Support AFD for the Right Reasons by Boru Jobir

Source: http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/

http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/news2006/Mar/Support-AFD.html

Support AFD for the Right Reasons

By: Boru Jobir

The formation of the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD) has unleashed so much reaction from all walks of the Ethiopian political landscape that it makes you wonder if the need for a dialog is way over due. We have seen the flow of opinions on the very nature of the Alliance, the motivation and aspirations of its founders, its political program, the practicality of the whole scheme, etc. The level of concern on issues that have not been made abundantly clear from the Alliance members gave ground to the torrent of opinions that covers the broad spectrum of one extreme to the other. I can site a number of positive outcomes from the deluge of opinions from various web sites, but I believe we are fortunate to break the communication barrier and have a lively exchange of ideas at this moment rather than after the assumption of power by one or more of the organizations that formed the Alliance.

Ideas and opinions posted by some of our learned elites and some who are not need some resolution and a meeting of the mind; and if we can not achieve that, to try to walk on the other person's shoe and understand his or her position. In other words, if all fails, to disagree without being disagreeable. In light of that, I would like to raise a number of issues both on the speeches and interviews of some of the founders of the Alliance and as well as the opinions of my fellow countrymen who have somehow taken their strong views as conventional wisdom.

1. The Sovereignty and Unity of Ethiopia

We are aware that some of the liberation fronts that have formed the Alliance have openly expressed their intent for their right to self-determination up to and including cession. And so far, I have not read anything that contradicts their position on the subject. And in order for the Alliance to have any viability and practicality, we need to have their position clearly stated on the matter. Is it possible and believable for them to make change of their previous stance on the issue? I, for one, do not see any problems if they choose to do so. History has given us numerous examples whereby liberation fronts making strategic shifts in their political programs depending on the changing circumstances of the day. The leader of the Zulu people, Butalezi was holding his ground to secure independence for his land against the wishes of ANC during the dismantling of the apartheid system in South Africa and had to let go of his plan because of overwhelming political factors. The PLO which was bent on destroying Israel finally settled on the notion of the two states side by side when conditions changed on the nature of the struggle. And in our country, the TPLF changed its original position of independence from Ethiopia when they found out the advantages of ruling the whole country was a better deal. In a nutshell, it is not really uncommon to change political programs and plans to accommodate a given set of condition. But, I, like everyone else would like clarification on the matter from some of the Alliance members if they have changed their position at all.

While on the subject of the unity of Ethiopia, I would like to express my thoughts on some of the views I have read on some forums regarding the national question in Ethiopia. During the height of the student movement in Ethiopia, an article appeared by Waleleign Mekonen in the HS University Student's newspaper, Struggle, for the first time dealing with the subject of the national question. To put it lightly, it was an eye opening learning experience even for those who were deeply involved in the student movement. As it was clearly stated by Waleleign, Ethiopia was indeed a prison for all its nationalities except for those who were at the helm of political power. But that label is being slowly shaded because of Article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution which partially empowered the different nationalities to self-determine their fate and become masters of their destiny. The only drawback with Article 39 is in its implementation or lack thereof. Whenever it suits its purpose and when something goes against the intended objectives, the EPRDF took it upon itself to meddle in the internal affairs of the regional states in contravention of the constitution. The only reason the article was put to practice by EPRDF was to make its governance easier and to make us believe that the regime is at the forefront of the struggle for equality of all nations. If we are going to implement any system of government worthy of the name democracy in Ethiopia, the regional states should be fully empowered to realize their aspirations and dreams and given all the necessary assistance from the federal government. I am aware that what I have stated is not quite the music some ardent supporters of AEUP would like to hear, but bear with me for a moment and let me clarify further.

A cross section of the writers from most of the forums holds the view that Article 39 should be a watershed to filter those who are for the unity or for dismemberment of the nation. I am not sure how this ended up being the only two choices on the matter; in fact it does not have to be one or the other at all. The right of nations to self-determination is an inherent right that should not be translated to mean secession. The question of secession only comes to the forefront when the rights of nations are trampled upon by the ruling regime and it becomes clear that there are no other viable alternatives except separation. A good example of how that unfolded to become reality in recent times is the case of Yugoslavia, which splintered into many pieces, a reminder that even the so-called developed nations of the west are not immune if we make a mockery of the rights of the people.

On the other hand, if all the nationalities and ethnic groups inside of a nation enjoy their rights as equal partners with all others and are full beneficiaries of the political, economic and social benefits that the country could provide, the need for separation does not make any sense at all. And therefore, the question should have been are we ready to adopt democracy, equality and justice for all or we just going to give lip-service to the issues and continue with business as usual? I believe it is up to all of us to make that choice.

So, my contention is let us not jump on the bandwagon of condemning Article 39, and instead give it some teeth so that the forgotten nationalities of Ethiopia can assert their rightful place in this land we all would like to call our own. It is very common to hear of the phrase that we Ethiopians have lived as brother and sisters in peace for centuries without much incident. Yes, indeed, we lived peacefully, because we, the forgotten ones have accepted the status-quo and the second-class citizenship as normal. But if we want to change the state of affairs as it exists now, we should support and help the empowerment of all nationalities to realize their aspirations and be a real partner in the newly-formed Ethiopia.

I have read in so many web sites that the CUDP won the last election hands down across the board. I am not sure if it's a landslide, but obviously they won all the seats in the capital and the majority in some of their strongholds. But how did the CUDP equally fare in other areas such Oromia, Somali, Affar, Beni-Shangul, Tigrai, etc. If we believe the official results from the Election Commission, the final tally was EPRDF-327; CUD-109;UEDF-52;SPDP-24, etc. I have not seen the exact percentage by how much the CUDP claimed to have won the election, but I am sure even with the best of intentions for the organization, it would not be by much, if it had won the majority votes at all, taking into consideration that the areas I mentioned went for their respective organizations. And moreover, had the OLF took part in the election, I am sure the results would have been dramatically different because of the obvious influence and support they have with their constituencies. For anyone interested to have a better understanding of the results of the election, I refer readers to the following three articles:


The Beginning of a Transition: By Terrence Lyons

http://nazret.com/blog/index.php?title=ethiopia_in_2005_the_beginning_of_a_tran&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

2. Some Comments, “The Beginning of a Transition” Antony Shaw

http://www.irrob.org/page/page/2729082.htm

3. Some Thoughts on CUD and other Opposition Parties: By Antony Shaw

http://www.irrob.org/page/page/2729082.htm

The reason I am bringing all this is to learn why the role of a vanguard was bestowed on CUDP considering that its support base is limited to the center and some parts of highland Ethiopia. I am sure this observation has a lot of merit in the minds of the CUDP leaders because if they assume political power in the next election, they know full well that they will encounter the same problems that the present regime is facing right now. That's why I think it is a very clever move on the part of CUDP, and not only OLF, to be a part of the alliance and have a chance of building a democratic society with fair representation for all. And speaking of democracy, some one long ago said it is the rule of the people, by the people, and to the people. And if the people of the regional states decided to administer their affairs by themselves, teach their heritage and culture to their children in their own language, dance to their own music, how is that contrary to the rule of democracy? Or rather isn't that what democracy is all about? And how does that affect the unity of the nation except in a positive way by supporting the wishes of the people and thus make them feel to be a part of the nation that has long forgotten their existence? Well, some might say how were they forgotten? They were forgotten when all they used to hear on the mass media for which they have paid their taxes with their meager income is the adulation and supremacy of one ethnic group at the expense of all others. They were forgotten when they were forced to learn the history and magnanimity of their oppressors in language they are forced to adopt. They are forgotten and trodden upon when their masters were making fun of their culture, religion, heritage and told to adopt the culture of the ruling elite if they want to get anywhere in life. They were forgotten when they were thrown in jail for a crime they had not committed in a court-room the language of the proceedings they were unable to understand. They are forgotten and at a loss when they are told that they live in the Island of Christianity when they know full well that their numbers are equal or may be greater than their Christian counterparts and their whole existence doesn't mean much to the rulers of the land. I can go on, but you get my drift.

On this note, let me bring a somewhat similar issue that is related to the way we treat differently the people according to the region they come from. The dictatorial and ruthless nature of the regime of Meles Zenawi has been noted time and again particularly in the action it took in the aftermath of the election by gunning down the supporters of the opposition and imprisoning the leaders on framed up charges. That was totally against what the Ethiopian people had in mind who erroneously though that the dawn of democracy was finally shining on them right until it they found that it was just a mirage. The reactions of the population both at home and abroad was again as expected; outrage, disbelief and out in force in opposition to the dictatorial and arbitrary nature of the measures taken. This is all magnificent and as expected on the part of all Ethiopians who have the good of their people in the mind. But one wonders where all this force of reaction and compassion was when the people of the Ogaden were dying by the hundreds due to a famine that was artificially made up and brought about by the Meles regime? And where was this outrage bottled up when the Affar people were being decimated on a man made drought wantonly brought by the government? Where were the demonstrators who were crowding the streets of the western capitals when the Annuak people were indiscriminately gunned down and forced to flee their land because of the utter disregard for the rule of law on the part of the regime? How did we end up being so suddenly sensitive? Was the nature of the regime a sudden revelation because of the measure it took against the protestors in Addis? Or was there another hidden justifiable reason? Those who are following the developments in our country have heard and read about these and other incidents in the news media and therefore, let us not plead ignorance. Somehow, when we talk about the people of Ethiopia, it is the reality that the people of the south do not get the same level of indignation to their suffering as we have witnessed in the reaction of Ethiopians to the recent events. Therefore, if you did not see Ethiopians who are not from the center and the highlands in your demonstrations raising the flag of Juda, please understand that we consider all sufferings as sufferings, and we should be swift and quick to protest and make it known to the rest of the world and try to bring about change irrespective of the region. I just hope we do not hold the belief that the populations of the south are expendable and maybe children of a lesser god.

The idea that CUDP is making a favor by participating in the Alliance to the other groups is baseless if one takes into account the relative importance of each and every organization. As I have outlined, the CUDP is fully cognizant of the fact that they have marginal support in the southern areas of the land and need the support and cooperation of others. Unless they want to subjugate these people by force of arms like what we are witnessing the EPRDF is doing in some parts of these areas (Somali, Oromiya, Gambella, etc), the only option available to the CUDP is to form an alliance and govern with the consent and participation of others who are as important as the CUDP. One should bear in mind the strategic importance of all these regions to the welfare of the nation and the contribution they would make to the very existence of Ethiopia if freedom, fairness and justice are the norm of the land. Although some might take it as if I am being harsh on CUDP, believe me, I have nothing against the organization except to give them credit for being realistic and practical on their recent move. As for the other organizations in the Alliance, I say it is about time they have seen the light of day and decided to join to work together for the welfare of all in a united Ethiopia.

I have always believed that, the OLF, as the leader of the Oromo people, should also spearhead the struggle of the Ethiopian people for freedom, democracy and justice since they are the major ethnic group, if not the majority in the nation. And I have always found it strange why the OLF opted for secession from Ethiopia since it makes little political and economic sense to cut off a major portion of the land from the rest. The same goes for the SLF. Although I fail to see the practicality of their political programs in terms of implementation, one should be careful not to shun the damages that are inherent in a state of constant war that we find ourselves right now. Taken separately, neither the CUDP nor the OLF will be effective in assuming political power and governing peacefully, but together they could become a formidable force in putting the nation in a rightful path.



2. The Eritrean Issue

Like every other Ethiopian, I felt deeply saddened when Eritrea broke away from the mainland and started its journey as a sovereign nation. I am a living eye-wintess of the devastation that the military regime unleashed on Eritrea and its people; suffice it to say, one has to see to believe what the thirty plus years of war has done to the land. Believe me, if I had been from that region, I would have opted for independence like every other Eritrean. If I am forced to play the blame game, I would put all the blame for the sesseceion of Eritrea on the shoulders of the junta and its henchmen. The year was early 1975 and the EPRP was barely known by its name but its members and supporters took to the streets of Addis in protest of the war against Eritrea and made urgent call to solve the matter peacefully. Time and again, the junta had all the opportunity to find a peaceful solution to the problem by granting a limited autonomy to the region, but it chose to crush the movement by force which eventually contributed to its own downfall. So, I say, to my fellow Ethiopians, don't blame the Eritreans for divorcing themselves from the motherland, the junta helped a great deal in doing that.

A good number of Ethiopians hold the belief that the TPLF gave Eritrea away without a fight. I am sure a majority of Eritreans have a different take on the matter; they believe they won the battle fair and square by force of arms. But to its credit, the TPLF was not in a position to fight against the wishes of EPLF. The fate of Eritrea has been decided long before the TPLF came into power. If the junta was unable to contain the advancement of the EPLF with the armaments worth billions that it had received from the Soviet-block thus bankrupting the country and with a standing army that had no parallel in Sub-Sahara Africa, what was the chance that the TPLF, which was under the full control of EPLF, had to go against the wishes of its masters and emerge victorious?

None whatsoever. In fact, one could argue that the EPLF was in control of Ethiopia during the first few years of EPRDF because the TPLF was a marginal force that took orders from Issayas.

Now, let us come back to reality and ask ourselves on how best to handle the issues with our northerly neighbor. First and foremost, let us be honest to ourselves and accept that Eritrea is a sovereign nation like all others. That's how the UN and all other international organizations recognize it. I am really at a loss to understand some of my friends harboring never-ending intentions to take the port of Assab by force. Normally, we would not make that kind of assertion in regards to the port of Dijibouti or Port Sudan because they are part of a sovereign nation and we would not go on attacking another country because we hate the idea of being land-locked. Therefore, are some of us under the impression that we can not attack any other country but we can do it to Eritrea because it is doable? I know some of you would like to argue that Assab should have been left to Ethiopian when Eritrea was separated because it rightfully belonged to Ethiopia. I am afraid we are not going anywhere with this line of argument because one would argue that the whole of Eritrea belongs with Ethiopia and it's a matter of time before Eritrea joins the motherland. Believe me, I would like to see that in my lifetime. But this brings me back to my original assertion that the junta drove away the Eritreans into independence and we should not repeat the mistake all over by following its example and use force to settle our disputes.

The idea of using force to regain Assab or Eritrea makes a good bar conversation and I hope it is only entertained by AEUP supporters and not the official line of CUDP.

I hate to imagine the consequences of war if we are bent on using force whatever the outcome. We have not yet gone over the trauma of the last war that was fought for almost nothing but ended up costing us thousands of lives and unimaginable misery on both sides. The only way we can bring Eritrea into our fold is by establishing the best government there is for ourselves and teach by example. Let us not forget that what led the Eritreans to separation in the first place is the oppression that they have suffered through successive regimes, and if we manage to change that in our land, I do not see any reason why Eritrea might not join us in some form of confederation or as an autonomous region in the future. Let us remember that the majority of Eritreans are let down by the one man rule of Issayas and the utter destruction he brought on their land. Having an Eritrean flag and a malfunctioning airline does not make a country and its inhabitants prosperous. Most Eritreans are smart and savvy enough to know the political and economic advantages of being a part of greater Ethiopia and we should be careful not to inadvertently force them to side more with Issayas by our arrogant behavior.

Therefore, let us do away with the political naivete and not rush to blame the OLF and other liberation fronts for having good relations with the EPLF. I have seen the changing of alliances from different organizations so many times that it is hard to keep up with what is going on. EPRP used to have strong relationship with both EPLF and ELF. TPLF and EPLF were almost one entity and joined forces to attack EPRP in the late seventies. And look at their relationship right now. TPLF and EDU were once partners until the latter's destruction by the former. At one moment part of ELF joined the Dergue to attack EPLF. OLF joined forces with TPLF when it came into power and left when condition changed. I warned you it's really hard to follow the shifting sands of political alignments in Ethiopia .For me, I take a long look and say this is all in the family. I have always considered Eritrea to be a member of the family that has left because of minor squabble. There are so many things that we share with the Eritreans that it is difficult to point out our differences. If we lay down the foundations to put our houses in order, and prepare the ground so that we can all thrive in squabble- free environment, members of the family who did not get along will eventually come back into the fold. Therefore, let us stop this chit chat that so and so is siding with this and that and should refrain from pushing them too far in their position. One should try to see beyond what is the obvious and think for the distant future. No one needs to use force to regain the confidence of our brothers and sisters in Eritrea; if we put our houses in order, I am more than confident that not only Eritrea but the whole neighborhood will be on top of each other to join the club. The rest of the world is scrambling to form unions and alliances to better compete and secure a prosperous place in the global economy and we should be careful not to loose sight of that.



3. Amharigna, the official language.

I am aware some of you are wondering what I was going to say next after I expressed ideas that are contrary to mainstream and most of the time taken for granted. The only request I make of you is to hear me out and reflect a bit before you instinctively react. Let me start by asking what is the criterion that elevates a language among so many others into the level of being the official language of the land? We have more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups in Ethiopia each with its own culture, language, life-style, psychological makeup, etc. etc. Although I must say I traveled quite a bit across the nation, I have not seen everything that I always wanted to see to explore and appreciate the depth of this beautiful land. But from my own experience, I have found that the language I grew up using outside of my home was no use to converse with most of the people who are living all over the country. It would be a safe assumption to say that most of the people in Ethiopia do not speak Amharic. In fact there was a question during the town hall meeting in Washington, DC that went along the lines of why the Alliance members did not use Amharic in their communication with each other during their meeting in Holland. But on of the representative from the CUDP responded by saying they actually used Amharic but had to translate for others who did not speak the language. But I find the whole episode to be so strange in that why is anyone obligated to know and utilize Amharic in the first place? Is that the litmus taste for someone to be an Ethiopian? And who decides that and what is the premise? And I ask myself, are some people this much blinded by their own igrnorance that they trample on the feeling of others and try to change them into their own image? The only reason I am using Amharic in my conversation with my fellow Amharas is because they do not speak my mother tongue or for that matter most of them do not speak any other indigenous Ethiopian language. I would like to think that I am making a favor to my Amhara friends speaking their tongue and getting them involved in a conversation, and a thank you would have sufficed for the effort. But on the contrary, some of you are demanding that the issue of using Amharic in an official capacity should never be a matter of discussion, but used as a criterion to separate those who are “true” Ethiopians from the pretenders. I hope you see the silliness in that line of argument. But to come back to the matter at hand, if most of the people in Ethiopia do not speak Amharic, what should be done to have a language so that we can understand each other? I believe we should get out of the box that we have confined our thought process and come up with alternatives for a real solution.

Obviously, the use Amharic as the only language is not going to be the solution unless we force upon everyone to learn the language and infringe upon his or her desire of using its language. Again, we come back to the issue of the right of nations to use their language in their everyday life. I have an idea that goes against the mainstream as a solution to this problem and that might not be in total agreement to the ideas that have been taken for granted. Taking into consideration the fact that a good majority of Ethiopians claim either Afan Oromo or Amharic as their mother tongue, why not make both of them official languages and ecourage members of all other nationalities to learn either one or both so that everyone understands when they deal with each other and in an official capacity. For those who do not want to use either languages for whatever reasons – remember we are trying to build democracy here – we can throw English as a third official language so that it could help us bridge the gap of misunderstanding in our everyday life. Except for the fact that English is not an indigenous language, it is the preferred medium of our schooling and official business since the time of Haile Selassie. And as the school age population grows by the millions, the advantages of using English become clearer because of the availability of English conversant population already in place. And let us be honest, most of us have little problem expressing ourselves in English in this and other forums and in our everyday life in countries all over the globe. I am in no way an expert in the area of languages and am just suggesting ideas that need solution. We can brain storm and come up with the modalities of how the idea could be put to practice and leave the details to the experts.



4. The Flag of Ethiopia

If there is an issue that is dear and touches the soul of many Ethiopians, there is nothing that comes close as the flag; the green, yellow and red. I underlined the word many for emphasis because not all Ethiopians share the same feeling towards the flag. I have seen the flag come in some varieties, some have the lion in the middle and the EPRDF came with its own emblem, but most of the time the flag is just green, yellow and red. And lately, I have seen the flag adorning parts of some Church buildings in Addis, although I am not sure what the reason behind it was. I can fully understand if the people of the center and the highlands of Ethiopia have special affinity to the present Ethiopian flag, but I am sorry to say I am not one who shares that feeling. Let me briefly say why and make up your mind if I make any sense at all.

Of the three varieties, I will say the flag with the lion in no way represents me and millions of Ethiopians. As most Ethiopians are aware, the lion is a representation of the symbol of Judah (Lion of Judah). Let me be brief and to the point; millions of us Ethiopians are not followers or admirers of Judah, therefore, I do not see his role in the flag that I want to be identified with. Although the TPLF came with its own emblem as a replacement to the Lion of Judah and as an appeasement to those who hold the flag very dear, I regard the Ethiopian flag as a sign of oppression and a sad reminder of what happened to our ancestors in the southern part of Ethiopia during the empire building period of Menelik II. Menelik II fought under the banner of the present Ethiopian flag to subjugate and enslave most of the south and we have lost thousands of our ancestors by expansionists who held the flag as their emblem. Therefore, you see, for some of us the flag does not bring good memories that we cherish as an Ethiopian, but instead acts as a reminder that we were once a proud and independent people who were forced to join Ethiopia and suffer together with the rest. The only reason I would raise the present flag would be to applaud the expansionist war of Menelik II and the resulting massacres of my ancestors. And unless there is some hidden psychological satisfaction in the sad memories of our past, I am not going to raise the Ethiopian flag and dance on the graves of my ancestors. But I will be the first one to raise a new Ethiopian flag high that is going to promise me hope for the future.

A good parallel of what the present flag of Ethiopia symbolizes for millions of Ethiopians is what the Confederate flag of America means to all of African-Americans. The Confederate flag was a symbol of slavery for our fellow Black Americans in the south. And to this day, it is the official flag of the state of Georgia and flies at the state capitol. And there are segments of a very conservative American population including the KKK in the south that hold very dear to this symbol and what it represents. But there is also a movement by freedom and peace loving Americans to remove and change the state flag of Georgia, but the change is slow to come. The point is the present flag of Ethiopia is not a uniting force that brings all of us together. My suggestion is we should come up with a new flag that we all agree is the representation of all of us and be proud to hold it high. Those who have deep attachment to the green, yellow and red should adopt it as their regional flag and carry on as usual. But what I am asking the reader is to reflect on what I have said and concentrate on issues that bring us together. I am aware that issues of the Ethiopian flag was not a widely discussed topic by most for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, but it should be visited very soon so that we can all can have a flag that we all can call our own..

And finally, I have come across some views that champion the establishment of AFD for the wrong reasons and I was tempted to give my reactions and help and convince some to bring them to my point of view. Since I have already written a lengthy article, I will leave that for another time. But I would like to stress that we should not support AFD for the wrong reasons because that is just a failure waiting to happen. Depending on the partisanship of readers, I have read views that elevate the power and influence of either CUDP or OLF and the negative consequences for either party if one is not following the other. As I have clearly stated in my piece, it needs repeating that both are equally necessary for the good of our country and their efforts to bring their power together is a win-win proposition for all of us. Although some subjects I dealt with are controversial and untouchable, I tired to express my views as clearly and honestly as I can without being disagreeable and condescending, I urge readers to do the same and deliberate deeply having only one objective in mind, to bring a lasting peace, stability, democracy and prosperity for all of us.

Ethiopia: current situation, possible solutions by Theodore M. Vestal

Source: Advocacy Ethiopia - http://www.ethioppia.org

Advocacy Ethiopia
Keynote Address:
Ethiopia � Current Situation, Possible Solutions

by

Theodore M. Vestal
Professor of Political Science
Oklahoma State University

31 March 2006

The perpetrators of human rights abuses and deficits of democracy in Ethiopia take many names. But whether it is the party in organization, the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), or any of its ethnic front parties such as the Oromo Peoples Democratic Party (OPDO), or the party-controlled "voluntary organizations" such as the EPRDF's versions of the Ethiopian Teachers Association, or the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU), or the collective name for the collectivists, the Woyane, or the party in government, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), control comes from the leaders of the Tigray Peoples Revolutionary Front (TPLF) that is itself controlled by veterans of the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray. They exercise control because they enjoy a monopoly of terror. They have learned capitalist-speak with which they woo donor nations, but their: repressive regime thwarts democratic processes, abuses human rights, and purposefully intensifies ethnic distrust. Such distrust and hatred unleashes the human rights abuses that our speakers tonight (Obang Metho, Andargachew Tsege, and Peter Takirambudde) so graphically described (as they had done earlier this week before a Congressional sub-committee hearing), abuses inflicted by those representing what the Germans call "der innere Schweinhund," or the evil spirit within.

The title of the government, "FDRE," with all its democratic deficits, reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon which asks, "Has there ever been a country that had the word 'Democratic' in its name that was?" Examples of the wisdom of the cartoon abound worldwide but especially in Ethiopia.

What a difference a few years can make. In 1991 with the fall of the Derg, the world had high expectations for Ethiopia. The new EPRDF regime made admirable promises: to hold democratic multiparty elections, to establish a pluralist society with a free press, to establish respect for human rights, and to promote the rule of law with equal status for all peoples. Promises were made, but promises were broken.

PS: - To read more, please click on the title-link!!!

Meeting of US Congress Members, State Department Officials and High Ranking ONLF officials

visit the Ogaden Online web site at http://www.ogaden.com

Source: Ogaden Online
http://www.ogaden.com/OgadenNewsApril1106.htm

Today's News April 11, 2006

Meeting of US Congress Members, State Department Officials and High Ranking ONLF officials

On April 04th, 2006 high ranking ONLF officials led by the first deputy chairman of ONLF honorable Mohamed Ismail Omar paid an official visit to Washington DC.

According to Radio Freedom reporters in Washington, these ONLF officials were invited to come to Washington by high ranking members of the United States congress as well as the United States State Department in order to have official discussions about the situation in Ogadenia.

