Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – Ethiopia’s Genet Getaneh produced the greatest upset in the short four-year history of the Toyota Great Ethiopian Run, setting a new course record to win the women’s title in this morning’s race.
The 10km road race was run in the Ethiopian capital, in the presence of the Ethiopian State President Meles Zenawi, Addis Ababa City Mayor Arkebe Equbay, and IAAF President Lamine Diack.
In the men’s race, Abebe Dinkessa took advantage of the last minute withdrawal of Ethiopian Olympic 10,000m silver medallist Sileshi Sihine to win his first Great Ethiopian Run title.
WOMEN – Getaneh takes major scalps
There were also some last minute withdrawals from the women’s race as Olympic 10,000m silver medallist Ejegayehou Dibaba, like her male counterpart Sileshi Sihine, chose not to take part in this road race in order to concentrate on her preparations for the cross country season.
However, that did little to dampen the spirits of more than 150 women elite runners headed by the likes of Teyiba Erkesso (World Cross short course bronze silver medallist) and African 5000m champion Eyerusalem Kuma.
Despite alternating the lead between themselves, Kuma and Erkesso eventually had no answer to the killer pace of the little-known Genet Getaneh, who overtook the duo with one kilometre to go before the finish. She won the race and set a new course record time of 34:18, sixteen seconds better than the previous mark set by Werknesh Kidane in 2002.
Erkesso came second in 34:30, while Kuma (34:33) was a close third as the top three runners went under Kidane’s previous record time of 34:34.
The win is a big improvement for Getaneh who finished sixteenth in last year’s race. The 20-year said that she was delighted to have got the better of her more illustrious opponents. “It was great to win this race,” she said. “However, I planned my own tactics for this race and ran without any pressure.”
Getaneh was part of the Ethiopian team that won the Yokohama Ekiden in January 2004 in her only race outside Ethiopian soil, but admits that winning the women’s race here is arguably the greatest achievement of her short career.
“Running in Japan was great, but I can say that I am happier by my win here,” she confirmed.
MEN – Dinkessa’s killer sprint wipes out the opposition
In the men’s race, Ethiopia’s African 10,000m silver medallist Abebe Dinkessa was just three seconds short of breaking the course record. He won in a time of 29:57, beating Zenbaba Yigezu and Maeregu Zewde who occupied the other places on the medal podium.
After a frantic start, with the 20,000 field only calmed thanks to an appeal from Haile Gebrselassie, a small group of ten runners passed the 2km with little-known Roba Gebre leading them in 5:20. He kept a hold on the race until six kilometres with Dinkessa, Zewde, Z.Yigezu, and Abdissa Sorry, all in close contention.
The leading group eventually dwindled to eight runners with Gebre maintaining his place at the front followed be Zewde, Dinkessa, Z. Yigezu, and Gabo Burka, with Sorry the first to leave the pack.
Dinkessa made the decisive break at the 7.5km mark with only Gebre staying with him as the pair opened a gap of 20 metres on the other six runners. Then as the pair went up a small uphill, Dinkessa produced a killer sprint that Gebre could not handle.
Dinkessa passed 8kms in 22:15 extending his lead to 40m as he continued to accelerate towards the finish line. Gebre, second until 8kms, was caught by Z. Yigezu and Zewde as the pair went past him to try and catch Dinkessa.
But this was Dinkessa’s day, and he crossed the line in a reasonable time of 29:57, with Yegezu coming just four seconds adrift in second, and Zewde, Ethiopia’s African 5000m champion, coming in third.
Dinkessa had run the 12km longest leg to help the Ethiopian team win the men’s race at the Chiba Ekiden last Tuesday, but did not feel any effects of that run. “Considering that I had to run the longest leg and waste two days flying back here, I am very happy with the result,” he said. “The weather was a bit difficult, but I have managed to win.”
He added that his decisive break after 7kms came very naturally. “The uphill at 7kms helped me to sprint clear because I usually run very well climbing up hills,” he said. “I am suffering from a knee injury which prevented me from accelerating at the finish, but I am satisfied. I could have bettered the course record if I had not slowed down after 8kms.”
Elshadai Negash for the IAAF
2004 TOYOTA Great Ethiopian Run
Official Results
Position – Name – Club – Time
Men
1 Abebe Dinkessa Prisons 29:57
2 Zenbaba Yegezu Prisons 30:01
3 Maeregu Zewde Prisons 30:04
4 Gebo Burka Prisons 30:09
5 Lishan Yigezu St. George 30:13
6 Alene Emere Defense 30:20
7 Solomon Tsige St. George 30:23
8 Solomon Molla Banks 30:24
9 Roba Gebre Unity College 30:26
10 Abate Atafetegne Negash 30:27
Concluding a four-day visit to Ethiopia last month, President Jim Wolfensohn applauded the government’s vision for growth and poverty reduction. He added that the country – the second most populous in Sub-Saharan Africa – is poised to benefit from higher levels of development assistance and investment.
