Assassination can be defined as the targeted killing of an individual for political reasons in peacetime. It can be undertaken by individual citizens, or by the agents of another state, but in either case it takes place without any legal process.
Assassinating a dictator is often considered in the context of Hitler and Stalin, or of secret CIA action against foreign leaders such as Fidel Castro in the Cold War period (after this became public knowledge in the mid-1970s US Presidents have banned the use of assassination by Executive Order). However, this issue regained topicality in the 1990s as leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic pursued bloody careers which threatened international peace. In recent years US airstrikes apparently aimed at killing Muammar Qaddafi of Libya (1986), Osama Bin Laden (1998) and Saddam Hussein (1991 and 2003) have provoked argument – were these assassination attempts or did these leaders have the status of {www:enemy combatant}s in a time of war? Certainly the UN Charter (Article 24) and various conventions (e.g New York Convention) clearly appear to make assassination in peacetime against international law.
The arguments below focus on the issue of assassination of a dictator in peacetime, although many of them would also apply to the specific military targeting of foreign leaders in a time of war. The topic can be debated from the perspective of internal opposition movements seeking to rid their country of dictatorship, or from the perspective of the international community.
{www:Utilitarian} argument: many deaths and much suffering could be prevented if one man is killed. The greater good demands a single evil act is done, especially if it would avert the immediate and certain danger of much worse evil. Who now wouldn’t wish that Hitler had been killed in 1933?
vs.
{www:Moral absolutism} argument: murder can never be justified. If we assume the role of executioner without the backing of law we are sinking down to the level of the dictators. Any new government founded upon such an arbitrary act will lack moral legitimacy, undermining its popular support and making its failure likely. Consider the long civil war in Rome after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., or the failure of the British Commonwealth after the execution of Charles I in 1649.
***
Dictatorial systems are highly personal, so removing the driving force behind such a regime will result in its collapse, allowing a more popular and liberal government to replace it.
vs.
Killing one individual will achieve nothing; dictators are part of a wider ruling elite from which someone sharing the same autocratic values will emerge to take their place. This successor is likely to use the assassination as the excuse for further repression.
***
Assassination of a dictator may be the only way to effect change in a country where a repressive police state prevents any possibility of internal opposition. Cowed populaces need a signal in order to find the courage to campaign for change. If there is no way to bring tyrants guilty of terrorizing their own people to justice, then assassination can be justified. And the example elsewhere of assassinated dictators will act as a warning to would be tyrants in future.
vs.
Assassination is likely to be counter-productive, rallying popular feeling around a repressive regime as external enemies or internal minorities are blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the act. This is even more likely to result from an unsuccessful assassination. Furthermore an alternative now exists for bringing dictators to justice. Regime change has been shown to be possible in a number of countries and former dictators are being held to account for their actions. The Special UN Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has been able to put Slobodan Milosevic on trial, and Saddam Hussein is facing justice in Iraq. The International Criminal Court now provides a permanent forum for such action to be taken, and is itself a {www:deterrent} to would-be tyrants in the future.
***
Dictators are a threat to international peace, not just their own people. Their tendency to attack other countries in order to divert attention from their unpopular actions at home means that assassination is justified as a means of preventing a terrible war, which might rapidly become a regional or global conflict.
vs.
Sometimes dictatorship is preferable to the alternatives, especially for those outside the country itself. It has often been in the interests of the great powers to support autocrats who would promote their geopolitical interests in a way that a democratic regime would not, especially in the cold war period. Sometimes dictators have successfully held countries together which otherwise might have descended into civil war and ethnic strife. Events in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was deposed have shown that even worse violence and suffering can be unleashed if a strong hand is suddenly removed.
***
If scruples over the morality of our actions prevent us pursuing a greater good, it will never be possible to oppose evil effectively. Dictators themselves ignore normal ethical standards and international conventions, so they effectively place themselves beyond the protection of the law.
vs.
By assuming the power to take life arbitrarily, even in an apparently good cause, we cheapen the value of life itself. Many terrorists, criminals, or indeed dictators could and have claimed similar legitimacy for their violent actions. Only if we ourselves respect human rights absolutely, will our promotion of these values seem valid to others. States that use assassination as a political weapon will soon find that others seek to turn it against them.
***
The alternatives to assassination would all leave a dictator in power for many years. In that time not only will many more people suffer under a repressive system, but the policies pursued by an out-of-touch and unrepresentative regime are likely to do serious (if unintentional) harm to the whole nation and its economy, making eventual rebuilding much more costly in both human and economic terms.
vs.
