This amalgamation of crisis points to only one viable solution that the west can follow in order to prevent all out revolt that will surely engulf both Ethiopia and Kenya if not checked immediately. This solution is genuine democracy. The west will have to articulate a policy for the region not only from the perspective of oil security and anti-terrorism but also from that of the local inhabitants’ wishes and desires.

Supporting genuine democracy in the region will help the west rebuild its credibility and in the long run leave it with more influence. Supporting genuine democracy means supporting a system that would induce a cut in aid to any government that imprisons opponents that win elections. This means acknowledging that failure at the ballot box leads to insurrection and instability. It also means western governments implementing what they preach and being ideologically consistent.

Thuggish Governance

2006-07-31T00:23:00.000-06:00

It is now obvious to all objective observers that Ethiopia has been hijacked by a group of thugs who will stop at nothing to distract Ethiopians and the international community from the call for participation in governance. Furthermore, the fact that the TPLF/EPRDF has transformed itself into a ‘Christian force against Muslim fundamentalists’ is essentially equivalent to planting a time bomb without an ‘off’ switch in Ethiopia’s womb.

The party’s lack of far sightedness has been exhibited on many occasions. Its domestic policies have completely failed and Ethiopia can safely be called a failing state that needs immediate salvation. This salvation is unlikely to arrive while its governing elite imprison leaders who have been elected to office, persecute students who express discontent and most dangerously enter a religious war that most Ethiopians are uncomfortable with.

The previous Ethiopian-Somali conflicts were much more about colonial legacy than they were religious. Attempting to give the historical bumpy relationship between the two countries a religious tone is the first defeat for Ethiopia, as it is the country with a population that is half Christian and half Muslim. Just as the international community was intimidated into supporting the TPLF by threats of destroying Ethiopia, the party is now threatening the west, and particularly the US, with the radicalization of Somalia by launching an invasion of that country contrary to the wishes of the Ethiopian and Somali people.

Ethiopia had governments and armies that were far larger and more legitimate during the previous wars with Somalia but its leaders, wise as they were, never attempted to invade Somalia even when the power balance was in their favor. A hugely unpopular ruling party today has decided to invade a country without a government in the hopes of creating instability in the region as a reminder to all that money should not stop flowing into its coffers.

US complicity in this will surely backfire by assuring its lose of influence in the region upon the sure to come departure of the TPLF. As many seasoned US diplomats have recently been reminding us, the US has already paid a heavy price by allying itself with a party instead of a country. It was led into the Somali conflict on the losing side more recently and has drawn the intervention of all those who wish to harm US interests by TPLF’s self serving declarations of terrorist activities in Somalia.

Further progress in the direction of financing and supporting Ethiopia’s illegitimate rulers will inevitably initiate a regional revolution that can not serve the interests of either the local inhabitants or international stakeholders. It is time to put an end to the desperate and aimless adventures of Ethiopia’s thuggish rulers by allowing the elected leaders of Ethiopia to take office and starting a reconciliation period. This would relieve the present tension in Somalia as well while that country starts to select its own governance system and rulers. At the end of the day that is what Democracy really means and the horn is calling for it.

Beating Around the Bush

2006-05-30T19:31:00.000-06:00

When the TPLF leader Meles Zenawi was promoted by Tony Blair as a progressive leader we thought the statement was too dishonest and reflected negatively on the British Prime Minister’s character. As we continue to learn more about how Meles operates however, we are starting to feel that maybe we were a little too harsh on poor Mr. Blair. We had totally underestimated Meles’ capacity to intimidate not only Ethiopians but also those whom he begs. It seems the theory works both ways; if Ethiopians can be used to beg westerners for money why not use the same people to intimidate westerners as well.

Almost any rational person already knows that the recent explosions in Ethiopia were orchestrated by the TPLF. This would be completely in line with how TPLF has historically threatened to disintegrate the country and start inter-ethnic strife if forced out of power. No political force that would like to come to power in Ethiopia would have an incentive to blow up civilians riding in Taxis. It would be the worst PR campaign ever waged by such a force.

It is clear that all western officials on the Ethiopian scene also understand this from the various statements that they have made in the previous few years. That Meles can go from simply threatening westerners with the destruction of Ethiopia to actually acting it out seems to have rattled many of these officials who are now speaking his propaganda like parrots. Tony Blair recently helped Meles to reinstate all the aid that he had lost under the same old guise of fighting poverty, and now elements in the more powerful and principled US government seem to be cowering under Meles’ threats too.

We do not know much about the new political alliance, the AFD, that was recently created. But we do know that its stated objectives and tasks are far from the accusations implied in a recent news piece published by the State Department. We also know that a pretentious CUDP was created by Meles – this is not the first time that TPLF has created duplicate parties in order to fight legitimate political forces. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto’s recent surprising statements about AFD being bad and Meles-CUDP being good are starting to sound very similar to Tony Blair’s old mistakes. With Blair it became obvious that there was some personal friendship and the stated intimidation to motivate him to blunder, but we have yet to determine if Yamamoto is reacting to intimidation by Meles contrary to his own beliefs.

The message is simple and clear. It is time for western officials to stop beating around the bush due to intimidation by Meles. It is evident that he remains with no more legitimacy to rule Ethiopia. Making TPLF’s inevitable demise take a few years longer can only hurt western interests by creating more TPLF induced violence. It is time to support political forces that understand that Ethiopia needs change immediately and are getting together to achieve it.

To Ethiopians inside and outside the country this is the time to give courage to Ethiopians and western leaders by writing more, demonstrating more and informing all concerned that we are behind all peaceful political forces that are trying to stop TPLF's intimidation campaigns. No privilege can be more important than a safe and democratic Ethiopia.

Meles' Fuzzy Math

2006-05-09T00:34:00.000-06:00

In view of Prime Minister Meles’ recent interview on the economic condition of Ethiopia, and his derogatory comments about people who complain about it, we thought we would educate ourselves in some economics and analyze his teachings just a little.

To begin, it is obvious that his statements about hydroelectric power production investments and their impact on the government are false. If Meles’ logic holds true, we should all go out and secure the loans of all our acquaintances without any worry of repercussions incase they default on repayment. What we found more interesting however were his comments on inflation and his assertion that only the economically unlearnt would think Ethiopia’s rising inflation was bad for the economy.

It seems the origin of this statement is the Prime Minister’s in depth knowledge of modern industrialized economies and how they stimulate their economies in times of economic downturns by making use of monetary and fiscal policies that create inflation. In other words, their central banks expand the monetary supply [print money] and generally lend it to the governments, which in turn spend it buying goods and services in the economy and stimulating expansion while creating inflation.

It does not take a genius to realize that Ethiopia’s economy is far from a modern industrialized one and operates on completely different principles. As an example one can take the five year period between 1997 and 2002. This period is selected due to data availability and because it marks the beginning of Ethiopia’s reorientation towards an aid economy – which we expect to continue into the foreseeable future. For the purpose of simplicity we need only look at two parameters, the GDP and Aid trends and what they imply.

In the given period, foreign Aid to Ethiopia increased at an annual average rate of approximately 25% while real GDP grew at an average of 4%. These values and future forecasts can be found at various web sites that are openly available to the public(*). Aid in fact increased from 10% to 24% of GDP in these five years indicating a major policy change by the government as well as donors. Conservatively ignoring inflation, simple calculations from these values shows that while Aid accounted for 65% of the growth in 1997, it accounted for 144% of growth by 2002 indicating a contraction in the rest of the economy.

This implies a 1.78% growth in the non-Aid component of Ethiopia’s economy by 1997 but a decline of 2.3% in that sector by 2002. Since this analysis does not account for temporary shifts in GDP growth rates, the implication of this is frightening. By all accounts it is becoming evident that in the future Aid growth rates will far outstrip GDP growth rates in Ethiopia indicating a contracting non-Aid economic base in the country. Even if the above numbers are slightly off, it is becoming clear that people who live in countries that receive little aid and have no GDP growth will be more productive than Ethiopians.

The Prime Minister’s understanding of economics thus comes into question when his primary growth industry is the Marketing of a poverty brand associated with the country but he plans to expand the economy through inflation. If, as the above calculation implies, the production base in which Ethiopians are involved is actually shrinking – and there are strong indications that it is in the exploding number of farmers who are aid dependent and not productive any longer – then there is no useful inflationary stimulus that the government can apply as is the case in productive economies.

This leaves two possible explanations for the recent increase in inflation. One is that the Prime Minister is printing money to buy political support and this is getting out of control or that Ethiopians are on a buying spree – of goods and/or foreign currency – due to the political instability in the country and keeping less cash with them. Despite Meles’ economic lecture, neither one has anything to do with an economic stimulus. The present condition is further evidence of the negative economic impact of illegitimate governance and it would behoove donors to take note of this impending disaster. As for Ethiopians, well the struggle continues.

* http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/andrews.htm

Ethio - US Relations: Going Anywhere?