Following meetings with the prime minister and the full cabinet, the Bank president told local journalists that “it would be hard to improve upon” the government’s development strategy for Ethiopia, which covers health and education, capacity-building, private sector growth, decentralization, and rural development. “It is remarkable that the country has been able to recover from a very difficult period thirteen years ago and get itself on this track when the per capita income is $100 for 70 million people,” he said.
For Ethiopia, a central challenge will be raising the level of development assistance to support its strategy. Without a substantial increase, analysts say it will be impossible for the country to finance the programs required to meet even a few of the Millennium Development Goals. Today, aid flows to Ethiopia translate to $13 per person, less than half the average for Sub-Saharan Africa. “You really should see an increment in assistance from $1 billion to $2.5 billion just to bring you to the average,” Wolfensohn said.
Studies in aid effectiveness indicate that development assistance has the greatest impact in poor countries with sound policies for development. At $100 per capita annual income, and with a broadly credible “Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program” around which donors are organizing support, Ethiopia could be a country where greater aid flows would bring demonstrable results.
Wolfensohn also urged Ethiopians to create the climate for accelerated private-sector growth. After meeting with leaders from an array of businesses ranging from tourism to horticulture, he said that much could be done to ease regulatory barriers and deliver financial services to companies, particularly through micro-enterprise lending, and credit for small and medium-sized businesses. “Your exports are only $500 million, so you have a huge way to go,” he added.
Complimenting Ethiopians on progress they have made in easing regulatory burdens, he noted that “you have dramatically shortened the time for registration of businesses, for certification of businesses.” The Bank’s recent study, Doing Business in 2004, put Ethiopia among the top performers in cutting the steps entrepreneurs must follow to launch a business. However, other obstacles—ranging from poor roads, low demand, low level of skills, and limited access to credit—remain.
Wolfensohn also praised Ethiopia’s bold moves to shift resources and responsibility to local government and communities. “Fifty percent of your money now goes to be spent locally, with decisions made locally,” he said. “That is a big step forward for any government.”
However, Ethiopia’s ability to attract greater foreign aid and private investment is clouded by residual tension with Eritrea over a disputed border, the source of war that proved hugely costly to both countries. Warned Wolfensohn: “There is a sort of shadow that affects all this, . . . frankly, the border dispute. I think it is not for me to enter into domestic politics, but I can tell you that the world is deeply nervous at the moment about conflicts.”
Wolfensohn also met with youth representatives, farmers, and local council members to hear their views. He said that he was impressed by the optimism, concern and integrity of the youth he met in a town-hall meeting. “When I go back to the US and comment on my trip, this meeting will certainly be the highlight,“ he said. He also noted that he was impressed by the farmers he met. The first thing they talked about was getting their kids to school.
Wolfensohn was however critical of some of the legal structures, cultural values, and behaviors that marginalize women socially and economically. “I think this country is hugely behind in terms of empowerment of women, and I think that the violence against women is a national disgrace,” he said. “Opportunities for women need to be enriched considerably.”
During his visit, Wolfensohn interacted with participants in a UN Economic Commission for Africa conference on gender and development, marking the tenth anniversary of the Beijing global summit on women. “I just think that it’s a matter of pragmatics— and frankly it’s a matter of what is morally right,” he said in a final meeting with the Ethiopian press, adding, “it’s crazy to try and develop a country without half the population.”
Talk privately to any Anuak people in the Ethiopian state of Gambella and it won’t be long before they speak about “the problem.” Others are terrified into silence. To Anuak and other indigenous minorities of southwestern Ethiopia, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is a ruthless military dictatorship. And almost everyone links “the problem” to Gambella’s oil. “Since the problem, we are not able to farm or to fish,” said one Anuak survivor who was shot three times. He is shy, but he will show you where one bullet entered and exited his wrist. He was shot December 13, 2003–the day the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Defense Forces (EPRDF) and local “highlander” militias launched their genocidal war on the Anuaks. “Highlanders” are Ethiopians who are neither Anuak nor Nuer–the indigenous peoples of the region–but predominantly Tigray and Amhara people resettled into Anuak territory from their lands in the central highlands since 1974.
Ten months after the massacres of December, 2003, the EPRDF government of Ethiopia continues to downplay the violence in southwestern Ethiopia. At the same time, the government has been rewarded with new loans, debt restructuring and debt forgiveness by the international development community. The EPRDF continues to benefit from its tight military relationship with the United States. The region is home to guerillas of the Gambella People’s Liberation Front (GPLF) and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and other forces hostile to the Meles Zenawi regime. However, the EPRDF government has used the pretext of “terrorism” and “national security” to punish rural populations, and it continues to wage low-intensity warfare against innocent civilians.
Today, Gambella state is under total military occupation. Estimates place between 30,000 and 80,000 EPRDF troops deployed here, carrying out scorched-earth campaigns under the cover of “counter-terrorism.” One recent attack occurred in early September, when EPRDF soldiers reportedly pillaged the rural village of Powatalam. Some 43 people were killed, and the village was burned. At least 1,500 and perhaps as many as 2,500 Anuak civilians have died in the fighting–most of these being intellectuals, leaders, and members of the educated and student classes, who have been intentionally targeted. Hundreds of people remain unaccounted for and many are believed to have been “disappeared.” Numerous rural villages where Anuaks and other ethnic minorities generally hover in the margins of existence at the best of times have been similarly attacked, looted, and torched. Thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of Anuak homes have reportedly been burned.