The ONLF officials who have been touring throughout Europe and North America for the past three months have been joined in Washington by the ONLF country representative in the USA professor Mohamed Wali Abbas and Mr Abdullahi Muhumed Qani.

The objectives of the tour by these high ranking ONLF officials have been multifold. First and foremost on the agenda was a meeting scheduled with United States Congress members spearheaded by honorable Mark Kennedy of Minnesota. An official tour of congress was scheduled as well as the meeting with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ambassador Donald Yamamoto.

The meeting that took place between these high ranking ONLF officials and United States Congress members took place on Wednesday April 05th. In this meeting, the officials explained in depth the oppression, extra-judicial killings and human rights transgressions committed against the people of Ogadenia by the militia-led regime in Addis Ababa.

They have emphasized the need for the United States government to take a closer look at the happenings in Ogadenia since the US government provides Ethiopia the largest aid in the African continent. United States representatives led by honorable Mark Kennedy of Minnesota and the high ranking ONLF officials agreed upon the need to work together in finding a lasting solution to the Ogaden issue.

An other meeting took place between these high ranking ONLF officials and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ambassador Donald Yamamoto on Monday April 10th, 2006. AmbassadorYamamoto recently returned from a working tour of Ethiopia and is very knowledgeable about the situation in Ethiopia in general and Ogadenia in particular. Ambassador Yamamoto and his officials at the US State department listened to a long report about the situation in Ogadenia provided by honorable Mohamed Ismail Omar.

After the report there was a long discussion about the importance of having the US government pay a closer attention to the situation in Ogadenia. In this meeting it was agreed upon by all the parties the need to strengthen the relationship between the US government and ONLF. It was further agreed upon the need for having communication lines open in order to update each other on goings on in Ogadenia.

In between the meetings with United States House of representatives and the US State department officials, the high ranking ONLF officials met with the community members in and around Washington DC area on Sunday April 09th, 2006. This meeting was organized by the Ogaden community in Washington DC and its environs.

The communal gathering took place at the renowned Hilton Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia. As part of the official tour of the high ranking ONLF officials, there are meetings planned with the people of Ogadenia in the Diaspora in states such as California, Minnesota, Illinois, Georgia and Ohio.

Analysts in the horn of Africa region whom our reporters have had discussions with confirmed the monumental failure by the Ethiopian regime to prevent the meeting between ONLF officials and the United States Government.

These analysts believe that this official ONLF tour of Europe and North America is having a devastating impact on the image of the Tigray-led regime in Addis Ababa. They believe that it also shows ONLF maturity in strengthening its relationships with the outside world and especially with governments in Europe and North America.

.
Ogaden Online

Trial opens for immigrant after khat seized, Case is first of its kind in Woodbury County By By Alicia Ebaugh Journal staff writer.

Visit the Sioux City Journal website at http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/

Source: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/

Trial opens for immigrant after khat seized
Case is first of its kind in Woodbury County
By Alicia Ebaugh Journal staff writer


In the first case of its kind in Woodbury County, an Ethiopian immigrant went to trial Tuesday on a charge related to a police seizure of more than seven grams of khat in a Sioux City apartment.

Khat is a flowering plant that is commonly grown for drug use in East Africa and parts of Asia as a stimulant. The plant is believed to have originated in Ethiopia, and it contains two ingredients that are considered to be similar to methamphetamine and cocaine in their effects.

Jermal Mohamed Farah, 23, of Minneapolis, is facing a felony charge of drug tax stamp violation. Two men found with him -- Abdi Abdurahman Yousuf, 24, and Mulata Y. Ali, 21, both of South Sioux City -- are facing the same charge in separate cases.


Prosecuting attorney Mark Campbell, assistant Woodbury County attorney, and Sioux City police officers who testified at the trial all said khat had never been discovered in Woodbury County before. In fact, only one officer involved in the case had any working experience with the plant before police received a tip on Feb. 26, 2005, that two boxes of it could be found in an apartment at 1519 Grandview Blvd.

As a result, this case could set precedent for future cases involving the plant. Among the most important debates in the case is whether the amount of illegal substances remaining in the khat -- which was dried and had lost potency -- were enough to make an arrest in the first place.

Another is whether Farah could be considered to have possession of the drug at all if there is no evidence that he had been using it.

Tuesday's proceedings were dominated by police testimony and establishment of the facts. On Feb. 26, Farah had been visiting his cousins in Sioux City and was staying at their 1519 Grandview Blvd. apartment. That day he drove to South Sioux City to pick up Yousuf and Ali, who he said were friends he met in Ethiopian refugee camps, and brought them back to the apartment.

Yousuf and Ali's roommate at the time, 32-year-old Ibsa Abdullahi, made a complaint with the police department before 5:30 p.m. that day that khat could be found in the apartment. Officers Jamie Mattas and Mary Hulzwarth then visited the apartment and, after Farah invited them in, spotted a green, leafy substance on a silver tray in the living room next to a teacup and saucer.

Farah's attorney, Sidney Moore of Atlanta, maintained that Abdullahi had brought the khat to the apartment himself before making the complaint and asked Mattas whether police had asked the three men there who it belonged to.

"We didn't ask anyone whose it was, but Farah was in control of the apartment," Mattas said.

Officers didn't find any khat on Farah's person, in his personal belongings or in his car, Mattas said, nor did he try to hide any of it. However, police discovered Yousuf and Ali had tried to conceal some of the drug under the bed and in a garbage can, he said, and more was found in a kitchen cabinet and the living room.

Sioux City Police Officer Todd Sassman, a former member of the Tri-State Drug Task Force who also participated in the case, provided testimony on khat's chemical properties. He said dried khat like that found in the apartment is less potent than fresh khat because cathinone, the main illegal substance found in the plant, quickly deteriorates if the plant is not kept refrigerated.

"I was actually surprised to find there was as much cathinone in it as there was," Sassman said.

Cathinone and cathine are deemed similar to amphetamine and cocaine in their stimulating effects. Their use is prohibited in the state of Iowa, but the plant itself is not specifically banned.

"Did this defendant know these two chemicals were in the plant?" Moore asked the jury. "He invited the officers inside and readily admitted the plant was khat."

The arguments will continue today with a more detailed discussion of the plant's properties. Judge Duane Hoffmeyer said he expects the trial to end this morning, with a jury decision later in the day.

Moore, a specialist in defending khat cases across the United States, has earned 52 acquittals or dismissals in the 55 cases he has represented, according to court documents.

Ethnic Federalism in Dominant Party state: The Ethiopian Experience 1991-2000 By Lovise Aalen

Visit the Cyberzena website at http://cyberzena.com

Ethnic Federalism in Dominant Party state: The Ethiopian Experience 1991-2000
By Lovise Aalen
Report R 2002:2
Chr. Michelsen Institute Development Studies and Human Rights
Chr. Michelsen Institute 2002
http://www.cmi.no

Click on the title and save it in local drive and open it to read the PDF document.
http://cyberzena.com/documents/ethnic_federalism.pdf

Conceptions and Perceptions about the Federal System in Ethiopia by By: Assefa Fiseha

Visit Ben's Ethiopia First website at http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/


Conceptions and Perceptions about the Federal System in Ethiopia
By: Assefa Fiseha[1]

http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/news2004/Jan/Conceptions-and-Perceptions.html

There is an immense controversy regarding the federal system in Ethiopia and the one concerning the nomenclature is one among them. No doubt the debate over the nomenclature springs from deeper disagreements concerning its structure and operation. Some have dubbed it �ethnic� or �ye gossa� federalism.[2] While the ruling Party, EPRDF and some sections of the opposition (for instance Dr. Beyene Petros) insist that the term �ethnic� federal system has, at least, derogatory and at most pejorative connotations and prefer to adopt Ethiopia as a multination federal system, and certainly not a nation-state federation. Interestingly, Will Kymlicka recently remarked that Ethiopia is a �multination� federal system rather than �ethnic� one because in the Western sense the term �ethnic� is used in reference to immigrant groups where as historic groups are called national minorities. The latter have the right to claim, for instance, self-rule, political representation and control over resources but not the former. Federalism is often used to accommodate national minorities rather than immigrant groups and in this sense Ethiopia is multination federal system.[3] Yet, this does not resolve an important question: in the Ethiopian federal system, it is not clear whether, the nations/nationalities and people are defined as sharing common language, culture, history and territory or whether a common descent is also implied. As some analysts tend to indicate, is it a matter of knowing the culture and language in order to become a member of certain nationality, nation or people or myth of common descent is also implied. Is an �Amharic speaking person� born and brought up in Arsi and who well speaks Oromiffa, an Oromo nationality or is he treated as an Amhara because his parents came from say North Showa? There is some level of ambiguity in the Constitution and as will be demonstrated later, the perception of the federal system in practice is adding another confusion. The constitutional clause is not clear. Article 39(5) states, � a nation, nationality or people�is a group of people who have or share a large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in common or related identities, a common psychological make up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.�

This writer strongly contends that if one deciphers the distinction between a nation and an ethnic group, then one is forced to state that the federal system is one of multination than �ethnic� in form, and I emphasis in from although not in reality. Ethnicity is a state of mind emanating from a feeling of separate identity, which in turn is based on shared cultural markers (culture, language, religion etc), but more importantly on common descent (or its myth). It is important to point out that the myth of common descent is an essential characteristic of an ethnic group but not of national groups that share a common language, religion, custom, history and tradition but not necessarily of common descent. The subjective belief in myth of common descent is in short the essence of an ethnic group or of ethnicity.[4] This is not without some implications when it is mobilised to attain some goals. The myth of common descent serves as a basis for excluding people who share the culture but not the common descent or in the opposite case to include people who share the common descent but not the culture.[5] Nations on the other hand are more inclusive as they are culturally or politically defined.[6]

Setting aside the endless debate between the proponents of Civic/statist nationalism on one hand and ethnic/cultural nationalism on the other,[7] which in all cases involve some level of exclusion,[8] although in the former case not a vivid one, at a normative level then a nation is supposed to be more inclusive so long as others are willing to adhere to the features that define the nation. If we agree on this distinction, then it is interesting that the Constitution does not include the requirement of common descent in the definition. So in form, we can forcefully argue that an Oromo who prefers to stay in Gambela or Benishangul has the right to do so and vice versa. What is required to know is the state official language and not to descend from any of the indigenous groups.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a wide misconception in practice. In Oromia, a large portion of people belonging to other �nationalities� had to be displaced because they do not descend from Oromo. In Benishangul Gumuz and Gambela �nationalities� who speak Amharic, Tigrigna, Oromiffa etc had to be excluded from the regional political process because they do not descend from any one or the other of the indigenous groups. The case of the Benishangul Gumuz is of interest because those who were excluded from the political process applied for constitutional interpretation to the House of Federation and the latter ruled that for any Ethiopian to elect or to be elected what the constitution requires is the two/five year residence requirement plus the knowledge of the official language of the region and not the knowledge of the language of the local vernaculars. The House therefore found an earlier decision of the Electoral Board as well as the practice of the regional government and declared it as unconstitutional. In Gambela, however, those who were excluded from the regional political process did not follow similar steps. Nor did the concerned authorities tried to resolve the crisis along the Benishangul-Gumuz model. A large portion of population that moved to Gambela because of the Derg�s policy of resettlement program sometime in the 1980s was therefore left alone in the region.

Of course this is not the whole story of the Gambela crisis. There is the politics of number and dominance between the Nuer and the Anuak. There is as well the politics of the Horn playing its share in the crisis. Because of hostilities between the Derg and the Sudan and their tit for tat policy on the opposition, the Derg was backing the SPLA whose main army and support came from the Dinka and the Nuer. When EPRDF came to power in 1991 the Nuer was then associated with the Derg and EPRDF allied with the Anuak. As a result, the Anuak dominated the political process until recently. There has been several reports of killings and disagreements for the last decade or so but one thing was clear. The Nuer continued to complain on several occasions to the regional and federal government. At later stages when the federal government was about to intervene on the matter, the Anuak saw this as a kind of shift in policy from the Anuak to the Nuer. The latest crisis was then a commutative effect of the Nuer-Anuak as well as the continuous exclusion of the highlanders from regional politics. There has never been to my knowledge any acceptable proposal to both the indigenous groups as well as to the highlanders. The federal government was trying to shift its alliance from one group to another. So focusing on the perception of the Gambela regional government in the treatment of highlanders as �guest workers� rather than as Ethiopians who have all the rights as stipulated in the constitution, when critics state the federal system is �ethnic� implying exclusive they seem to have a point. But in form, the constitution appears to be multination rather than ethnic as it does guarantee the freedom to live and do business in the place of one�s choice as well as requiring only two years to elect and five years to be elected, where ever one might chose to live. It is the duty of the federal government as well as the respective regional governments to comprehend the long term implications of such narrow perceptions because in the end what matters is not what is written in the law but the way people interpret it.

[1] The writer is a researcher on comparative federalism at the University of Utrecht, Faculty of law, the Netherlands.

[2] See, for instance, Minase Haile, �The New Ethiopian Constitution: Its Impact upon Unity, Human Rights and Development,� 20 Suffolk Transnational Law Review XX, 1, Winter 1996 pp.1-84; Mesfin Wold-Mariam, The Horn of Africa Conflict and Poverty, (Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing press, 1999); Maimire Mennasemay, �Federalism, Ethnicity and the Transition to Democracy,� Horn of Africa Journal v.XXI 2003 pp.88-114.

[3] Will Kymlicka, Emerging Western Models of Multination Federations: Are They Relevant for Africa? Paper Presented at the Seminar on Ethnic Federalism: The Challenges for Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, April 14-16, 2004.

[4] Chaim Gans, The Limits of Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) p.10

[5] Chaim Gans cited above p. 28

[6] James Kellas, The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (London: Macmillan, 1991) pp. 4-5; but we need to remember what we stated earlier. The notion of inclusiveness implied in the nation is just relative. Both civic as well as ethnic nations have their own level of exclusiveness.

[7] For an excellent work on the distinction between the concepts see an introduction written by Michel Seymour, Jocelyne Couture and Kai Nielsen eds. Rethinking Nationalism (Calgary: University of Calgary Press 1996) pp.1-61

[8] The typical ethnic Nation-state model was Germany. According to this perception, no one could be German even if one is born in Germany unless he/she descends from German Parents. In this sense the exclusive implication is clear. What is less noticed is the sense of exclusion in the civic nation state. It is alleged that such a state is founded on universal values and on the right of the individual, the state as a �daily plebiscite.� But several studies have during the last decade or so clearly demonstrated that this is false. France requires complete assimilation of national minorities to be accepted as French men. The United States as well is founded on Anglo-Saxon tradition sharing same tradition, language and even religion. So the civic state in the end is the state founded on the tradition, culture and language of the majority and the national minority has to assimilate to it.

�

[Opinions in this article are solely that of the writer.]

In Defense of Federalism in Ethiopia by By Assefa Fiseha

Visit the Sudan Tribune website at http://www.sudantribune.com

In Defense of Federalism in Ethiopia
Wednesday 15 June 2005.
http://www.sudantribune.com/article_impr.php3?id_article=10173

In Defense of Federalism, Multiculturalism and Constitutional Order

By Assefa Fiseha

Despite the historically unprecedented positive pre-election period we seem to be sliding back to the abyss of history (the endless cycle of crisis) once again dashing into ashes the very hopes for democracy, tolerance and accommodation. Alas the Ethiopian factor (ghost of terror, culture of militancy, arrogance and culture of exclusion to mention few that are at the heart of our political ills) has popped up once again as an obstacle in our effort to move forward.

I guess it was John Markakis in his pioneer work Anatomy of Traditional Polity(1974) and following him Christopher Clapham and many others who at various times questioned if we Ethiopians take our constitutions seriously. Constitutions apart from serving as code of conduct in public life, defining powers and responsibilities of institutions and the citizen also serves as way for peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. In our present context as a channel for peaceful sharing of power among different contenders. We need to note that in our long history we have no constitution that survived its maker. We were about to cross this RED Line and we seem to be missing this golden opportunity once more. Is it a curse or what! As responsible Ethiopians we have to urge the parties to make a break through in this regard.

Aggravating this factor are political parties on both sides of the equation (ruling party as well as the opposition). This is no surprise because such parties are nothing but products of an imperfect society, a society impoverished by poverty, ignorance and dictatorship of one kind or another for the longest part of its history. Added to this is the authoritarian culture in public life. Can we expect the parties to deliver any better?

What is worrisome however is the content of the writing of Ethiopian intellectuals, elites and some forums. While it is human and rational to condemn such acts for what they are on objective basis (no one with sane mind can endorse the atrocities of the previous week) some have even went to the extent of aggravating the already fragile democracy and complex society, making sense to the Interhamwe rhetoric by subscribing to base less allegations of Tigrayans attacking their fellow Ethiopians and over looking the rash on the side of the opposition. Adding fuel to fire is the legality of the one- month ban (and now it is extended) to the peaceful demonstration in Addis Ababa, for the competent authority to take such measure appears to fall on the Council of Ministers and the legislative body. This is an irony because the main justification for the ban was to urge political parties to stick to legal institutions in airing their complaints.

A big part of the political process is already spoiled but there is still hope and way out. We have to push the political parties to come to some merging point and address our historical ills: the culture of exclusion and the tendency to control political power by one group or groups to the exclusion of others, a culture that is at the bed rock of our crisis, past and present and that stands as an obstacle for the future. Needless to say, many Ethiopians forget to realize that Ethiopia is multicultural, multi religious and multi-regional and that it is a must that the government and its institutions should reflect in one way or another this reality. Further more we tend to forget that in Ethiopia unlike other nation state federations, we do not have a majority ( by majority I mean here a group that constitutes fifty one percent and that can command the political process). It is a hard fact that all the nationalities/ethnic groups by whatever name one prefers to call them, none of them taken alone constitute a majority.

Census figures indicate (like many issues in Ethiopia, the figures as well are contested) the Oromos as the largest but fall far short of becoming a majority. At the center of the state crisis in Ethiopia then is not an issue of majority versus minority, as some would make us believe but a question of establishing a stable and legitimate federal government from the numerous MINORITIES.

There is one more myth that deserves demystification. In the last decade or so there appears to be an emerging consensus that given the existing diversity and sad legacy of concentrated power, the only way to "hold Ethiopia together" is by adopting one of the variants of federalism. It seems that it is no more a choice from alternatives but something destined for the country to be, in other words, a matter of necessity, a long overdue project. Yet there are contentions about the way the federal system should be structured. It is frequently mentioned in the academic discourse, however limited it may be, as well as among some political party leaders that the model subscribed is the "ethnic free" United States style of federal system. It is not surprising that this is more known than other more relevant multicultural federal systems like India and Switzerland. Ironically America despite its geographical distance is so close to Ethiopia and Ethiopians. The CNN dot COM effect is so close and so powerful in this "global world." It is also a hard fact that the United States federal system, the great invention of the famous Philadelphia convention of 1787 has influenced many federal systems, young and old. Yet having carefully studied multicultural federal systems, distinct from what are commonly referred as nation state federal systems (the United States and Germany are examples), there is more in common with the former than the latter. They provide us with alternative scenarios on crucial issues of the accommodation of diversity both at federal and state level, issues that the federal system in Ethiopia is facing at the moment. We have a lot to gain from them and one may adapt them to local circumstances.

For those who insist that the United States federal system is an "ethnic free" federal system, however attractive it may appear to be, let me state a hard fact from the out set. For those who are familiar to the arguments articulated on The Federalist Papers (particularly No. 2) it is unmistakably stated that it is a federal system founded on the Anglo-Saxon tradition with English as its language. In the last decade or so many have deciphered and uncovered this myth. The so called "civil-nation state," the only alternative that liberal democracy pretends to prescribe is itself founded on some exclusionist element. In the end it is the majority culture, language, religion that becomes the national culture, language and religion. It is the assumption in this short piece that for multicultural states this is wrong solution. Countries like Ethiopia, India (taking language as a factor) and perhaps Switzerland (taking religion as a factor), lacking a dominant majority both in terms of number and political hold, cannot afford to impose one ethnic group’s culture, language and religion on others. Those who attempted it like Ethiopia have rather paid dearly, while those who ventured on a different course of political action like India and Switzerland are doing well so far. Crucial in this regard seem the federal society and the institutions that absorb the society, the political expression of diversity apart from concrete recognition of linguistic and religious diversity and the values that predominate the federal system. It has been said time and again that diversity as such is not a cause of conflict but becomes a fertile ground for instability when political institutions fail to absorb the diverse groups into the decision making process.

The outcome of the May 15, 2005 election with all the imperfections and doubts was significant because it was a step in the right direction in breaking this cycle of crisis. A significant part of the Ethiopian community that felt marginalized from the political process has worked hard and succeeded to come back to the process. This process should have been continued to include on board other political actors in the future that for one reason or another have not made it in this year’s election.

Thus unless the political parties, acknowledge these facts, that the country is a country of minorities, that it is multicultural and adhere to federalism, there is no way to break the cycle of crisis. We will continue to repeat the sad history of ethnic and regional rivalry with no hope for the future.

Assefa Fiseha, is a constitutional lawyer and a currently a researcher University of Utrecht, Netherlands.

Rethinking Nationalism and Identity: The Evolving Face of Ethnic Politics and the Hungarian Diaspora in East-Central Europe By Andrew Duttlinger

Washington University in St. Louis
Department of Political Science
One Brookings Dr.
Campus Box 1063
St. Louis, MO 63130

Email:
aduttlin@artsci.wustl.edu
Home page: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/aduttlin
Political Science Working Paper #394: Prepared for the April 13-15, 2000 meeting of the Association for the Study of Nationalities, Columbia University.

DRAFT ONLY –

View it in HTML format:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:_veHcyioMEMJ:www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/papers/duttlingera.pdf+rethinking+nationalism+and+identity&hl=en

View it in a PDF format:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/papers/duttlingera.pdf

In the name of Conformity by F.T. Omar

Visit the website of the Network of Ethiopian Muslims in Europe at
http://www.ethiopianmuslims.net/index.htm

Note: During its September first week edition (10-09-04), the Ed.'s of Addis Tribune initiated a discussion on Ethiopian Calendar under a title - Ring in the New. Since then a number of Ethiopians have responded both in support and against the opinion expressed therein. One of the prominent respondent was Mr. Mesfin Arega whose series of letters appeared both on Addis Tribune and Ethiomedia.com. The following is a letter sent to us as a reply to Mr. Arega's latest letter: Assault on the Ethiopian Calendar: A Clarification (Addis Tribune) and Open letter to the editor of Addis Tribune (Ethiomedia.com) ! the Network of Ethiopian Muslims in Europe.


Reference Articles:

Addis Tribune: 22/10/04
THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE ETHIOPIAN CALENDAR: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE by Dr. Ahmed A. Moen

Addis Tribune: 15/10/04
Assault on the Ethiopian Calendar: A Clarification by Mesfin Arega.

Ethiomedia: 09/10/04
Open letter to the editor of Addis Tribune. by Mesfin Arega

Addis Tribune: 01/10/04
Assault on the Ethiopian Calendar by Solomon Kibriye

Addis Tribune: 17/09/04
Assault on the Ethiopian Calendar: a Destruction Omen for the Cultures and Traditions of Ethiopia! by Mesfin Arega.

Addis Tribune: 10/09/04
Ring in the New - Ed. Addis Trubine


http://www.ethiopianmuslims.net/Articles/in_the_name_comformity.htm

In the name of Conformity
by F.T. Omar
12/11/04

Addis Tribune has published opinions by readers on topics that, if not greatly important, merit some discussion since, in one way another, affect the lives of all Ethiopians. The magazine has been instrumental in facilitating and encouraging ideas that are meaningful to Ethiopians everywhere and as such should be commended and encouraged to continue in its wisely chosen path. It was an eye opening experience to read articles on a wide range of topics and the subsequent, sometimes lame and at times strong, reactions from readers with different outlooks.

In a recent issue of October 15, I came across an article that caught my attention regarding the merits of the Ethiopian Calendar and the numerous pieces written that were related to it. While growing up in Addis, I can recall my own experience interchangeably using the two calendars depending on the circumstance without much of a mental effort on my part. Since leaving Ethiopia twenty something years ago, there was hardly anytime I used the calendar, except in informal conversations with folks who are on a visit here, at which time I have to tune up my mind fast to relate to what they are saying. The residual of that upbringing manifests itself more in the way I still read time; sometimes using the Ethiopian way to answer folks a generation or so older than myself and other times using the European system in my everyday life, and often times caught up in the confusion of separating one from the other.

Although the discussion on the calendar was initiated by the editors of Addis Tribune and has been going back and forth for sometime, an opposing opinion written by Mr. Mesfin Arega caught my attention, and to the say the least, I found it to be quite interesting and mind boggling. From the outset, let me start by commending the writer on his ideas on some social issues regarding colonialism and its aftermath, and his particular emphasis on looking inward to solve the myriad of social problems that is facing us. But more than anything, I have been repulsed by his baseless and unwarranted accusations that he mercilessly leveled at Ethiopian Muslims, which has been quite a customary in some of our online newspapers nowadays.

After reading Mr. Arega's article, I reminded myself of the adage that says an angry person is seldom reasonable and a reasonable person is seldom angry and was leaning towards ignoring these malicious and bigoted accusations on Ethiopian Muslims who have been at the receiving end of more than their share of abuse and discrimination from time immemorial as a lashing of a madman without regard to truth and objectivity. But then, I was reminded of another adage that says if you repeat a falsehood enough times it can be regarded as truth in some circles and thus persuaded myself to pick up my pen and write this piece.