Alternatives such as constructive engagement or economic sanctions are preferable and much more likely to result in eventual liberalization of the regime, albeit slowly. The examples of Eastern Europe in 1989 and Yugoslavia in 2000 show that even in apparently hopeless cases, change can come through popular action, often quickly and without great violence. Cambodia in 1979, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 all saw dictatorships quickly overthrown by external forces.
***
Tyranny and oppression are obvious wherever they take place. It isn’t just how democratic a regime is, it is whether it uses its power to inflict great suffering upon its people or others, against all human rights standards. If leaders guilty of genocide or other crimes against humanity can be brought to account through the normal democratic process or the courts, then fine. But if they cannot, then their people have the moral right to take up arms against them. Sometimes this will mean assassination.
vs.
Who decides who deserves to be assassinated? Politics is not a black-and-white affair and states regarded by some as dictatorships are seen quite differently by others. For example, Slobodan Milosevic could claim a popular mandate for many of his actions in the former Yugoslavia. General Pinochet in Chile seized power by force but later gave it up, allowing a democratic state to emerge. Many authoritarian rulers around the world today pay at least lip service to democracy, even if elections are “managed” and the possibility of real change is strictly limited. Even if we had the right to make judgements as to which leaders deserve to die, our decisions would be arbitrary and without widespread support.
It should be remembered that against a dictatorship the objective is not simply to bring down the dictators but to install a democratic system (To Remove and To Replace) and make the rise of a new dictatorship impossible. To view what Aristotle warned long ago that “… tyranny can also change into tyranny”… [read more]
Book Review By Ayal-Sew Dessye
Author: Dr. Aklog Birara
Title: Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway
486 pp
Dr. Aklog Birara’s recent book titled “Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት (Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit)” is a {www:voluminous} (486 pages), very well researched and clearly articulated magnificent piece of work that Ethiopians and anyone interested to know and understand the reasons behind the Land Grab {www:phenomenon}, the major players behind it and the impending consequences, why so many Ethiopians, as people in other countries where the issue is in evidence, are not only alarmed but also adamantly opposed to, and why it should be challenged more effectively.
By using his educational and professional background, his progressive convictions and his decades-long expertise as an economist with the World Bank, Dr. Aklog in this book critically examines and objectively analyses the burning issue commonly referred to as ‘Land Grab’ that he calls ‘የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት’. His careful and comprehensive analysis of the subject matter is so {www:replete} with a wealth of concrete data and detailed information that anyone interested to have full knowledge of or study the issue much better could greatly benefit from.
Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit is a comprehensive analysis of how and why the current government in Ethiopia headed by Meles Zenawi connived with foreign investors the author calls “New Landlords” to giveaway Ethiopian fertile farmlands for the express purpose of exporting the products at a time when Ethiopians are faced with recurring famine and starvation. Although the phenomenon is widespread in other countries (mainly in Africa) where people have no say and are under dictatorial rules, his focus is, as the title indicates and understandably, on Ethiopia. By so doing, he presents to his readers a full account of the travesty being perpetrated by and the on-going deceptive practices of none other than those entrusted with the welfare and well being of the people.
In the first and second of the ten chapters of the book, the reader finds the author’s general political outlook and his overall {www:assessment} of the social, economic and political realities of Ethiopia under TPLF/EPRDF tyrannical rule, with particular emphasis on the vices of ethnic politics, the serious challenges Ethiopians as a diverse people face and the fallacies and the destructive nature of the current regime’s policies. In Chapters Three through Eight, Dr. Aklog thoroughly discusses Meret Neteka and its ramifications. In Chapter Nine, under “Ethiopia’s Aid and Remittance mystery”, he examines the confounding issue of foreign aid in general with particular focus on the amount of foreign aid the regime of Meles Zenawi received, the misconceptions surrounding its effectiveness to alleviate poverty, its misuse by dictators and its role in supporting and perpetuating dictatorships, and its ineffectiveness to improve the lives of the people and why. In Chapter Ten, under the heading “The Ethiopia I Envisage: Options and Recommendations”, Dr. Aklog, who sees opportunities beyond the prevailing dire situations, presents his vision for his country of birth and proposes 20 possible areas that he recommends should be looked into in order to reverse course.