2006-04-27T23:59:00.000-06:00

In 1973, the United States government decided to withdraw from its base at Kagnew in Asmara. This move, partly precipitated by a need to avoid a confrontation with the USSR in the horn, started to push Ethiopia into the Soviet sphere. Assured of US disinterest in Ethiopia, the USSR continued to arm Somalia to a point that the latter felt it could realize its dream for a Greater Somalia - an idea the British had nurtured long before the days of decolonization, and one that had seen Ethiopia and Somalia in military confrontation in 1964. Together with the rebellion in Eritrea (which received support from Arab nationalism which was itself being supported by the Soviets) and the Somali invasion, American refusal to supply arms, including those already paid for, assured Ethiopia’s turn for support towards the Soviet Union. The disengagement by the US at the time had meant it saw little value in its involvement in Ethiopia; it was later to regret its decision.

That was then. Today’s realities in the horn are much different. Somalia’s state structure has failed and the US has every interest in controlling that dynamics and what happens inside Somalia. The 1993 experience there has made direct interference a political impossibility. To the west, oil rich Sudan is mired in conflict, and unfriendly to the US. Despite the egregious human suffering the Sudanese regime is perpetrating, it has so far succeeded in rebuffing attempts for international involvement. Wary that western presence in Sudan would infringe on its economic interests, China is unwilling to give the US or affiliated powers a foothold in the Sudan. Eritrea’s regime, after initial flirtation, has turned away from the US. Ethiopia remains the sole sizable country in the horn that has friendly relations with the US.

Unfortunately, the US administration seems to think that this friendly relationship with Ethiopia can continue only so long as Meles remains in power. It is true that a different leadership in Ethiopia may be more cognizant of what is in the national interest of Ethiopia than Meles is, and in this regard may not act at the whims of the US. But that fear can not justify the support of a tyrant who is looking like a new-age colonial viceroy with each passing day. When the US Charge d’Affairs goes around declaring Meles has won the election, or when she actively engages in the creation of a new political party to weaken opposition to Meles, Ethiopians have to wonder if he indeed is not just that.

The backing Meles gets from the governments of the US or the UK is markedly lacking from the population in his own country. Misguided, Meles’ few supporters have often seized upon ambassadors’ statements as vindication of their righteous position. Only denial can foster such a perspective. When leaders have no support from their local constituents and maximum support from outsiders, it requires no genius to decipher what their role is.

Just as in the 1970s the US runs the risk of losing its position in Ethiopia - this time not by disengagement, but by an overzealous engagement to uphold the rule of a tyrant. When in the 17th century Emperor Susenyos converted to Catholicism, opening the door for wider influence from the Roman Catholic Church, the reaction was strong - he was forced to abdicate and for 100 years thereon, the country lived isolated. Though isolationism may today seem like an unlikely event, the level of distrust being festered by the Charge d’Affairs as well as the State Department’s active policies encourage just such a move, or at least a turn away from American domination. An Ethiopian saying goes ሁሉ ያልፋል : እስኪያልፍ ያለፋል. Sooner or later Meles’ time will come to an end. For the US and its far reaching global interests, losing what could be a friendly ally and long term partner for short term domination is very likely ill advised.

What is the State Department thinking?

2006-04-12T01:22:00.000-06:00

A newCUDP (Kinijit) is in the process of being formed. Those leading this effort areindividuals who have now joined parliament against their party’s originaldecision to boycott. Their meeting took place just two days after the U.S.Charge d’Affairs to Ethiopia gave a peculiar press conference where she praisedthe Meles government for its “decision to accept the opposition Coalition forUnity and Democracy as a legal party.” At the same time, she called on thegovernment and the opposition (mainly the CUD, whose entire leadership is inprison) to commit to the political process. Since Ms. Huddleston is fully awareof the political space that is available for the imprisoned leaders, we canonly assume that she is referring to a newly constituted CUDP that excludes theimprisoned leaders.

Meles’ motive in this regard is clear; with theentire leadership of the CUDP in prison, a new Party made of people that haveacquiesced to his demands to join parliament would go a long way to restore his“democratic” credentials. It is no coincidence that the bearer of this “goodnews” is the Charge d’Affairs who has been working tirelessly to ensure a“vibrant” but hollow parliament. Cushioned in appeasing words for supporters ofthe real CUDP, her statement was read as a change of heart in the U.S.administration’s position. But in reality when the EPRDF or Ms. Huddleston saidCUDP will be recognized, neither meant the original party but rather a newfabrication that includes some members of the original.

It is no wonder then that as part of her speech,the Charge d’Affairs, instead of calling for the release of the prisonersmerely expressed a wish that they would be released, and called for thecontinuation of the pseudo-legal theatrics that Meles is orchestrating. SurelyMs. Huddleston is aware that wishes alone will not pressure Meles intoreleasing anyone. By going on the record to state that the courts should decidethe issue [quickly or not], she is saying that the U.S. administration washesits hands off the same individuals that Amnesty International calls prisonersof conscious. It cannot be lost on her or the State Department that such a movewill only give Meles a free hand to keep the true leaders of CUDP languishing in prisonand out of the picture. In the meantime, those whom Meles believes can be keptin check are allowed to hijack the party that had gained so much popularsupport.

We think that the move by the Ethiopian governmentand the speech by the Ambassador are precipitated by the need to release someof the pressure building up against Meles in the U.S. Congress due to HR 4423.That the speech by Huddleston was made just a few days after Yamamoto testifiedat the subcommittee hearing is further evidence that this is an out strategyfor Meles. The State department and Congress are on two opposing paths inregards to Ethiopia. If HR 4423 were to pass as law, it would seriouslydiminish what the administration can do for Meles. Aware of this dilemma thepath chosen by the State Department is to encourage Meles to solve the problembut in a way that suits him. The EPRDF is skilled at creating political partiesthat are totally under its influence. It is sad that the State Department andthe U.S. embassy would find a move which effectively allows Meles to choose whocan be an opposition worthy of praise. Neither the speech by Huddleston inregards to the court process nor allowing an EPRDF made CUDP to operate willsolve the current impasse. We have to wonder, what is the State Departmentthinking?

The Oil Curse visits Ethiopia

2006-03-14T10:11:00.000-06:00

The recent news on the commencement of oil exploration in the Gambella region should not have come as a surprise to those who have been following the Ethiopian oil saga for the past few years. Many warning alarms have already been given against the dangerous marriage of convenience that is developing between the present illegitimate Ethiopian government and Asian oil interests. This marriage has the potential of evolving into the type of relationship that has turned Sudan into the nightmare of the 21st century.

The curse of oil has visited Ethiopia and it is time to accept that oil has sadly arrived before economic development. This further complicates the transition out of poverty, as explained in a previous article on this site on Nigeria’s oil debacles. What should not be accepted is that the Ethiopian scene has to deteriorate to the level of Sudan’s, where a small clique in power has a monopoly over oil revenues, as well as the protection from international criticism that military control over oil reserves bestows.

The Ethiopian government is still a few years away from raking in oil revenues to the extent where it can decline international financial support thus neutralizing the efforts of the democracy oriented Ethiopian Diaspora and other concerned governments that are urging it to stop the bloodshed and leave power. But this also means that these democratic forces have only a few years left to change the crony character of the TPLF led Ethiopian government – and there is much work to be done.

The comparison with Sudan is not being made in vain. Bashir and Meles’ close friendship is a long sighted partnership in pursuit of a common goal – namely the extortion of national wealth for the benefit of a few with the protection of global powers that find this arrangement only too convenient from the perspective of controlling these weak governments. China’s protection of Bashir’s government in the UN Security Council as well as in various other international political mediums is being carried out in the interest of fueling China’s tremendous economic growth but has left the majority of Sudanese punished beyond reprieve.

For Ethiopians to find themselves in a similar position where millions can be killed and displaced as was the case in Darfur – and Gambella to a smaller scale – will create an international crisis many times the size of Sudan’s. The only way to avoid this is for there to be a structural change in Ethiopia’s governance where legitimate control of the oil reserves and contracts is returned to the Ethiopian people through a democratic process. It is up to all fair minded people to struggle for this before the opportunity slips and the cost of reversing the mistakes becomes insurmountable for future generations.

All countries - Ethiopia, China, Malaysia and others - have a right to pursue their national interest in their diplomatic and bilateral agreements. Some diplomacies and agreements can backfire however by reviving violence, xenophobia and unnecessary protectionism if the subject populations are totally disenfranchised as is the case in Ethiopia under TPLF. The best way to avoid such an outcome is to allow for an un-oppressive political and economic system that various Ethiopian groups can participate in. That in turn requires that the monopolistic minority regime relinquish power immediately.

British involvement in Ethiopia

2006-02-16T16:20:00.000-06:00

Last week’s shenanigan by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the South African summit of Progressive leaders was shameful to say the least. In Orwellian tongue he accepted Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, as a progressive leader. He then proceeded to characterize Ethiopia’s brutal experience of the last seven months as a mere over reaction by a government that behaved within the bounds of normal democratic practice. He raised neither international nor human rights paradigms as a point of reference for his characterization and simply blurted it out in a vacuum of context and honesty.

In fact, unprincipled chicanery of English officials in their policies regarding Ethiopia is not unprecedented. The breach in agreement between the government of Great Britain and Ethiopia during Emperor Yohannes’ reign as well as the contortions that London had to go through to legitimize the Fascist invasion of Ethiopia prior to WWII and its colonial ambitions later on present great lessons in the history of relations between the two nations.