Mr. Arega's article is filled with the utmost disregard and contempt towards Ethiopian Muslims and others who do not fit the narrow nationalistic and outright chauvinistic definitions he set up to reawaken the discredited, backward and archaic feudal system that we thought we dumped in the dustbin of history. Mr. Arega used the pretext of defending the Ethiopian calendar to spew the venom of hatred on Ethiopian Muslims of all cultural background and every other Muslim in the world. Of particular concern is where Mr. Arega betrays his ignorance regarding Ethiopian Muslims and the religion of Islam as a whole and its followers everywhere and caricatures them as copiers of the Arab culture. Since it is an exercise in futility to go over all the incomprehensible accusations Mr. Arega subjected Ethiopian Muslims to, let me give you an example of the blind lashes of hatred by which he accuses Ethiopiam Muslims as an entity that care more for the plight of Palestinians and Iraqis and other Muslims everywhere ( which, by the way, are some of the traits that should be expected from any freedom loving and democratic minded people everywhere) while disregarding the suffering of their own brother and sisters right here at home and the neighboring country of the Sudan( a condescending and paternalistic attitude, to say the least.) He describes Ethiopian Muslims as people "… who cannot discern the difference between Arab culture and Islam …"

Well, Ethiopian Muslims and those who have an inkling of knowledge about the religion of Islam are well aware of the obligations of the faith and try to adhere to its teachings as prescribed by the Quran, and definitely not as to the wishes of Mr. Arega. Particularly since the ill fated day of September 11, people across the globe have taken to search the messages of Quran and found out that Islam is a way of life that covers every aspect of the individual from cradle to grave and, of course, the hereafter. In order to understand the teachings of the Quran and recite the verses, Muslims are encouraged to learn the Arabic language and practice the Suna (licit practices and traditions of Isalm followed by the Prophet - Peace be upon Him - in all aspects of His life.) I have spent a good part of my life in Ethiopia, and my observation is just that; Muslims trying to live their life accordingly, albeit in a very unwelcome and sometimes hateful environment. Since Arabs are not a monolithic entity with homogenous culture, religion, etc. there is no basis for Mr. Arega to talk about an Arab culture per se. But Muslim Arabs have a common culture that they share among their brothers and sisters in Islam, including Ethiopian Muslims, that transcends the physical boundaries of nations. Believe me, Ethiopian Muslims, irrespective of ethnicity, are focused on making Islam the center of their culture. If Mr. Arega's dream of a homogenous Ethiopian culture that is shaped in the image of feudal system does not correspond with the reality mentioned above, then tough luck; he just has to live with it.

In the same paragraph, he continues to pour his venom and writes (…black Muslims (meaning Ethiopian Muslims - my emphasis) who are so naïve that they choose Arabic language and dressing style over and above their own - always naming their children not in their language but in Arabic…" Mr. Arega made his intentions very clear and told us that all Ethiopians should be adorned in their traditional Ethiopian way and I do not see any disagreement there. But the devil is in the details and what exactly is the traditional dressing style of Ethiopians? I have seen Ethiopian Muslims dressed decently in their traditional garments as prescribed by the Quran without definitely betraying their various cultures. One can see the cultural and daily dressing habits of the numerous ethnic groups, namely Somalis, Afars, Harraris, Silitis, etc. just some of the multitudes of colorful Ethiopian ethnic groups for which Mr. Arega has no place in his chauvinistically defined sense of what it means to be an Ethiopian. What specific culture does Mr. Arega wants Ethiopian Muslims to adopt other than their ethno-specific way of life in accordance with the teachings of Islam? He makes no secret of the fact that he wants everyone, irrespective of their ethnicity and religious creed, to adopt the life style as prescribed by the Ethiopian Orthodox-Church, lock, stock and barrel. In fact, in order to put this hideous and chauvinistic master plan into practice, he proposes some fascist dictator to grab power and regain the hegemony of the feudal ruling class, the like of whom we thought we have done away once and for all. Can anyone in their right mind imagine what sort of lunatic it takes to propose such a government as if Ethiopians did not have more than their share of suffering to last for generations?

I humbly ask the reader to let me digress here and interject an invaluable piece of knowledge that I have found to be quite true in my own religious experience.

I will quote Elsayed M.H Omran's article titled Islam, the Qur'an and the Arabic Literature, an essay which explains about the the inimitability of the Qur'an among its other limitless attributes.

" … The inimitability of the Qur'an is not limited to its content. In fact, the Holy Book of Islam is held by Muslim scholars to be inimitable not only in its content but also in its language. The Qur'an, it has been constantly maintained, embodies linguistic and literary beauty which exceeds anything of human origin. This is borne out by the fact that no-one has ever been able to compose anything remotely resembling it in its linguistic, literary, or conceptual elegance. This point is repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Book itself. Thus the Qur'an says:

If the whole of mankind and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed each other up. (17:88)

The inimitable nature of the Qur'an was recognized by generation after generation of scholars. Al-Tabari (d. 923) dealt with this subject in his voluminous study of the Holy Book. Al-Zamakhshari elaborated on this theme in his famous al-Kashshaf, as did Baydawi in his Tafsir. AlBaqillam, a prominent scholar, wrote a book, which he devoted entirely to this subject and to which he gave the title I'jaz al-Qur'an (The Inimitability of the Qur'an). Here he wrote:

The Qur'an is so wonderfully arranged and so marvelously composed, and so exalted is its literary excellence that it is beyond what any mere creature could attain. …"

Now let me get back to Mr. Arega and ask who wouldn't like to study the language of a Book (the Holy Quran) that has been described by countless Islamic scholars and others as a wonder, its contents of which is beyond the ability and bounds of any human being to compose? Who wouldn't like to study the Book in its original language and have a special place in their heart and soul for the language Allah chose to convey his message? Who wouldn't like to adopt the names of the faithful who accepted the faith at its earliest stages and fought hard to disseminate the word throughout the world and follow in their footsteps? Let me guess, Mr. Arega might say I will have none of these and that's quite understandable. But shouldn't we, Ethiopian Muslims, be in our right to exercise that and be proud of the culture that is surely part of us?

I ask the reader again to bear with me and allow me to quote Mr. Arega in his crusade to redeem Ethiopian Muslims and save them from loosing their true identity ( and I guess make them subservient to a feudal system.) I know it gets tedious to find any rationality in Mr. Aregas's delusional expedition to create hatred and friction among Ethiopian people just to make a reality of his sick dream.

He writes "…black Muslims who just do not seem to see the obvious fact that Arabs do not give a damn about Islam except to use it for advancing their nationalist agenda; black Muslims who do not raise their eyebrows when avowed Arab atheists - the likes of Saddam Hussein - invoke the Koran to rally them behind Arab causes; black Muslims who would rather die defending Arabic countries than their own…" I hate to see Mr. Arega shading a crocodile tear, and certainly would like to thank him for his concern and defense of the religion of Islam against Arabs who do not give a damn about it. But first, what is the Arab's nationalist agenda regarding Ethiopia he mentioned above? Maybe the Arabs are trying hard to turn Ethiopia into an Islamic empire by building madressas and mosques all over the place and strip the country of its legendary name of "Island of Christianity", as some other "concerned" Ethiopian writer suggested. I was inclined to dismiss the accusation as frivolous, but I know for a fact that there are very sick people who would like to turn this into a serious discussion. Talk about loosing your marbles.

But seriously, leaving out the garbage Mr. Arega wrote about Saddam Hussein, (that's exactly what I think of about the accusation) I would like to hear from the horse's mouth (yes, that's you Mr. Arega) what he exactly means by "… black Muslims who would rather die defending Arabic countries than their own…" I wrote it down again because I am really indignant about this one. I might be wrong, and I hope I am wrong; I really hate to believe that there other Ethiopians who really think this is true. Can Mr. Arega site just one example to support his allegations? This is one libel I would like him to see defend in a court of law. Which Arab country did Ethiopian Muslims stood to defend forsaking their own? And what are the wars that Ethiopian Muslims excluded themselves or were excluded from for lack of loyalty to their homeland? As I mentioned earlier, Ethiopian Muslims were at the fore front and receiving end of all sorts of discriminations imaginable since the introductions of Islam in the country in the seventh century. And they have never been second to anyone when it comes to the defense of their land regardless of what some lunatics want to believe. And after he spilled all the poison of hatred he could come up with, he is trying to convince us that he "… cannot be portrayed as anti-Islam - by any stretch of imagination …." Believe me, you have left nothing for imagination; your hatred is there for everyone to see.

Mr. Arega is lashing out against anyone who is not accepting his idea of Ethiopia, particularly the Ethiopia of feudalism and the prominent figures who populated the bureaucracy, many of whom were at the forefront of running and maintaining the system. Let me quote from his earlier articles alluding to this fact, and to put it very mildly, he is trying to rewrite history and turn the facts upside down: He writes about " … the likes of Emperor Tewodros (Ethiopia's Bismarck or Garibaldi), Fitawrari Gebeyhu (the Hero of Adwa), Fitawrari Geresu Duki (the liberator of Jimma), general Jagama Kello (Ethiopia's Ulysses Grant), and the great Authors Aleka Kidanewold Kifle, Aleka Desta Teklewold, and Aleka Kebede Michael…"

We can safely say that Emperor Tedros, Yohannes, Menelik and Teferri Mekonen, true to their nature and like their predecessors were guardians of the feudal system that left us next to last in the progress of human history. If we are going to glorify a feudal system that subjugated its people to misery, ignorance, famine, disease and utter poverty, we should go straight to a psychiatrist to examine the state of our mind. And those who maintained the system of government established by these feudal rulers should be considered as part and parcel of the problem, no matter the level of their knowledge. The degree of ones' education has nothing to do with the level of care one shows towards his fellow human beings. This is a universal truth that history taught us repeatedly. If that was not the case, people would have elected (where that right is properly protected) the best educated geniuses to take care of all governments, big and small. Even in the best case scenario of democratic governments, we know for a fact that is not the case.

As in everything in life, there were some exceptional individuals who cared and fought for the welfare of their people above and beyond their own interest. Mention should be made of Lij Iyassu, Ras Imiru, Kebede Michael and of course numerous others for which Ethiopians of all creeds and persuasion hold a special place in their hearts. But all the feudal lords and the vast majority their ilk should not be remembered with reverence and presented to our children as raw models? On the contrary, like everything that was wrong in the system that left us begging for our daily bread time and again, they should be a piece of history in a museum for us to reflect and not repeat what was wrong in our past life. Otherwise, we would be making a mockery of all those brave Ethiopians who paid with their lives to dismantle the feudal system and others who suffered in many other ways. I don't know where Mr. Arega was during those tumults and difficult times when the Derge was slaughtering and torturing untold number of Ethiopian across the board, but the least he should do is thank them for the liberty he is enjoying spewing his venom because it is the direct result of their struggle. Mr. Arega did not mince words in telling us how much he loath their sacrifice, but even then, the least he should have done was show the same courtesy and respect for their endeavor that he tried to bestow on his feudal masters.

If there is just one thing that I would like to find out more than anything in this universe it is how the human brain functions. It will be a great enlightening experience to discover what makes some people think the way they do. Here we have a seemingly well educated individual in Mr. Arega with a good mastery of the English language to adequately express himself but failing miserably in trying to convince us what is good for the feudal system is good for everyone in the country. I will quote him again for the last time and present you with his idea of what an ideal and traditional Ethiopia should look like and ask the reader if this is what we are looking for in our country's future. He writes

" … As I am for retaining our Ethiopian calendar, I am for resurrecting our own beautiful measuring units - SINZER, KIND, GASHA, ENQEB, QUNA, WEQET, MEKLIT etc. We just have to give them precise definitions to avoid arbitrariness, and this should have been the first and foremost objective of the so called "Ethiopian Standardization Institute". I really don't know what the heck this institute has been "standardizing" throughout its existence - what its mandate is. Couldn't it at least come up with Ethiopian names for terms like radio, television, computer, internet, minibus, mobile phone etc. before they take root and pollute our languages?

In any case, if you accept the British units foot, yard, mile, and stone as valid units of measurement, what is your problem with standardized KIND, SINZER, and WEQET? If you consider "acre" as a legitimate unit of area, why not a well defined GASHA? If it is ok to express crop volume (or any dry capacity) in bushels, why not in QUNA? What is so shameful about our units of measurement? Is it only because they are our own? Should everything originate in Europe for you to be acceptable or "scientific"? What is the matter with you? Tell me. I am baffled. "

I will try to get to the point and let me be the first one to say there is nothing wrong in the opinion expressed above except for one glaring shortcoming. Mr. Arega is deliberately or out of ignorance, which I doubt, is trying to lump everyone and paint them with the same brush. All the names that he is proposing as a substitute for the foreign terms are Amharic and he is taking it for granted that everyone in Ethiopia is of Amhara decent. He took the liberty in using the word Ethiopia as a synonym for the word Amhara. What exactly is an "Ethiopian name"? I really would like to know what Mr. Arega means by the Ethiopian language. There are more than seventy ethnic groups in Ethiopia with their own distinct language, culture, psychological makeup, etc. How did Mr. Arega arrive at his decision to make Amharic Ethiopia's official language? I understand that Amharic is the official language of Ethiopia that was imposed upon the vast majority of the people without their consent and input, but does that imply that the status-quo should remain as it is simply because Mr. Arega thinks that is the way it should be? Does he really think that there are no other ethnic groups or nationalities in the country or is he suggesting that everyone should adopt the Amharic language as their own because Haile Selassie made it into law?

If Mr. Arega is aware of the basic tenets of democracy as "a majority rule with minority rights", he would have been reserved in expressing his opinions as forcefully as he did since the Amhara ethnic group is one among several large ethnicities and a minority if the whole population is taken into consideration. Mr. Arega would have been very sincere in his beliefs if he showed the same resourcefulness towards the Oromo language for the obvious reason that they comprise the majority of the Ethiopian population. Either Mr. Arega doesn't consider the Oromo's as Ethiopians or he is deliberately trying to impose his ideal culture on them and every other ethnic group in the country. When he finds it convenient, he makes mentions of the merits of an ethnic groups as in the case where he felt obligated to write about Oromiffa as a part of Ethiopia's "… most beautiful languages to listen to, … highly descriptive, and - given proper attention - can equal, if not surpass, … the language you are alluding to …" But where is else did Mr. Arega remember to write the merits of Oromiffa as he did with numerous example for the Amharic language? I hate to offer any council to Mr. Arega but I have to remind him that he should stick to his conviction and maintain his true color rather than blubbering words he has no business and interest saying. One does not have to wonder too far to discover that Mr. Arega has a tendency of pretending to speak on behalf of all of us regarding our culture and history belying his true beliefs when in fact what he means is he has a deep desire to see Amharic and Orthodox Christianity sanctioned as official language and religion of Ethiopia respectively.

Let me illustrate what I mean by quoting a sentence from his piece "… Then you will tell us (meaning the editors of Addis Tribune - my emphasis) discard our religions and become Anglicans/Catholics, yet again" in the interest of internationalism " …" I do not have any desire to split hair with Mr. Arega, but for a split second I thought he was talking about all of us when he used the term us but then he went on to write about Anglicans/Catholics. If I understood him correctly, he failed to include Ethiopian Muslims in that particular phrase (us) because obviously he is referring to non-Muslim Ethiopians since we can safely assume that it is a fundamental departure for a Muslim to convert to any brand of Christianity but not inconceivable for Christian Ethiopians to change denomination within the faith. Mr. Arega just assumed that Ethiopia is purely inhabited by Orthodox Christians, which is not too difficult to see throughout his writing. Whenever one makes assumptions that can not be supported with evidence or logic, it is obvious one is setting up himself or herself up for a target practice that will follow automatically. I will refer again to that particular phrase which is full of false assumptions. I know for a fact that there are Christian Ethiopians who do not belong or follow the Orthodox Church such as Catholics, Pentecost's, Seventh-day Adventists, etc. whom I suppose would find Mr. Arega's pronouncements offensive to the say the least. Isn't the right to choose ones' faith protected in Mr. Arega's ideal Ethiopia or should followers of other religions be ridiculed as instruments of some foreign ideology?

Mr. Arega should not be baffled at all if he accepts the soundness and fairness of a democratic system and governed by its rule. The Ethiopian Standardization Institute can easily come up with Amharic names to replace foreign terms, but maybe they found out long before Mr. Arega they can not impose such terms on others without their will and consent. Different regimes have come and gone in Ethiopia, but they have failed miserably in trying to impose their culture and tradition on other ethnic groups, however hard and forcefully they tried.

When I went to Ethiopia for the first time in 1994 after a longtime of forced absence, there were a number of things that caught my attention that were not present when I left in the late seventies. And one of them was the number of signs that were written in the Oromo language using the Latin alphabet in the city of Adama. Although I do not speak the language of the Oromos, I believe whoever decided to use the Latin alphabet made the right decision for the advancement of the language and more importantly to rid the yoke of feudal domination that was imposed upon the people. I am quite sure the Oromos are delighted to see their language getting its proper respect and used in all forms of communication, written as well as oral, in their everyday life. I am not in any way suggesting that the Oromo people have achieved everything that they have been fighting for, but hopefully I am witnessing the beginning of a phase in which they will be the true masters of their destiny.

Since I also belong to another minority ethnic group, I know first hand how it feels growing up in a place whereby a single ethnic group dominates every aspect of the cultural, religious and economic life of the country to the detriment of all others and thus gives one the feeling of being a foreigner in his own country. I am quite certain Mr. Arega does not share the same feeling since he has been the beneficiary of the bounty of the dominant culture. He just took it for granted that all Ethiopians are yearning for the same system that he is dreaming to implement oblivious of the fact that all ethnic groups are fighting for the same status he is trying to accord his own language, culture and religion.

I hate to dwell in Mr. Arega's thought process and make sense of what he writes, but I have come across scores of people who harbor the same thoughts and I found silence in the face of all this tantamount to endorsing and encouraging such beliefs. It does not help much when the editors of Addis Tribune dismiss Mr. Arega's piece as just amusing and the writings of a lunatic without the reasons for saying so. I do not object as to their assertion regarding his lunacy but the least they should have done was respond to some of his accusations since they initiated the subject that led to his endless tirade. So, let me direct the reader to another of Mr. Arega's assertion regarding foreigners in general and white Europeans in particular and here is what he has to say " … never forgetting for a single moment that the first and foremost objective of white historians is not history as such but the promotion of white interest via history - fabricated or otherwise".

How can someone in his "right" mind has the audacity to write such nonsense? I believe generalizations that can not be substantiated by evidence are just trash, unworthy of any further discussion. But I will make an exception and try to show the reader the fallacy of his argument. Logic 101 dictates that even if I find just one white historian who is true to his profession, Mr. Arega's whole assumption blows right in his face. Since his statement does not leave any room for exceptions, he believed everything he could imagine as a statement of fact and dismissed all the historical work done by white historians as unreliable and based on a hidden agenda that is in contradiction with the interest of the people they write about. Yes, it is really shameful, but that's the only logical conclusion one can draw from his senseless pronouncement. To illustrate my point, I will take as an example the role Dr. Pankhurst's played in spearheading the research in the department of Ethiopian Studies at Addis Ababa University.

Although I do not appreciates Dr. Pankhurst's partisan historical research and focus on a particular region of Ethiopia which almost borders on obsession to the exclusion of almost all others, we can safely assume that Mr. Arega is dismissing his work as baseless and without any foundation and merely serving the interest of his motherland at the expense of Ethiopia. I could have honestly argued that if you look at the writings of Dr. Pankhurst without the advance knowledge as to his background, one could hardly come up with an Ethiopian more patriotic than him. I doubt if Dr. Pankhurst is more knowledgeable about his native England than he is with the history of Ethiopia; and to summarily dismiss his monumental work as just a tool in the service of his motherland requires quite an imagination. Mr. Arega did not mention Dr. Pankhurst by name, but his premises leaves no room to think otherwise even for the likes of Dr. Pankhurst whom most Ethiopians consider as an ardent advocate for the cause of Ethiopia. Should we dismiss his work and that of all white historians just because of their color of their skin? I can understand if Mr. Arega harbors some degree of suspicion towards European colonizers who had come with a defined sense of purpose to rule by brute force in the past, but should we be blinded by so much unfounded hatred to the level of totally loosing our perspective?

The present government of Ethiopia, which is dominated by the Tigrean ethnic group has made a mockery of the plight of all ethnic groups excepting their own by pretending to address the question of Nationalities in a meaningful way and turning it upside down just to take advantage of and serve their own ultimate objectives. They have polarized all Ethiopian ethnic groups and made them fight within themselves and among each other to have a strong control across the land. The feudal ruling class and its followers have capitalized on this issue and have taken liberty by erroneously interpreting it as if all the ethnic groups do not want to deal with the issue of the right of nationalities because, according to their argument, it will lead to the destruction of the country. They tried in vain to convince everyone to do away with the right to have the use of ones' language, culture and religion on an equal footing with all others without any coercion and instead they argued to concentrate on the struggle for the unity of Ethiopia as if the two issues are diametrically opposed to each other. One can still fight for the right of nationalities and at the same time stand up for the unity of the country as a whole since these ideas are two sides of the same coin. We should not expect to trample upon the rights of nationalities and expect the same people to stand for the unity of the nation. A multi-cultural nation is devoid of its union if the parts that make up the union are not taken care of and relegated by the wayside as a none issue.

I ask the reader to allow me to change the subject and take a look at another area Mr. Arega chose to express his opinion and the subsequent lack of rationality that follows his assertions. In his earlier writing Mr. Arega was referring to 'the god of Ethiopia." And I honestly said to myself what is he talking about? Is Mr. Arega, unbeknownst to him, reverting to some kind of paganism here? I believe both Christianity and Islam have a universal God in mind when they refer to the deity. He takes liberty in using the term God without much of a thought as to the meaning, maybe he thought it had a nice ring to it. I don't know exactly why he did it. I have heard the name of God being invoked in strange ways to favor a group, a country, a team, a nation and so many other things that it makes you wonder if people are really praying to God to bestow them with his blessings or just "pressure" Him to take sides for their own benefit. A case in point is the phrase "God bless America"; a phrase that I have heard so many times while living in America uttered by almost everyone across the board. I do not have any problem with God blessing America with his bounty and all, and in fact I myself pray towards that goal at times since I am part of the population that enjoys that bounty. But is there a contradiction in praying and asking Allah to bless us all in the whole planet irrespective of our ethnicity, nationality, belief system, color, creed, sex, etc. . at least once in a while? If all of us believe in a universal God, I believe we should not bother Him with pork barrels here and there. Maybe Mr. Arega should take to time to reflect upon his faith and pray to the right deity since the gods he is referring to obviously are not taking good care of Ethiopia.

The reality in Ethiopia is changing daily, albeit painfully slowly, but all the same changing. We, as concerned citizens of this country, should strive to catch up to the changing dynamics and come up with solutions that take all the problems and contradictions into considerations. In order to have a true unity of our homeland, relations among the people of Ethiopia should be based on openness, fairness, respect and above all equality encompassing all spheres of our lives. And in order to achieve these ideals, we should have a minimum set of basic objectives that we should not even argue about.

Now, let me borrow a phrase from the totally-out-of-control Mr. Arega and flat out say that I hate to see anyone label me as anti-Amhara because I am truly the antithesis of that. In fact I have spent a quite great deal of effort at one time or another in my life trying my hand at writing Qene, prose poems and short stories in Amharic. Although not published, friends have given me their honest opinion saying "not bad at all" with some stressing the real potential for success. Therefore, I would like to consider myself as having contributed to the advancement of the language in some minute way. You see, I am not hear to tear down the language and culture which I have the utmost respect for, but my only concern is the struggle for fairness, equality and justice for all.

In order to have a society that is based on the tried out principles of democracy, let me put my two cents worth of ideas as a spring board for discussion that may contribute in some small way to achieve those goals. First and foremost, let us agree that there is no place for the feudal system of governance in the future of Ethiopia. Let us not have any illusion to resurrect the almost extinct order by any means. Mention should be made of the fact that the system was overthrown by the popular will and struggle of the people although power was stolen from them by another merciless dictator, which brings us to the second point. Let us do away with the foolish idea of bringing back the dictatorship of the military or any other form of oppressive government as an alternative to the present regime as carelessly and erroneously suggested by some, hopefully, well meaning individual. And this, of course logically brings us to the third point. Let us come into agreement to get rid of the system whereby one ethnic group dominates all aspects of life in the country to the detriment of all others once and for all. Let us not sneak in these ideas and all others in any form whatsoever by masquerading them as democratic, progressive and farsighted. These systems don't have history on their side to back them up as being good on the people imposed upon, and in my humble opinion we should leave them in a museum to educate future generations not to mess with.

At least those of us who have lived in countries other than our native Ethiopia should try to apply some of the good government and political processes that we have learned and abjectly lacking in our country. Although they have their ups and downs, we are living witnesses as to the effectiveness of the system in a number of western countries, of course, with minor adjustments made according to the realities of our country. Above all, we should be open to learn the history and culture of the people of our country whom Allah has blessed with abundance so that we can witness the emergence of a society that is based on mutual respect, fairness and equality. The diversity of the Ethiopian people is an opportunity given to us to show the rest of the world how truly civilized we are by overcoming the forces that is trying to hold us back and unleashing the power of friendship, respect for each other that we have exhibited for centuries.

I believe we have tackled some of the negative social ideas that we should avoid as an objective for a start and would like to turn my attention to the kind of social order that we should strive to build in our ideal Ethiopia. It is obvious that there is nothing novel or ground-breaking, as you will see, in the programs I have listed hereunder, but I believe we should remind ourselves that there are better ways to get out of our predicament and not that difficult to implement these noble goals if the leaders amongst us really, I repeat really, have the interest and welfare of the population in our hearts and pull our two heads together to give our country the proper and respectful place it deserves in the body of nations.

A. Establsih a democratic government.

You see, there is nothing new in what I am proposing. And as I mentioned, the concept is very simple, plain, logical, just, fair, etc. But how come this objective eluded us for such along time? Webster's dictionary elaborates on the concept as " A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them". You may ask yourself, why should there be any other kind of political order other than that? We find the answer in what motivates individuals, groups, parties, etc. to be in a position of power. Some take to heart the word serve as putting themselves in the service of the people and others define it as serving themselves. It is as simple as that.

