Right now, many tell me that their hopes are slowly dying for lack of any encouraging signs that Kinijit is recovering enough to lead the people out of this crisis. The people are looking for a fusion between the old and the new that would create the dynamism needed to forge a vision for the future that would take off from where Ethiopians were before the imprisonment. We are waiting for your action, but there has been mostly silence accompanied by signs of difficulty.

For instance, when Bertukan Midesa and others delegation arrived at the airport, Mr. Berhana Nega, who had already been in the United States, emerged out of the crowd to greet them. I was there myself. When Hailu Shawel arrived at the airport these others delegation were noticeably absent. Had I not left to return to Canada, I would have been there to greet him. My point is, if there was no real division, when Engineer Shawel arrived, could the others not at least have shown up to greet him?

When 2000 Ethiopians attended a meeting of the Kinijit in Washington D.C. on September 16, 2007, where Berhana Nega, Bertukan Midesa and others spoke, where was the chairman of the Kinijit, Hailu Shawel If there was one Kinijit, why was Hailu Shawel on the radio instead during this important first meeting of Ethiopians in the Diaspora? This was visible to everyone and was quickly interpreted, rightly or wrongly, that there was deep division within the party. Why were there no questions allowed at the end of the meeting? Most people I hear from believe it was a means to prevent any from asking these exact questions.

At the meeting, Ato Gizachew Shiferraw asserted that Ethiopia must undergo a paradigm shift if we were to solve the crisis in our country. He told the audience that the shift now meant that instead of violence, we would use non-violence, that instead of hatred and anger between people, that Ethiopians needed an open dialogue and debate, that instead of disrespecting and excluding certain people in Ethiopian society, that we were now to respect and include them. He called for these changes so that we could be equipped to come to the table with other Ethiopians to solve our problems. However, it seems that instead of doing exactly this, what we are seeing is quite different. Instead we are seeing separate touring itineraries of major American cities by the Chairman, Hailu Shawel and by Berhana Nega and Berkutan Midesa and others.

Yet, when you, Mr. Hailu Shawel, speak, you talk of one Kinijit. When others delegation of you speaks, you claim that Hailu Shawel is your chairman and also speaks of one Kinijit. It is clear that the message communicated to the Ethiopian public conveys a very different reality. Clearly, something is wrong and we all know it. It is imperative that until the internal problems in the Kinijit are solved, that the “double tours’ of America should be postponed so more Ethiopians are not drawn into this internal battle.

We do not know what the outcome of this crisis will be. It may be that differences can be resolved and a renewed commitment to working together could be achieved, but this will require flexibility, transparency, honesty and shared goals and priorities. If this outcome is not workable, it may be advisable to separate while endorsing the work of each other. One group may want to focus on political goals while the other focuses on a non-political national movement for freedom, equality, justice and reconciliation.

Another option might be to focus on different parts of such a larger movement, giving recognition and credit to each other as important parts of a shared struggle. However, a fourth and less desirable option may be the reality—that the differences are irreconcilable like a marriage that succeeded for a while, but came to an end due to the partners’ inability or unwillingness “to live” with each other anymore…continued on next page >>