In the late 1860s an English expeditionary force was sent to Ethiopia to crush the rule of Emperor Tewodros. He was seen as a threat to British interests as he asserted his independence and pursued a tightly controlled project of nation building. The facilitator to the expedition in Ethiopia, the later Emperor Yohannes, was to receive lavish arms and diplomatic support during his rule in the 1870s and 80s for his support in the British adventure. This came at a high price however.

British policy in the region was geared towards securing the Red Sea and Suez Canal as well as establishing functional colonies in Egypt and The Sudan. Another nationalist movement in the form of the Mahdists was presenting major obstacles in The Sudan resulting in Emperor Yohannes being contracted yet again to secure an exit route for the defeated Egyptian forces through Eritrea and the Red Sea as well as for he himself to apply military pressure on the Sudanese from the South East. In return the British promised that the Egyptian held port of Massawa would remain open to him while he could control much of highland Eritrea and the western lowlands up to Kassala.

While the Emperor seemed to fulfill his side of the bargain, the British proceeded to invite the Italians into Eritrea as a way of securing their interests. The sense of betrayal was to stay with the Emperor until his death in one such battle with the Mahdists. To the Emperor, the British behavior was slimy while to the British it was pragmatic.

During the mid 1930s the British were to impress another Ethiopian Emperor with their ever more ingenious gimmicks. Hitler’s rise to power in Europe had France and England, the traditional leaders in Europe, in a condition of panic and despair. One element that they believed would deter Hitler was to keep Italy on their side of the confrontation as they had done during the WWI. Ethiopia was a member of the League of Nations and invoked the principle of collective security at the time that Mussolini attempted his invasion but France and England literally turned a blind eye or worse, supported him.

Eventually the British were to work hard at recognizing the Fascist invasion and the expulsion of Ethiopia from the League of Nations while still maintaining an overt policy of collective security. The fact that the British gave Emperor Haile Selassie harbor during the war had less to do with their interest in protecting Ethiopian sovereignty as it did with acquiring a negotiating chip against Mussolini who desired the submission of the Emperor to legitimize his rule. The British impulse to play on all sides of diplomacy in total disregard to international law and common norms came at a great cost to Ethiopia as well as Great Britain itself. Finally, it is worth mentioning that British colonial ambitions in Ethiopia after the War were crushed only by the involvement of the US, leaving the Emperor forever suspicious of the English character.

Tony Blair’s support of Meles Zenawi as a progressive leader while the latter punishes Ethiopians with poverty and bullets is therefore a continuation of a long history of hypocrisy in British policy towards Ethiopia. The fact that British policy has the same traits when the country was a world power [1880s], on the brink of a global war [1930s] and at this time when it is a small client state to the US is troubling.

At a time when most African countries have shunned British influence in their affairs, it is understandable that Blair should be grappling for any strand of support in the continent. But maybe it is best if he does it in silence without pompous invitations of brutal leaders to his summits and commissions.

Blair turns his back on who?

2006-02-12T23:33:00.000-06:00

"Blair turns his back on friend who failed him" reads a dramatic headline on the British Times Online.

Apparently, at least according to the BBC, Blair did this while also declaring Meles as the winner of last May’s election. According to Blair the following is what happened in Ethiopia:

"The government won the election, there was then a reaction to it, there was then, perhaps, if I can say this without being too undiplomatic, an over reaction to that, which often happens."

After he downplayed what he calls an "over reaction" as a common occurrence - nothing special - Blair returned to his "diplomatic" self and made the point that the "situation" should be resolved in a way that helps Meles.

"We have to try and resolve the situation, the human rights issues, but do so - and I want to do so - in a way that supports Ethiopia."

We are all diplomatic enough to know what he means. When you fall in disfavor with Blair, what you get is something similar to Mugabe's ban from every EU member state [not to mention the assets]. Meles and Blair are wining and dining together. The theatrics at the final press conference can not fool any one - Blair and Meles are as chummy as ever.

The Calculus of Eritrea in Ethiopian Politics

2006-02-01T10:47:00.000-06:00

Since the Ethio-Eritrean war of 1998, the TPLF dominated EPRDF has been using the Assab issue as bait to catch votes of support from Ethiopians who otherwise are poised against the party. In fact it could be said that EPRDF was able to lengthen its rule over Ethiopia by over half a decade simply by using the ever sensitive Eritrean issue as a way of galvanizing support. EPRDF is of course not the first Ethiopian government to find many Ethiopian?s misgivings about Eritrea to be a convenient way to distract from non-Eritrean issues. But the present ruling party, unlike the Dergue, has taken it to a new level because it has lost political legitimacy on all other fronts.

Many have accurately stated that the Badme issue is properly a non-issue. EPRDF's attempt to keep it alive through various initiatives is part of its ploy to balance regional power centers while retaining a dominating position. It has found an ambiguous partner in this in the Eritrean government which finds it hard to extricate itself from a dilemma of its own making. If one were to carry out a realistic analysis of the present condition, one would find that it is inconceivable that Eritreans do not want to come to an agreement with Ethiopians on Ethiopian access to the Red Sea through the port of Assab. This would probably happen within the first few months of a legitimate, non TPLF government taking power in Ethiopia.

This type of agreement requires the assumption of power in Ethiopia of a government that would like to use Assab as a port and not as a sole means of attaining legitimacy among Ethiopians by forever "fighting for Assab". In other words, an agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea on a viable Ethiopian use of Assab would spell the end of any illegitimate political force in Ethiopia and EPRDF falls in this category.

The going premise in EPRDF leadership circles is that Ethiopians, and particularly those from central regions, will always jump on a bandwagon that has something to do with retaking Eritrea. The reality as it exists simply does not allow for such an adventure however since it is politically unviable to ask the Ethiopian and Eritrean people to re-live what they have experienced in the past fifty years. Henceforth unity is going to come naturally and not through force. More importantly however, central Ethiopians have rejected the leadership?s premise completely in more recent times.

This premise was recently shattered as Ethiopians rejected EPRDF and claimed that they do not need illegitimate representatives to negotiate agreements with the Eritrean people over issues of economic or political nature. As an old Ethiopian saying goes, የፉክክር ቤት ሳይዘጋ ያድራል (ye'fukikir bet sayzega yadral) - while Ethiopians and Eritreans are focused on non issues that could easily be resolved by legitimate governments, both are headed to be the first successful colonies in Africa where no agreement between them will ever mean anything substantial in the future. Ethiopian history of the 19th century clearly demonstrates that battles for control among siblings can easily lead to loss of control to an outsider. Who in their right mind would want a repeat of that?

Tell-Tale Signs of an Aid Colony

2006-01-27T18:21:00.000-06:00

A short and very interesting opinion piece on Front Page Africa (FPA) starts by stating there is some good news regarding Human Rights in Ethiopia. It continues:

"The British Secretary of State for International Development made the pitch last week to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi…for an independent investigation into reports of Abuse in the Oromia Regional State."

Meles Zenawi, of course, accepted the idea. The "good news", if we can call it that, ends there.

It is immensely disturbing, but not unexpected, that Meles would respond positively to the British official who has no constituents in Ethiopia, while he refused for months to hear the same request coming from elected representatives from Oromia now serving in the House of Representatives. FPA continues:

"This comes to light after a formal request was made to the Ethiopian Parliament by members representing Oromia …the Speaker of the Ethiopian Parliament did not accept the request. The request has been submitted also to the Prime Minister…there has not been a response…"

The British request, designed to save their cozy relationship with Meles, has removed all the technical hurdles Meles was creating in Parliament preventing discussion of the issue.

Eight months into the escalating abuses of human rights by Meles, Mr. Benn still assures us that they are "seriously concerned."

"…[Hillary Benn] stated that the UK is seriously concerned with issues of governance, Human Rights and the detention…"

But he is clearly not concerned enough to disassociate himself from Meles or to stop aiding him. The article also expresses doubt about the whole hype of concern and feels that the cosmetic agreement is meant to enable aid to be reinstated. It states that this may all be part of a ploy that will eventually reward Meles:

"A tactic is possible so that the international donors will resume foreign aid. This may also occur to encourage the United States to resume its good feelings and resume Military Aid Shipments."

The story underlines the notion that aid giving is as important to the international community as receiving it is to Meles. Aid provides the necessary leverage the west needs from governments that have no interest in serving their own population. If aid was given, as is so often publicized, in good faith and for the good of the people then the British would not have had to undertake last week’s PR somersault to give the impression that they have actually done something without having done anything.

It is because Aid is given in the donor’s interest that aid givers find it impossible to completely disassociate themselves from the likes of Meles. For them, to give up influence over something so puny as the massacre of locals, the contravention of freedoms, the loss of civil life, or the imprisonment of thousands would be unthinkable. And neither is it out of their concern for the poor that they do not stop the aid [though this seems to be the fashionable excuse used to prop up Meles]. It would be moronic on our part to suggest that the aid-givers do not know what billions of "development aid" poured into government coffers such as Meles’s, and the contractual agreements that come attached with aid, have really meant for the poor of the world.