Through documentation of various sources (over 147 references) and well established data, Dr. Aklog has presented a compelling argument against this tragic but {www:brazen} underhanded deal between the government of Meles Zenawi and foreign interests represented by more than 36 countries.
The book portrays in great detail the economic, political and environmental impacts and the toll on local populations, describes the consequences on the very {www:sovereignty} of Ethiopians as a people, the role of foreign aid, etc. He systematically refutes the fallacies of TPLF/EPRDF policies and debunks the hallow arguments of its leaders and their henchmen that the land giveaway is meant to benefit the country and would help to alleviate poverty. The book disproves the notion of development through {www:expropriation} of fertile lands by foreigners for dirt cheap prices that would inevitably lead to the {www:subjugation} of our citizens to dehumanizing and demeaning servitude in the name of employment opportunity.
The Meles regime is reported to have concluded an estimated 8,400 to 9,000 land give away transactions. Dr. Aklog unveils staggering facts about this “deal of the century” including the total known farmland giveaway to date to being equivalent to Singapore, Bahrain, Luxemburg, Puerto Rico, Cyprus, Qatar, Tonga combined, and it is reported that a planned giveaway the size of Lebanon is in the works.
Following food shortages that triggered riots in many parts of the world, concerned governments, wary of similar fate in their own countries had to look elsewhere to guarantee food security. So too were entrepreneurs and businesses who saw an irresistible {www:lucrative} opportunity in the food market. Both governments and businesses wasted no time in rushing to get farmlands elsewhere.
In this rush for farmland, Africa once again became the target for a modern era scramble. And to that end, they had no problem finding perfect company in corrupt and unaccountable regimes there that have no {www:qualms} with giving away as much land as those “investors” wished for insignificant amounts. Naturally, and given the nature of government currently in power, Ethiopia became a perfect candidate for the new scramble. This new phenomenon came to being known as Land Grab.
Ever since the practice that Dr. Aklog calls ‘Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit‘ became evident, a lot has been written and said about it. Although the issue has been consistently raised, discussed, debated and extensively written about by individuals, both Ethiopians and non-Ethiopians and organizations like, for example, The Oakland Institute that was and continues to be in the forefront of the campaign against this injustice against impoverished populations around the globe, to date, Dr. Aklog’s book, ‘Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት’, is the only comprehensive study on the subject as it pertains to Ethiopia.
Whereas colonialists in the past used the Bible, under the preposterous pretext of “civilizing backward societies” or in many instances had no qualms with using military power to occupy sovereign countries in Africa and elsewhere, subjugate their people and plunder the natural resources, today’s intrusion by foreigners that similarly relegates local populations to a dehumanizing second class status is done in the name of “investment” and is done by invitation.
And this, what Dr. Aklog refers to as “colonialism by invitation”, is perpetrated by reckless dictators who care more about staying in power by all means and amass wealth every which way they could than the welfare of the people they rule over. These greedy dictators and their henchmen, along with their colluding partners, the foreign “investors” in question, are the sole beneficiaries of such shadowy deals.
The scope and {www:magnitude} of the ongoing land grab phenomenon can be daunting. Although this shadowy deal by all accounts favors the new foreign landlords greatly, it cannot simply be measured by the apparent lopsided economic benefits those foreign interests or their agents or their partners in TPLF/EPRDF ruling clique get. The resultant disadvantages to local populations and society at large is incalculable and the impending environmental impact {www:staggering}. Because it directly affects local populations where acquisitions are taking place in particular and the people of the country in general in many, many ways, this “deal of the century” is more than an economic issue. In short, this scramble for farmlands expropriates the natural assets of the people that the author refers to as “… potentially the most substantial source of comparative advantage…”, displaces and uproots families and communities, relegates the very owners of the land to serfdom, and because the practice is unregulated and these foreign landlords are free to do whatever they want with their new acquisitions, the environmental hazards and the ecological impacts would be incalculable. Moreover, in addition to the obvious financial benefits dictators like Meles Zenawi & Co. get as a result of the Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit deal, the new landlords would prove to be a source of vital diplomatic and political support to sustain their tyrannical rule. Those foreign land lords are equally aware of the fact that most, if not all, of their 9-page “contracts” they entered into with the regime that gave them this exploitative and unfair deal would depend on the {www:longevity} of those currently in political power. Therefore, doing all they can to keep them in power would prove to be an {www:irresistible} enterprise. It is safe to assume that this aspect is part of the calculation of Meles Zenawi’s and his regime’s decision to giveaway Ethiopian fertile farmlands to foreign investors so easily and at will.