The present regime claims that it is an elected government because it came to power through fair and open elections, but the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians will take issue with that. We know for a fact that all past elections were rigged. I will quote Donald Brown of NCM News Service on his October 29, 2004 article on how the U.S. regards these elections: "The U.S. acknowledged that the 2000 national and 2001 regional elections were mostly free and fair but still tainted by voter intimidation, killings and disappearances and unlawful detentions of opposition party supporters, particularly in the southern region." It is only logical to conclude that any election that is going to be held under the tutelage of this government is going to be rigged again because we are already hearing the voices of opposition parties accusing the government of preparing to use the same old tactic of voter intimidation, fraud, manipulation, etc. Therefore, our objective should be to look for leaders in our midst who will look into the interests and trust them with authority of governing. Of course, first, we have to get rid of the ones in power. Certainly, not an easy job, but we have done it before and by the will of Allah and the will of the people, it will be done again.

B. Write a fair and just constitution for the nation.

If we get over the first objective without much bloodshed and hopefully peacefully, we have done a great deal and needless to say, we are in the right course. That's the big Kahuna. I do not want to elaborate any further on this because if you have the time, please read the present constitution of Ethiopia. You will find very little that needs to be changed. The point I am trying to make is anyone can write a program, but what good is it if it is not followed? Therefore, let us put into practice what we already have. Since the constitution covers the major programs we need to follow to reach our objective, let me mention some of the items that need particular consideration regarding the situation in our country.

1. Establish Secular Government

It is incumbent upon us to make sure that the government "…shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…" Here I am directly quoting from the first amendment of the US constitution. I know this will infuriate Mr. Arega for copying from the white man again, but this is serious business and we should try to adhere to this principle to the letter. In order for any type of government in Ethiopia to function properly, it has to be secular favoring no particular religion, ethnic group, political party, etc. I hope we have a common understanding on this one. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church played a prominent role in the day to day activities of the government for centuries with clear advantages in the social, political and economic areas. We should be very clear that the government should be totally secular and neutral in the religious life of its citizens and treat everyone equally.

2. Wage War on Poverty, Disease and Ignorance

One of the major priorities of the government during the very first session of a democratic parliament should be to give us a clear picture of what it is planning to do to free us from our abject poverty. We need a concrete plan, in no ambiguous terms, on how we can achieve self sufficiency in agricultural production with a specific time lime. We should not settle for anything less on this one. Enough has been written about our poverty and famine and we have endured our share of jokes. Therefore, there should not be any argument to make this one priority number one. We should not also argue to make health care and education universal as they do here in the U.S. because I do not want to insult your intelligence by listing their respective merits. Suffice it to say that is the only way to free ourselves of poverty and the major criteria to become a civilized nation in the true sense of the word.

3. Reform the land holding system and privatize industry

Let us make this one very simple. The government should return all the land that was nationalized by the Dergue to their rightful owners and compensate those owners who permanently lost their property for any number of reasons. If we are in agreement as to the unfairness and injustice of confiscation of property by any government, we should not ignore this injustice and carry on with the attitude of business as usual. This is the only method I know for the new government to regain the respect and trust previous rulers have lost ages ago. The same goes for business and industry. The government should make it its business not to interfere in the affairs of the business community. It should have no part in owning or controlling any sectors of industry directly or in any other form. Its only objective should be to facilitate and encourage the environment for all sectors of industry to flourish.

4. Maintain and Strengthen the Federal System of Government with real power

It is not the concept of federalism that is fraught with problems; it is the motives and the methods used by governments in putting them into practice. It is an open secret that the only way the present ethnically based government of Meles Zenawi can cling to power is by utilizing the age old colonial formula of divide and rule; using it against all nationalities to pit one against the other. And what better way to divide the country other than pretending to be concerned for that right.

I have come across scores of people who argue that this system of government is fraught with contradictions and not suited to the realities of Ethiopia. I beg to differ with that assessment which is grossly lacking in substance. One such individual is Mr. Asratemariam, a frequent contributor to Addis Tribune. Opining on this subject, he wrote (January 2nd, 2004) and I will selectively quote the core of his argument:

"The logic of such an ethnocentric conception of the state and nature of human territorial behavior seems to be rooted in the leadership's worldview that Ethiopian society is more intimately linked to territory than other societies. …The division of the country into the so-called regional states is thus born out of the belief that the bonding between various peoples of Ethiopia and their geographical settings is stronger than a national geopolitical space… A cursory evaluation of ground realities in Ethiopia in the areas of democratic reform and the emergence of a pluralistic political environment does not lend credible support for any positive affirmation."

I do not believe that the bond individuals have towards their native land in any way contradicts or negates their loyalty and love towards the greater nation, as suggested by Mr. Asratemariam. On the contrary, a system of government that nurtures and develops their respective cultures should be a condition to strengthen the love of the people towards their country, particularly in the present reality of Ethiopia. We have numerous successful examples of countries who adopted the federal system of government and Ethiopia should be no exception. The main reason that the system did not function as successfully as it has been planned is the motive behind implementing it in the first place. People who are not rooted to their ethnic base do not have any resource to build their national identity and conversely an all rounded national figure is meaningless without the base that nurtured such individual. Weather we are comfortable or not or no matter our standing in society, we have to be proud of our heritage and build upon it to further the development of the nation as a whole.

The Ethiopian landscape is very suited for the application of the federal system since almost all the inhabitants of the various regions belong to a certain ethnic group with more or less similar culture. A hands free approach from the government in the daily affairs of the various federal regions would ensure the feeling of trust, loyalty, belongingness and true patriotism from the people it is representing.

5. Taxation and Tax Incentives

If there is an area the importance of which I would like to stress the most, it is the subject of taxation. A government without a tax base is like a fish out of water. The collection of tax and distribution of funds to the welfare of the nation is the life blood that powers the engine of society. I will be forthright and admit that I have no expertise in the area of taxation, but one needs no sophistication to realize the wrongs that are inherent in our society regarding the subject matter and I will express my layman opinion to shade a flicker of light.

The nation is caught in a dilemma with the tax system, if we are at liberty to call the crude disorder we have right now by that name at all. On the one hand, we have the government (this goes for all the previous governments too) trying to levy taxes on its citizens and businesses arbitrarily without providing any meaningful social services in return. And on the flip side, we have a population with a mentality of avoiding the burden of tax payment under any circumstance. We have a nation which is in a dire need of robust tax base to have aggressive economic growth to keep up with the increasing birth rate. But the present population growth which is expected to double in few decades is putting unbearable pressure on whatever meager tax the government collects to provide essential social services. We are caught in a catch twenty which explains why we are at the mercy of western donor nations not only in times of crisis, which we are experiencing perpetually, but for our daily needs as well.

Both the peoples' government and the citizenry have to get over their attitude toward taxation and equally contribute to the establishment of a model tax system which is fair, just, progressive and most of all beyond reproach. The government should strive to build a system which it can enforce uniformly without fail. And tax-payers should fundamentally change their attitude and take it as a duty and an obligation to shoulder this responsibility. In some western countries, it is not uncommon to find wealthy people and businesses paying as much as half their earnings in taxes. The consequence of not meeting their tax obligation is so severe that no one dare face the wrath of the taxing authorities who go by the book to enforce the tax laws. I have met honest American citizens who would not dream of shortchanging the government (people) by not paying anything less what they owe. Can we honestly say something similar about out people? I have heard of Ethiopians who made millions in their business dealings but have found their way in circumventing paying taxes by bribing corrupt individuals in the bureaucracy. A few years ago, the government itself admitted not collecting as much as a third of the tax outstanding for lack of an enforceable taxing system. If we let the lesse faire attitude we have towards taxation continue as it is, we, as citizens should forfeit to raise any issues about our nation because I question the seriousness of any such discussion.

6. Self Reliance

If there is one country that comes to mind as an example of achieving the highest degree of self reliance and re-defined the term, it should be Mainland China. After they triumphed over the Japanese occupation of their homeland in 1949, the Chinese under the leadership of Mao Tse Dung closed their doors to the outside world for over two decades and started building the nation from within with astonishing results. Before you arrive at any conclusion about my premise, let me say that I am not advocating communism or for that matter closing the borders of Ethiopia to imitate the Chinese. The Chinese found it necessary at the time to build their confidence, spirit, independence and sovereignty and show the world that they are a proud nation that can achieve any goals that they set their minds too. They tightened their belts, dirtied their finger nails and carried out their task to the end, of course with all the sacrifices entailed. We do not have to be Chinese or communists to learn from that lesson. Arguably, the unparalleled economic development that we are seeing now in China has its foundation in that sacrifice.

Not only the Chinese, but nations such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. with little to nothing natural resources but armed only with the determination of their human power have succeeded in accomplishing the same feat. They refused to incorporate the word impossible in their vocabulary and have earned the awe and respect of the world in their endeavor. The west crowned their achievements by calling them the Asian Tigers and we will call them, hopefully, to show us the ropes.

And of course the question is how do we learn from all these and apply it to fit our circumstance? As mentioned earlier, the solution lies in the concept of self reliance which we have seen put into successful practice in these countries. Countries such as Taiwan and Honk Kong have given a very fertile ground for small businesses to grow and contribute in the welfare of their respective nations. Tens of thousands of cottage industries employing less than twenty workers became the back-bone of their industrial strength. We do not have to embark on building large factories with enormous capital expenditures in a very competitive climate for investment, but we should train and utilize the ever increasing population by establishing the growth of these small scale enterprises and thus laying the ground work for sound economic development. Even an economy as large as the United States still heavily relies on the welfare of these mom and pop establishments to absorb those on the employment roll.

Where there is severe shortage of funds for structural investments in a country like ours, a great deal of effort should be expended to enhance the development of small scale businesses to stimulate economic growth and raise capital for all kinds of projects. The country is full of resourceful business people with the uncanny ability to create wonders given the opportunity. Even under a very hostile business climate that was created after the overthrow of Haile Sellasie, business oriented individuals have always found ways to flourish and expand their enterprises outsmarting the backward bureaucracy. Ethiopians in Diaspora who have created and successfully managed all kinds of businesses have proven these beyond any doubt. Given the right climate, the indigenous entrepreneur will create enough jobs to lift the country out of the unfortunate situation of never ending doldrums of economic stagnation it finds itself. The government has to change the prevailing attitude of throwing all kinds of obstacles on the face the entrepreneurial business spirit and instead vigorously engage in promoting and expanding these initiatives rather than always waiting for a handout from donor countries. Time and again, we have seen the futility of growing our economy by begging alms from the World Bank and other international institutions which often comes with all sorts of conditions that stifles real development and bankrupts the economy. All the poor countries which have fallen victims to these sinister machinations on the part of western countries find themselves at their mercy unable to pay even the low interest on these handouts let alone the principal, a large portion of which was never allocated for the project intended in the first place. Yes, we got relief of a good percentage of our debts from the powers that be who deliberately led us into that quagmire, but who is to say that we are not going to succumb into the same pitiful pit in the very near future? If we maintain the status quo, it is a matter of when but not if to find ourselves where we were not so long ago. Surely, the handouts from World Bank is not the formula for making a nation.

7. Build the Dam

Most people who visit our country for the first time are baffled by the contrast they see in the abundance of resource on the one hand and the abject poverty of the people on the other. I would unequivocally say that most of the blame goes directly to the successive governments that have ruled the country, enriching themselves to the total neglect of the population. It is no surprise that all these power mongers crowned themselves and stifled all sort of participation of the population in its affairs. The saddest part of all is none of these rulers have the foresight and atoms of care in their bloods towards their subjects and the nation; funneling all the foreign currency they stole from the treasury into foreign bank accounts.

As I see it, corruption comes in two forms. Some corrupt government officials look for their self interest first and everything else later, but the worst kind of corruption is the one afflicting our country and other backward countries (I hesitate to use the term developing countries because frankly speaking there is very little development to speak of) mainly in Sub-Sahara Africa whereby bureaucrats are in power to basically enrich themselves and nothing else. Everyone knows that corruption is a world-wide phenomenon; no one country is safe from the affliction. Even in the best of democracies, it is next to impossible to root out corruption. But all we are talking about is the magnitude. Our rulers prefer to stash whatever funds they have stolen from us in foreign bank accounts thus robbing us twice, once with the real thing and the second time by taking away the funds outside of the country, thus depriving the country the badly needed investment capital that could have in some way contributed to our economic development. The billions of dollars that Haile Sellasie stashed in his Swiss Bank accounts is an example that frequently comes to mind. (Whatever happened to that fund anyway?)

Back to the subject matter and we are all aware that we have resources in abundance that are waiting to be of use all over the land. We have rivers that crisscross the country that are barely used; fertile arable land to be farmed but lacking capital investment; a pool of skilled labor waiting to be employed but totally wasted; land full of industrial minerals waiting to be mined but lacking in capital expenditures. etc. The examples are numerous. The only thing that is missing in this picture is the total lack of foresight and utter neglect of the needs of its citizen by the current government. More than that, it has exerted enormous pressure on the entrepreneurial spirits with its archaic news rules stifling any business development.

The failure of the government in exploiting economic opportunities for the welfare of the nation is well known. It is more than well known when it comes to the case of the Nile River.

Thanks to the editors of Addis Tribune and the article by Yosef Yacob (January 30, 2004), we were highly enlightened and somehow indignant to know the facts on the subject of the Nile River. But when it comes to the role of the government on the matter, we are seeing it engaged only in giving lip service to the issue and nothing else. Like the Three Gorges Dam project in China, this project should be given the highest priority since the lives of millions of Ethiopians are at stake. Both the Sudan and Egypt have utilized the Nile fully to the advantage of their respective peoples' and it is the major source of water for the survival of more than a hundred million people. And what is the situation of the people in the country where the river originates? Do you really need to know that? We have repeatedly seen the world coming to our assistance when millions of our people were dying and in fact we have become the poster child of poverty all over the world, gaining a distinction we can do away with. Therefore, are we supposed to look the other way when strangers are having the best times of their lives in our own houses while we are starving and begging all over the place to fill our stomach? It does not make sense. We need an equitable portion of our share of the water without in any way affecting the lives of millions who depend on the same bounty. Let us concentrate on how to raise the funds to make this project going. And judging from our history, it is only a matter of time before another devastating famine strikes and takes millions of souls with it. Let us get ready to build the dam.

8. Secularity in Governing

I mentioned earlier regarding the subjection of the Constitution that the government should keep its hand from meddling in the affairs of all religious establishments. But right now, it is very clear this is not the case. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has undue influence on the affairs of the whole population because of the special unofficial status bestowed by the government whose cabinet members are overwhelmingly followers of the Orthodox Christian faith, despite their protestation to the contrary. I will have no qualms about the faith of the individual if selected on his or her individual merits, but somehow I find it very hard to think that the government can not find enough Ethiopian Muslims who are suited to fill position of importance for lack of proper skill. Having the finest constitution does not guarantee the reality on the ground and we have to be deliberate to make fundamental changes to have a society that is equitable, balanced and fair. Allow me for a minute to site my own observation on this issue to shade more light.

A few years ago, there was an incident in the city of Harar whereby a religious procession (Tabot) was passing by a mosque during a Friday noon prayer demanding its dismantlement. Violence broke out and the local security forces opened fire and several Ethiopian Muslims lost their lives with significant damage done to the structure of the mosque.

A similar incident in the city of Addis Ababa happened some two years ago whereby a score of Ethiopian Muslims lost their lives because they wanted to build a place of worship. They build a make shift mosque and were waiting for a final decision on their application when the local residents violently destroyed the place.

In the town of Axum, a mosque was torn down by the locals because according to their argument Aksum is a holy city for the Ethiopian Church. (I urge you to read the following two sites on what is happening in the country in the name of religion: Ethiopia Country Report Last Updated March 2003; Ethiopia Religious Freedom)
Local school girls were ordered not to wear their head scarves that were required by their faith in direct contravention of the freedom of religion given by the constitution. All these cases and many more are well documented and reported in the local press at the time of their incident.

The noise pollution that is generated in the city of Addis Ababa and elsewhere is totally getting out of control. The call to prayer from the local mosques lasts no more than ten minutes all taken together. But the real problem in this saga is the noise made by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church without time limit any almost everyday. Anyone who visited the country knows what I am talking about. All these incidents are happening under the government's nose and seem not to be bothered at all.
Again, anyone who visited the city of Addis in the last ten years or so will be astonished to see Ethiopian Muslims praying in the streets of Addis Ababa adjacent to their local mosques disrupting all kinds of services, particularly during Friday noon prayers. Articles have been written regarding the issue in local papers and people have taken it as normal. Since the root cause of the problem is the land-holding system that the government put in place without anyone's' input, I urge the government to allocate adequate land for Muslims to build mosques and pray decently like their counterparts everywhere.

There is no doubt that Ethiopian Muslims have made significant progress from the time of the reign of Haile Selassie; but a great deal needs to be done for them to gain parity and equality with their Christian brothers. Significant progress needs to be made in the area of education and health care in the southern regional states where most Ethiopian Muslims reside. In order to further the legacy of peace among the ethnic groups and religions for which we are known for, active involvement of the government in the welfare of the people is a must. The government should not only remember the people when collecting taxes but should heed their call for development when allocating federal revenues. Particular attention should be given to these areas because of the total lack of attention they were subjected by the previous administrations. There are regions such as the Somali State with a only single senior high school built during the Haile Seallasie government with a population nearing four million. The Affar State with a population of more than a million is still waiting for the establishment of its first high school. Out of the nineteen existing and newly built government institutions of higher learning, the majority are located in the areas of Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar and Tigrai. These are establishment that are funded by the central government. The number of hospitals and clinics in the areas where the majority of the people are Muslims follows the same pattern mentioned above. I can site numerous other similar examples of which ordinary Ethiopians are not familiar. We have to put a great deal of effort to change those realities in order for our development to have real meaning. We can not keep on paying empty lip service and expect things tot improve out of their own accord.

I believe Ethiopia has a future unlike anything it has seen so far. I also believe we have very able people who can lead us in this endeavor to our rightful place and enjoy the bounty Allah has reserved for us.

In this holy month of Ramadan, I pray for the blessing of Allah for all of us. Happy Holidays.

F.T. Omar

Opinion expressed in the article is that of the Author and thus does not necessarily reflect the position of the Network of Ethiopian Muslims in Europe, NEME.

Ethiopia: Hidden Crackdown in Rural Areas - HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Visit the HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH website at
http://www.hrw.org/

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/12/ethiop12417.htm

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Ethiopia: Hidden Crackdown in Rural Areas
Independent Inquiry Should Investigate Rural Violence

(New York, January 13, 2006) - The Ethiopian government is using intimidation, arbitrary detentions and excessive force in rural areas of Ethiopia to suppress post-election protests and all potential dissent, Human Rights Watch said today after a research trip to Addis Ababa and the Oromia and Amhara regions.
“The Ethiopian government is violently suppressing any form of protest and punishing suspected opposition supporters,” said Peter Takirambudde, director of Human Rights Watch's Africa Division. “Donor governments should insist on an independent, credible investigation into abuses by federal police and local officials in rural as well as urban areas.”

In the wake of the May 15 parliamentary elections, in which opposition parties won an unprecedented number of seats amidst massive controversy over the election results, federal police in the Oromia and Amhara regions have threatened, beaten and detained opposition supporters, students and people with no political affiliation, often in nighttime raids. Alongside local government officials and members of local government-backed militias, the federal police have taken the lead in intimidating and coercing opposition supporters.

In one town in Oromia, a 17-year-old girl was stopped at a police checkpoint, beaten and detained for seven days by federal police for no apparent reason except that she was traveling with students to the funeral of a fellow student killed by police. Also in Oromia, a 38-year-old farm worker and a 40-year-old widow described nighttime raids in which police beat them with rifle butts and batons, resulting in serious injuries.

In Oromia, individuals detained by the federal police are often accused of being supporters of the Oromo Liberation Front, an illegal insurgency group that called for Oromia-wide protests against the government on November 8. Detained individuals were also accused by police of being members of the Oromo National Congress, although it is a registered political party that won seats in the May 15 elections as part of an opposition coalition group.

“The government is deepening its crackdown in Ethiopia's rural areas, far from the eyes and ears of international observers in Addis Ababa,” Takirambudde said. “People are being terrorized by federal police working hand-in-glove with local officials and militias.”

Several recently released detainees from different locations in rural Ethiopia said that police and other officials forced them to sign statements disavowing support to political opposition groups and pledging support to the local ruling party affiliate before being released.

A 37-year-old opposition politician from the Oromo National Congress told Human Rights Watch that federal police in western Oromia beat and arrested him in a nighttime raid on his house in early December.

“They beat every part of my body; the blood was coming out of my mouth,” he said. “They beat with guns and sticks and plastic rope.”

In the Amhara region, witnesses told Human Rights Watch that kebele (local-level) officials, who are generally members of the Amhara National Democratic Movement—a party affiliated with the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)—played a key role identifying individuals and guiding the federal police to their homes at night, where federal police beat and sometimes arrested them.

“The kebele officials know everyone. They come late, at midnight, knock at the door and take the one they want and beat him,” a man from Bahar Dar, Amhara region, told Human Rights Watch.

Individuals in rural Oromia said they have been denied access to fertilizers and seeds by administrative officials who view them as opposition supporters. Farmers who have voiced support for recognized opposition political parties in rural Oromia have reportedly been detained without charge for 30 days or more by kebele “social courts,” which are run by government party appointees without legal training.

“Federal police and regional officials responsible for these abuses must be investigated and punished,” Takirambudde said. “Prime Minister Meles Zenawi should publicly order all security forces to abide by international standards on the use of force.”

Federal police—usually identified by their blue camouflage uniforms—have been responsible for many of the abuses in Addis Ababa and the rural areas since the parliamentary elections in May. According to victims and witnesses in Addis Ababa, Oromia and the Amhara region, federal police beat and shot students and other protestors in those locations in November. In one case from Bahar Dar, where two students were killed and two were wounded in early November, an eyewitness told Human Rights Watch that the school was surrounded by the police who shot into the compound where the unarmed students were collected.

Federal police also played a key role in the violence in Addis Ababa in early November. Eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch that the federal police savagely beat unarmed students with batons and shot at their backs as they fled.

Thousands of people were arrested and detained in Addis Ababa and the rural areas following the demonstrations in June and November. Many of the people detained in the wake of the November violence have since been released. Yet more than 3,000 detainees held at the Dedessa military camp since November are apparently being transferred to Ziway prison, 130 kilometers south of Addis Ababa, for further questioning and possible charges.

As many as 2,500 other detainees, including many opposition supporters and some opposition party election observers, are reportedly being held in another detention facility, Bir Shelako, about 385 kilometers northwest of Addis Ababa near Bure town in the Amhara region.

“The Ethiopian government has detained people indefinitely without trial in recent years, so there's a real concern that the authorities will do the same again,” Takirambudde said. “Donor governments should call on the Ethiopian government to ensure that all detainees are either promptly charged and given fair trials, or released.”

Background

Since the May 15 parliamentary elections in which opposition parties made massive gains in their share of seats, the EPRDF government led by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has used repression, intimidation and violence to punish real or perceived opposition supporters and eliminate dissent in both urban centers and rural areas.

In June and again in November, demonstrations by opposition supporters in Addis Ababa were met with lethal force from the government. In June alone, more than 30 people were killed and more than 100 injured in Addis Ababa when security forces fired upon demonstrators, who, in some cases, were throwing stones and blocking roads. On November 1-3, at least 46 protestors and seven policemen died in Addis Ababa. Following each episode of violence, the government arrested thousands of people in Addis Ababa and many other cities as part of a national crackdown. While most of the June detainees have reportedly been released, thousands of people arrested in November and afterwards remain in detention.

Many supporters of the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) and other opposition parties were arbitrarily detained without charges, and editors of five newspapers were arrested (and later released on bail), apparently for their coverage of the post-election violence.

On December 21, the government charged 131 persons—including prominent CUD politicians Hailu Shawel, Mesfin Woldemariam and the newly elected CUD mayor of Addis Ababa, Berhanu Nega—with charges including treason, inciting violence and planning to commit genocide. Several civil society activists and 13 journalists were included in the group.

Implement EU parliament resolution on the political crisis in Ethiopia

Visit the Sudan Tribune website at http://www.sudantribune.com

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=13525

Sudan Tribune:

Sat, Jan 14, 2006 01:04 UT
Implement EU parliament resolution on the political crisis in Ethiopia
Friday 13 January 2006.

Network of Ethiopian Scholars (NES)
Scandinavian Chapter

Press Release No. 22

January 12, 2006

“ I entered parliament having been elected as an independent candidate. I thought and hoped there would be a chance to raise and debate substantive issues that matter most to the people. I expected to air them fully in the parliament and transmit my concerns to the public through the media. But currently what is happening in parliament is that we, non-EPRDF parliament members, are blocked. We are not allowed to propose motions and raise issues for discussion. We cannot put issues on the agenda. We are not given enough time to make our different voices and opinions to be heard. We have no opportunity to transmit our views to the people through mass media. Taken together, the parliamentary working procedure is wholly non-accommodative and uninviting”.

Dr. Negasso Gidada, Ex-President of Ethiopia, VOA, 11 January 2006, (trans. by NES)

1. The Unjust and Illegal Imprisonment of Opposition leaders

As the interview above fully attests the current parliament is filled with a ruling party majority that is afraid of a few independent voices that had the illusion of using the parliament as a platform to voice the concerns they care about. As it is becoming clearly evident, the ruling party controls the parliamentary procedure and freezes out any dissident voices. They cannot propose a motion. They are not allowed to put issues on the parliamentary agenda. Their voices cannot be heard. It is as good as being imprisoned in parliament. Why they stay there when they recognise all these restrictions and oppressions to function with effectiveness is indeed inexplicable.