In Ethiopia today, thanks to Aid, we have a government that totally ignores its own people while it is completely beholden to the interests of those giving it Aid. In a sense we have a colony, an aid colony that is administered by locals, but answerable to those who finance it. For Meles, what is at stake is his ability to rule for however long he wishes, sustained by the "development" money he receives from his friends.

The alternative for him would be achieving some level of internal legitimacy by being accountable to the people of his country. His actions make it clear which path he has chosen. For aid givers it is a delicate balance. On the one hand they are trying to appear as humanitarian as possible to their own constituents while on the other they are trying to ensure that they do not lose any of their leverages that are used in a variety of contexts from policy and market control to military operations. In this calculi "development", "the poor", etc. are really only words which justify the passage of money and influence between groups that are both bent on different kinds of power – one local, one global. The poor, well the poor always get shafted.

Opinon piece from FPA can be read here.

Gode Cheetahs Voice Their Objections!

2006-01-16T20:11:00.000-06:00

Now, was that so hard to believe? What if we were to tell you that this was a recent headline in the Washington Post? Well it wasn’t, but other stories that were just as hard to believe have been making headlines…read on.

These days the Washington Post constantly reminds us that U.S. Forces are saving Cheetahs in Ethiopia [a prelude to saving us all maybe?], while others remind us that the western “Reality TV” craze is now bringing hope to Ethiopians after the election unrest [never mind that TV ownership is at 0.6% in Ethiopia]. We scroll through the news on Ethiopia and find it hard to believe that these are the news pieces American media feels are worthy of attention. But we can not take these stories for granted without pondering if there maybe something more sinister at work.

Truth be told, during difficult times most Ethiopians draw hope and sustenance within the context of their own culture and identity. Thousands of years of local history is a testament that we probably have a lot to teach the world in this area than the other way around.

But maybe we are seeing it all wrong…just maybe, we should take comfort in all this because, incase the viceroy in Addis has to leave, this may all mean that our saviors won’t be too far removed to assure "appropriate" leadership. For now, we know that the Agazi forces [pictured here, and apparently trained between saving cheetahs], have done their job well enough to buy time for other diplomatic endeavors to save the bankrupt Ethiopian regime.

Meanwhile on the Ethio-Eritrean Front...Yared Tibebu recently wrote an article in The Sudan Tribune that the latest diplomatic machination of the U.S. is meant to overshadow the people’s internal struggle in Ethiopia by some agreement with Eritrea. Similarly a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said:

“Washington's leverage over Ethiopia [in its attempt to resolve the border standoff] is a promise to help Meles deal with a turbulent political situation at home and to persuade European donors to give back $375 million in aid they withheld over an opposition crackdown last year.”

In other words, Meles negotiates a peace deal with Eritrea and in due course the aid that ensures his stay on power gets reinstated.

Eritrea has responded to the latest U.S. offer to mediate much differently from how it responded to past attempts including that of the U.N. The reason could be that it either feels the U.S. has no choice but to pressure Ethiopia or that it would find itself in a more precarious situation if it refuses to talk to the U.S. which sees Meles’s removal as unacceptable. Recent talk of international sanctions from the U.N. is meant to further pressure Asmara, which is already at odds with the U.S. over the expulsion of USAID. Issayas just may have a guest that he can not refuse to see.

What Happens Next?To restore international legitimacy to Meles, what happens locally is also important. The additional opposition members that have chosen to join the parliament lend more international legitimacy to Meles’s government. Once reelection takes place on the boycotted seats, Meles can change the parliamentary rules that have been controversial on recommendation of the western consultants he has promised to hire. Undoubtedly, the changes will only be symbolic, probably reflecting the new composition of The House. The western media will remarket Meles to the world as once more on the right path. Meles gets another pat, the west congratulates itself on reinstating Meles to the 'right path' and finally aid is reinstated.

But in all this one thing is overlooked, and that is the role of the Ethiopian people. Western governments seem to think that the only legitimacy that really matters is an international one. As long as public opinion in their respective capitals is willing to accommodate the support of a dictatorial client government, they will continue to do so. As the recent reports on Ethiopia suggest, the mainstream press in these countries lacks the moral authority to be taken seriously but unfortunately these are the outlets that form western public opinion. Despite all these however, the most important thing for Ethiopians to remember is that no matter what influences are backing Meles, the key ingredient for long term rule is missing. The west, the press as well as the viceroy himself have overlooked that legitimacy is not for them to give. That is reserved for the Ethiopian People.

Looking Back and Looking Forward

2006-01-07T00:29:00.000-06:00

The Need for Redefining Ethiopian Nationalism

The formation of modern Ethiopia was initiated by Emperor Tewodros as he attempted to consolidate his rule over as large an area as possible in what was historically known as Abyssinia. Considering that this area did not contain large urban centers it is difficult to call this the beginning of the formation of Ethiopia as a nation-state.

Europe was itself going through this process in the middle of the 19th century except that its urban bourgeois class defined the structure of the state while most of the notions of nation were defined by ethnicity. The notion of nation-states that did not have ethnic hegemonies was indeed rare. The fact that not all of Europe turned into republic states can not take away from the crucial role that the urban classes played in this process.

The same era defined the modern introduction of European interest in the Red sea and the horn in general – partly as a consequence of British interests in the Suez Canal and trade with Asia. The Emperor’s attempts had much to do with the amount of new European arms that had started flowing into the region and the imbalance that this created, disrupting the equilibrium that existed before then between local lords.

The Emperor’s methods of securing support ranged from liberation to suppression but had much in common with what was being observed in other parts of the world at the time. He attempted to accentuate the old Abyssinian unifying values but was always careful to keep the old institutions of church and landlords in check as they represented the classes that needed to be sacrificed to bring about social transformation.

Despite these attempts at forging a nation-state, the Emperor’s efforts set in motion a dynamics that established Ethiopia as an important empire that, unlike Europe’s colonial empires, did not have a nucleus of a nation-state in it. Europeans, and particularly the British and French, kept arms flowing to various regions within the Ethiopian Empire blocking any chance of building a central authority.

This made the structure of modern Ethiopia more like that of the Ottoman Empire than that of the competing west European empires of the 19th century. Positively this made Ethiopia much more ‘democratic’ in allowing expression of interest in various regions compared to European empires, but this was impossible to demonstrate as the most lavishly financed parts of Ethiopia could not compete economically with the most neglected parts of European colonies. It is important to remember that this was caused more by the marked difference in economic advances rather than political structure of these empires however.

Showan hegemony at the beginning of the 20th century came closest to starting the process of forming a state structure but Emperor Menelik’s vision also came to naught as the confrontation between west and central Europe over their economic/political interests compromised Ethiopia’s sovereignty until the final attack by Fascist Italy in 1935.

The centralizing effect of the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, through the provision of infrastructure and governance systems, finally resulted in the Ethiopia of the 1940s where an externally weakened Emperor Haile Selassie had more control over Ethiopia than any ruler before him. The price was steep however. His external weakness, due to the military support that he had accepted from the UK/US, seemed to put him in a position where he had to accept his place in the hierarchy of global power and give up on the historic quest for Ethiopian modernization through the structures of nation-statehood.

This also marked the beginning of an era when the whole world, including Europe, was being consolidated under two polar powers dominated by the USSR and the US. For Ethiopia it spelled the beginning of half a century of governance where control over internal dissent was becoming harsh and unforgiving but the need for an external sponsor in one of the two superpowers was critical for any government in power.

The first major opportunity that came at the same time as the Emperor’s choice of the US as his sponsor was the onset of Arab nationalism and the threat that this posed to the west. This made the long espoused wish of Ethiopia for an outlet to the sea a possibility by aligning its interest with those who wished to contain the anti-colonial sentiment of the Arabs. Eritrea’s acquisition not only brought internal prestige to Ethiopia’s government but also provided an economic impetus by securing Eritrean industrial capacity – capital and labor – and ports.

These positive developments were soon to be clouded by doubt however. Ethiopia’s ambiguous existence as the modern manifestation of an old empire seemed unsustainable. Again the first negative impact of this was felt in Eritrea where the federal arrangement that both Christian and Muslim Eritreans had accepted in 1952 was dissolved as the Ethiopian government found it impossible to effectively absorb a federal state under its prevailing structure. Furthermore, the growing urban intelligentsia in the country started agitating for political participation and this was also met with stonewalling measures. These tensions boiled over into open armed rebellion in Eritrea while they formed the basis for much instability in all the major cities of Ethiopia leading up to the revolution.

As Arabs worked to break the western stronghold over themselves, they tried to undermine the Ethiopian Emperor using the Eritrean insurrection but failed in most of these quests as their revolution was contained and transformed into various Islamic movements by the 1970s. In addition, the ‘thaw’ in relations between the US and the USSR combined with the end of the post war economic boom in the west to cut Ethiopia off from most western support.