Anuak women and girls are routinely raped, gang-raped and kept as sexual slaves by EPRDF forces. Girls have been shot for resisting rape, and summary executions of girls held captive for prolonged periods as sexual slaves have been reported. In the absence of Anuak men–killed, jailed or driven into exile–Anuak women and girls have been left vulnerable to such sexual atrocities. Due to the isolation of women and girls in rural areas, rapes remain substantially under-reported. Some 6,000 to 8,000 Anuak remain at refugee camps in Pochalla, Sudan; and there are an estimated 1,000 Anuak refugees in Kenya. The Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Bureau (DPPB), a regional body that works closely with international aid groups, estimated in August 2004 that approximately 25% (roughly 50,000 people) of Gambella’s population had been displaced. “Many, many men have been killed since the problem began,” says one witness. “Many men ran away into the bush and have been hunted by the soldiers. Women and girls are left undefended in their homes. They are raping many girls. They keep some women by force.” The violence has almost completely disrupted this year’s planting season, and people see famine in the coming winter months (October-March)–exacerbated by the destruction of milling machines and food stores.
According to Anuak sources relying on sympathetic oppositionists within the regime, the EPRDF plans to access the petroleum of Gambella were laid out at a top-level cabinet meeting in Addis Ababa in September 2003. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi chaired the meeting, at which the military cleansing of the Anuaks was reportedly openly discussed. Also present were Gen. Abdullah Gamada, head of the EPRDF military, Vice-Prime Minister Adisu Lagesse, and Omot Obang Olom, security chief for the Gambella region, an ethnic Anuak. Petroleum operations–heavily guarded by EPRDF troops–are rapidly moving forward.
The “Rwanda Model” In Gambella
While there is a history of communal violence between indigenous minorities in the Gambella region, evidence attests to patterns of EPRDF government provocation, pitting tribe against tribe and neighbor against neighbor. There is no evidence to support claims of communal violence between Anuaks and the local Nuer ethic group, as has been reported by the New York Times and other media, and by the EPRDF government. Ethnic cleansing appears to be sanctioned at the highest levels of the EPRDF government, and there is evidence that the violence initiated by last December’s massacres in Gambella may have been deliberately instrumented to justify a campaign against the Anuaks. December 13, 2003 marked the start of a coordinated military operation to systematically eliminate Anuaks. Sources from inside the military government’s police and intelligence network say that the code name of the military operation was: “OPERATION SUNNY MOUNTAIN.”
In a pattern reminiscent of the Interahamwe civilian militia involved in the 1994 Rwanda genocide, operations by government troops were apparently coordinated with local Highlanders, who set upon Anuak civilians with rocks, sticks, hoes, machetes, knives, axes and pangas (clubs). Witnesses described Highlanders chanting slogans as they hunted down and killed Anuaks. Some 425 Anuak people were reported killed in the initial outburst of violence, with over 200 more wounded and some 85 people unaccounted for. Since December 2003, sporadic murders and widespread rapes have continued in Gambella town, but the rural countryside is awash in blood. In February 2004, Genocide Watch and Survivors’ Rights International called for an independent inquiry into the Gambella situation. That call was ignored. Ten months after the pivotal massacres, there is no indication that the United Nations or any other formal body has undertaken an official investigation of the killings of eight UN personnel on the morning of December 13, 2003. The attack was blamed on Anuak guerillas, and precipitated the wave of violence.
The killings reportedly occurred on the road from Gambella to Itang town. Sources report that Anuak policeman Ojo Akway was amongst the first group of responders to the site of the ambush on the morning. Akway reportedly found tracks that he wanted to immediately pursue to attempt to discover those responsible for the UN killings – it was winter and the ground was amenable to tracking. The Police Commander in Gambella, Tadese Haile Selassie, is said to have ordered Akway’s execution in order to remove the problem of identifying the actual killers. Sources report that Akway was detained later that day, driven out of Gambella town, tied to a tree along the road to Abueal village, and shot in the head seven times. An informant sympathetic to Anuaks provided the information to relatives, noting that Akway’s body was disappeared, his gun was brought back to town, and no report was filed. A federal police investigator from Addis Ababa dispatched to Gambella in July was also reportedly shot and killed. Charged with determining the extent and nature of involvement of Gambella police in the December massacres, the investigator was said to have identified many Highlander police who were “fully involved” in the killing.
International and Ethiopian human rights organizations say that the killings in Gambella constituted acts of genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention. Arbitrary arrests, illegal detentions and torture are occurring throughout Ethiopia. Arbitrary arrests and detentions of Anuak people have occurred for years prior to the recent massacres. Reports coming out of the Gambella region indicate that hundreds of people have been arbitrary arrested and illegally detained, and that these people remain under detention, subject to torture.