Thence, to add insult to injury, in addition to all the hardships and impacts herein above mentioned that result from this pernicious “deal of the century”, the new landlords would be another {www:flank} that Ethiopian patriots and democrat will have to resist in their fight to end tyranny in their country.
What makes this land giveaway that one may call “Land to the Higher Bidder” more insane and {www:incomprehensible} is the irony that it is being done by the same generation that struggled to end serfdom and for equality and justice for all Ethiopians under the progressive slogan of “Land to the Tiller”.
Of course, the bogus claim by the regime that by colluding with these foreign investors and giving away fertile farmlands, Ethiopia can reduce poverty and their {www:audacity} to aver that this would help to end the perennial problem of famine and food shortages in the country is ludicrous. How on earth and in what way would landless Ethiopians who cannot afford to cop-up with the ever increasing local food prices benefit from this deal knowing too well that the foreign landlords’ express desire and whole purpose of having the farmlands in the first place is to export the farm products primarily to their respective countries and secondarily to world markets for profit?
Dr. Aklog reminds TPLF/EPRDF leaders and their supporters that “development is all about people” after all. And by stating that, “The regime expropriates and gives farmlands away to the highest bidder without any open competition. The reason is simple. It is to ensure single party dominance over the national economy…”, ” that these permanent transfers of one of the pillars of the economy to a privileged few domestic investors and to governments, firms and individuals from 36 countries contradict the governing party’s commitment to the Ethiopian people that land is a common property that is bound by specific norms, values and constitutional parameters..”, further exposes their deceitful practices and hallow arguments. He reminds the regime and its supporters that, as has been proven in the late Sixties and early Seventies, Ethiopian domestic investors are capable of transforming fertile farmlands into mechanized and large scale commercial farms if they are given the opportunity and have the freedom.
These are some of the many points ‘The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬትነጠቃናቅርሚት’ raises and discusses in depth.
Although this farcical deal definitely enriches those foreign “investors” and their greedy and spineless domestic agents in governmental power, it comes at heavy cost to Ethiopia and Ethiopians. The book demonstrates not only the uselessness of the Meret Neteka enterprise to the Ethiopian masses, but clearly shows the multi-faceted dangers it entails and presents compelling reasons as to why Ethiopians of all walks of life ought to stand up together and oppose it in every possible way.
It is clear that this shadowy enterprise deprives Ethiopians not only of their rightful ownership of their ancestral land, but more fundamentally rob them of their very honor and dignity as human beings and their sovereignty as Ethiopian citizens. By all accounts, this sinister collusion and underhanded deal between Meles Zenawi’s regime and foreign investors is nothing short of a fundamental sovereignty issue. It, in fact, is a basic human rights issue that every well meaning Ethiopian should clearly understand and fight against.
The author does not reserve his criticism to TPLF/EPRDF leaders. He expresses his understandable dismay at the democratic opposition’s apparent dismal failure to mount a systematic and sustainable campaign to stop this deplorable and treasonous act of the regime. As such, he states that “…The duality in poor governance–single party hegemony on the one hand and fractured opposition on the other–is that the regime is able to squander natural resources such as fertile farmlands. It gives away the country’s major source of current and future comparative advantage to foreign investors free. This is because there is no one to challenge it. The regime is free
to promote yemeret neteka ena kirimit (land grab and giveaway) without substantial challenge from opposition parties and civic organizations”.
The very corrupt system of government under Meles Zenawi is the kernel of the narrative that is repeatedly discussed by the author in ‘Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት’. As in the case of other similar sinister and irresponsible policies and actions of the regime of Meles Zenawi, Dr. Aklog rightfully ties this malicious deal to give away Ethiopian fertile farmlands to foreigners to the very bankrupt system of the TPLF/EPRDF; a system that is evidently dictatorial but also one that is devoid of any sense of accountability and decency, and led by people lacking in Ethiopian values and patriotism. As such, and because of that, no amount of condemnation short of total reversal of such policies could alter the situation on the ground. And that, in my humble opinion, can only be realized with the removal from power of the regime.
Dr. Aklog does not only amply show the travesty surrounding the issue and reminds us about the impending dangers to Ethiopia and its people, but also puts forward concrete suggestions to successfully challenge this land giveaway enterprise and build an equitable and non-discriminatory, pluralistic and democratic society.