The chaos that ensued in Ethiopia invited the Soviet involvement in the country’s affairs and military and totally undermined whatever remaining independence the state had. This created the total destruction of civilian revolutionary movements, established conditions for the resurgence of Eritrean nationalism and encouraged an ethnic Tigray movement. The opportunity that the revolution presented for the formation of a national consensus was quickly usurped by the Soviets as they militarized Ethiopia’s governance. What appeared to be another opportunity at nation-statehood was lost yet again.

The dramatic reduction in Ethiopia’s ability to negotiate its interest with major powers over the century was due to two major trends. One was Ethiopia’s inability to form an effective state structure and an inclusive nationalism, while the other was the growing consolidation in global governance and hierarchy. This second trend has been totally ignored in most studies that pertain to Ethiopia but probably has as much to do with Ethiopian governance problems as the more commonly known domestic failure above.

An important impact of this second trend has been that more recent Ethiopian governments have managed to stay in power more as agents of greater powers – as controllers of their populations and their region whenever they could – rather than as representatives of their people and the state. The ex US ambassador to Ethiopia, David Shinn, put it succinctly when he was witnessing for a congressional committee recently by stating that the primary reason why Ethiopia was crucial to US national interests was its “effective national security system.”

The question of why a Turkey like state did not emerge out of the Ethiopian empire of the 19th century can probably be explained by the difference in economic and political advancement between the two empires. But a persisting question is why one can not emerge at this time when Ethiopia does have the required advances. Is the global power structure too rigidly set to allow for the rise of more nation-states or is this made impossible due to Ethiopians’ – particularly the intelligentsia – lack of willingness to go through a paradigm shift?

For this paradigm shift to occur, Ethiopia’s interests and nationalism must be defined on much more solid grounds than the fleeting ethnic based entitlement logic or anti-Eritrea/Somalia fear rhetoric. If this paradigm shift does not occur, it probably means that most of Ethiopia’s leaders – both in power and outside – have accepted the premise that Ethiopia is not viable as a state. The present Ethiopian condition is a clear demonstration of where this premise leads. The attempt of any group will always remain to be to attain power in Ethiopia’s government structure, since that position provides the highest returns from global powers by providing the ability to act as an agent.

Statehood is attained by the natural dynamics of domestic interests vying for power while still answerable to their domestic constituencies. This need not be in the form of voting, but a democratic political structure presents one of the acceptable ways of doing this.

At the end of the day what is desired for growth to occur is for those in power to have, in the best of their interest the growth of the capacity of their population. This capacity growth generally takes the form of a population being able to produce much of what it consumes thereby initiating industrialization and national wealth accumulation that can be reinvested for more growth. Agent governments can not allow this to happen since it goes totally contrary to their interest in all respects. The question thus remains. We know under what premise the TPLF operates but are all Ethiopians inadvertently operating under that same premise? In other words, is this a TPLF problem or one of a need for paradigm shift by all?

We Deserve Aid II - Satire

2006-01-05T11:11:00.000-06:00

The prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, reiterated today his serious objection to the proposed aid reduction from western donors. The prime minister revealed that the aid reduction is unacceptable to him and his government and that there would be a retaliatory action taken soon. Asked what the government intends to do about the threat; the prime minister claimed that it may have to cut the donors off from the services that it presently provides them.

Asked repeatedly what this includes, the Prime minister chose to stay ambiguous and answered in characteristic shrouded language that the west has much to gain from having an Ethiopian government that fundamentally believes that Ethiopia can not work as a nation-state. Pressed further in what ways such a government could be of value to donors the prime minister mentioned military and economic partnership with donors as an example.

This has come as a shock to many observers. Sources have maintained that US Special Forces are helping protect the country from a potential attack from Somalia, which is known to be a source of danger to its neighbors due to its highly organized Islamic military capacity, while Aid organizations and international institutions have taken over the provision of civic services and central banking from the government in order to improve overall governance.

The prime minister’s contradictory statements about his government fundamentally not believing in the viability of Ethiopia as a state and yet also securing help from donors to protect and build up the state have not gone unnoticed in western capitals. A diplomat who wished to remain anonymous disclosed that this seems to have made donors jittery and resulted in the proposed threats to cut aid unless the prime minister decides what he believes about his country and its relationship with the outside world. The diplomat claimed that for the first time in years, the donors have come to see that there may be alternative sources of political legitimacy in the country if the prime minister was to lose power.

This confusing state of affairs has left the Ethiopian people with much pain and suffering. A store owner in the middle of Merkato, the largest market in Africa, claimed that all Ethiopians are asking for is to be given the chance to have control over their own destiny and to work their way out of poverty. He argued that the Prime minister was slowly decimating the governance and defense capacity of the state using various means. This opinion seemed to resonate with many inhabitants of the city who have already shown their displeasure with the EPRDF government in the May 2005 elections.

Protest and Government Response in Ethiopia

2005-12-31T03:32:00.000-06:00

A snippet of the 14 year experience

It seems every week there is a new low that EPRDF's “revolutionary democracy” takes us to. This week, the regime has turned its face on high school students and kids from elementary schools. Instead of peacefully handling the public protest and listening to what the people are telling it, the regime is bent on imprisoning everyone that is vocal about the regime’s now bankrupt claims of legitimacy. If the authorites only took a moment to think and learn from their 14 year experience, it would have been apparent that the path they have chosen can not lead to a possible solution.

EPRDF's prescription to the latest protests is hardly new. Since its rise to power, the party has made it its job to destroy its peaceful opponents either by using pseudo-legal procedures, sheer brute force or a combination of the two. Since 1991 a large number of people have been abused, detained or have disappeared after detention under EPRDF’s watch.

In 1992 when the OLF left the transitional government, its members, supporters as well as sympathizers suffered at the hands of the regime, some even permanently disappeared. This trend has continued and there have been many documented cases of human rights abuses, including killings and disappearances, perpetrated against the Oromo people, whose legitimate aspiration to power in Ethiopia has been usurped by the TPLF and its creation the OPDO.

In January 1993, Students at AAU were protesting the planned referendum for Eritrea when they were met with bullets. Officialy one death was reported, but students were severly wounded, stabbed and beaten. The university closed for three months. A few months later the President of the University Dr. Alemayehu Tefera was arrested and held incommunicado for over ten years until his release in 2003. Forty one professors lost their jobs when a new government appointed university administration took over.

In 1994 when the AAPO posed peaceful challenges to it, EPRDF responded by charging and imprisoning AAPO members including the leader and founder of the organization Professor Asrat Woldeyes, alleging he incited armed rebellion against the government. He was held in conditions that exacerbated his medical conditions and later led to his death. In 1996 it was Dr. Taye Woldesemayat’s turn, then President of the independent Ethiopian Teachers Association (ETA) which the government had tried to disband and an outspoken critic of government policies. He was accused of an armed conspiracy against the government, and thrown in jail. In 1997, Ato Assefa Maru, a leading member of ETA and a human rights activist, was assassinated by armed security officers in broad day light.

In 2001, when University students protested for academic freedom they were met with a similar fate as in 1993. This time the protests quickly spread to the neglected urban neighborhoods of Addis where unemployment is rampant and dissatisfaction with EPRDF is high. Protests quickly turned violent and EPRDF responded with brute force arresting well over 3000. More than thirty people lost their lives. Professor Mesfin Woldemariam and Dr. Berhanu Nega were imprisoned at the time over charges of inciting violence and creating anarchy - all they did was to talk to students about their rights enshrined in the constitution.

In 2002, many towns in Oromia also witnessed protests by high school students against education and economic policies, the government responded in its usual fasion. Officially five deaths were reported, hundreds more were arrested. The atrocities committed in Gambella in late 2003 which we touched upon in our last post left well over 400 people dead according to HRW. In 2004, the regime cracked down on the Metcha and Tulma welfare organization fabricating charges of terrorism on the part of the prominent Oromo welfare association that has existed since the 1960s. Human Rights Watch calls these charges unfounded. The regime's treatment of journalists over the years has been a matter of much discussion and is extensivly documented with RSF.

The mass arrests, beatings, and killings of 2005 are still fresh in our minds.

We have tried to compile here only some of those events which have been highly publicized. There are many more that we have not mentioned or touched upon. As time passes and one atrocity gets seconded by another, the human mind loses count and those atrocities that happened early on start to fade from memory. Fortunately, EHRCO as well as international Human Rights Organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented the repeated abuses and excessive use of force by the current regime to destroy any opposition to it.

Prior to 2005, EPRDF’s constant self promotion, control of information especially from rural areas and the western media’s celebration of its leader also worked to temper the regime’s image. Western governments also fanned the idea that EPRDF at the top levels was committed to human rights. The regime and its western patrons usually agreed that human rights abuses could mainly be blamed on local officials or on the now tired excuse “lack of democratic culture”. Just after the polls in 2005 and before the brutal crackdowns in June, the Prime Minister himself had declared on national TV that all security personnel will be under his direct command. This time around he has no one else to blame.

The people of Ethiopia deserve much, much better than what EPRDF has brought them. Let us all hope that the New Year brings some good things to Ethiopia.

Pictures were originally posted at Ethiopia First News Page.