“Golden Spear”
Ethiopia remains a pivotal ally in the US “war against terror” in the Horn of Africa, maintaining both covert and overt military operations and programs. Beginning July 2003, forces from Pentagon’s Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) held a three-month bilateral training exercise with Ethiopian forces at the Hurso Training Camp, northwest of Dire Dawa. The US Army’s 10th Mountain Division recently completed a three-month program to train an Ethiopian army division in counter-terrorism tactics. Operations are coordinated through the CJTF-HOA regional base in Djibouti, where the Halliburton subsidiary KBR is the prime contractor.
The CJTF-HOA region includes the total airspace and land areas of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya, and the coastal waters of the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean. In May 2004, US Brigadier General Samuel T. Helland assumed command of the CJTF-HOA region. On January 21, 2004 special operations soldiers from the 3rd US Infantry Regiment–“The Old Guard,” Bravo Company–replaced the 10th Mountain Division forces at a new base established at Hurso, Ethiopia, to be used for launching local joint missions with the Ethiopian military. A new forward base named “Camp United” has also been established in the area–a “temporary training facility in rural Ethiopia” used “as a launching ground for local missions, predominately training with the Ethiopian military.”
From 1995-2000, the US provided some $1,835,000 in International Military and Education Training (IMET) deliveries to Ethiopia. Some 115 Ethiopian officers were trained under the IMET program from 1991-2001. Approximately 4,000 Ethiopian soldiers have participated in IMET since 1950. For 2002 and 2003, Ethiopia received some $2,817,000 through the IMET and Foreign Military Sales and Deliveries programs. The US also equipped, trained and supported Ethiopian troops under the Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program. Ethiopia has remained a participant of the IMET program in 2000-2004. In August 2003, the U.S. committed $28 million for international trade enhancements with Ethiopia. In 2003, US AID, working with Africare and Catholic Relief Services, was providing disaster relief to “combat famine in the drought-stricken Gambella region of Ethiopia.” The US State Department was informed about unfolding violence in the Gambella region as early as December 16, 2003, through communications to Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Overseas Citizens Division, and the US Embassy in Ethiopia.
Immediately following the February 16, 2004, release of a report by Genocide Watch and Survivor’s Rights International (“Today is the Day of Killing Anuaks”) the United States issued a formal call for “an independent investigation” into the events in Gambella. The State Department and the UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) condemned the ongoing violence in Gambella. Each agency called for “[f]ully transparent and independent investigations by the government” that would “encourage restoration of peace in the troubled region,” and called on the Ethiopian government to investigate allegations of EPRDF involvement in atrocities. In the spring, the EPRDF government launched an “independent inquiry” into the Gambella violence. The Independent Inquiry Commission, established by the Ethiopian House of Peoples’ Representatives, reported that few members of the Ethiopian armed forces were involved in the Gambella killings. In April 1, 2004, testimony before a House of Representatives appropriations panel, US AID representatives asked Congress to approve some $80 million in funding for Ethiopia programs in FY 2005. Ethiopia was described as a “top priority” of the Bush administration. US AID boasted of programs “that lay the groundwork to establish a market-based economy hospitable to investment…”
In a letter of August 6, twelve members of the US Congress called on Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to protect citizens from harm and ensure humanitarian access to the Gambella region. Asking the Meles government to hold officials accountable for any involvement in the violence, the letter also asked for an English version of the Independent Inquiry Commission findings on situation in Gambella. On September 16, US Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced a bill to the House Committee on Appropriations calling for substantive attention to the Anuak problem. The US Department of Defense Central Command (CENTCOM) and European Command (EUCOM) are the pivotal forces behind the “Golden Spear” anti-terrorism program initiated in 2000 to “address issues of terrorism, humanitarian crises, natural disasters, drugs trafficking and refugees in the greater horn of Africa.” “Golden Spear” members include Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea, Djibouti, Seychelles and Egypt. Ethiopia sponsored the July 28-30, 2003 “Golden Spear” symposium (held at Addis Ababa), designed by the DoD “to provide a forum for strategic-level dialogue on current security issues” in the region.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said “the consensus reached at the meeting was a major achievement towards the enhancement of national capacities as well as collaborative efforts to deal with disasters, thus protecting development gains the region has attained over the years.” Meetings of the Golden Spear military group occurred in June in the Seychelles, and July in Tampa, FLA. Participants in July included Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Seychelles.
Gambella Oil Rush
Sources report ten military camps in the immediate vicinity of Gambella town, with an estimated 60 to 100 troops at each. The three major camps are Terfshalaka, about seven kilometers from Gambella town on the Addis Ababa road; Mekod, at the Gambella airport; and a base in the middle of Gambella town. An estimated 60 to 75 troops can be seen at the Gambella airport. Troops are everywhere in the town. Witnesses report trucks of soldiers perpetually coming and going from Gambella along the roads into rural areas. Soldiers were seen to openly extort money and goods from civilians. Vehicles traveling along the roads are expected to stop and pick up any soldiers waiting for rides. Rights workers reportedly witnessed a church building that had been expropriated by soldiers and turned into a semi-permanent barracks. A nearby school was also expropriated and occupied.