As passionate as he has been on this land grab issue as early as it became evident, Dr. Aklog, by writing Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit, has given Ethiopians a comprehensive document to base their argument against this farcical deal and related criminal behavior of the Meles Zenawi regime. I am only hoping that Ethiopians on both sides of the political spectrum – both opposed to or supportive of this politically charged issue of national import – would take time to read it and discuss the very issue soberly.
My only suggestion to the author would be that when the time comes fora reprint of the book, please consider issuing it in a smaller size to make it easier to carry and handle.
I would just conclude this review by quoting a paragraph on page 129 of the book.
The massive transfer of fertile farmlands from Ethiopian families, communities and the entire society to foreign investors is the last ominous indicator of a regime that is determined to rob the country and its people of their most critical natural resource assets, their honor, dignity and sovereignty – all done in the name of development and transformation”. Emphasis is mine.
In the final analysis, the difference between the Derg and the Woyanne regime in terms of repression and exclusiveness is becoming blurred by the day since the 2005 election. In a previous article, I indicated that the toughening of repression is part of a political strategy associated with the “implementation” of an authoritarian development model, to wit, the developmental state. The strategy is to weaken the opposition to the point of making it irrelevant by removing its influence on the masses, which influence essentially originates from economic plight. A non-participatory regime that provides bread and butter for the masses is not only assured of a long rule, but can even legitimize its political hegemony by electoral victories.
The trouble with an authoritarian model of development is that it needs time to effect tangible economic improvements. And time is what the Woyanne regime does not have so long as a {www:vociferous} opposition denigrates its “achievements.” The strategy of the developmental state needs time and time becomes available only when the opposition is silenced. This explains why journalists are the main target of repression: their criticisms deprive the regime of the silence it needs to advertise its “achievements” to the masses. A critical press is utterly damaging for a regime that derives economic progress from above and makes it dependent on the postponement of {www:gratification}.
Things would have been much easier if the silencing of opposition could use {www:lethal} repression. The bloody repression of the Derg was fashionable in the context of the Cold War and the ideology of class struggle prescribing violence as the decisive expression of the commitment to the interests of the masses. The collapses of the Soviet camp and of the ideology of class struggle and the subsequent acceptance of multipartism have robbed deadly repression of its entitlement as the midwife of history. This altered context, and that alone, explains why the Woyanne regime hesitates to be as brutal as the Derg.
What this means is that is that the difference between the two regimes since the 2005 election is more a difference in style than substance. The goal remains the same: the control of absolute power through the repression of the opposition. Only the Woyanne regime has replaced {www:sheer} brutality with a judicial {www:masquerade}, thereby covering repression with the appearance of legality. Instead of silencing the opposition through the threat of violent death, the Woyanne regime has opted for a form of repression whose essential task is to break and humiliate targeted people.
There is an inherent reason for the choice of this form of repression. Together with the international dislike of repressive regimes, the changed context of multipartism leaves little room for the sheer physical elimination of opponents. You cannot claim to be an advocate of multipartism while physically eliminating the leaders of opposition parties. By contrast, you can bring them to court and make them face charges that range from terrorism to constitutional violations. All you need is a {www:docile} court system. More exactly, the quelling of dissidents occurs prior to the judicial masquerade; it takes place in the inhuman condition of detention where deprivations, torture, and all forms of humiliation are widely practiced. By the time the accused reach the court, they are already in pieces, wreckages of what they used to be. The court is thus not so much where you defend your rights as where you {www:implore} for mercy.
The whole purpose of breaking targeted individuals is to divest the social movement for change of trusted and galvanizing leaders, the outcome of which is none other than a crippled opposition. What else does the context of a leaderless protest guarantee but the continuous prevalence of the Woyanne regime, even in electoral contests? When leaders give in to intimidation and mistreatment, not only are they diminished in the eyes of followers and the masses, but they also seem to {www:recant} their political commitments, and so nullify the very existence of opposition.
What follows from this is the need to adjust the struggle to the repressive style. What Ethiopia’s social protest needs above all is the rise of leaders whose main characteristic is the refusal to yield. Indomitability alone can shatter the system by its inspirational impact on the social protest. The latter craves not so much for convincing or sophisticated ideological visions or political programs as for the exemplary behavior of leaders who withstand the scheme of {www:debasement}. What the Ethiopian {www:renaissance} awaits is not a dam on the Nile; it is heroism.