Oil: Prospects and Dangers for Ethiopia

2005-12-23T02:07:00.000-06:00

Ethiopia’s geopolitical importance is increasing due to its potential as an oil and natural gas producing country, at least for domestic consumption. Furthermore its large population size also marks it as a potentially large market for energy products. As oil prices go up, many exploration projects in Ethiopia which were deemed too expensive in the past have become viable investment opportunities. We thought it was appropriate to develop a political perspective on this issue in the face of recent declarations by Asian companies that they would start oil exploration and prospecting in Gambella.

The first issue of concern is the political structure under which this exploration would occur. Since political organization is the most direct means of accessing power, and consequently resources, it is highly questionable if a politically illegitimate government such as the EPRDF should be given the mandate to write the initial contracts for oil exploration thus establishing precedence. It seems to us that we are headed for a condition which is not too far in form from that found in Nigeria.

Just over a month ago on November 10th the Ogoni ethnic group in Nigeria celebrated the 10th anniversary of the execution of their leader Ken Saro-Wiwa. The cause for the execution was the request from the Ogoni that they get the basic minimum of infrastructure, considering that the oil is on their land. Royal Dutch Shell shut down the pumps in that area since those controversies but it still pumps oil across the delta with more rebellions arising while the Ogoni still live without roads, electricity or running water.

This case is highly relevant to today’s Ethiopia, and the Gambella region in particular, as most of the elements that exacerbated the situation in Nigeria can be found in Ethiopia too. The first and most important of these is ethnic politics. To claim that ethnic groups have close to full control over their destiny but persistently deny them those rights is a formula for never ending conflicts. EPRDF has made promises to Ethiopia’s ethnic groups that no nation in Africa can keep and consequently established the basis for impending disaster.

Secondly, EPRDF has shown a propensity to prevent the fair distribution of resources within the country and this will also present a glaring expropriation that will surely blow up if oil revenues were to be high enough. Thirdly and critically, EPRDF has shown a willingness to give highly favorable contracts to its ‘international friends’ for narrow personal and crony advantages that could make Nigeria’s oil contracts look heavenly when compared to Ethiopia’s. The lack of transparency in the way EPRDF operates would only work to make citizen’s confidence in the contracts extremely low.

Had EPRDF been a nationalist government that was abusive but had the interests of Ethiopia at heart, it might have been possible to overlook these issues for the sake of expediency. In the past six months however, it has been established that EPRDF has very little legitimacy to rule the country. Moreover much evidence has been presented as to its ‘agent’ like behavior and recklessness with issues of concern to us common folk. Adding oil revenue to this mix seems to us to be an unwise formula. Even if Ethiopia were to become a major oil producer, under EPRDF our reality will not resemble the subsidy societies that one sees in the gulf. It is much more likely to be a clone to that of Nigeria; one of cronyism, corruption and grinding poverty.

For more on the the human rights abuses in Gambella please see the Human Rights Watch report and also Keith Snow's article on Zmag in June of 2004.

Almost Sunday...

2005-12-17T20:25:00.000-06:00

Not even a week has passed since this post and there is news that Mega publishing is being liquidated.

It is already the week’s end and we haven’t had time to write anything since Monday. So, instead of letting the week slip by without an additional post, we thought we would put in a plug for two books on Ethiopia.

The first is Survival and Modernization, written by Messay Kebede. Some of you may have taken classes with him while at AAU or may be familiar with his writings*. While not entirely an easy read [it is after all a philosophical discourse], the paradigm the book takes on Ethiopian history and the failure to modernize is one which we find our selves agreeing with. This book is strongly recommended.

The second book which we recently came across is Hagai Erlich’s Ras Alula and The Scramble for Africa - a political biography of Ras Alula Aba Nega. A very well documented, short and easy to read biography of the great Ras; it tells the story of a man from humble beginnings, whose loyalty, bravery and military genius, enabled him to become one of the most powerful men in the country. It also gives insight into the history of late 1800s Ethiopia - the internal struggles for power, the external relations with Britain, Italy, Egypt and the Mahdis, and how the interaction of the internal and external pressures play out on the political scene of the time. Both books are available from Amazon.

While on the subject of book availability --- On a recent visit to Addis, we were dismayed that EPRDF owned publisher and bookseller Mega Books (previously Kuraz) no longer offered many of the history books it previously carried. We went mainly looking for the ‘Ye Ethiopia Andinet’** series by Tekle Tsadik Mekuria. We also wanted to get copies of the compiled works of Birhanu Zerihun. We found neither. Much to our dismay we also did not find any work of Ethiopian history on the shelves. On the other hand, we were pleased to find new editions of some of the works of Kebede Mikael in store and a book on the history of aviation in Ethiopia by Capt. Mekonen Beri - Aviation be Ethiopia.

Our first instinct was that the absence of history books was politically motivated; aimed to discourage certain perspectives of Ethiopian history.*** However, the staff told us that it was because the authors or families of the authors who hold the copyright for out of print works have not authorized reprints. Though there is no way for us to know if this is in fact the case, if you know authors or families of authors whose books are no longer in print, please ask if they could authorize reprints.

+++++++Two more books we felt should be included in the list++++++

Bahru Zewde's A History of Modern Ethiopia 1855-1991 is an excellent, concise book mainly covering the time from the end of Zemene Mesafint (Era of Princes) and the rise of Tewodros to the demise of the Derg in 1991 (includes quite a few pictures too). You should have this on your shelf.

Also, if you are interested in the who-is-who of Ethiopian literature, Black Lions: The Creative Lives of Modern Ethiopia's Literary Giants and Pioneers offers short biographies on thirty two personalities.

--------------------------------
* Here are a few we readily found online:
1. Ethnic Politics and the Cracks in the Dry Ground of the TPLF
2. The Rise of Ethiopian Nihilism and the Plight of Addis Ababa University
3. Assab or How to Make the Best of a Predicament
4. Guilt and Atonement: The Genesis of Revolutionary Spirit in Ethiopia
5. Bringing Reason Back to Ethiopian Politics
**The books in this series are (all in Amharic)
Atse Tewodros ena Ye Ethiopia Andinet, Atse Yohannes ena Ye Ethiopia Andinet, and Atse Menelik ena Ye Ethiopia Andinet

***While we feel our suspicion is justified because of EPRDF’s constant attempts to reinterpret and discourage the classical view of Ethiopian history, for an interesting and humorous take on the suspicious Ethiopian mind, we recommend Hama Tuma’s Of Paranoia and the Ethiopian Psyche.

Propaganda 101 for Dummies

2005-12-12T10:50:00.000-06:00

Propaganda is the systematic propagation of information reflecting the views of those advocating a given cause. In its 21st century form, this is done in such a way as to make the information seem natural and without the need to declare the cause explicitly. We thought we should comment on an interesting website that we discovered and how its propaganda system works. We chose hmbasha because it seemed unique in its approach and because of our disagreement with them as to the qualities of their intended audience.

The internet has turned into a virtual war zone for the Ethiopian community. The 1998 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea was probably the first major event that turned the internet into a space which allowed the Diaspora from both countries to participate in the conflict in real-time. At times the internet activity even influenced major policy by representing a non-scientific thermometer of public opinion. In the ensuing seven years the importance of the virtual political space has increased dramatically, making the internet one of the most important elements in the present Ethiopian political turmoil.

As such it should not surprise us that the EPRDF government propaganda units have penetrated the Ethiopian virtual community in force and, although we can not say for sure, it appears hmbasha is one such effort. The uniqueness of the website is that its administrators see a persistent need to explain their articles in distinctly bold foot notes below almost every posting. Even though the website makes full use of standard propaganda techniques in how they select articles and in their website layout, the fact that they see a need to explain all their articles implies something very disturbing.

We are convinced that the intended audience for this website is groups who are already supporters of the present ruling class in Ethiopia. The article foot notes seem to have the purpose of explaining to this audience what the significance of the selected articles is and how to understand them. We have chosen to assume that the comprehension abilities of the intended audience are actually much higher than what the hmbasha administrators assume. Most people are astute enough to understand the implication of most news items and how they relate to various interests in Ethiopia, especially when the articles are chosen for such a narrow agenda as hmbasha’s.

There is generally no need to explain the propaganda because that act itself defeats the purpose of persuasion by making the website into an opinion blog. The way in which hmbasha presents articles has given it the appearance of a school for cadre types whose desire is not information but education from higher cadres about how to read select materiel. If hmbasha wishes to be seen as a serious news-based website of a given political persuasion it will need to elevate its assumption of its audiences’ intelligence and limit its propaganda to news selection. Not doing so will mean that either hmbasha administrators have an impeccable understanding of the intelligence and comprehension abilities of their intended audience or that they need to go back to propaganda school for some basic training.

Still Thinking...

2005-12-11T16:44:00.000-06:00

International Community Continues to Think about Thinking about Doing Something!

According to sources, the level of anger in western capitals directed towards the Meles regime has reached a new high. Western leaders have now decided to vigorously think about thinking about sanctioning Meles. This is complicated, said our anonymous source, “what policy makers appear to be thinking about itself requires a lot of thinking.” Diplomatic sources also indicated that this is a major development and that it would put Meles in a predicament, saying “Meles himself should now start thinking about getting worried.”