On June 13, 2003, Malaysia’s state-owned petroleum corporation, PETRONAS, announced the signing of an exclusive 25-year oil exploration and production sharing agreement with the EPRDF government to exploit the Ogaden Basin and the “Gambella Block” or “Block G” concession. On February 17, 2004, the Ethiopian Minister of Mines announced that Malaysia’s PETRONAS will launch a natural gas exploration project in the Gambella region. Block G covers an area of 15,356 square kilometers within the Gambella Basin. According to Anuak sources, the Ethiopian government held a public meeting in Gambella in February, even as violence against Anuak in rural areas was continuing to rise. One witness testified: “They told people about the oil and how it would benefit everyone. But the Anuak said: ‘How can you talk to us about oil when people are still being killed? We don’t want to talk about the oil.’ But the government said, ‘No, we want to talk about the oil now.'”
The Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau (ZPEB), a powerful subsidiary of China’s second largest national petroleum consortium, the China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC), appears to be the principal oil firm operating in Gambella at present, under subcontract to Malaysia’s national oil company PETRONAS. The base camp for ZPEB equipment and petroleum explorations is located approximately 1.5 kilometers from the center of Gambella town on the Abobo-Gambella road. The Ethiopian site manager, Mr. Degefe, is a highlander who tersely describes himself as “responsible for making all operations and security.” The base camp is under tight security and heavily guarded by EPRDF troops. PETRONAS and the China National Petroleum Corporation currently operate in Sudan. A recent report by Human Rights Watch raises charges that the Asian oil giants have provided cover for their respective governments to ship arms and military equipment to Sudan in exchange for oil concessions granted by Khartoum.
While not cited in the above Human Rights Watch report, ZPEB operates a concession for oil and gas exploration in Block 6 in the Republic of Sudan. ZPEB also operates in petroleum extraction in the Yli Basin of China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, an area noted for egregious human rights violations and systematic state terror against the indigenous Uighur people. According to Human Rights Watch: “Much like Tibetans, the Uighurs in Xinjiang (western China) have struggled for cultural survival in the face of a government- supported influx by Chinese migrants, as well as harsh repression of political dissent and any expression, however lawful or peaceful, of their distinct identity.” On September 18, 2004, a notice was posted around Gambella town indicating that the Southwest Development Company (a new Highlander-owned venture) would be accepting applications for new hires to fill some 117 positions in support of “construction and petroleum related operations in Gambella region.” On September 19, 2004 another notice seeking an additional 70 workers was posted around Gambella town. The posters were stamped with the official seal of the office of the Gambella People’s National Regional State. Anuak sources in Gambella state: “The Anuak people have not been involved in the discussions about the oil, our leaders have not agreed to these projects, and they will not hire any Anuaks for these jobs. If any Anuak says anything about the oil he will be arrested.”
Crocodiles and Rats
The few reports about the situation that have appeared in the international press have misrepresented and distorted the nature of the violence. Reporters traveling to the region have relied upon the EPRDF for security and information, and attempts by Anuaks to make the truth known have largely been ignored. National Public Radio last spring described Anuaks as primitives “once went naked and ate rats.”
Marc Lacey reported from Gambella for the New York Times (June 15, 2004) simultaneous to the Ethiopian military’s ongoing scorched earth campaign against rural villages. Lacey, who arrived with a government escort–including an Ethiopian intelligence and security team comprised of perpetrators of “the problem”–related no first-hand accounts from Anuaks of the summary executions, massacres and mass rape by EPRDF soldiers. Instead, the Times opted for a picturesque story of pastoral harmony, mentioning the violence almost in passing and even noting the threat to local bathers from crocodiles. “Bath time here is a communal affair,” read Lacey’s lead. “Everyone grabs a bar of soap and heads down to the river. As they stand naked in the water a few feet from one another, lathering and rinsing in unison, people from Gambella’s various ethnic groups appear at ease. The Anuak, the Nuer and the highlanders all use the Baro River as their tub.” Just across the Baro River are Anuak villages with scars attesting to the huts that were torched–some with people inside. But these went unmentioned by the New York Times. The EPRDF military has been said to routinely dump the bodies of the disappeared in Gambella’s rivers.
ADDIS ABABA (IRIN) – Ethiopia will hold national elections for its federal parliament on 15 May 2005, officials told IRIN. Ten national and 57 regional parties will run in the polls, with results announced on 8 June 2005, officials from the National Election Board (NEB) said on Saturday.
Ethiopia’s Information Minister Bereket Simon said that the elections were likely to be fought on the issues of the economy and democratic reforms, adding that it would allow the electorate to vote on the government’s economic and development record.
“The most important issues in the 2005 elections are going to be economic progress, good governance and development,” he said. “The issue of conducting a free and fair election is going to be a priority for the government.”