What the perspicacious leadership of the opposition that finally had the courage to boycott the current parliament feared most was exactly what Dr. Gidada found out by joining parliament. Unless the parliamentary procedures were designed to accommodate a range of different views, the opposition leaders who have been thrown into jail rightly believed that they would not be able to represent the people who voted for them. Rather than joining the stillborn parliament, they chose to struggle to reform it to conform to universal democratic norms.

Not only are the voices of those independent opposition elected persons ignored and un-listened to, but even more worryingly, the people who voted for them are being beaten, jailed and even killed in various parts of the country. We have heard reports of repression against the people that voted for the opposition. The regime has thus not only criminalised dissent, but also those who voted for the opposition.

Ethiopia today has been controlled by unscrupulous men who control a parliament that is illegal, a Government that is not legitimate, a court that is into more drama and theatre than observing law and protecting the presumption of innocence until once is proven guilty; indeed a court that is denying the right of bail to popularly elected political leaders by attempting to violently reduce them into criminals whilst the truth lies in the fact that the regime is locking them because of its lack of democratic toleration of difference. The only appropriate designation of regime action is that it is the one that is committing the crime it is accusing of the jailed opposition leaders of. It is crystal clear that the imprisonment of those who wished to highlight the injustice of the election that produced an illegal parliament and an illegitimate Government is itself highly unjust, illegal immoral and disingenuous.

2. The Significance of the EU Parliament Resolution on the post- Election Ethiopian Crises

We found the EU resolution on the post-election crises in Ethiopia significant because the EU parliament tries to promote values of human rights, democratic governance and rule of law by condemning those with consistency that violate the peoples trust, voice and votes. We hope the other bodies of the EU such as the commissions and the council would take the unanimous resolution with one abstention by the parliament on the post- Ethiopian election crises and implement expeditiously and scrupulously the key and significant recommendations made by the parliament: 1. Suspend the budget substitution fund for the regime 2. Apply targeted travel and other bans on the regime’s inner cabinet and the formal cabinet 3. Press the international community especially the USA and the UN to form an international independent inquiry into the entire situation that brought about the post-election killings, brutality and cruelties 4. Condemn strongly by isolating the regime for criminalising dissent and continuing to violate its own constitution by keeping opposition leaders in jail 5. Use every diplomatic avenue to show what the regime is doing by jailing elected leaders of opposition parties, journalists and others is illegal, unjust and cannot be tolerated in international public life 6. Implement the suspension of the illegal regime in Ethiopia from all-important international councils.

We would like the USA Government to go beyond seeing the post-election crises as if the culprit-the illegal regime, and the opposition, that have steadfastly stood for human rights, democracy are on a par. They are not. The regime must be confronted with the fact that it is both illegal and unjust and is accused for vote tampering and the muzzling of democratic voice expression. The opposition that has been falsely accused of ‘treason’ and ‘genocide’ is being criminalised for the expression of dissatisfaction with the way the election has been mishandled. We call on the Government of the USA and its various branches such as the Congress, the Senate, the State Department and the other relevant agencies to follow the EU Parliament’s persistence to promote value based governance based on human rights, democracy, public ethics and the rule of law in order to promote long-lasting global security. Support to dictatorship by sacrificing human rights will not promote lasting security to the USA or the world. The sooner the USA acts together with consistency with those like the EU parliament that connect the realisation of true security with the preservation of human rights and democracy, the better and the sooner the world would be safe from terrorism and other scourges that have marred no end the much expected post-cold war peace, stability and development based on justice, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

3. Sustainable Peace with Eritrea with the democratic transition in Ethiopia!

We have heard reports that the USA Government has decided to send its Assistant Secretary Frazer and General Fulford to mediate the dispute over the border demarcation issue between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The bottom line regarding this war is this: if Meles was prepared as he did to make a deal with the Eritrean leadership by signing the Algiers agreement, there was no reason in the first place for him not to have acted to forestall the war all together by entering into mediation and talks with the same leadership prior to the war. What was the reason for rushing into this war? What are the hard gains and losses from this war? The only spectacular result of this two-year war is that firstly it was one of or perhaps the most stupid wars in the annals of world history. Secondly it resulted in nearly an estimated 100,000 lives dead along with those who were displaced and the ugly manifestation of ethnic cleansing that it occasioned.

We would like to bring to the attention of the USA Government that the human rights activist leaders who are now in jail have stood steadfastly and consistently in opposition to the 1998-2000 war. This is a historically and internationally recocognised fact. Such principled leaders as Emeritus Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam highlighted with high principle and high ethics pointing to the massive human rights violations that the war created. They stood firmly against the massive violations of human rights by using the principle of opposing the war and recognition that the interest of the people in Eritrea and Ethiopia is not war but peace. They stood firmly behind the people and not war or the warmongers and were horrified especially by the human rights violations from the hideous practice of ethnic cleansing regardless of who perpetrated this crime against the people.

When the USA Government tries to assume the role of brokering ‘peace’ between the Government of Eritrea and the Meles regime, we would like it to recognise that the latter has formed an unjust and illegal Government. It has no moral or legal right to keep the duly and legally elected leaders in jail and try to impose an illegal peace. The Ethiopian people are right to think and believe that the first order of business is to get their illegally and unjustly incarcerated leaders to be released. Only a nationally legitimate Government can make peace and not an illegal regime that has stolen the votes of the people. Ultimately the Eritrean- Ethiopian predicament will be solved based on the expressed will of the people on both sides with free deliberation and peaceful and democratic engagement. Any other backhanded deal is likely to unravel sooner or later. This is something that both the Eritrean leadership and the Meles regime may not be aware of. We trust the US Government would not wish to impose temporary deals that are doomed to fail on the people of Ethiopia. The most urgent task is to release the prisoners in Ethiopia and help stimulate the democratic process and not suppress democracy and subordinate in the interest of brokering peace that would probably evaporate sooner or later.

4. Concluding Remarks

We say the first order of business is to restore the badly mauled election in Ethiopia in order to bring the much anticipated democratic transition in the country and settle the Eritrean -Ethiopian conflict peacefully and democratically based on the will of the people on both sides. We call on the international community to act and guide their foreign policy on Ethiopia with values of human rights and democracy in order to establish an enduring security architecture in the volatile Horn of Africa region.

Underlying the disorder of present day world politics is the rupturing of establishing lasting peace and security in the world from the diffusion and spread of universal values of democracy, human rights, accountable, transparent and people- empowering governance, and the rule of law. After the end of the cold war, there was a historical opportunity to bridge and align the establishment of lasting peace and security with the consistent and principled promotion of the rule of values of human rights, democracy and citizen empowering and legally protecting rights. We hope the international community will not tolerate abusive dictators because of their putative role in the fight and ignore jailed elected democrats.

We call on the USA Government and its various branches to take heed of the EU parliament and condemn rather than support the regime that puts into jail elected leaders, kill their people and cart away tens of thousands of youth into concentration camps. We call on the USA to recognise that the regime in Ethiopia has unjustly and illegally incarcerated the elected opposition leadership and accused them of false and trumped up- charges. We call on the USA Government to impose strict sanctions against such illegal behaviour and not reward it with 600 million dollars. We call on the USA Government to review its aid to the regime and find ways of reaching the Ethiopian people by finding alternative ways of disbursing the support of the American people to their fellow Ethiopian people. We call on the USA Government to apply the principle of protection of human rights and democracy as the surest way of promoting security in Ethiopia, Africa and indeed throughout the word. In the end it is democracy and freedom and not dictatorship that is a friend of national and human security.

Professor Mammo Muchie, Chair of NES-Scandinavian Chapter
Berhanu G. Balcha, Vice- Chair of NES-Scandinavian Chapter
Tekola Worku, Secretary of NES-Scandinavian Chapter

Contact address: Fibigerstraede 2 9220- Aalborg East Denmark
Tel. + 45 96 359 813 or +45 96 358 331
Fax + 45 98 153 298
Cell: +45 3112 5507
Email: mammo@ihis.aau.dk or berhanu@ihis.aau.dk or tekola.worku@bromma.stockholm.se

The Failed States Index by FOREIGN POLICY & the Fund for Peace

Visit the Foreign Policy website at http://www.foreignpolicy.com
and
Visit the Fund For Peace website at http://www.fundforpeace.org/

The Failed States Index
By FOREIGN POLICY & the Fund for Peace
July/August 2005

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3098&print=1

About 2 billion people live in countries that are in danger of collapse. In the first annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and the Fund for Peace rank the countries about to go over the brink.

America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.” That was the conclusion of the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy. For a country whose foreign policy in the 20th century was dominated by the struggles against powerful states such as Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union, the U.S. assessment is striking. Nor is the United States alone in diagnosing the problem. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned that “ignoring failed states creates problems that sometimes come back to bite us.” French President Jacques Chirac has spoken of “the threat that failed states carry for the world’s equilibrium.” World leaders once worried about who was amassing power; now they worry about the absence of it.

Failed states have made a remarkable odyssey from the periphery to the very center of global politics. During the Cold War, state failure was seen through the prism of superpower conflict and was rarely addressed as a danger in its own right. In the 1990s, “failed states” fell largely into the province of humanitarians and human rights activists, although they did begin to consume the attention of the world’s sole superpower, which led interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. For so-called foreign-policy realists, however, these states and the problems they posed were a distraction from weightier issues of geopolitics.

Now, it seems, everybody cares. The dangerous exports of failed states—whether international terrorists, drug barons, or weapons arsenals—are the subject of endless discussion and concern. For all the newfound attention, however, there is still uncertainty about the definition and scope of the problem. How do you know a failed state when you see one? Of course, a government that has lost control of its territory or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force has earned the label. But there can be more subtle attributes of failure. Some regimes, for example, lack the authority to make collective decisions or the capacity to deliver public services. In other countries, the populace may rely entirely on the black market, fail to pay taxes, or engage in large-scale civil disobedience. Outside intervention can be both a symptom of and a trigger for state collapse. A failed state may be subject to involuntary restrictions of its sovereignty, such as political or economic sanctions, the presence of foreign military forces on its soil, or other military constraints, such as a no-fly zone.

How many states are at serious risk of state failure? The World Bank has identified about 30 “low-income countries under stress,” whereas Britain’s Department for International Development has named 46 “fragile” states of concern. A report commissioned by the CIA has put the number of failing states at about 20.

To present a more precise picture of the scope and implications of the problem, the Fund for Peace, an independent research organization, and FOREIGN POLICY have conducted a global ranking of weak and failing states. Using 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators, we ranked 60 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict. (For each indicator, the Fund for Peace computed scores using software that analyzed data from tens of thousands of international and local media sources from the last half of 2004. For a complete discussion of the 12 indicators, please go to www.ForeignPolicy.com or www.fundforpeace.org.) The resulting index provides a profile of the new world disorder of the 21st century and demonstrates that the problem of weak and failing states is far more serious than generally thought. About 2 billion people live in insecure states, with varying degrees of vulnerability to widespread civil conflict.

The instability that the index diagnoses has many faces. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Somalia, state failure has been apparent for years, manifested by armed conflict, famine, disease outbreaks, and refugee flows. In other cases, however, instability is more elusive. Often, corrosive elements have not yet triggered open hostilities, and pressures may be bubbling just below the surface. Large stretches of lawless territory exist in many countries in the index, but that territory has not always been in open revolt against state institutions.

Conflict may be concentrated in local territories seeking autonomy or secession (as in the Philippines and Russia). In other countries, instability takes the form of episodic fighting, drug mafias, or warlords dominating large swaths of territory (as in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Somalia). State collapse sometimes happens suddenly, but often the demise of the state is a slow and steady deterioration of social and political institutions (Zimbabwe and Guinea are good examples). Some countries emerging from conflict may be on the mend but in danger of backsliding (Sierra Leone and Angola). The World Bank found that, within five years, half of all countries emerging from civil unrest fall back into conflict in a cycle of collapse (Haiti and Liberia).

The 10 most at-risk countries in the index have already shown clear signs of state failure. Ivory Coast, a country cut in half by civil war, is the most vulnerable to disintegration; it would probably collapse completely if U.N. peacekeeping forces pulled out. It is followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Chad, Yemen, Liberia, and Haiti. The index includes others whose instability is less widely acknowledged, including Bangladesh (17th), Guatemala (31st), Egypt (38th), Saudi Arabia (45th), and Russia (59th).

Weak states are most prevalent in Africa, but they also appear in Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Experts have for years discussed an “arc of instability”—an expression that came into use in the 1970s to refer to a “Muslim Crescent” extending from Afghanistan to the “Stans” in the southern part of the former Soviet Union. Our study suggests that the concept is too narrow. The geography of weak states reveals a territorial expanse that extends from Moscow to Mexico City, far wider than an “arc” would suggest, and not limited to the Muslim world.

The index does not provide any easy answers for those looking to shore up countries on the brink. Elections are almost universally regarded as helpful in reducing conflict. However, if they are rigged, conducted during active fighting, or attract a low turnout, they can be ineffective or even harmful to stability. Electoral democracy appears to have had only a modest impact on the stability of states such as Iraq, Rwanda, Kenya, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Indonesia. Ukraine ranks as highly vulnerable in large part because of last year’s disputed election.

What are the clearest early warning signs of a failing state? Among the 12 indicators we use, two consistently rank near the top. Uneven development is high in almost all the states in the index, suggesting that inequality within states—and not merely poverty—increases instability. Criminalization or delegitimization of the state, which occurs when state institutions are regarded as corrupt, illegal, or ineffective, also figured prominently. Facing this condition, people often shift their allegiances to other leaders—opposition parties, warlords, ethnic nationalists, clergy, or rebel forces. Demographic factors, especially population pressures stemming from refugees, internally displaced populations, and environmental degradation, are also found in most at-risk countries, as are consistent human rights violations. Identifying the signs of state failure is easier than crafting solutions, but pinpointing where state collapse is likely is a necessary first step.


Copyright 2005, The Fund for Peace and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved. FOREIGN POLICY is a registered trademark owned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Comments on John Markakis's "Amhara: What is in a name?" * by Ashebir Alemu (Ph.D.)

A comment on John Markakis's article.
Visit the Ethio Media website at http://www.ethiomedia.com

Copy and paste the link on your internet browser.
http://www.ethiomedia.com/courier/comments_on_markakis.html

Comments on John Markakis's "Amhara: What is in a name?" *
By Ashebir Alemu (Ph.D.)
January 13, 2006.

t was with a great surprise that I learnt that the distinguished Ethiopianist John Markakis accepted the invitation of the TPLF/EPRDF and presented a paper at the Silver Jubilee of the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), only a few weeks after the TPLF/EPRDF security forces unleashed their attacks on peaceful protestors in many parts of Ethiopia.

The timing of Mr. Markakis’s presentation on a political platform that was carefully crafted by the TPLF reveals the true color of the presenter himself. His long business-like association with the TPLF regime as a lobbyist and as an academic providing “analytical” justification to the minority rule of TPLF and its sham institutions and structures to western donors and institutions was unmasked by the Bahir Dar Symposia.

Mr. Markakis presented a paper as a palace historian on the Jubilee anniversary of ANDM, attended the inaugural of the 40 Million ETB Monument for TPLF/ANDM Martyrs' paid by Sheik Mohammed Alamoudi. The ANDM anniversary and festivities were held in a town whose residents are angry because of the detention of their leaders and the killing of their children by TPLF forces. Mr. Markakis gave a paper in a town which was swarmed by TPLF Agazi Special Forces. Mr. Markakis gave a paper on the anniversary of an organization which does not still have recognition from the people it claims to represent. More interestingly, Markakis was one of the cohorts of the festivities of the anniversary, while many genuine academics working on Ethiopia are expressing their criticism about the violent ways the TPLF deals with its opponents and popular protests.

Markakis attempted to outline the long and complicated history of the Amhara people of Ethiopia from the prism of the ideology of the TPLF. That is why he made some grave errors and at times willingly deceived the historical facts to meet the wishes his bosses.

At the beginning of his short essay, Markakis reiterated that the image to which the name of the Amhara is attached appeared to be “…compact, firm, composed of pure, homogeneous matter, undifferentiated, united, undivided; in effect a monolith.” This is a very broad statement and is not applicable to any group of people. Considering a given group of people as “homogenous”, “pure” and “monolith” is at least problematic and at has a sinister motive. In the case of the Amhara, Despite there are so far no writers who claim that the Amhara view themselves as described as “compact”, “composed of pure”, etc. Such claim of ethnic purity was promoted by the Nazis of Germany. It is Fascists and Nazis who talk about ethnic purity not the Amhara people who are proud of their intermarriage and mixture with other nationalities of the country.

The most interesting statement in Markakis’s paper is the one which says “a political party that bears [the Amhara] name is unavoidably burdened with a heavy legacy from the past. The weight of this history is like a chain that binds a party to the past, forcing it to confront the yesteryear rather than address the future. When it comes to political contests on the national stage, this is a huge handicap. To use an analogy from boxing, the party is compelled to fight with one arm tied behind its back.” This statement reveals the true intention of both Markakis and his TPLF pay masters which have hired the eminent professor at their Ministry of Federal Affairs, where he is advising the TPLF minority regime how it could effectively entrench its power over the Ethiopian people through divide and rule. In this statement Markakis bluntly concludes that the Amhara should not have a political role in the present and the future of Ethiopia because of their “crime” of building the Ethiopian empire. This indeed accords well with the “Neftegna” singing of the TPLF and its surrogates.

The other assertion in which Mr. Markakis willfully deceived his readers is where he described the evolution of the “Amhara region”. Markakis asserted that the historic “ancien Amhara” province used to include Wollo, Shoa, Gojam, and Gonder. I am not sure that the medieval region of Amhara used to consist of the four provinces that are mentioned above. So far, there are no reliable historical sources which provide information about the exact geographic extent of the ancien Amhara province. Mr. Markakis pointed out that the ancien Amhara was reconstituted after by regionalization of Ethiopia after the coming to power of the TPLF in 1991. I do not know why the imminent professor evaded from mentioning the Amhara region which was created by the Italians (1935-1940).

In fact the there are several parallels between the Amhara region created by the Italians and the Amhara region created by the TPLF. I am sure it is clear to Mr. Markakis there are many parallels in the Amhara policy of the Italians and the TPLF. Both the Italians and the TPLF criminalized the Amhara because of their role in the past as empire builders. This was given analytical justification by Markakis paper at the Bahir Dar Symposia. Both the Italians and the TPLF followed a policy of inciting others against the Amhara. Mr. Markakis’s decision to exclude the Italian Amhara policy and the formation of the first Amhara region by the Italians not only show his academic dishonesty but also his sinister motive. After all, he belongs to those European scholars whose academic careers to a significant part depended on Amhara bashing. Markakis and his formers students at the then HSIU uncritically imposed truncated Marxian ideology and Soviet historiography to misdiagnose the Ethiopian society and ended up in giving wrong prescriptions, the result is ethnic animosity and ethnic bigotry. Wallelegn Makonnen’s application of Leninist characterization of Russia as “prison of nationalities” to Ethiopia is still uncritically celebrated by Markakis with no objective assessment of the positive or negative implications of the leftist ideology on Ethiopian contemporary quagmire. If Wallelegn was alive today, I do not think he would appreciate the monument erected by Sheik Alamoudi for Amhara martyrs which includes himself and the festivities for the anniversary of ANDM.

The other equally important misrepresentation in the paper of Mr. Markakis is the narration regarding the “transformation” of EPDM to ANDM. Markakis argues that EPDM was changed to ANDM to fit the ethnic federal model. I am sure that it is well known to Markakis from the very beginning that EPDM was sponsored by the TPLF and it is the TPLF which makes and unmakes its satellite organizations. It is therefore the TPLF which decided to change the name tag of EPDM to ANDM to facilitate its own control of power at a national level.

Indeed as pointed out in Markakis’s paper, the Amhara like other nationalities of the country are divided in political ideologies and organizations. But the argument that because of their past they should not play a role in Ethiopian politics is a mere academic justification for entrenching TPLF’s hegemony in Ethiopian politics. The TPLF indeed made a good investment when it decided to put on its payroll list people like John Markakis and Paul Henze. While Paul Heze is less sophisticated and archaic in his writings and presentations, Markakis has so far been subtle and sophisticated until he was unmasked by attending the anniversary of ANDM by a time when let alone expatriates but also Ethiopian officials are disdained to publicly seen with TPLF officials.

[*] Presented to the symposium organized by the Organizing Committee of the 25th Silver Jubilee of the Amhara National Democratic movement - ANDM

ETHIOMEDIA.COM - ETHIOPIA'S PREMIER NEWS AND VIEWS WEBSITE
© COPYRIGHT 20001-2006ETHIOMEDIA.COM. EMAIL: webmaster@ethiomedia.com

Amhara: What’s in a Name? by Professor John Markakis

An interesting article from Ethiopian News Agency(ENA)website.
http://www.ena.gov.et/

http://www.ena.gov.et/Articles/Amhara%20-%20What’s%20in%20a%20Name.asp

Amhara: What’s in a Name?
by Professor John Markakis

The occasion we have gathered here to celebrate has provoked certain thoughts I should like to share with you. They focus on the name of the party honoured on this occasion, the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM). Amhara is a name with an awesome history in Ethiopia , and a political party that bears this name is unavoidably burdened with a heavy legacy from the past. The weight of this history is like a chain that binds a party to the past, forcing it to confront the yesteryear rather than address the future. When it comes to political contests on the national stage, this is a huge handicap. To use an analogy from boxing, the party is compelled to fight with one arm tied behind its back.

History draws its subjects with broad strokes, and the case of Amhara is no exception. The image to which the name is attached appears compact, firm, composed of pure, homogeneous matter, undifferentiated, united, undivided; in effect a monolith. As such it has been linked to momentous political developments in Ethiopian history—‘Amhara domination’, ‘Amharization’ and also became a slogan ‘Amhara chauvinism’. These carry a strongly negative connotation in the current phase of political evolution in this country, and are the burden the party has to bear.

Inevitably, Amhara in its several guises became the subject of varied interpretations in a highly polarized political as well as scholarly debate. ‘Who is an Amhara?’ is a familiar question posed at one extreme, implying there is no such thing. ‘Once an Amhara, always an Amhara’ is a statement heard at the other extreme, implying that the nature of the thing is immutable. The object of this brief paper is to highlight certain of its features that have contemporary relevance, without necessarily joining the debate.

Looking at the past, as we must, Amhara lends itself to several definitions and connotations; historical, ethnological, cultural and political. In the first instance, it refers to the inhabitants of a region by that name in the Ethiopian highlands. Its geographical contours were anything but precise, and it itself disappeared as an unidentifiable entity for a long time, when it dissolved into its constituent provincial components—Gojjam, Gondar, Wolo, Shoa—only to re- appear very recently as a regional state in the FDRE. In the second (ethnological) instance, Amhara refers to a branch of the Abyssinian nation, whose other branch is Tigray. In the third (cultural) instance, Amhara refers to a language that is exclusively its own, and a culture it shares with Tigray.

It is the fourth (political) instance that became and remains the dominant facet of the image others perceive; the Amhara as empire builders and rulers, the founders of the modern Ethiopian state. (Broadly correct, this interpretation ignores the contribution of other groups—mainly Tigray, Oromo, Gurage in this historic event.) Like all empire builders, the Amhara used state power to appropriate resources from all regions of the empire to support an imperial ruling class of wealth and privilege. (More precisely, the Amhara took the lion’s share, and others shared the rest).

All these facets are familiar enough. However, they do not disclose a crucial historical fact which is brought out when a sociological definition is added to the previous four. Amhara society was rigidly stratified, with a vast peasant base supporting a narrow ruling hierarchy of aristocrats and clerics, a social structure often described as feudal. Whether one agrees or not with this description, there is no doubt that this society was based on class divisions, and only class analysis can highlight its implications. The main implication is that the Amhara peasantry, itself oppressed and exploited by the ruling class, realized little if any benefit from the empire. Indeed, by the end of the imperial era, the northern highlands were the most impoverished part of Ethiopia , and the people there were prey to famine. Seen from this point of view, Amhara refers not to a nationality but to a ruling class. “To include the peasant mass of northern Ethiopia in the designation ‘dominant’ is a gross distortion, for this class belongs to this group in cultural and psychological terms only.”

In consolidating its power over the empire, the ruling class – which comprised mainly Amhara but also elements of other groups, and is more precisely described as ‘neftegna’ – greatly expanded its horizons absorbing people from the conquered areas. The empire builders were an extroverted lot who mingled uninhibitedly with their subjects, settling among them, and taking local wives and concubines whose children invariably became Amhara. They also continuously recruited ambitious people from these areas who proved eager to join its ranks. The recruits had to pass a cultural entry test; that is, to espouse Christianity and speak the language of the Amhara. They formed an auxiliary elite that reinforced imperial rule.

This process of assimilation —known as ‘amharizaton’—promoted under the empire had an obvious political implication. Its goal was the fusing of Amhara and Ethiopian identities. Next to conquest and exploitation, ‘amharization’ was the most resented imperial imposition. The process was halted, but not reversed, later, and not before it had absorbed a significant number of people from diverse national and cultural origins.

Ethiopian political life since the demise of the imperial regime has been dominated by the imperative need to reverse and redress the iniquities attributed to that regime, in the midst of civil conflict whose roots are traced and blamed on the same regime, and against a background of seemingly permanent and worsening economic crisis. The military regime that followed imperial rule sought radical solutions and applied them forcefully, but succeeded only in exacerbating old problems and created new ones. All these are the stuff of a lively, if often strident, political debate, which the recently introduced federalism and creeping democratization have allowed to flourish.

Unsurprisingly, Amhara with its many links to the despised imperial past is a staple feature of this debate. Crudely put, any intervention from that source is perceived and denounced as motivated by the desire to restore the past with all its iniquities. ‘Amhara chauvinism’ is a powerful contemporary political slogan based on the presumption of an undifferentiated, unchanging political tradition and practice on the part of Amhara, however one defines this group.