Sources also expressed optimism that donors would not have to move to the next step, as that could carry serious consequences. “Imagine what actually thinking about sanctions can do,” said one source without explaining further. He also said that the process is still in its early stages and that the West is reluctant to press hard as further developments could have detrimental effects. However, he also stressed that the level of commitment should not be underestimated, as the several interviews and foreign ministry press releases have demonstrated recently. As an example, he recalled what U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr. Donald Yamamoto, recently said in an interview – that he cared about Ethiopia and that he flies to Ethiopia quiet often.

Other western sources seemed to agree and said that in the mean time, the Ethiopian people should feel some comfort about these developments. Western diplomats also said they are committed to putting out statements that give the impression that they are actually doing something about the crisis. In the mean time, they said they were seriously pondering every aspect of the worrying developments in Ethiopia.

We Deserve Aid

2005-12-06T20:19:00.000-06:00

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi hit a new low this week by publicly declaring 'We deserve Aid' in an interview with British TV Channel 4. We felt so embarrassed by the statement that we thought this was a good opportunity to distance the Ethiopian people from it while attempting to understand exactly what he meant by it. This statement seems like it was a Freudian slip from the ‘Bon Vivant’ of The Economist, albeit a slip that exposed what appears to be a spoilt beggar.

In common English the word ‘deserve’ is used to imply reward for some earned achievement that one is worthy of. What exactly does the prime minister believe he has accomplished to deserve aid? Could it be the achievement of drowning us into more poverty than when he found us a decade and a half ago? The number of people declared to be in need of food aid outpaces population growth implying that the Prime Minister may have a point. Young people in urban areas are increasingly unemployed and demoralized and this may also have added to his accomplishment. Maybe he deserves more aid simply because he has made us so poor that we are now chronically dependent on aid to maintain both our wealth and our poverty.

The Prime Minister may be talking on a totally different dimension however. In this scenario he believes that he deserves aid because there is some service, unknown to us, that he has rendered for those donating the aid. If this is the case, it will be impossible to find direct evidence for it and we need to look for indirect ones. One of Meles’ strongest international supporters has been the Prime Minister of the UK Mr. Tony Blair. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was a prominent member of his ‘Commission for Africa’ that was shunned in most African capitals as a newly packaged colonial program based on aid. The Economist mentioned his ‘exemplary’ contribution to this commission, shedding some light as to what he may have meant when he said that he ‘deserves’ aid.

Whatever the origin of Meles’ absurd comment, we know a few things about aid in Ethiopia that are worth mentioning here. The first is that aid is obtained in the name of poor Ethiopians but is for the most part controlled and absorbed by the EPRDF and aid donor interests. It is difficult to say if this is simply a cozy arrangement that has evolved into being organic or an explicit undeclared contract between the beneficiaries. The second is that neither beneficiary is willing to give up the money or each other at this time. This has been made amply evident by the silence, and at times quite support, that the donor community has given to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi despite his atrocious governance of the country.

We know that Ethiopia is in great need of aid. But the only aid that we need is one that has a possibility of passing on to the people. Not one that recreates Mobutu. Of all the possible ways in which Ethiopia could be aided, the present arrangement represents the worst format by encouraging crony behavior and unnecessary military spending to weaken the national defenses and strengthen ‘mercenary’ type forces. People have observed the various types of weapons that were turned against them in Addis implying misguided aid. Prime Minister Meles may believe that he deserves aid either as a viceroy serving a few masters who have a say over western tax-payer money, or because he has impoverished us. But we disagree. That is what the elections clearly showed.

The Economist Performs Absolutions?

2005-12-04T19:55:00.004-06:00

In an article dated November 10, 2005, The Economist wonders about the nature of Meles Zenawi. It asks if the true Meles is the man who provided “sterling service as a member of the Commission for Africa” or the rebel leader “who will happily toy with democracy in order to stay in power.” But the answer to this question was clear by November 10th. Starting from June, Meles Zenawi’s soldiers had killed about 100 people on the streets of Addis Ababa and indiscriminately arrested well over 20,000 civilians. Meles had revised parliamentary rules to favor his party, eliminated the rights of immunity for members of parliament, ordered the detention of many opposition leaders, shutdown private newspapers, and declared opposition to him was a treasonous act.

Yet, the Economist still wonders. The article bounces the reader between what it considers are Meles’s pros and cons and through it all the reader is made to reserve judgment. But the last paragraph goes further. In its conclusion, the article states that “many, perhaps most, Ethiopians and many foreign observers argue that, despite the government's recent bloody brutality, Mr. Zenawi is still the best man to keep Ethiopia on a path to development.” This conclusion can only leave the reader wondering what miracles this man must have performed to have such grand sins absolved by the very people he is brutalizing. The reader is gently nudged to accept (at least not oppose) Meles Zenawi in the interest of the greater good that Ethiopians and others expect from him.

Perhaps we could have blamed bad journalism and ignored this article if it was one of a few misleading pieces. Or we could have blamed the Economist's agenda if it were alone in disseminating such misleading commentaries. Unfortunately, it is not. The BBC's Ethiopia election coverage, for example. routinely includes a paragraph that says Meles’s party has won majority seats in parliament. No mention is made that these results are still contested by the opposition and many Ethiopians, or that the EU election observers have found these results not credible. BBC highly publicizes the mass releases of detained civilians by the Meles regime but forgets to report the mass arrests. On Nov 9, it posted an article stating that people in Addis are going back to work in defiance of opposition calls without mentioning the constant threats from Meles to force city residents to get back to work.

Such reporting is by no means objective and neither is it an honest error of reporting. It is clearly designed to portray Meles, and by extension his western patrons, in as good a light as possible despite their actions. In the past, many have wondered how it is that Meles is able to spin the Western media. It is now clear that Western media uses sophisticated propaganda to protect its poster child and his sponsors against the growing anger among Ethiopians.

What makes these forms of propaganda very dangerous is that they are not outright lies but are closely tailored to the truth with a good dose of omissions. What is more, they come from sources that many believe to be objective. The questions in Ethiopia at this time are about basic human rights. They cannot be overlooked even if there were support for Meles in Ethiopia. But this is not lost on the media sources that continue to publish Meles’s actions as some type of a temporary aberration. There seems to be an engrained interest to see him through the current crisis at whatever cost.

Protesting Jimmy Carter

2005-11-21T01:29:00.000-06:00

We had a successful protest against former President Carter on Sunday (Nov 20) in Edina, MN. Somewhere between a 100 and 150 people attended. The following is the text of a flyer that was distributed at the demonstration to attendees of Carter's event (click here to download in pdf). He was here as part of a tour promoting his latest book. If he is coming to your city, feel free to distribute this flyer to those attending his book signing. Mr. Carter will be at the following locations in the coming days...

11/22/05 11:30 AM at Borders Books – South Decatur Blvd. Las Vegas, NV.

11/22/05 6:00 PM at Barnes and Noble Booksellers – McIntyre Center . Salt Lake City, UT.

11/23/05 2:00 PM at Davis-Kidd Book Sellers – Perkins Road Extended. Memphis, TN.

Please confirm event times by calling your local bookstore. If he is coming to your city, please leave a comment so that the list can be updated. The aim is to raise awareness of Mr. Carter's role in legitimizing a dictatorship in Ethiopia. We hope this campaign will encourage Mr. Carter to disassociate himself from the leadership in Ethiopia and to condemn the gross violations of Human Rights being perpetrated by the government.

STOP SPONSORING VIOLENCE IN ETHIOPIA!

START PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN ETHIOPIA!

Please help us to convince President Carter to condemn the brutal actions of the Ethiopian government now.

President Carter, in a press briefing he gave in Ethiopia on the 16th of May 2005, claimed that his team of 50 election observers had seen very little fraud in Ethiopia’s elections despite the negative statements that were coming out of all other observer missions. Furthermore he supported the government’s ban on the rights of free assembly by saying “[Prime Minister] Meles had told him that he feared the opposition’s strong showing in the capital might enrage ruling party supporters and spark confrontations with overly jubilant government foes.” President Carter’s endorsement of the prime minister’s threats flew in the face of his past efforts to protect human rights.

President Carter’s comments could not have been more shocking to the Ethiopian people, European Union observers and all decent people around the world who were witnessing Ethiopia’s turmoil. The European Union observer mission which had over 300 observers in Ethiopia accused President Carter of undermining the electoral process by his early favorable pronouncement of the polls. The conclusions of Mr. Carter’s final report on the election were a slap on the face of the Ethiopian people while these conclusions overjoyed the ruling party. The Ethiopian government has since been riding on President Carter’s comments and his center’s election report for international legitimacy. The European Union observer mission, which concluded that the election didn’t live up to international standards, was vilified by the Ethiopian Prime Minister. The EU report indicated serious irregularities, intimidation, and even murder. The Ethiopian Human Rights Council, which had over a thousand observers agreed with the EU report.

• The Ethiopian government continued to rig the election results, coerce local and international election observers and instituted draconian measures that rendered any representation in Parliament useless by requiring majority support to even propose a Bill. As its first order of business, the new parliament revoked the immunity of opposition MPs.