KENYA — Administration Police officers in Merti District have arrested 55 Ethiopian immigrants who were being transported in a vehicle to an unknown {www:destination}.
The Ethiopians and the vehicle’s Kenyan driver and conductor were arrested at Kom on Wednesday at around 11pm. They were detained at the AP camp before they were transferred to Isiolo Thursday morning.
Regional Commissioner for Upper Eastern Isaiah Nakoru said Thursday those arrested were 18 women, seven children and 30 men, adding that initial investigation showed they were picked from the border town of Moyale by Kenyans.
Illegal routes
“The foreigners will be charged with being in the country illegally while the two Kenyans have to answer many questions before charges are preferred against them. They could be charged with {www:human trafficking},’’ said Nakoru in his Isiolo office. The administrator said they want to establish from the driver why he was carrying 55 people in a vehicle that at best should carry 12 to 15 people and why he avoided the Isiolo-Moyale highway and instead used illegal routes to reach Isiolo via Merti.
The administration, he added, also wants to establish the owner of the vehicle and his ties with the Ethiopians. Hundreds of Ethiopians pass through Isiolo every month on their way to Nairobi from where they are helped by Kenyans involved in human trafficking to reach South Africa.
Bribed
“We have instructed the police to {www:impound }the vehicle until the owner turns up. We are also interested to find out why his vehicle does this kind of illegal activity,’’ said Nakoru.
Junior officers in Isiolo lamented that when they arrest illegal immigrants and the drivers, their seniors usually release them after they are bribed.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a good news for the tens of thousands of Ethiopians whose land has been {www:confiscate}d and given to Karturi, an Indian Company, to grow crops for export. The Karturi farm has no benefit for most Ethiopians. The profit from the farms goes in to the pockets of Meles Zenawi and members of his ruling junta.
By William Davison
ADDIS ABABAB 6 (Bloomberg) — Karuturi Global Ltd., the Indian food processor that earns most of its revenue abroad, said it will replant its corn {www:crop} in Ethiopia after a {www:flood} destroyed its first planned {www:harvest} in the country.
The damage was caused by flooding on the Baro and Alwero rivers in the western Gambella region, Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, managing director of the Bangalore-based company, said in interview on Oct. 4 in Addis Ababa. A potential {www:harvest} of 60,000 metric tons of corn was lost after 12,000 hectares (29,653 acres) of land was flooded, he said.
“The waters started rising last Wednesday and have not stopped until Sunday,” he said. “Most of our {www:maize} is lost. We have taken a bit of a hit there.” The company said in a statement on Oct. 3 the loss was estimated at $15 million.
Karuturi, the world’s largest rose grower, in 2009 leased 100,000 hectares from Ethiopia’s government to grow sugar cane, palm oil, cereals and vegetables. The company may receive an additional 200,000 hectares if the government is satisfied with the first phase of the project, according to the Agriculture Ministry.
The project is “ahead of expectations” and will be completed by December 2013, and the government is “extremely satisfied” with progress, Karuturi said.
Ethiopia plans to transfer 3.3 million hectares of land to investors during a 5-year growth plan announced last year. About 350,000 hectares has been leased since Sept. 2009, according to the Agriculture Ministry’s website. The Oakland Institute, a U.S.-based research group, said in a report earlier this year that 3.6 million hectares has been rented by investors since early 2008.
‘Crazy Amount’
The flooding that breached specially built barriers near Karuturi’s plantations couldn’t have been predicted, Karuturi said. “This kind of flooding we haven’t seen before,” he said.
“This is a crazy amount of water.”
A second crop of as much as 15,000 hectares of corn will be planted when the waters {www:recede} and will be harvested around March, Karuturi said. A 200-hectare {www:sugar cane} nursery started by the company is expected to expand to 10,000 hectares before being sold in 2013, while 500,000 plants of palm oil will be ready after two years, he said.
To minimize transport costs, produce from Karuturi’s Gambella operations will be exported to South Sudan and other East African markets, rather than farther afield, Karuturi said. Crops will be paid for in dollars, bringing foreign exchange to the National Bank of Ethiopia, he said.
Two tug boats with the capacity to carry 600 tons each and which will transport crops along the Baro River that flows into South Sudan are expected to be operational within 18 months, Karuturi said. The company is forming partnerships with foreign companies to build rice and sugar processors on the farm, he said.