In fact, Amhara lends itself to radically different political ideologies and practices, which often have been violently opposed to one another; never more obviously so, than in the uprising that ended imperial rule. This was provoked by radical counter- elite imbued with a revolutionary social ethos and the self-appointed mission of overthrowing the imperial regime. Modern education was the hallmark of the group that came to be known as the student movement, and the Amhara were its majority, if only because they had greater access to education earlier.

Amhara were heavily involved in the ranks and leadership of the student movement and the several political organizations that emerged from it to struggle against the imperial regime and its military successor. It is correct to say that Amhara were crucially involved in the struggle that ended Amhara imperial rule. Furthermore, the radicals denounced the ‘amharization’ of Ethiopia . It was an Amhara, Wallelign Mekonen, who first exposed what he labelled ‘a prison of nationalities.’

Rejecting the cultural chauvinism of the imperial regime, the radicals sought to define an Ethiopian identity free of links to any specific nationality to match their vision of the country and its future. I recall a stormy debate at the University in the late 1960s whose topic was ‘Etiopiawiw Manew?’ (Who is the Ethiopian?). Any mention of specific nationalities or regions was shouted down and, in accordance with the Marxist orientation of the radicals, the meeting concluded that it is the peasant who represents Ethiopia ; that is, a class definition.

The effort to arrive at a definition of a national identity divested of the Amhara link continued throughout the struggle against the Dergue, which witnessed the fragmentation of the radical movement. Ostensibly, the fracture divided those who chose class as the most effective basis of mobilization in that struggle from those who chose nationality for the same purpose. Underlying it, however, was the Amhara factor. The class advocates were accused of ‘greater nation chauvinism’, implying a persistent, exclusive Amhara claim to Ethiopianness, and the others of ‘narrow nationalism,’ implying a less than total commitment to the national state.

The organization whose anniversary is celebrated today emerged during that phase and bears the marks of it. It sprung from the ashes of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Party, the main advocate of the class struggle. Its original name was the Ethiopian Peoples Democratic Movement ( EPDM), and its envisaged constituency then was not simply an Amhara region, but the country at large. Some years later, it changed its name to Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM) to fit the federalist design of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), of which it had become a part. Its constituency then became the newly delineated Amhara region. With the name came the burden discussed above.

In the new constitutional arrangement, Amhara is one of several regional states, it is no longer politically dominant, nor is it synonymous with Ethiopia . While Amharigna remains the official language of the state and lingua franca of Ethiopia , the process of ‘amharization’ is overtaken by the emancipation of other cultures and languages in the country. This downgrading has not produced a homogeneous Amhara political response.

Another political organization—All-Amhara Peoples Political Organization (AAPO)—emerged to challenge the ANDM on its home region. Once more, Amhara appears with a split political personality. The new organization shared the burden that comes with the name Amhara, but this does not make it easier to bear for either party.
The AAPO later mutated into the All- Ethiopia Unity Party, a move that was interpreted as an attempt to shed this burden. It also became the core member of the Congress for Unity and Democracy (CUD), the coalition that presented the EPRDF with a major challenge in the elections of 2005. It was in this contest that the ghost of ‘Amhara chauvinism’ reappeared as a slogan with significant, albeit ambiguous, political resonance. Consistent with its history, the name and the slogan attached to it carry different meanings depending on the audience, and this makes it difficult to assess its true impact.

ትምክህትና ኢትዮጵያዊነት by ፎውዚ ዛካሪያና አበዶሽ አሊ

An article from aigaforum website - http://www.aigaforum.com
http://www.aigaforum.com/Amharic1.htm

Jan. 2, 2006

ትምክህትና ኢትዮጵያዊነት

ኢትዮጵያ ከ70 በላይ የሚሆኑ ብሔር ብሔረሰቦች መኖሪያና አነዘህ ሕዝቦች አንዱ ለሌላው መከባበርን እንጂ መናናቅን የግኑኝነታቸው መግለጫ ባለማድረግ ለአመታት በሰላም እየኖሩ ያሉባት የብዙሃን ሀገር ነች፤፤በጣም ትቂቶች ግን ትምክህት መለያቸው ያደረጉ ቢኖሩም ጥረታቸው ድካም እንጂ የኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ ልምዱ አብሮና አክብሮ መኖር ነው፤፤

ዲሰመበር 17 2005 አትላንታ፤ጆርጅያ በማህደረ አንድነት የአማርኛ ሬድዮ ፕሮግራም ሁለት አድማጮች መላውን የሐረሪ ብሔረሰብ መጋዝንና በረት የማይሞላ ሕዝብ በማለት ለአንድ ህዝብ ያለቸውን ንቀት በአየር አሰራጭተዋል፤ የዚህ የፀረ ሕዝብ ዘለፋቸው መነሻ ያደረጉት ግለሰቦች የወቅቱን የኢትዮጵያ ሁኔታ አስመልክቶ የሰጡትን የግል አስተያየት በመቃወም ሲሆን ግለሰቦች ግን አስተያየት ሰጪዎችን ብቻ ሳይሆን መላውን የሐረሪ ሕዝብ በመዝለፍ ማስተማር ሳይሆን ትምክህት የፖለቲካና የኢትጵያዊነት መርሃቸው መሆኑን አሳይተውናል፤፤

የዚህ የትምክህት ባህል ተወካዮች ለኢትዮጵያ ሰላምና አንድነት አሳቢዎች ሳይሆኑ ንድፈ-ሀሳባቸው ከበረት ውጭ ተግባራዊነት የማይኖራው ዘመን የቀደመው ድካም ነው፤፤ በሌላ በኩል ግን እንደማንኛውም ኢትዮጵያዊ የሐረሪ ግለሰብ ወይም ግለሰቦች የመረጡትን የፖለቲካ አስተሳሰብ ማራመድ የፖለቲካ መብታቸው ነው፤ይህንን የግለሰብን የመቃወምን መብት መነሻ በማድረግ የአንድን ብሔረሰብ ሕዝብ በጅምላ ማንቋሸሽ ትምክህተኝነት ነው፤፤የግለሰብ ሰብአዊ መብት የግለሰቡ ሚገኝበትን የብሔር ሕዝብ ብዛት መሠረት በማድረግ የሚታደል ስጦታ አይደለም፤ይህ መብት ጥያቄ ባልሆነበት አሜሪካ ውስጥ የሚኖሩና አካባቢየቸውን መምሰል ያልቻሉ እነዚህ ኢትዮጵያዊያን ሊገነዘቡት የሚገባ ነገር ቢኖር የባለ ብዙ ብሔር ብሔረሰቦች የሆነችው ሀገራችን የህዝቦችን ሰላም፣ የፖለቲካ፣የኢኮኖሚና፤ የማህበራዊ ዕድገትን ልታመጣ የሚትችለው፣በብዙነት ስሜትና አቅጣጫ በመሳት ሳይሆን፣ ብዙውና ኣናሳው መከባበርን በምያሳዩበት ሁኔታ ነው፤፤

በተረፈ እኛም ሆንን ሌሎች ሐረረዎች በኢትዮጵያነታችን የምንኮራ፤ ላንድነቷና ለድገቷ የምንታገል ኢትዮጵያዊያን ነን፤፤ በፀረ- አፄ ኃይለ ሥለሴና በደርግ ዘመን በወቅቱ ከነበሩት የፖለቲካ ድርጅቶች ኣባል በመሆንና ከሌሎች ኢትዮጵያዊ ወንድሞቻችን ጎን በመሰለፍ በመቶዎች የሚቆጠሩ የሐረሪ ተወላጆች የሕይወት መስዋዕት የተከፈለው ለባዕድ አልነበረም፡፡ ኢትዮጵያን ለተሻለ ሥርአት ለማብቃት እንጂ፤፤የኢትዮጵያዊነት ስሜት የሌላውን ሕልውና በማጥላላተ ሳይሆን የመከባበርና የመቻቻል ሥነ-ምግባርን ተግባራዊ በማድረግ የሚገለፅ የዜግነት ፅንሰ-ሀሳብ ነው፤፤

ትምክህት ግን የኢትዮጵያዊነት መግለጫ አይደለም፡፡

እናመሰግናለን፤፤

ፎውዚ ዛካሪያና
አበዶሽ አሊ

አትላንታ

High Time for Strong New Party: The Southern Ethiopian Congress (SEC) by Mogus Degoyae Mochena

The below article is taken from the Enset Ethiopian Blog site.

http://enset.blogspot.com/2006/01/high-time-for-strong-new-party.html

A Southern Perspective on Ethiopian Current Affairs
Monday, January 09, 2006

High Time For A Strong New Party:
The Southern Ethiopian Congress (SEC)

By: Mogus Degoyae Mochena

As Ethiopia convulses in political violence, we face new challenges and problems. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America, “The dogmas of the quiet past,are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”

In the wake of the political seismic wave of immense magnitude that ripped through Ethiopia, we, Southern Ethiopians, like other Ethiopians, have been shaken to our core. We are shocked and enraged by the scope of the brutality unleashed by Meles’ government. “A crackdown on this scale has not been seen in Africa for twenty years and the repression exceeds anything by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe for the past decade at least. Apartheid-era South Africa's onslaught against the black townships in the 1980s provides the only recent comparison", writes David Blair of The Daily Telegraph.

How sad it is, at the dawn of the twenty first century, when the exercise of democracy is commonplace throughout the world, we are being brutalized by megalomaniac leaders. How sad it is to see our psychotic leaders drag all Ethiopians through so much pain and tribulation to stay in power at any cost.

More than any other country in the world, this ancient country of ours, saddled with the most abominable level of poverty, desperately needs a stable peaceful political environment to overcome the disgraceful misery almost all of our fellow citizens face every day. Instead of working out solutions through dialogue to form a unity government, to our dismay and heartburns, we are now forced to confront an intransigent evil. The situation is so depressing that it may seem the easy way out of this conundrum is just to give up and bury one’s head in the sand like an ostrich. But how could anyone with an ounce of morality abandon tens of thousands of young people in mosquito-infested barracks at the mercy of inhuman thugs? How could we turn our eyes away from our people as they are being terrorized and humiliated? We can’t just sit around; we cannot escape the moral obligation that confronts us. We can’t give up. We must fight tooth and nail against the monsters. History will judge us unfavorably if we fail to do so.

Unfortunately, there is no recipe or charted path to overcome evil. One thing is for sure, that it will take the combined efforts of all Ethiopians to withstand EPRDF’s bestiality. In light of this, our struggle should be dual in nature: fighting in tandem with all other freedom-loving Ethiopians the repression of Meles on one hand and putting our own house in order on the other.

Yes, our house in the South is in shambles and must be put together. As we struggle with the rest of Ethiopians, we must also examine ourselves, our political organizations and the interests and aspirations of our people very carefully. This was once the region where the ray of freedom that spread into the rest of Ethiopia emanated in the 2000 elections, but now no more. Our region was once the beacon of hope and our people were the ones who passed the torch of peaceful struggle to the rest of Ethiopia, but now no more. What went wrong?

Our brothers and sisters were brutally killed by EPRDF forces during the 2000 campaign. Many more were imprisoned, and thousands went into exile for standing up to EPRDF. Our people chanted slogans of freedom and even mocked the death of EPRDF. “Where are you going?”, said the first group while going to one of the 2000 campaign rallies. And the second group replied, “to Wachamo”. “To do what?”, asked the first group. “To EPRDF’s funeral”, chanted back the second group. Way back when, in 2000, our people wished the death of EPRDF. They rallied in large numbers against EPRDF’s rule of corruption and incompetence. Has all this sacrifice of theirs been in vain? Fourteen, long years of sticking out their neck, for
what?

Even if all else is not well in the South at present, at least the torch of peaceful struggle was successfully passed to the rest of Ethiopia; the rest of Ethiopia responded, followed suit our people and voted against EPRDF in 2005 elections. The struggle reached its crescendo. Sadly, those who were once the vanguards of opposition against EPRDF, the people of the South, are nowhere at this critical juncture as a result of absent leadership. The leadership and elected members of the Southern Ethiopian Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) have chosen to sit as pots of plants in a kangaroo parliament lending legitimacy to a brutal dictatorship. Do our people deserve better leadership and representation after all that sacrifice?

A Brand New Party, A New Beginning

Why a new party is necessary now? Is it not just enough to reform SEPDC? Or is it just enough to become part of a “pan”-Ethiopian party; after all, the South is not any different from other parts of Ethiopia? Is it not better to be part of UEDF or CUD?

These are serious questions that need serious answers. How we go about laying our foundation now will affect the course of future politics in the South for many years to come. In order to choose the correct path for the future, we must scrutinize the recent political developments especially those right before and after the May 2005 election. We must size up our political standing in the midst of other contending entities, recognize our weaknesses and strengthens so as to build on our strengths and avoid from repeating similar mistakes in the future.

In all of these deliberations certain self-evident truths must be taken into account. Some of the historical dirty linen must be washed clean to build a stronger South and, consequently, a stronger Ethiopia. Certain incontrovertible facts must be exposed in order to find the right cure for the disease that is afflicting Ethiopia. The prime culprit among the causes for most of the turmoil we are experiencing is the unequal distribution of power and the lack of check and balance that prevents one group from dominating over the other. From a Southern vantage point, Northerners have dominated the Ethiopian political, economic as well as cultural landscapes for the past one hundred years since Emperor Menelik conquered the South. As a result, Southerners have been treated as second-class citizens. These ugly facts must be taken into account as we shape the future not only to be free from Meles’ dictatorship but from all forms of unequal relationships and dominations, and as we establish political alliances with others.

One could go back as far back as Emperor Menelik or Emperor Haile Selassie or The Derg or the beginning of TPLF rule in 1991. I will leave that to historians. For the purpose of this article and as we look forward the 2005 parliamentary elections could be taken as a watershed moment. After all, these elections were the first elections of their kind in which multi-party campaigns have taken place in this ancient country for the first time. And the results of the elections serve us as a yardstick to find out where we stand in the spectrum of the current Ethiopian politics.

The 2005 elections clearly exposed the Southern political landscape to all interested parties. Real numbers and actual results cannot be fudged, so we must analyze and understand them in order to learn from mistakes and plan for the future. The three major parties, CUD, EPRDF and UEDF garnered different degrees of support in the region. We have many questions to ask and also find answers for. Why did people in the towns mainly vote for CUD? Why did EPRDF succeed in zones like Woleyita and how is that related to its divide and rule strategy? Will Kaawo Tonna be proud of the Woleyitas who sold out to EPRDF? Why did SEPDC (UEDF) just win only in Hadiya and Kembatta? Why has SEPDC fared miserably after five years (since the 2000 triumph)?

The results clearly show a divide between towns and rural areas, and between different regions consisting of different ethnic groups. How could we then bridge these gaps between the different constituencies as we try to forge a strong NEW Southern Ethiopian Party? What kind of theme will galvanize the different components?

As things stand now, there is a big vacuum that has been created due to lack of a strong party. As a result, those with brutal force on one hand and others with better messages and stronger organization were able to sway votes in their favor. In the mean time, the lack of focused Southern leadership that could have organized its people contributed tremendously to the partitioning of the votes, eventually leading to a weak influence of the South on the national scene.

Setbacks are a way of life and are bound to happen from time to time. It is okay to fall down as long as one gets up. We may have received severe body blows, but we must rebound and reclaim what is our own. The South needs a very strong party, built on democratic principles, that appeals across the South. Right now there is no such party, it is time to form one. If you wander, if we have to do this from a scratch, my answer is not necessarily. We can patch up what is already present and build upon it. Existing parties are welcome if they want to join hands and form a stronger party. [For instance, The Southern Ethiopian Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) can undergo a major surgical procedure, transformed radically and can constitute a major wing in this NEW party. The New party will be much bigger than SEPDC with fundamentally different principles and will involve a much larger constituency. It will be a regional party in the strict sense of the word Southern and will be open to anyone residing in or affiliated with the South]. Even in the worst scenario, if we had to start from a scratch, we can learn a valuable lesson from an old Chinese saying : “A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.” We have to start somewhere and should not be afraid of starting what is timely. We cannot just sit around and not fill up the void created by lack of a strong party. I believe we can do it. Let us also remember the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another great American President, “The only thing to fear is fear itself.”

Our goal is simple and straightforward. We want something that is lasting that belongs to the people of the region and not to individuals. We want a political institution that is based on democratic principles. We want something that grows and not something that dwindles as years go by. We want a dynamic party that engages its people in its decision making, envisions the future and inspires its people to ascend to greater heights. We want leadership that listens to the voices of its people and prepares younger generation for the challenges of future leadership. We want continuity and not faith in just one individual. We do not want to throw all of our eggs in one basket. We want leadership that consults with its people and finds out what they think. We want a truly democratic party that attracts all of the South because of its ideas and promises. We want a party that challenges its elite to get involved and lead. Above all we want a truly Southern party that represents the South on equal footing around a round table of Ethiopian politics. We want to lead ourselves within the bigger tent of Ethiopia and fight for political, economic and social interests of the region.

I believe we can rise up to the occasion. If we do not do it , who will do it? Let us be bold. Let us form The Southern Ethiopian Congress.

The author would like:

• to exchange ideas about getting this New Regional Party off the ground.
• to hear from Southerners from different regions of South.
• to scout for leaders in Ethiopia who will lead this New Party. The current environment is difficult, but the groundwork must be laid and struggle must continue.

The author can be reached at mmochena@yahoo.com.

Ethnicity and Power in Ethiopia by Sarah Vaughn PhD

Ethnicity and Power in Ethiopia
Sarah Vaughn PhD
The University of Edinburgh (2003)
PP. 325.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/605/2/vaughanphd.pdf

Is the Face of Islam Changing?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/97/story_9701.html


Progressive scholar Farid Esack discusses fundamentalism, the Abyssinian model, and Muslim-Christian relations.

In the aftermath of September 11, South African scholar Farid Esack has become one of the most sought-after interpreters of Islamic thought in the United States. A progressive Muslim theologian who cut his teeth in the anti-apartheid struggle, Esack received his theological education in Pakistan. While studying in some of the same Karachi schools that also educated the leaders of the Taliban, he became increasingly disillusioned with both the narrow Islamic ideology and the oppression of Christians he encountered there. The Pakistani Catholics he met in the 1970s and early '80s introduced Esack to the ideas of liberation theology.

Currently a visiting scholar at Union Theological Seminary in New York, he is the author of On Being a Muslim and Qur'an Liberation & Pluralism.

In the U.S. media, you seem to have become the go-to-guy for a progressive voice of Islam. How large a movement is progressive Islam?

Like most religious movements, we claim we've always been there and that there have always been strands of it in Islam. But progressive Islam has never been in the forefront, has never been the accepted official theology. To be honest, we are a small minority in different parts of the world, but the current crisis seems to be pushing people into a greater understanding and appreciation of progressive Islamic theology.

What does progressive Islam offer in the current crisis?

We Muslims often argue about what the Prophet Muhammad did or didn't do, or about whether something was sanctioned by the Prophet or by early Muslims. Such theological precedents are very important to us.

Shortly after the bombing happened, as I was teaching a class and talking about Muhammad's life in Mecca and Medina, it occurred to me that it is a problem for us Muslims that we have only two theological paradigms and precedents on which to base our lives, and that that limitation is in part responsible for the mess that we are in. The one is the paradigm of a community of oppressed people in Mecca, and the other is of a Muslim community that is in control in Medina. What we don't have is a model for coexisting with other people in equality.

But there is a third way, what I call the "Abyssinian paradigm," which refers to the time when the Prophet sent a group of his followers from Mecca to go and live in Abyssinia. They lived there peacefully for many years, and some of them did not return, even after Muslims were in power in Mecca. They did not make any attempts to turn Abyssinia into an Islamic state. They sent good reports back about the king under whom they were living, and how happy they were living there.

This is the third paradigm that Muslims today more than ever need to revive because it is crucial for the sake of human survival and coexistence. Until recently the notion of coexistence and cultural tolerance was pretty controversial for mainstream Islamic thinkers, but I was surprised at a recent Muslim conference to hear more and more people talking about the need to revive this Abyssinian paradigm.



Mainstream Islam is beginning to listen to what we are saying. What kind of responses do you see within the Muslim community in the aftermath of Sept. 11?

I see mostly two responses, particularly within the Muslim community in the United States. The one asks, "How can we show people a different, a better face of Islam?" The other one--and it's not the majority response--asks, "How can we radically transform the faith of Islam?" And for that agenda it's incidental whether other people see a better face or not.

Beyond that, there have been many different reactions to Sept. 11 in the Muslim community. It is true that a significant part of the community has quite frankly secretly--and in some parts of the world, even openly--rejoiced in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another part of the Muslim world has been unequivocal in its condemnation and in sadness about these events.

Then there are others who, while sad about the loss of innocent human lives, nevertheless would have had no issue with seeing those buildings go. For them, the buildings were symbolic of a different kind of "terrorism" represented by the global economic system and its effect on the Third World. As a direct result of the bombing of Afghanistan, that kind of resentment toward the United States has further increased.

Is that resentment widely shared in the Islamic world?

I don't think it is limited to the Islamic world. For example, after the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, who sent thousands of Kurdish people to their death with chemical weapons, was voted "Man of the Year" by 94 percent of the African listeners of the BBC. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this year Osama bin Laden will emerge as Man of the Year in Africa.

Resentment of the U.S. is widespread across the Third World. On Sept. 11, people in many black townships in South Africa were rejoicing, as were some in Latin America. But the news value of this rejoicing only extended to reactions in the Middle East.

So while it is not a peculiarly Muslim phenomenon, this resentment does perhaps get aggravated in the Muslim world because for many Muslims it's a double anger. It's both an anger at the fact that the United States is controlling relations all over the world and an anger at the fact that Muslims are not the ones in control.

The particular Muslim resentment about not being the ones in control stems from ancient memories of the first Medina, the so-called "Golden Age of Islam," and the desire to return to this state of near-mythical perfection. Medina is seen as the perfect paradise on earth, as a time when Muslims ruled the world and everything about it is glorified and mythologized.

This mythical period is contrasted with the misery of today. The current image of the Muslim world is one of ruin and devastation, petty dictatorships and wars, starvation and begging bowls, and an endless current of refugees. So when you can't gel your glamorized version of your past with your current reality, it leads to a pretty messed-up psyche.

How large a role does the U.S. alliance with Israel play in driving the resentment of the United States in the Muslim community?

U.S. foreign policy on Israel is certainly a key factor. If one leaves aside the notion of God as a real estate agent, today's Israel is viewed as a colonialist implant in the Middle East. Its policies, particularly in the occupied territories, have created enormous resentment and bitterness. U.S. support for Israel is held up as the example par excellence of the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.

I believe in the right of Israel to exist. We have to accept reality, because too much water has flowed under the bridge. It's painful, of course, that even as we're talking, new realities are being created with the building of additional settlements-more water is being brought to flow under the bridge-precisely to take advantage of this kind of generous thinking that I'm expounding.

The U.S. armed Saddam to fight the Iranians; we armed the predecessors of the Taliban to fight the Soviets; now we're getting into bed with the Northern Alliance. Is the U.S. realpolitik approach to foreign policy contributing to our problems in the Middle East?

Absolutely. Much of what we have seen these days is really the comeuppance of earlier policies. The chickens are coming home to roost. But I don't think the United States has learned its lessons in terms of the allies it takes on board.

Now the U.S. government acts out of great anger. There is a kind of cowboy mentality that has set in. Nobody wants to think, and then people come and ask me, "OK, so tell us: What do you think we should be doing now?" That question is very narrowly focused on what we should do now in response to what has just happened and whether there is any alternative to bombing.



People don't want to discuss things in long terms; they don't want to look at the broader picture. It doesn't fit into a sound bite. If it takes longer than a minute, then we don't have the time. So now that we are in the middle of a war, is it too late to come up with constructive solutions?

Unfortunately, we know, and the government knows, that these terrorist networks are all over the world. They are very diffuse. In moments of anger, it's understandable to act a bit silly and to imagine that you're going to wipe out terrorism once and for all. But look, for example, at Britain and the Irish question, or Spain and the Basque problem. These problems have been running for decades and decades.

At the end of the day, there has to be an acknowledgment that there were grievances underneath all of these conflicts and that there is no way we will ever be able to sleep peacefully unless we begin to address these grievances.

Is the current crisis an isolated conflict with Islamic fundamentalists, or is this part of a broader conflict between the West and the Islamic world?

I see it as a clash between two religious fundamentalisms. On the one side you have the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the actions we have witnessed. All that clearly represents the fanaticism of a religious fundamentalism.

On the other side of the conflict we are dealing with another religious fundamentalism, one that is not generally recognized as such. The Buddhist theologian David Loy has described faith in the free market as a religion, a religion with a transcendent god, a god that is worshiped and that its adherents have a deep yearning to embrace and to be at one with--and that god is capital.

It also has a theology in the form of economics, a fundamentalist ideology that excludes all others. Its cathedrals are the shopping malls, and there is paradise or the promise of paradise for those who get on board. It is the fastest growing religion in the world today.

If you look at the language of your president, his notion of absolute evil and complete abhorrence, as well as Osama's language of complete abhorrence, neither recognizes the possibility of any grace on the other side. Both espouse very hardened kinds of fundamentalisms.

I don't think that Bush is the problem, but neither is Osama solely the problem. It's these fundamentalisms and what gives rise to them that are the crucial issue.

You've had a lot of contact with Islamic fundamentalists. How do you talk with them?

Sometimes I'm a bit adventurous. I recently went to a conference in Michigan of a very conservative Muslim group that had its origins in the broader Islamic fundamentalist movement. I expected to be walking into the lion's den, but instead I found that many people from this group were actually happy to see me and talk to me. It takes some courage to actually go and engage people, but we don't have an alternative to it.

I really believe that fundamentalism is a mindset. I'm currently teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York, and there are a good number of "fundamentalists" here. Fundamentalism can be economic, or it can be feminist. There are all sorts of fundamentalisms.