International election observers have been invited into the country to monitor the polls, which were previously marred by serious irregularities. Some 38 million people are expected to vote at 35,000 polling stations in Ethiopia’s 547 constituencies, costing US $5.2 million.
Voting is a mammoth logistical exercise in the ethnically and linguistically diverse country. Ethiopia is over 1 million sq. km in size and less than half of the 70 million people can read or write.
“These will be very significant elections,” Mekonnen Wondimu, from the NEB, told IRIN. “We are a backward country so the issue of economic development will be crucial – how to develop this backward nation. On these issues the political parties differ.”
It is widely expected by analysts that the ruling Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi will retain power. They currently control 479 seats in parliament since the 2000 elections. Elections are held every five years. Affiliated parties make up the majority of the remaining seats.
The EPRDF came to power after overthrowing former ruler Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991 following nearly two decades of guerrilla war. Opposition groups have called for electoral reform ahead of the elections, saying polling is skewed in favour of the ruling party.
Lidetu Ayalew, general secretary of the Ethiopian Democratic Party, also called for access to the state-run media to stand a chance of defeating the incumbent government. But government spokesman Zemedkun Teckle insisted the authorities want to ensure “free and fair elections”.
ADDIS ABABA (IRIN) – The head of the National Election Board (NEB) on 24 June urged government and opposition parties in Ethiopia to ensure “free and fair” elections next year.
Asefa Biru, the NEB executive secretary, told IRIN that his organisation “will insist government closely cooperate with the election board to take measures when any official or overzealous cadre interferes”. The polls are expected to be held in May 2005, but both the government and the opposition are already gearing up to contest.
Some 38 million people are expected to vote in 547 constituencies, costing the country US $5.2 million. Sixty-seven opposition groups are expected to challenge the government, which holds 88 percent of the seats in the country’s parliament.
In the 2000 election, observers from embassies in the capital, Addis Ababa, said the national elections, while generally free and fair, had been marred by irregularities in the south of the country.
Asefa said voter education would ensure fair elections and that the NEB – which comprises seven independent officials – was training election officers. He dismissed criticisms levelled at him by opposition groups that he was “not independent” because he had been appointed by parliament and was too closely linked to the ruling party, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front.
He also rejected calls for the participation of international election observers, whom he described as “tourists”, saying they often had little understanding of the country and its languages. “Elections are a long process that don’t just start in the morning and finish in the evening. Often people who come don’t have the experience of the country,” he said, noting that he was also “reluctant” to accept funding from foreign governments to support elections in the country.
“An election that is run by foreign aid is not sustainable, because a certain standard would be set with fanciful election materials, and if that support does not continue, then the next election would be considered substandard,” Asefa said. “The integrity of the process would be in jeopardy.”
He also rejected criticism that using government officials to run an election – a method which places elections in Ethiopia amongst the cheapest in the world – could threaten the outcome. “Just because they are government officials one cannot assume they will be partial to the government,” he said.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Gebremaria v. Ashcroft
Petition for review form the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Elizabeth A. Holmes, argued, Bloomington, Minnesota, for petitioner.
Thomas B. Fatouros, argued, Washington, D.C (Timothy P. McIlmail, Washington, D.C. on the brief), for respondent.
Before SMITH, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
1
Kefay Gebremaria (Gebremariam) seeks review of a denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) of her motion to reopen her deportation case. We affirm.
I. Background
2
Gebremaria lawfully entered the United States in April of 1995 as a visitor from Ethiopia. She applied for asylum alleging fear of persecution due to her political activity within Ethiopia. In August 1997, an immigration judge denied Gebremaria’s asylum application following a hearing conducted in September 1996. Gebremaria appealed to the Board, which subsequently dismissed her appeal on December 26, 2001. In May 2003, Gebremaria filed a petition to reopen based on new evidence and evidence of changed circumstances. Specifically, Gebremaria claimed that because of her Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”)1 status she “would face a death sentence” if she were forced to return to Ethiopia. She also claimed that her husband had disappeared in Ethiopia two years earlier after being arrested and jailed by Ethiopian authorities, and that her family thought he had been killed. Lastly, she claimed that her political association with the All-Amhara People’s Organization, (“AAPO”) a political group, placed her in danger of future persecution.2
3
In support of her motion to reopen, Gebremaria submitted a January 2002 letter from her doctor in the United States, stating that he “ha[d] seen [Ms. Gebremaria] since 1997,” and that “[a]t that time she was diagnosed with advanced AIDS.” She also submitted a May 2003 letter from the same doctor stating that Gebremaria “has been followed and treated in the Infectious Diseases Clinic for several years,” and that “[h]er lowest CD4 count has been 74 in August of 1997, well below the 200 cutoff for AIDS.” Finally, Gebremaria submitted a May 2003 letter from her sister in Ethiopia that stated that Gebremaria’s husband had disappeared from jail two years earlier, and that she should not return to Ethiopia.