• The Ethiopian government continued to kill over 40 civilians in June of 2005 in response to peaceful demonstrations against the apparent vote rigging by shooting protestors in the head using special military units.

• The Ethiopian government continued the oppression of Ethiopians through out the summer months and in November has shot over 45 civilians dead and imprisoned over 15,000 people. It also arrested the entire leadership of the main opposition party and is charging them with treason, which if convicted carries the death penalty.

• There were no attempts reported of police using water cannons or plastic bullets to disperse the crowd, instead the police and special military forces shot to kill. All the dead recieved shots to the head, chest or stomach.

Please help us to convince President Carter to distance himself from Ethiopia’s brutal leaders whose only remaining legitimacy is derived from the use of violence and the abuse of human rights.

Concerned Ethiopians and Ethiopian Americans in Minnesota

Ethiopia on the brink of civil war

2005-11-20T12:06:00.003-06:00

On the current crisis in Ethiopia, the French paper Le' Monde had the following to say...

Ethiopia on the brink of civil war

By René Lefort for Le Monde
November 17, 2005

Within the space of a few hours, the protest that broke out on 1 November in the streets of Addis Ababa had spread to other Ethiopian towns. Vigorously suppressed, it became a riot and Ethiopia found itself on the brink of civil war. Elite troops brought about a blood bath. Will the dozens of deaths, the thousands of arrests, the detention and isolation of the leaders of the opposition finally sweep away the three myths that surround the regime of Meles Zenawi, the country's master since 1991?

The first one, the most unknown, is probably the most tragic. The government would have us believe that self-sufficiency in food is within sight. Nevertheless, if aid now prevents famine in the countryside, where 85% of the 77 million Ethiopians live, chronic hunger is spreading. In a "good" year, like 2005, more than ten million of them have a vital need of external aid. If nothing else changes and in a "normal" year, within twenty years there will be some forty million of them, according to the most reliable independent Ethiopian research institutes, such as the Ethiopian Economic Association.

The forecasts are equally pessimistic in the event of widespread drought, such as those that recur on average every five years. In 1984-1985, with a million deaths, some five million Ethiopians were affected. In 2003, thirteen million were involved. The next major drought will concern eighteen to twenty million people.

Since he seized power in 1991, Meles Zenawi has pursued a development strategy based on raising the productivity of the mass of peasants. However pertinent this was, its implementation did not succeed. At the very best, yields stagnate. The increases in production, due mainly to extending the cultivated area, could not keep pace with population increase, which doubles every twenty-five years. Production and revenue per rural dweller are still below those in the last years of the reign of Haile Selassie, who was overthrown in 1974.

The natural, technical and demographic obstacles that always receive the blame obscure the fundamental reason for this failure: the ever-spreading and insatiable authoritarianism of the public powers which stifles the peasants. The former take the decisions; the latter carry out massive schemes involving compulsory labour and "voluntary" contributions. This forced development absorbs a quarter of a peasant's working time. They are obliged to do it: the land that they cultivate belongs to the State which possesses practically a monopoly of agricultural inputs. The result is that the capacities of the authorities and those of the farmers cancel each other out in a smouldering confrontation instead of reinforcing each other. The burden imposed on the peasantry undermines rural development, which first of all needs democracy.

One could hope that, based on the promises of the Prime Minister, the general elections of 15 May would, for the first time, be "free and fair", to the great satisfaction of international donors. Right up until the final weeks of the campaign, this was more or less the case, for, if Meles was anticipating a rejection in the towns, he was counting upon a plebiscite in the countryside. However, as soon as the first vote counts indicated a tremendous rise in support for the opposition and its possible victory, the second myth, the myth of Meles Zenawi as a democratic, fell to pieces. The counting of votes had barely begun when he declared a state of emergency, announced his victory and then, after three long months of fraudulent manipulations, officially awarded himself 360 seats out of the total of 547. But this first bid for power was not enough. He then requested a double surrender on the part of the opposition parties: they had to accept their electoral "defeat" and then agree to play only a silent walk-on role so that the regime could call itself pluralist, without the oligarchy relinquishing one iota of their formidable political and economic powers.

In a hasty move, the out-going parliament decided that, the agreement of 274 members was needed (compared to twenty previously) to place an item on the Assembly's agenda. Afterwards, the newly elected parliament cancelled the parliamentary immunity of those members coming from the main opposition party, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party (CUDP), which refused to take up its seats. To every concession agreed by the Coalition, even including its tacit acceptance of the official results, to every request to launch a true dialogue, to its calls simply for "civil disobedience" as the only way of protesting, the regime's only reaction was to blacken and repress the opposition. Meles Zenawi could not have done otherwise if he wanted that the outcome of his rejection in the ballot boxes to be a popular explosion that the opposition parties would be unable to contain-but for which they were made responsible-and which could be crushed in the name of maintaining public order.

Enthralled, the international community worshipped Meles Zenawi. They had been won over by his claim that his declared liberalism was successful and by the sincerity of his break with the ultra-Maoist stance of his guerrilla years, as well as with the ancient Abyssinian culture of his predecessors, where power was neither won nor lost except by force. They even believed-and this is the third myth-that the introduction of federalism after years of runaway centralization would finally achieve balance in the relations between Ethiopia's nations and peoples.

However, behind this façade of federalism, the reign of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) of Meles Zenawi had been fanning ethnic tensions. What is worse, as if to deflect a political clash into an obviously unacceptable ethnic settling of scores, the Coalition has been accused of embracing the anti-Tigré "chauvinism" of its most extreme wing, and even of nurturing a design for genocide that would make what took place in Rwanda look like child's play.

Despite this situation, international donors have accepted that their aid, amounting to a quarter of gross domestic product and with Ethiopia being the primary recipient in Africa, is not under their control. They also chose to ignore that the regime's authoritarianism neutralizes their development assistance and brought emergency aid under political control. The diplomatic community has supported the power play of Ethiopia's "strong man" without any sharp question. It has acknowledged the "unprecedented openness" of the electoral campaign which signified "an important step" towards democracy. It has endorsed the official electoral verdict, while accepting that the process was tarnished with "irregularities"-as if judgment about expressions of democracy had double standards. It has only been the observers in the mission of the European Union who considered that the ballot "failed to meet international standards".

Finally, the mediation led by the United States and the United Kingdom to defuse the crisis only played into Meles' hands. On the pretext of the scrupulous respect of legality, it obliged the opposition to accept the one-sided arbitration of so-called "independent" institutions, such as the National Electoral Board. The mediators then urged the opposition to take up their seats in parliament.

At no stage have the mediators obtained the least concession on the part of the regime, nor played their master card: the volume of aid or at least the ways it is used. The G8 Summit in Gleneagles in July, to which Meles Zenawi had been invited alongside five other leaders from Black African countries, linked an increase in aid to respect for "good governance, democracy and transparency". Nevertheless, the donor countries immediately promised to double their aid to match the "democratization" of Ethiopia. In their eyes, nothing matters so much as the stability of Ethiopia in the turmoil taking place in the Horn of Africa. In reality, they consider the present leadership to be a better guarantor of stability, all the more so because Meles has firmly decided to stay in power at all costs and when his replacement by the opposition would be hazardous undertaking given the evident weakness of its leadership.

When foreign protests against the "excessive" repression, as well as the calls for "dialogue", became more energetic, Meles responded to them by declaring that the leaders of the Coalition would be charged with "treason" and could face the death penalty for having called for an "insurrection". Nothing can dissuade him from the conviction that he still has a green light from the international community. But, at the same time, the ultimate hope of the Ethiopian democrats lies on this same community.

A Call to Protest

2005-11-18T23:11:00.000-06:00

All Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia are called to a protest in front of Barnes and Noble Book Store in Edina, Minnesota on Sunday 20th of November at 6:00 pm. No less than Jimmy Carter himself, the former President of the United States of America and one of the most influential supporters of the Dictatorial Meles Zenawi regime will be there.

President Jimmy Carter will be in Minnesota to promote his latest book that discusses endangered US values and what he sees as a moral crisis in the country’s political system. He is able to discuss these issues openly and promote his idea because of the liberal politically permissive environment that he himself helped build in this country.

For President Jimmy Carter to support Meles Zenawi’s regime and deny similar freedoms to Ethiopians at a time when they are fighting for it desperately represents a blunder of great magnitude on his part. His misguided quiet support for the tyrannical regime in Ethiopia is absolutely dumbfounding when one adds to his achievements a 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for working to end violence and spread human rights around the world.

It might be cold and dark at 6:00pm on Sunday afternoon. Ethiopians and their friends have no cold to fear however. Their people are continuing to be killed and imprisoned for asking for their basic freedoms. Standing out in the cold for a few hours will only help to further demonstrate to President Carter, the media and citizens that rain or shine Ethiopians in Minnesota are by their people’s side. It will emphasize to all that some rights are non-negotiable and songs of freedom will fill the air for President Carter to hear even in a small city somewhere out in the Midwest.

Address of Protest
Parking Lot at: Galleria (Intersection of W. 69th St. and York Avenue)
3225 W. 69th
Edina, MN 55435

Concerned Ethiopians and Ethiopian Americans in Minnesota