The fundamentalist mindset comes from insecurities and fears, and if you want to engage fundamentalists, you need to learn how to address these fears. It is a struggle that needs to be fought at personal, educational, and political levels.

But how could our political and cultural tension escalate to such awful terror acts?

You have to try to think this through from a different point of view. We don't have any problem understanding how the passengers of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania lunged to the cockpit to get to these hijackers. But they knew their actions meant that they were going to die in the process. The sure prospect of their own deaths didn't keep them from doing what they had to do to prevent greater harm, essentially to save a larger part of humankind.

Difficult as this may be for us to understand, in the twisted minds of these suicide bombers, they too saw themselves as giving their lives so that a larger part of humanity may live. For them the United States is the enemy, Satan incarnate, who is causing chaos and destruction around the world.

How does the history of the Christian-Muslim encounter over the centuries continue to play into current conflicts?

Both of us--Muslims and Christians--haven't learned adequately how to confront our histories. Muslim-Christian tensions continue to play a very important role. If you look at Kosovo, at Bosnia, at Chechnya, it's amazing the kind of incidents and anecdotes that people invoke. People speak about massacres of 400 or 500 years ago as if they happened yesterday. The memory of the past is still very much with us.

What should people know about the history of Christian-Muslim relations?

Certainly the importance of the Crusades. When after Sept. 11 President Bush talked about launching a "crusade" against terrorism, he apparently didn't know that was a bad choice of words. It's true that the word crusade has many other uses in the English language today--people talk about a crusade against guns or a crusade against immorality. But because of the history of the medieval Crusades, this word represents coded language for Muslims.

Of course, history also frequently is manipulated. For example, Jerusalem has only become as important as it is in today's Muslim imagination over the past 50 years. And that happened as a result of political tensions and interests. Today Jerusalem looms far larger in the Muslim religious imagination than it has ever before.



What can ordinary people do to help Christian-Muslim relations?

People need to begin to deepen their encounters with others. Interfaith dialogues are a good place to start.

It's true that sometimes they can seem like somewhat irrelevant forums for a polite show-and-tell. You meet with these other nice people and show them your religion's nice verses about peace and justice and living in harmony, and then you get a nice pat on your back from the other people in the interfaith forum: "Good boy, good boy."

In my book Qur'an Liberation and Pluralism, I took a different approach, looking not at the "nice verses" but rather at the difficult texts of the Qur'an.

I was reminded of that the other day when there was a letter in the New York Times from somebody who was upset about hearing that an imam had said that the Jews and the Christians will never be happy with you until you abandon your religion. She was upset with the imam, but the article she was referring to didn't mention that the imam's quote was actually from the Qur'an. Those kinds of things don't usually get dealt with when dialogue is stuck in politeness. As someone once put it, "Is there life after tea?"

But despite such limitations, by the end of the day, we don't have an alternative to engaging in conversation.

The village of the world that we live in today is completely intertwined. You can't unbake the cake of globalization. You can't separate the sugar from the flour from the water from the vanilla from the cream. What you do to Muslims in the world today, you do to Christians; and what you do to straight people, you do to gay people; what you do to black people, you do to white people; the essential condition of humanness today is interconnectedness.

How do you teach or promote this sense of interconnectedness and tolerance?

I think we need to move more consciously toward a new kind of internationalization that is based on what ordinary people have in common with each other, not on the interests of the elites. Instead of talking about the global reach of the Internet or fast food or fashions, this new internationalization concerns itself with the ties that link the struggles of farmers in Colombia, for example, with the farmers in the Philippines.

Religious people, of course, have always been at the cutting edge of this kind of universalization, in part because we've always believed that our messages were universal. At the same time we need to acknowledge that that has also had a downside when we have couched our universal religious messages in terms of superiority.

What's the particular role of the United States in today's interconnected world?

I think most people here don't have a very accurate perception of their country's role and relations in the world.

I sometimes think of the United States as a very large house that has a huge extended family living in it. The house is headed by the big brother. Every day he comes home with chocolates and sweets, and he looks after the family very, very well.

This family never actually leaves the house. So they have no idea where big brother gets all his goodies from, and they're not very interested in finding out either. They're only too grateful that he's sharing them. They have no idea that, with the help of other bullies in the neighborhood, big brother has been throwing stones and creating havoc all around the block and in other neighborhoods as well.

Then one day, somebody throws a huge brick into the house and hurts several of the family's little sisters and brothers. The family is both angry and confused because big brother has been regaling them with stories about how nice he has been to everybody in the world and how many sweets he has been dishing out to so-and-so. And now so-and-so has come and thrown this brick at the house and hurt the little kids.

So everyone is just completely puzzled at why anyone in the world would do something like that. But big brother quickly says, "It's just because they're jealous of me. They're not built as well and not as good-looking as I am."

Perhaps the challenge for the U.S. is to become less great--if you insist on defining greatness in terms of "well-having." I think the measure of greatness should instead be on "well-being." In the meantime it would be wonderful if the U.S. could exercise its greatness with more humility.



(C) 2002 U.S. Catholic. via ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved

A leap of faith

Early Muslims looked beseechingly to Ethiopia and sought refuge in its territory from their persecutors, the polytheist Arabians. But the Christian kingdom, besieged for 15 centuries by Islamic states that formed a formidable ring around it, refused to succumb to the new religion. Gamal Nkrumah explores the often contentious connection between Ethiopia and Islam

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/666/hr1.htm

Since time immemorial Ethiopia has retained her supercilious air. Throughout the centuries, the rugged Nile Basin country, bound to Islam from the religion's inception, has attracted scant attention compared to Egypt. Ethiopia's seclusion, however, did nothing to dispel its mystique. Ethiopia's ambiguous identity fascinated those outsiders who cared to take a closer look. Black, but not black enough. Christian, but only partially so. At once both primitive and civilised.

Numerous Arab and Muslim chroniclers have lavished praise on the only land beyond Arabia's borders that Prophet Mohamed turned to in his hour of need -- the only country that responded positively to his call for assistance. Perhaps the most important Arab treatise celebrating the special role Ethiopia played in early Islam was Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti's seminal work Raf' Sha'n Al- Hubshan (The Raising of the Status of the Ethiopians), written in the late 15th century. It was an earnest plea to reaffirm the equality of the races in Islam.

Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Maqrizi, who in 1435-36 wrote Kitab Al-Ilmam bi Akhbar man bi-Al- Habasha min Muluk Al-Islam (The Book of True Knowledge of the History of the Muslim Kings of Abyssinia), focussed on the mediaeval Muslim sultanates in the Horn of Africa, including those within the country today known as Ethiopia.

Jamal Al-Din Abu Farraj Ibn Al-Jawzi's The Lightening of the Darkness: On the Merits of the Blacks and the Ethiopians, written in the late 12th century AD, was another mediaeval treatise emphasising the non-racist principles of Islam. Others were far less charitable, suspiciously eyeing Ethiopia as an enemy of Islam. Indeed, Ethiopia has long been mistaken for a Christian country.

"Although the medieval legend of the Kingdom of Prester John, Europe's Christian ally beyond Islam, had been applied to various regions of Asia and Africa, Ethiopia as an exotic, remote mountain and Christian kingdom was an admirable candidate," explained Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilisation.

Interestingly enough, because Ethiopia is widely seen as an isolated bastion of the monotheistic religions in Africa -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- the ancient religious, linguistic, cultural and commercial ties that bind the country to ancient Arabia, Egypt and Nubia have often been overlooked.

"Furthermore, Ethiopia could very plausibly be linked to Ancient Egypt. It should, however, be made clear that the name Abyssinia was used precisely to avoid Ethiopia, with its indelible associations with blackness," Bernal notes. Indeed, many scholars believe that some of the pre- Christian religious practices in Ethiopia were influenced by those of Ancient Egypt.

Geographical proximity and linguistic affinity ensured that Ethiopia's history and culture were intertwined with that of Arabia since ancient times. Ethiopia emerged as a country of special symbolic significance at the dawn of Islam. "For Muslims, Ethiopia is synonymous with freedom from persecution and emancipation from fear," wrote a former president of the Washington, DC- based Federation of Ethiopian Muslims in North America.

Furthermore, the rich heritage of Islam can be found among the Ethiopian people who speak the Semitic and Cushitic Afro-Asiatic languages, which includes Arabic. Among the Cushitic speaking peoples of Ethiopia who embrace Islam are the Afar of the desolate Danakil depression, the Somali, the Oromo -- the most populous ethnic group in Ethiopia today, and the Sidamo. The Semitic speaking people of Harar are also Muslim.

The centuries-long legacy of Muslim arts is apparent all around the country, but especially in historical cities such as Harar. The people of Harar are culturally distinct from other Ethiopians -- both Muslim and Christian. They speak Adari, a Semitic language closely related to Arabic and Amharic, and have been staunch Muslims for the past 500 years. Adari, derived from the Arabic word hadar, meaning urbanite or urbane, emerged as the language of scholarship and trade in a huge swathe of eastern Ethiopia. Today it is largely confined to Harar and the Ahmar (Red) mountain range surrounding the city.


Click to view caption
Mosque in Shek Husen; Bale, southeastern Ethiopia; one of the surviving ancient gates of Harar; a mosque in Negash
northern Ethiopia the first mosque built in the country. Clockwise: An ethnic Afar beauty; an Oromo basket seller and Harari houses
ETHIOPIA IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF ISLAM:

Islam has deep roots in the land now known as Ethiopia, and which in the past was better known as Abyssinia. Baraka Umm Ayman, Prophet Mohamed's nurse who raised him after the death of his mother, was Ethiopian. She remained his lifelong friend and loyal confidante.

Pre-Islamic cultural and commercial links between Abyssinia and Arabia go back a long way as attested in the Holy Qur'an. The Qur'an's Sura of the Elephant recalls the pre- Islamic Ethiopian General Abraha's attempt to capture Mecca and demolish the Ka'aba that was diverted by mysterious birds that filled the sky and pelted the Ethiopian army with stones. Those among the mighty elephant-mounted Ethiopian force not crushed to death quickly dispersed. Mecca and the Ka'aba were miraculously saved.

Pagan Arabians, clansmen of the Prophet's own Qureish tribe, vehemently opposed the new religion revealed to their kinsman. They viciously and systematically persecuted his followers.

Among the oppressed was an Ethiopian slave, Bilal Al-Habashi, or Bilal the Abyssinian, who believed in the Prophet's message. He was tortured by his master Omaya Ibn Khalaf for his beliefs. The Ethiopian had a beautiful and resonate voice and he became the first muezzin, or caller to prayer, in the history of Islam.

When the Prophet Mohamed instructed a small band of his early followers to flee Mecca and cross the Red Sea in 615 AD, he knew that they would find safe haven in the neighbouring Ethiopian Christian kingdom.

First 10 then 40 others crossed the Red Sea for the court of the goodly king known in Arab tradition as Ashama Ibn Abjar, or Al-Nagashi Ashama. The party included such notables as the third Caliph Othman Ibn Affan and his wife Ruqayya Bint Rasulillah, the prophet's daughter. Among those given asylum in Ethiopia were two future wives of Prophet Mohamed -- Ramla Bint Abi Sufyan, better known as Umm Habiba, and Sawda Bint Zama'a. Some Ethiopian Muslim traditions claim that the Ethiopian king bestowed a golden dowry on Umm Habiba when she became betrothed to the Prophet Mohamed. Islamic chroniclers maintain that the Prophet Mohamed corresponded with the Ethiopian monarch and that when the king died, the Prophet performed the Salat Al-Gha'eb, or prayer in absentia -- the first such prayer recorded in Islamic history.

Interestingly enough, there is no explicit reference in the records of the Ethiopian Church corroborating the first hijra, or exodus, of early Muslims to Ethiopia. It is not entirely clear exactly where the early Muslims settled, but it is often assumed that they stayed in the vicinity of the ancient Ethiopian capital Axum. Neither the Ethiopian Church records nor king lists mention a king called Ashama, even though some Ethiopian sources traditionally name a Negus Adriaz as the righteous king in question.

Muslim tradition has it that the Ethiopian king converted to Islam and adopted the name of Ahmed, much to the consternation of his subjects, the court and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Prophet Mohamed, as a token of his gratitude to the deceased king, urged his followers to especially revere the Ethiopians and treat them kindly. "Utruku Al-Habasha wa tarakukum," Prophet Mohamed is said to have admonished his followers -- "Leave the Abyssinians alone, so long as they do not take the offensive."

The question arises as to why Ethiopia? The Prophet could have chosen a safe haven for his followers in any of Arabia's other neighbours: modern-day Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq or Iran. Instead he chose Ethiopia, largely, it is said, because of the righteous reputation of Ethiopia's king, the Negus or Al-Najashi. "Go to Ethiopia, there is a king there that is just," Prophet Mohamed told his followers. His counsel proved to be wise.

Iran, then known as Persia, was a pagan country and the far-flung provinces of the Byzantine Empire -- Egypt and Syria -- were teetering on the verge of rebellion. The Copts of Egypt asked the Prophet to intervene on their behalf and overthrow Byzantine rule.

Ethiopia, in sharp contrast, was a free and pietistic land ruled by a magnanimous monarch.

Ethiopia was also a black African kingdom. Europeans conceived it as such. For the Arabs, however, Ethiopia was a multi-racial land and hence they named it Al-Habasha, the Land of the Mixed Race People. Abyssinia, a term derived from the Arabic Al-Habasha, was a curious geographic construct. It was neither full- fledgedly black African nor was it thoroughly Arabised. It stood apart and always at the crossroads. It was an ancient Christian kingdom that had ruled huge swathes of the Arabian Peninsula. As such it had strong cultural and economic links with the people of Arabia, and especially those of Al-Hejaz (the region which includes Islam's holiest cities Mecca and Medina) and Yemen.

Islam's hold on Ethiopia was never absolute. Still, Ethiopia has the third largest Muslim population in Africa after Nigeria and Egypt. The country has between 30-40 million Muslims, although estimates vary considerably. Still there is a sizable Muslim community in Ethiopia, more numerous than the entire population of countries like Iraq, Algeria or Morocco. It is also a community that has long cherished its special bond with the Muslims of Egypt and Arabia.

In spite of the peaceful and idyllic characterisation of the country by the early Muslim exiles, Ethiopia at the time of the first hijra was a kingdom on the verge of dissolution. Its kings frequently had to go to war to reassert their authority in the outlying provinces, regain lost territory and meet the challenge posed by provincial rulers.

Ethiopia had just lost Yemen, which fell into Persian hands. This loss forced the Ethiopian armies to retreat to their mountain strongholds in northern Ethiopia.

With the spread of Islam, the old Christian kingdom of Axum in northern Ethiopia began a long process of decline. Not only were Axum's fortunes reduced, but the kingdom's territory diminished because tributary states and outlying regions seceded.

The Muslim world, following Prophet Mohamed's injunction, largely left Christian Abyssinia to its own devices.

The first hijra to Ethiopia is considered by some scholars as Islam's first true overseas adventure. A number of Muslim Ethiopian scholars claim that many words in Ge'ez are found in the Holy Qur'an. Both Ge'ez -- the classical Semitic tongue of Ethiopia -- and Arabic do share a strong and ancient linguistic affinity.

Today, in the remote northern Ethiopian hamlet of Nagash in eastern Tigray, a unique but unassuming mosque is said to stand on the exact location that was first settled by the early Muslim exiles to Ethiopia. Other parts of the country, however, contain important Muslim sanctuaries and holy shrines. In the town of Shek Husen in the old province of Bale, Muslim pilgrims from all over the Horn of Africa come in search of religious knowledge and blessings. The eastern Ethiopian federal city-state of Harar is another town considered sacred to Ethiopian Muslims.

ETHIOPIA AND THE MEDIAEVAL ARABIAN WORLD:

The ancient Christian kingdom of Abyssinia kept itself aloof from the Muslim world that engulfed it. The early eighth century, however, saw the mushrooming of Muslim communities which sprang up in different parts of present-day Ethiopia. These communities were not necessarily linked through politics or trade with Christian Abyssinia. Islam spread especially quickly among the nomadic peoples who inhabited the arid and far-flung corners of the country.

Arabian nomads lived similarly to the peoples of the Horn of Africa such as the Afar and the Somali peoples of the lowlands to the east and south of the Ethiopian highlands where the Christian kingdom flourished. Among the Oromo, another nomadic people whose language is related to those of the Afar and Somali people, Islam spread gradually. The Oromo shared the highlands with Christian Abyssinia, but the Oromo were predominant in the western, southern and eastern parts of the highlands, while the Christians were traditionally concentrated in the northeastern highlands.

The spread of Islam, as such, had no direct correlation with Axum's demise. But all of Ethiopia's neighbours -- save Nubia for a few centuries -- embraced the new religion.

Muslim traders monopolised the spice trade between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. Even though Ethiopia was located at the crossroads of the spice trade, it isolated itself and was largely excluded from the lucrative trade. The Christian Ethiopian Zagwe dynasty (mid-12th to mid-14th centuries AD) and the successive Solomonic dynasty (mid-14th century to 1974) virtually cut off the country from its neighbours. Egypt, however, maintained its connections with Christian Ethiopia and thus somewhat moderated the country's insularity.

Generally though, Christian Ethiopia in mediaeval times was a landlocked and largely self- engrossed kingdom. The Muslim sultanates of Ethiopia, however, were heavily involved in the spice trade. By the mid-16th century, there were 15 different Muslim sultanates in what is today Ethiopia. These Muslim states prospered tremendously because of their trading in coffee and spices. The most powerful and influential of these sultanates were Iffat (an Oromo sultanate in Shoa) and Adal (Afar). Other important kingdoms included Kefa, which was founded by the Sidamo people around 1400, and Jimma in southwestern Ethiopia. These latter two sultanates are reputed to be the original homeland of coffee.

The Arabic-speaking ports of Berbera, Massawa and Zeila on the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden were springboards from which the new religion spread into remoter parts of the region. The spread of Islam among the peoples of the Horn of Africa took place over several centuries. Islam was quickly adopted by the Somalis, the Afar, the Sidamo and many Oromo -- ethnic groups that are to this day predominantly Muslim. Ifat and Zeila became important Muslim sultanates, as did the Jimma and the Sidamo peoples, who had important commercial ties to Arabia and the Muslim countries bordering the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Tradition maintains that the mediaeval maltreatment of Copts in Egypt was reciprocated in Ethiopia by the persecution of the country's Muslims. The Mamluke Sultan Jaqmaq's (1438- 1453) correspondence with Emperor Zar'a Ya'qub showed how important the treatment of Muslim Abyssinians was to the rulers of Muslim states in the Middle East and North Africa, especially Egypt. Likewise, the treatment of Egypt's Coptic Christian minority by the Muslim rulers of the country was taken very seriously by the Ethiopians.

A letter written in 1290 by Ethiopia's Emperor Yibga Zion (1285-1294) to the Mamluke Sultan Mansur Al-Qalawun of Egypt (1279-1290) was typical of the mediaeval correspondence between Egyptian and Ethiopian rulers. "I shall protect the Muslims throughout my kingdom and His Highness will do the same with the Christians of Egypt; so let us unite in mutual understanding and common action, and let us go on corresponding."

The further strengthening of cultural ties between Egypt and Ethiopia during this period had a direct impact on the Muslim community in Ethiopia. During the reign of Emperor Dawit David (1380-1412), the translations made by Coptic monks from Arabic to Ge'ez made many Arabic texts readily available to the Ethiopians.

However, the co-existence of Islam, Christianity, Judaism and traditional African religions has not historically been an easy one. Sectarian tensions continued down the centuries, often erupting into deadly conflicts and devastating wars which marred the legacy of early Muslims in Ethiopia.

AHMED THE LEFT-HANDED AND THE RISE OF HARAR:

The legacy of the 1528-1560 Muslim-Christian wars that ripped Ethiopia apart was a mistrust between Christians and Muslims that never completely abated. Successive regimes have tried to gloss over the deep-rooted differences and have tried to foster a sense of national unity but the outcome of the wars continued to breed hostility.

At the heart of the jihad was the Muslim city of Harar, perched high in the Ahmar Mountains of eastern Ethiopia and long-regarded as the beacon of Islam and the holiest Islamic city in the country.

Harar became a Muslim power under Sultan Abu Bakr Mohamed in 1520. Its rise to prominence, however, was bloody and battle-ridden. Abu Bakr Mohamed was quickly toppled and killed by the religious zealot and military strongman Ahmed ibn Ibrahim, better known as Ahmed Gragn or Ahmed the Left-Handed.

The latter soon emerged as the scourge of Christian Ethiopia.

Ahmed Gragn's ultimate aim was to unite the Muslims of the Horn of Africa by establishing an Islamic state in the region. To accomplish this aim, he launched a holy war or jihad against Christian Ethiopia. Gragn at first appeared to be invincible. His armies overran Shoa in 1529, Amhara in 1531 and finally Tigray in 1535. The ancient Christian kingdom of Ethiopia appeared to be mortally wounded. Only a miracle or divine intervention could save Christianity in the country. According to Ethiopian Church records, nine out of every 10 Ethiopian Christians were forced to convert to Islam as a direct result of Ahmed Gragn's campaigns. His goal was the complete Islamisation of the country.

Relations between the Christians of northeastern Ethiopia and the thriving Islamic sultanates of eastern, central and southwestern Ethiopia were traditionally characterised by a tense co-existence. With Ahmed Gragn's campaigns, open hostilities and conflict became the norm. At stake was the destiny of Ethiopia and the entire Horn of Africa, as well as the cultural orientation of an ancient multi-linguistic and multi-religious land.

Ironically, it was the timely intervention of Portugal -- a Roman Catholic European power -- that saved Orthodox Christian Ethiopia. Lebna Dengel, the reigning Christian emperor at the time, sent urgent dispatches to the Portuguese requesting their aid. In 1540, some 400 Portuguese troops arrived to train and arm the Christian Ethiopian army. For the first time in Ethiopian history, guns were used on the battlefield. The tables were turned and the Muslim forces fled. The introduction of firearms determined the course of battle and the future of the country. The Muslim armies, however, were still able to exile Dengel to the impregnable Monastery of Debra Damo in Tigray where he later died in 1543. His son Galawdewos ascended the Solomonian throne and died in 1559 during his siege of Harar, after which his head was paraded around the city on a stake.

The arrival of the Portuguese represented a reversal of fortunes for the Muslims of the Horn of Africa. They never fully recovered from their defeat at the hands of the Ethiopian Christians and their Portuguese allies. Despite the attempts of Gragn's widow, Bati Del Wambara, to carry on his jihad, the Muslim Sultanate of Adal was finally destroyed by Christian Ethiopia in 1577. For centuries, Muslims were forced to play second fiddle to Christians.

Muslim traders and scholars from Harar, however, continued to have a tremendous influence on the Islamisation of other parts of Ethiopia and different ethnic groups of the country.

In 1647 Emir Ali Ibn Dawoud ruled Harar with an iron fist, and in a determined effort to Islamise the non-Muslim Oromo tribes surrounding the city, he embarked on a series of jihads. Today the bulk of Ethiopia's Muslims are Oromo, but many of the country's Muslims regard Harar as their spiritual centre and the guardian of Islamic culture and scholarship in the Horn of Africa.

Harar had its own currency and established diplomatic relations with a number of Muslim states in the region, but its autonomy was abruptly ended when Khedive Ismail of Egypt dispatched forces that occupied the city, and executed its emir. The Egyptian occupation of Harar was short-lived. In 1885 Emir Abdullah of Harar led a resistance movement that ended the Egyptian occupation.

Egyptian interest in the Nile Basin countries intensified after Mohamed Ali Pasha, the founder of modern Egypt, set his sights on the Sudan. In 1820-1821 Mohamed Ali's armies conquered the entire Sudan and proceeded to expand into central Africa and the Red Sea Basin, thereby encroaching on territory under the control of the Christian Abyssinian kingdom. The Pasha's expansion included clashes with Muslim sultanates in the Horn of Africa.

Mohamed Ali's successors advanced even further into the African continent. The Pasha's house greedily embraced the worst aspects of Western colonialism. The entire Nile Basin, with the notable exception of the Christian Abyssinian kingdom, was now in Egyptian hands. Certain kingdoms in the African Great Lakes region, like Buganda, also remained outside the Egyptian domain. The Egyptians soon adopted the European approach of condescendingly looking down on African cultural traditions and arrogating a civilising mission for themselves.

Khedieve Ismail's designs on an African empire were checked by Ethiopian Emperor Yohannes IV in the events leading up to the Battle of Gura. Britain and other European powers were determined to check Egypt's southward expansion. They wanted to make sure that Khedieve Ismail's grandiose designs to create an pan-Nilotic empire were crushed. The Europeans saw Ethiopia as a key ally in a plot to dash Ismail's plans.

The Egyptians were headquartered in the Red Sea port of Massawa, today the chief port of Eritrea. The stage was set for a showdown.

Khedieve Ismail deployed American mercenaries at the head of his 15,000-strong army. The Ethiopian Emperor Yohannes IV mustered some 60,000 crudely-armed warriors. After a series of battles, an estimated 8,500 Egyptian troops perished and beat a hasty retreat to Massawa. While Ismail retained control of Massawa and the Red Sea coastal strip, he pledged never to re-enter the Ethiopian highlands.

The Ethiopian victory at Gura in 1876 was the forerunner to the even more impressive and far- reaching Ethiopian defeat of the Italians at Adwa in March 1896. The Battle of Adwa was the first major victory of an African army over a European power. Egypt's overwhelming loss paved the way for British occupation of Egypt in 1882.

The great powers of Europe, and especially Britain, took a keen interest in the Horn of Africa and the Nile Basin. Ethiopia too was fast changing and the Christian Solomonian rulers of the highlands were expanding their domain into lands towards the south and east -- predominantly Muslim territories. In 1887, Harar lost its independence as an ancient Muslim sultanate when Menelik, the Prince of Shoa who would later become the founder of modern Ethiopia, defeated Emir Abdullah at the Battle of Chelenko. Menelik appointed Ras Makonen, the father of the future Emperor Haile Selassie, as ruler of the city. A new administration was set up which incorporated members of the deposed emir's family.