4
The Board denied Gebremaria’s motion to reopen her case on June 10, 2003. The Board denied the motion upon finding: 1) the HIV/AIDS evidence Gebremaria wanted to present was not “new” evidence and could have been presented at the original hearing in 1997; 2) insufficient evidence existed regarding the circumstances of her husband’s imprisonment and two-year disappearance in Ethiopia to establish a prima facie case of asylum eligibility; 3) Gebremaria failed to establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Gebremaria timely petitioned this court for review.3
II. Analysis
5
On appeal, Gebremaria asks us to reverse and remand to allow an immigration judge to consider her petition for asylum due to her HIV health status and her husband’s disappearance and possible death.4 She also seeks to supplement the record on appeal.
A. Motion to Supplement the Record
6
As an initial matter, we address Gebremaria’s petition to supplement the record on appeal. Gebremaria asks to include an affidavit from a family member who recently reestablished contact with Gebremaria’s husband. The affidavit indicates that the husband escaped from prison and has been in hiding for two years. We deny this request.
7
Before IIRIRA, this and other circuits used 28 U.S.C. § 2347(c) to invoke discretionary authority to remand immigration cases in which 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) applied, so that new, non-record evidence could be admitted on appeal and remanded for consideration by the Board. See, e.g., Makonnen v. INS, 44 F.3d 1378, 1384-86 (8th Cir.1995); Saiyid v. INS, 132 F.3d 1380, 1384-85 (11th Cir.1998); Becerra-Jimenez v. INS, 829 F.2d 996, 1000-02 (10th Cir.1987); Bernal-Garcia v. INS, 852 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir.1988); Dolores v. INS, 772 F.2d 223, 226-27 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Coriolan v. INS, 559 F.2d 993, 1002-04 (5th Cir.1977). However, because this is a transitional case,5 the IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(B) directs that “a court may not order the taking of additional evidence under section 2347(c) of title 28.” Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1279 (11th Cir.2001); Altawil v. INS, 179 F.3d 791, 792-93 (9th Cir.1999). Thus, IIRIRA’s prohibition of remanding for the consideration of additional evidence pertains to non-record evidence that is introduced in the first instance before a reviewing court. See Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132, 1138 (9th Cir.2000) (“Section 2347 concerns a party’s appeal to [this] court [asking permission] to adduce additional evidence, for example, where new evidence about a well-founded fear of persecution is discovered.”).
8
We, as did the court in Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1281-82, interpret IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(B) as eliminating our authority under § 2347(c) to remand to the Board so that an alien can present “additional evidence.” See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(B); Saiyid, 132 F.3d at 1384 n. 5 (noting, in dicta, that IIRIRA “eliminates § 2347 jurisdiction over motions to reopen”). Under transitional rule § 309(c)(4)(B), we must act within the constructs of § 1105a(a)(4) and may not rely on our § 2347(c) authority. As such, IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(B) is a jurisdictional bar that precludes our consideration of non-record evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. Gebremaria’s motion to supplement is therefore denied.
B. Merits
9
Motions to reopen deportation proceedings, like petitions for rehearing and motions for new trial, are disfavored because of the strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close, and because “[g]ranting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case.” INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (quotation omitted). In Abudu, the Supreme Court noted at least three independent grounds on which the Board may deny a motion to reopen: failure to establish a prima facie case for asylum; failure to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence or failure to reasonably explain why asylum was not initially sought; or a determination that the movant would not be entitled to this discretionary relief. Id., 485 U.S. at 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904. The Board’s decision is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Id.; Raffington v. INS, 340 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir.2003).
1. Evidence of HIV/AIDS Status
10
In her first claim for relief, Gebremaria argues that the Board abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen because evidence of her HIV/AIDS status is material evidence that was unavailable at the time of her deportation hearing. In addition, she argues that circumstances in Ethiopia have changed due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in that country. She argues that if she returns to Ethiopia, she will be unable to procure the medication used to control the virus and “she would face a death sentence.” Gebremaria argues that she did not present this evidence to the immigration court or the Board because she only learned of her HIV/AIDS status two months prior to her final hearing, and she had not yet considered the long-term effects of having a life-threatening disease. Gebremaria cites to various reports regarding the epidemic in Ethiopia and Ethiopia’s failure to manage the problem to date. Although Gebremaria notes that she was provided a list of treatment centers in Ethiopia, she argues that the list does not contain information regarding the type of treatment available or whether she would have access to medication at these facilities. She also notes that she suffers from other serious health problems, including a thyroid condition requiring radiation therapy, diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure. Finally, she argues that, as a known member of the opposition party, she would likely suffer at the hands of a government that controls the treatment centers. And, because she had been imprisoned before for her political views, she likely would be again and suffer greatly because of her medical condition.
11
The government responds that Gebremaria knew of her HIV/AIDS status at the time of her original proceedings but failed to notify the immigration judge of her condition. The government notes that as of August 1997 (when the immigration judge denied her asylum application), Gebremaria knew-but failed to apprise the judge-of her condition. Therefore, the government argues, the Board did not abuse its discretion because the evidence was previously available.