As Harar was the birthplace of Ras Tafari, who was later to assume the imperial title Haile Selassie, the city developed a special symbolic importance. The respectful treatment of the city's predominantly Muslim population by the new Christian rulers became a focus of Arab scrutiny and a catalyst for Muslim-Christian relations in Ethiopia.

ABYSSINIAN APARTHEID:

The first Ethiopians to embrace Islam did so during Prophet Mohamed's own lifetime. Their descendants were historically known as the Jabarti or the Muslims of the Ethiopian highlands. The Jabartis lived relatively peaceably among their Christian and Jewish compatriots until an Ethiopian imperial decree was issued in 1668 which ordained that Jabartis (Muslims) and Felashas (Jews) would have to reside in separate quarters from the Christians. This effectively created a state of religious segregation.

The decree was no doubt inspired by the Portuguese, who began to meddle in the affairs of the country around that time. Portuguese mercenaries settled in the regions adjacent to Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile, during the reign of Emperor Susneyos (1607-1632). Gradually gaining influence over the Ethiopian throne, the Portuguese in 1622 announced the official conversion of Emperor Susneyos to Roman Catholicism, much to the chagrin of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Solomonian aristocracy. Susneyos went on to persecute his Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish subjects. Thousands were butchered in massacres that were inspired by the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions.

Susneyos surrounded himself with a protective ring of Portuguese mercenaries who soon came to dominate his court. His people, however, rebelled and in 1632 Susneyos was forced to abdicate and his son Crown Prince Fasilidos became Emperor.

This tragic episode in Ethiopian history had far-reaching repercussions. First, it galvanised the people of the Ethiopian heartlands around the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the ruling elites officially adopted Orthodox Christianity as the state religion. Europeans were viewed suspiciously and the country deliberately shunned outside influences. Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews were precluded from ascending the imperial throne which became the exclusive prerogative of Orthodox Christians.

The Solomonic tradition continued well into modern times.

THE RECENT HISTORY OF THE SOLOMONIAN DYNASTY:

After the death of Menelik II in 1913, Lij Iyasu ascended Ethiopia's Solomonian throne. Lij Iyasu, the grandson and designated heir of Menelik II, was viewed suspiciously by the imperial court and the Christian Orthodox aristocracy. He was regarded as overly friendly towards Muslims. Indeed, even though officially an Orthodox Christian, many of his courtiers suspected his secret conversion to Islam. Several of Lij Iyasu's wives were Muslim and while his admirers saw these marriages as important political alliances that cemented ties with the far-flung and newly conquered Muslim regions of the empire, his critics felt that the country was in danger of becoming a Muslim dominated state. The Orthodox clergy and nobility conspired to remove Iyasu.

In 1916, Iyasu was ousted and he fled to the inhospitable and predominantly Muslim lowland region inhabited by the warlike Afar. Princess Zewditu, Menelik II's daughter, was hastily crowned Empress of Ethiopia. Iyasu was captured by imperial forces five years later and was incarcerated in Fiche, northern Shoa. It was not the first time that an Ethiopian monarch suspected of being sympathetic to Muslims was politically sidelined. It simply reinforced a long- standing tradition.

Strangely enough, it is held that certain members of the Solomonian royal family were Ashraf -- that is they claimed descent from the Prophet Mohamed. A relatively recent example was the Empress Menen, consort of Emperor Haile Selassie, who claimed she was descended from the Prophet Mohamed through her mother Sehin, daughter of Negus Mikael (alias Mohamed Ali) of the old province of Wollo.

THE ETHIOPIAN PROSPECTIVE CASE

One of the many publications of the Rand Corporation on Ethiopia: http://www.rand.org/

Excerpt:... Ethiopian Prospective Case 207 Table 5.5 Patterns of Closure by Ethnicity in Ethiopia Political Economic Social Overall Amhara Low Low Low Low Tigrayan Low Low ... Application of a Process Model Table 5.6 Ranking of Ethnic Groups in Ethiopia Privileged Amhara  Tigrayan  Aderi/Harari  Gurage  Oromo ↓ Somali Dominated Afar spaced, and ...

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1188/MR1188.ch5.pdf

Prof. Clapham's reply to State Minister Takeda Alemu

Posted by Kebeta on the www.medrekforum.com website,

http://www.medrekforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26770

Prof. Clapham's reply to State Minister Takeda Alemu
(Distributed with the author's permission.)
5 December 2005
H.E. Takeda Alemu,
State Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Addis Ababa

Dear Takeda,

Thank you for your open letter of 17 November, raising some points about my earlier ‘Comments on the Ethiopian Crisis’. I have received so many messages of thanks and congratulations since those comments were published on the internet that it is entirely right that I should also be subjected to some more critical observations, both from yourself and from others. Ethiopia is an extremely complex country, about which there is understandably a great variety of opinions, which are held with sincerity and – especially at times like the present – often with passion. All I can do is put forward my own views, together with the reasons that lead me to hold them, and leave to others the opportunity to present alternatives. I was particularly pleased to receive your comments, not only because of your deservedly high position in the Ethiopian Government, but because I have known you since we both taught together in the Department of Political Science and International Relations in Addis Ababa University exactly twenty years ago, when I was a visiting professor there and you were teaching with great dedication on a part-time basis, while already holding a high position in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Thank you also for referring so generously to the presentation about Ethiopia that I made at a meeting in South Africa which we both attended in April 2004. It may be helpful to note the circumstances both of this presentation, and of my more recent comments, to help explain the differences in tone (though not, I think, in basic argument) between them. The meeting at Tswalu was a gathering by invitation of a number of very notable Africans, together with a few external commentators, to think over some of the issues facing the continent in the relaxed atmosphere provided by a private game lodge in the Kalahari. The theme on that occasion was the particular problems involved in governing Africa’s largest states – including Nigeria, Ethiopia, South Africa, and the Democratic Republic of Congo – and I was particularly honoured to be invited to make the initial presentation on the Ethiopian case, to which (as you note) it was expected and intended that Ato Meles Zenawi would reply. In the event, other urgent commitments of the kind that a Head of Government can never escape prevented his attendance, and you very ably substituted for him – though, inevitably, without quite being able to fill the gap left by such an articulate leader. Since the whole object of the occasion was to promote a friendly and constructive discussion, and since in any event there are proper diplomatic courtesies which need to be respected when addressing a national leader about issues in his own country, the misgivings which I already felt about some of the developments in Ethiopia were couched in a coded form with which Ethiopians are perfectly familiar, and which Ato Meles would undoubtedly have decoded and taken up. Your own comments on my presentation at the time were much kinder than I suspect that Ato Meles’ would have been. The paper has since been revised, in the light of comments at the meeting (including your own) and subsequent developments, and will be published early next year in a volume on governing large states in Africa by Witwatersrand University Press. The most important of those subsequent developments are of course the May 2005 elections in Ethiopia and their repercussions. Since these had not occurred at the time of the original presentation, I obviously could not take them into account, and it was only fair to maintain an open mind tinged with optimism towards the future. Sadly, some of my misgivings have now been realised.

The paper with which you compare it, my ‘Comments on the Ethiopian Crisis’, was written in response to a request from my old friend Paul Henze for my views on what was happening in Ethiopia at the present time. Paul and I have talked and corresponded over Ethiopian affairs for many years, and I was happy to take this opportunity to do so. In the event, my views turned out on this occasion to be rather different from his, and he replied with a statement of his own position which you will certainly have read. Since I had also sent my comments to a number of other people who had asked for them, Paul’s response followed, and before we knew where we were, an exchange of views between friends had turned into what I have seen referred to on the internet as ‘the great Clapham-Henze debate’, to which other commentators including yourself have in turn contributed. A paper written originally as a personal letter will inevitably differ in tone from one written for a public occasion in the presence of the national leader, but the underlying argument is the same. There are not two Professor Claphams, as you are inclined to suppose, but just the one. Nor do I in any way regret that my comments have now become public. For one thing, when academic commentators express opinions that may (if your own assessment is correct) have some impact on events, it is only right that they should do so in a form in which they can be openly assessed and criticised, rather than through secretive channels. And equally, I feel that one thing that concerned outsiders such as myself (and of course Paul Henze and others) can do to help Ethiopia at times such as the present is to make our expertise (such as it is) available in the form of open comment and analysis. I am deeply aware that as a retired academic I have a position of privilege denied to many others (including yourself) who are necessarily constrained in what they can write, and which should not be abused.

To come onto the substance of your comments, I would certainly start by agreeing that in a great many respects, the EPRDF regime has been a very significant improvement over its immediate predecessor – not, admittedly, that this would be difficult. Considerable improvements have been made in liberalising the economy (despite some continuing weaknesses), and there has been a dramatic improvement in the openness of the society, notably through the emergence of a free press. The EPRDF likewise came up with an imaginative policy for resolving the age-old problem of ‘nationalities’ in Ethiopia, through the recognition of the right to autonomy and (in extreme cases) secession. This policy certainly carried considerable dangers, and would inevitably be subject to criticism, whether on the one hand for destroying the unity of the Ethiopian state and nation, or on the other for serving as a cover for continuing highland (and in this case notably Tigrayan) rule; but there was a clearly articulated rationale for it, for which the government deserves credit. There was certainly a basis for the positive elements to which I drew attention in my Tswalu paper, and which you recall in your open letter.

The problem with which I was concerned in my recent Comments was however a different one: to explore the evident weaknesses in the government’s political position that were made all too apparent by the elections and their aftermath, and to ask how these could be explained. I am somewhat reassured that neither you nor any of the other critical commentators on my paper have seriously undertaken to challenge the analysis that I made in the first two pages or so of my Comments, and which therefore continues to stand. This analysis was not concerned with whether the EPRDF regime should be regarded as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – something that I am quite prepared to leave to Ethiopians to decide for themselves – but rather why it had failed to translate its achievements into electoral support. In some respects, indeed, the EPRDF regime may be compared to the Haile-Selassie monarchy, whose slow demise I observed some forty years ago, and which had likewise created expectations that it was then unable to realise. Just as Haile-Selassie did much to create the class of educated Ethiopians who eventually turned against him, so the EPRDF, through its opening up of political space and especially the mobilisation of ethnic identities, has helped to create the forces that are now challenging it.

The central problem has been its failure to foster the political institutions and processes that were needed to make the new system work. ‘Politics’, in a pluralist society such as Ethiopia has now become, is a process that involves recognising the autonomy and legitimacy of different sources of organised political power, and then devising mechanisms for achieving agreement, by arguing, listening, persuading, forming common cause with people and groups with which you agree on some things (though not everything), and symbolising identities and aspirations that large numbers of your fellow citizens share. I recognise, as I noted in the Tswalu paper, that this has been particularly difficult to achieve in Ethiopia, but there is nonetheless no alternative to it. It is something that Ethiopians have to learn, however hard it may be. And it is also something that the EPRDF government has been particularly poor at achieving. This would have required the government, having created regional autonomy on a ‘nationality’ basis, to recognise the right of the different nationalities to choose their own leaders, who would necessarily have held rather different views from the government in Addis Ababa, and have been answerable to their own peoples. They would in turn then have needed to bargain over policy with the leaders of other nationalities and with the central government. This has never been allowed to happen, and the EPRDF is paying the price for it. A particularly telling example was the killing in May 2002 of Sidamas who were peacefully demonstrating over an issue as manageable as the status of the city of Awassa.

In making these comments about the failures of the government, it was certainly not my intention to express unqualified support for the opposition, and notably the CUD. They too, like the EPRDF and other opposition groups such as the UEDF, have their weaknesses, and they too need to learn the arts of political management. The same goes to an even greater extent for those groups and individual commentators who pass judgement on Ethiopian affairs from the sanctuary of the diaspora, and because they need only to address external audiences, have no need to adapt their comments to political realities in the country itself. One of the great hopes opened up by the recent elections was that they would encourage open political argument to take place within Ethiopia, and would enable groups which have hitherto engaged in exile politics (among which the OLF is particularly significant) to return home and participate in the complex and extremely difficult task of devising an acceptable political order for Ethiopia and its peoples. Correspondingly, the greatest tragedy of the recent developments is that those who did with great courage engage in democratic politics within Ethiopia, and who showed themselves in the process to enjoy very considerable popular support, have been imprisoned and charged with capital offences by the government of which you form part, while some of their supporters have been killed on the streets of Addis Ababa. While there must be considerable doubt about whether the leaders of the opposition parties deliberately engaged in violence, and I am inclined to accept the view of Amnesty International that they did not, there can be no doubt at all that the present Ethiopian government was prepared to engage in very considerable violence as soon as it found that its position was threatened. In these circumstances, those who continue to criticise the present government from the safety of exile can scarcely be blamed for refusing to risk their own necks by doing so at home.

Politics is a trade in which there is no alternative to experience: it is only by engaging in the very challenging task of attempting to govern a country as difficult as Ethiopia that politicians can learn what is and is not practicable, and acquire the skills needed for the purpose. The EPRDF showed rapidly after 1991 that the attitudes gained in opposition could rapidly be adapted to the needs of government, under circumstances very different from those to which they had become accustomed during their long struggle against the Derg regime. They were greatly assisted in the process by the willingness of dedicated civil servants such as yourself to remain at their posts, and guide them in the learning process that they certainly required. (It was, I suspect, in large part because they lacked the stabilising influence of an inherited state apparatus that the EPLF in Eritrea was quite unable to make the same transition as the EPRDF in Ethiopia.) The leadership of the present domestic opposition parties, as I pointed out in my previous Comments, come from a far more conducive environment than did Ato Meles and his colleagues. But they too have a lot to learn, and it is a tragedy that the opportunity for them to do so now appears to have been irreparably lost.

The principal task facing whoever governs Ethiopia is clearly to find some way (or indeed, at worst, to find whether there is a way) of reconciling the different social and political communities of which the country is composed. The CUD, in seeking to represent the aspirations of those many Ethiopians who feel that the country comprises, as base, a single political community, was certainly speaking for a legitimate political community that had every right to a voice. But those who seek to represent other constituencies, and notably those of specific nationalities such as the Oromo, the various southern peoples, and the Somalis, likewise have a legitimate voice that has every right to participate fully in the political process. Should the leaders of the CUD have supposed that they could reconstitute the kind of relationship between the central government and the various nationalities that existing under the Haile-Selassie or Derg regimes (and I have no reason to believe that they were so foolish), then they would rapidly have discovered that this is no longer an option in today’s Ethiopia. That is what a democratic learning process is about. Such a process is needed every bit as much on the part of those who claim to represent the various leading nationalities. I would in particular very much welcome a considered analysis of recent developments, including the levels of support gained in the recent elections by the different opposition parties in various parts of Oromia, from a qualified Oromo commentator, and much regret that I have not yet seen one.

I likewise make no apology for referring at a number of points to the distinctively Marxist intellectual frame of reference of the leading members of the present government, and to its influence on many of their attitudes and policies. It is certainly the case, as you point out, that almost all educated Ethiopians of their generation held Marxist views; many did so with great dedication at times of intense danger, and lost their lives as a result. This was not mere student fashion, but a serious attempt to work out an intellectual response to the evident problems of Ethiopia, for which I have every respect. For many of those who remained in Derg-controlled Ethiopia, Marxism lost its allure as a result of the brutality and appallingly mistaken policies committed in its name. But for those like Ato Meles and his colleagues, who adapted it as an ideology of insurgent warfare (which across the world, from China through southeast Asia to southern Africa, Yugoslavia and Cuba, has unquestionably been the role in which Marxism has been most successful), their deeply held Marxist precepts could only be reinforced by their eventual triumph. Despite their evident success in adapting to the changed global situation since the end of the Cold War, these precepts continue in my view to inform their behaviour, across a range of policies from land tenure to their own conception of their right to rule, and the ‘democratic centralist’ organisation of the EPRDF itself.

One area in which I am happy to acknowledge an improvement is in Ethiopia’s receptivity to foreign investment, even though little investment has actually been received, and much remains to be done. The impressions cited in my Comments derived from the time of the Tswalu conference. However, Ethiopia’s position is dramatically less favourable than the impression given by your colleague suggests. On the website most widely used by corporations for assessing the ease of doing business around the world, http://www.doingbusiness.org,/ Ethiopia ranks 101st out of 145 national economies in the overall ease of doing business. On the specific indicator that you cite, the time taken to start a business, Ethiopia ranks 94th, with a time required of 32 days – a far cry from the 2 hours that you claim. I suggest that you ask your colleague to check his own figures against those of an objective external source, and either draw attention to any ways in which he may feel that Ethiopia’s performance has been undervalued, or else adapt his assertions to achieve some measure of credibility.

On the other hand, since you choose to liken the Ethiopian political process to a soccer game, in which there are rules administered by referees, I must also suggest that this analogy becomes somewhat misleading when the referee is also one of the players. Neutral referees can only be found amongst those who do not themselves have a stake in the outcome of the game, two examples of which to whom you refer are Dr. Pausewang of the Christian Michelson Institute in Norway and Ms. Ana Gomes of the European Union observer mission. In each case, you repeat allegations that the referee was biased against you. On the basis of my own long familiarity with his work, I can only testify that Dr. Pausewang is an experienced observer of scrupulous honesty and impartiality, who has the interests of Ethiopia and of all Ethiopians very much at heart. Ana Gomes earned widespread respect for her courage and integrity in East Timor, and attempts to disparage her can likewise only be counterproductive, especially in Europe. The team that attacks the referee is usually the one that has been committing the fouls.

I am sorry that my views on recent issues should have set me at odds with two such old friends as yourself and Paul Henze, but hope that the expression of our respective opinions will help to contribute to constructive discussion on issues which are very much in need of public debate. I appreciate that you write as a member of a government whose views must necessarily reflect those of the administration that he serves, and would like to assure you that my respect for your abilities is in no way diminished by the opinions that you have been called on to express.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Clapham
Centre of African Studies, University of Cambridge

Interviewing Eftin's Zerehun Teshome

An Interview
Hager Fikir Radio's Niguse Weldemariam, interviewing Eftin's Zerehun Teshome

PartI
http://www.aigaforum.com/audiovideo/zerehuninterview1.smi
PartII
http://www.aigaforum.com/audiovideo/zerehuninterview2.smi

What politics in Ethiopia Lacks by Dr Tajudeen, a Ugandan

A viewpoint on the Ethiopian Politics, posted on the Addis Fortune website at

http://www.addisfortune.com/web_issue/view_point.htm



Recently, the stories in Africa appear to have been written by the same author, but adapted during translation. Political forces that once fought and ousted despots are now being challenged with completely new rules of engagement, otherwise known as electoral politics. Those in power are being challenged by an angry public that crowds the polls, which are then followed by desperate youth unleashing violence in their capitals. The latest theatre is being replayed in Liberia. Dr Tajudeen, a Ugandan, reflects on this and draws an interesting parallel between his country and what has been happening in Ethiopia.

Dr Tajudeen, a Ugandan

What politics in Ethiopia Lacks

Since the May general elections in Ethiopia, the country has been gripped by political and security conflicts. The country is only slowly returning to normal after a week-long stand-off called by the opposition which believes the government robbed it of victory through unfair means.

Both in June, soon after the elections, and now, people have been killed and many more imprisoned. While elections are supposed to indicate where the wishes of the people lay and both winners and losers are expected to respect them, it is not often that easy in situations where neither is prepared for the result. Sometimes defeat can sound like victory and some victory could be interpreted as defeat, if the cost is too high. The other problem has to do with the attitude of the winners and losers.
In Ethiopia, it is clear that neither the ruling EPRDF nor the two main opposition groups, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF) were prepared either for the results or the obligation that they impose on them in a democratic setting.

For the first time since the EPRDF came into power 15 years ago, it faced a challenging and credible electoral opposition. It lost all the seats in the capital to the CUD and suffered losses in other regions. Its immediate response was to see the result as a challenge to its authority and the losers as a security risk.

It was obvious that its political and security intelligence misinformed it about its popularity. It was clear to most observers that after 15 years the EPRDF had become vulnerable. In the first 10 years, democratic opposition had been at best weak due both to the relative strength of the government and the opposition's own limited political vision compromised by sectarianism. Subsequently, however, just as in other post-revolutionary regimes across Africa, the longer the EPRDF stayed in power the less 'grateful' people became for its liberation struggle.

Uganda is an obvious parallel. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, like President Museveni before him, became a former revolutionary turned free-market reformer with new best friends in Washington, London, Brussels, and other patented capitals of what he would have rightly called 'centres of imperialism' before.

Like other clubbers in the now ageing 'new generation of African leaders', Mr Zenawi is a very fierce intellectual leader who is able to stoutly articulate and defend his positions and often intimidate Western journalists, policy makers and leaders who were too used to dealing with supine African leaders too desperate to say 'yes' to any western demand. Again, like Uganda, Ethiopia is heavily dependent on aid, but somehow, the EPRDF until recent years, managed to stave off Western intervention in its political affairs.

A kind of dual mandate partnership (familiar to Ugandans) developed whereby Zenawi pursued neo-liberal economic policies and the IMF/World Bank and the dominant western powers gave him a huge discount on internal political matters.

However, market reforms, as Gorbachev discovered too late in Russia with Perestroika and Glasnost, have their own unpleasant political logic. In these days of neo-liberal hegemony, China has been the only country that has been able to combine free market with un-free politics without provoking violent opposition internally, or risking serious political intervention from outside.

But, China is productively big enough and has a more developed internal market - desperately lusted after by Western companies - to contain external intervention. The so-called Asian tigers are also parallels to China, albeit in a more limited way. Imagine if China's development budget had been the result of goodwill from the IMF/World Bank and Western do-gooders!

Acceptance in the West also comes with its own conflicting demands and expectations. It is always the case that the more our leaders become popular abroad, the less they are at home and the more complacent they become about their domestic constituency. They are then ill-prepared to think of any possible defeat.

The opposition on the one hand, after overcoming initial timidity, having a lack of clarity or a better alternative on socio-economic policies, began to unite in opposition to a prime minister or president and a ruling party.

Some people will just want change for the sake of it, having become tired of the same official pictures on their walls, and hearing the same names on their televisions, newspapers and radios. Younger generations also emerge who now take the gains of the past as their starting point, not the ceiling on what is possible.

This is where former revolutionaries in power become reactionaries, taking political opposition to be treason, shooting demonstrators, jailing leaders of the opposition and generally punishing the people for not "voting wisely", which means electing them in perpetuity!

The opposition too, having spent too long in opposition is often unprepared for its victories and react either too triumphantly or with selective delegitimation. The former exaggerates how close they believe they have come to seizing the state house while the latter causes them to always query the result only in areas where they did not win.

A process of mutual demonisation ensues. One witnesses an insecure government, humbled by the polls. In those circumstances where it has lost in the capital, where the government is based, it psychologically becomes an occupying force.

By the same token, the opposition suffers the delusion that its control of the centre, and a few cities, also means that it is a de facto government and is often tempted to behave that way by unleashing 'people power' which is often met by a government 'show of power'.


These de facto/de jure conflicts need statesmanship and leadership to break the impasse. The tragedy for Ethiopia so far has been the absence of such a vision.

The government needs to accept that those who voted against it have not committed any sin, while the opposition also have to accept that those in power are not from Mars but fellow Ethiopians with whom they have political differences.

There cannot be meaningful dialogue if the government uses guns and prisons as its first weapon of choice and the opposition regards the government as illegitimate. We need to cultivate a democratic culture that does not equate political opposition with enmity, or hold the attitude that if we cannot get in then everything should crumble.

© Addisfortune.com, 2004

Harari Regional Government & Atlanta Harari People’s Representatives

Harari Regional Government & Atlanta Harari People’s Representatives
P. O. Box 1111, Clarkston, GA 30021* E-mail Abadir98@Aol.com
Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Chapter

November 30th 2005

In consultation with a lot of Harari individuals, various groups, (Jamaha) living in Atlanta area, the following Statement is joint communiqué from Harari Community of Atlanta.

We believe in democracy not only because it stands for universal goals such as individual liberty, equality and self determination but also it is because the best process available for governing a complex country such as ours with over eighty nations, nationalities, and ethnic groups coupled with multi society and diversified political orientation. The central point is that the government by the people usually will produce government for the people. Hence, the crucial mechanism is to establish a system whereby all parties concerned compete in a free, fair and open election and the Party chosen by the majority take office and assume responsibility.

The Ethiopian people have endured numerous hardships over the years and struggled hard to get rid of the cumbersome feudal regime and a fascist military dictatorship of Derg and throw away the shackles of their oppressors once and for all. Ethiopia reached a point of no return. We are at the crossroad of an enduring test of our democratic principles and our capacity to establish a common acceptable policy to all it’s people in order to shape a more just and equitable society. We want to construct a national government in which no single interest would dominate.

- The Harari community of Atlanta fully regrets the tragic loss of human lives, and a considerable damage to the private and public property causing undue burdens and sufferings on the innocent people who can least afford and a consequence of long term damage to the meager resources and the national economy of the country.

- We question the timing of the unrest called in the Holy Month of Ramadan and on the eve of Eid –Alfiter one of the two holiest days of our Muslim community disregarding the plea from our elders which clearly showed their disrespect for the Muslim faith.

- We believe the opposition pursues the politics of sectarianism and divisive politics and create an atmosphere of intolerance among the different nation and nationalities of our diversified country.

The Harari community of Atlanta believes those who are accountable for all the eruptible damages both to the human lives and the well being of the nation will be brought to Justice and urge our government to take the necessary legal measures against all those responsible for their individual acts in inciting violence and organizing the riots with the intention of seizing political power and for their reckless disregard for the law and the constitution of the land. We support all the appropriate measures taken by the government to bring peace and tranquility to our people and our nation.