12
Gebremaria’s first deportation hearing occurred on September 19, 1996, and the hearing to determine the merits of her claim occurred on August 13, 1997, after which the judge rendered an oral decision. The medical evidence presented by Gebremaria includes two letters from her treating physician, Dr. David Strike, dated May 6, 2003, and January 14, 2002. The January 2002 letter stated that he had seen Gebremaria since 1997, and at that time she was diagnosed with “advanced AIDS.” The letter did not specify the exact time that Dr. Strike first saw her. The May 2003 letter indicated that Gebremaria’s CD4 count was “well below the 200 cutoff for AIDS” in August 1997. Again, the letter did not specify the date the CD4 count measurement was taken.
13
There is no statutory provision for the reopening of a deportation proceeding, and the regulations do not specify the conditions under which a motion to reopen must be granted. Khalaj v. Cole, 46 F.3d 828, 833 (8th Cir.1995) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 321-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). The applicable regulation indicates that a motion to reopen for additional evidence must state new and material facts that were not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the prior hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c) (1994). The Board ruled that the advanced nature of her condition in August 1997 indicated that Gebremaria knew and appreciated the seriousness of her condition. The Board determined that this evidence was previously available at the final hearing, and that she should have presented the information to the immigration judge at that time. Gebremaria was aware of-yet failed to present evidence concerning-her condition prior to the final decision in her case. Due to the deferential nature of our review, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Gebremaria’s motion to reopen her deportation case based on her claim of new and material evidence.
B. Prima Facie Case for Asylum
14
Gebremaria next argues that the Board abused its discretion in determining that she could not make a prima facie case for political asylum. She argues that the evidence of her husband’s imprisonment and disappearance, during which time the family believed he was dead, supports her claim that she would suffer future persecution at the hands of the Ethiopian government. She argues that her political connections to the AAPO subjected her to past persecution when she was jailed for a month after participating in a rock-throwing demonstration, and that if she returns to Ethiopia, the same people would persecute her for her political beliefs. She asserts that this danger is even worse now than at the close of her hearing in 1997.
15
To qualify for asylum, an alien must show persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Subjectively, the alien must demonstrate with credible evidence that he or she genuinely fears persecution; objectively, the alien must demonstrate through credible, direct, and specific evidence that a reasonable person in his or her position would fear persecution. Nyonzele v. INS, 83 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.1996). Although acts of violence against an alien’s family members may demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, absent a pattern of persecution tied to the asylum applicant himself or herself, acts of violence against family members do not necessarily demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Id., 83 F.3d at 983. In Nyonzele, for example, the alien alleged in part that he held a well-founded fear of persecution because his father had been murdered due to his political beliefs and due to the alien’s desertion from his country’s military. We determined, however, that there was no pattern of persecution linked to the alien himself, and that his father’s murder was due to his political beliefs rather than to any action taken by the alien. Id. We also noted that there was no evidence that any family members surviving the alien’s father suffered physical persecution by the government. Id.
16
Gebremaria offers evidence that she presented to the immigration judge and Board in her original asylum petition. That evidence included her past month-long imprisonment following the political demonstration. However, the immigration judge and Board determined that this evidence alone was insufficient to establish a fear of future persecution due to her political beliefs. Therefore, to bolster her claim here, she submitted evidence relating to her husband’s disappearance following his imprisonment in an Ethiopian prison. Gebremaria argues that this evidence indicates that if she returns to the country, she would be subject to the same fate. However, Gebremaria’s evidence is insufficient under our case law to establish a claim for fear of future persecution based on acts against her husband which, without evidence more specific as to Gebremaria, cannot be imputed to her. Nyonzele, 83 F.3d 975. As such, the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that Gebremaria failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum.
17
Based on the foregoing, we deny Gebremaria’s motion to supplement the record and her petition to review the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen her deportation case.
Notes:
1
HIV is the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or “AIDS.”
2
Gebremaria did not claim in her motion that she was entitled to protection pursuant to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. However, the motion noted that Gebremaria would be eligible at some point to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States based upon a Visa petition filed on her behalf by her brother
3
The Board entertained Gebremaria’s petition to reopen her deportation proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The Board’s June 10, 2003, decision denying the motion was a final order of deportation from the United States. Because her deportation proceedings were pending before April 1, 1997, and because she received a final order of deportation from the Board after October 31, 1996, this is a “transitional” case, and we possess jurisdiction to entertain Gebremaria’s petition for review of the Board’s decision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1994)See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) § 309(c)(1), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-626 (Sept. 30, 1996).
4
Gebremaria waived (by failing to argue on appeal) a final issue regarding her possible future persecution in Ethiopia for her affiliation with the All-Amhara People’s Organization (“AAPO”). In addition, although she now claims that she is entitled to protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, we lack jurisdiction to hear that claim because she did not raise that in her motion to the BoardAfolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir.2000) (in reviewing decisions of the Board, we lack jurisdiction to review claims that were not presented to the Board in the first instance).
5
Transitional cases are those where a final order of deportation is entered more than thirty days after the September 30, 1996, enactment of IIRIRA and deportation proceedings are begun before April 7, 1997
