Skip to content

Africa

The displaced Ethiopians

Posted on , Updated on by Yilma Bekele

By Yilma Bekele

I am sure we are all familiar with what is known as the ‘{www:melting pot}’ concept when it comes to describing how America functions. The term is a metaphor ‘for a {www:heterogeneous} society becoming more homogeneous, the different elements “melting together” into a harmonious whole with one common culture.

The concept was popularized in the 1900 with the influx of immigrants from all over. It was challenged in 1970’s with some questioning the idea of total meld and wanted to preserve cultural differences as valuable part of a civil society and proposed an alternative metaphor the ‘mosaic or salad bowl’ concept. This term has come to dominate the Canadian experience. It proposes the mix of ethnic groups, languages and cultures that can harmoniously co-exist. It advocates multiculturalism.

Both approaches have managed to build a robust and prosperous society. Over the weekend I had a medical issue and went to the hospital. I, the patient is an immigrant from Ethiopia. My admitting nurse was another Ethiopian. The nurse that took my vitals was from Nigeria. The person who took my x-ray was from Eritrea. My emergency room doctor was a white American. The individual who took me thru the discharge process was a female Hispanic immigrant. The hospital functioned like a well-oiled machine.

I was impressed. It made me see how the US has managed to become such a big powerhouse. There is plenty that needs to change but it is obvious the system is based on a solid ground of willingness to accommodate change while not losing a common vision of one country one people.

It did not take me long to come back to ground. My homeland came to jar me back to reality. The ‘ethnic cleansing’ in southern part of my country was a reminder that all is not well on the home front. The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a loaded term. I am not invoking it lightly. But it to so aptly describes the plight of our citizens that happen to be ‘Amhara’ and their current tribulations. The Benji Maji Zone Administration has seen it fit to expropriate their land and property and drive them out of their homes. Go back to your Kilil they said. Today they are refugees in their own country. The actual term is ‘internally displaced.’

“Internally displaced” is a strange concept to grasp. How could you be a refugee in your own land? In an emerging Democracy like Ethiopia anything is possible. The government led by TPLF (Tigrai Peoples Liberation Movement) is the Party in charge. When they took power they were not into the concept a ‘melting pot’ nor did they appreciate the idea of a ‘salad bowl.’ Our ḥizbāwī weyānē ḥārinet tigrāy ሕዝባዊ ወያኔ ሓርነት ትግራይ leaders were enamored by the concept of ‘Apartheid’. Building enclaves was their brilliant solution. The plight of the Amhara’s is Apartheid in practice. That is what Meles Zenawi is constructing in Ethiopia. Separate disjointed entities at war with each other while his single ethnic based party fans the hate flame.

Do you think I am being an alarmist? Do you think I am falling into the trap of ethnic identification? I do not think so. If people are forced to flee due to their ethnicity be it in Benji Maji, Gambella, Sarajevo or Kigali you have to call it what it is ‘ethnic cleansing.’ The Serbian Military’s attempt to drive Moslems out of Sarajevo was defined as practicing ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Hutus targeted Tutsis and the blood bath was judged as an ugly attempt at ‘ethnic cleansing.’ During the border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea both countries carried out limited form of ‘ethnic cleansing’. May I remind you some of us showed total indifference while a few cheered. Ethnic cleansing is an International crime. It is crime against humanity. What has happened to the Amhara’s of Benji Maji Zone is ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Their only crime is being an Amhara and finding them selves in the wrong Apartheid designated ‘Home Land”.

This abhorrent crime is committed by the TPLF party, which is led by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. They set such system in place. They designed it. Some are claiming the TPLF party has gone rouge and become the party of one family. I beg to differ. The TPLF was born a monster, grew up to be a monster and will die as a monster. It has never ever done anything that could be seen as a positive contribution to the people of Tigrai in particular and the people of Ethiopia in general.

Kilil is not a new idea. It was copied from the book of the Nationalist Party of South Africa. The White people’s party. Their creation of the ‘Apartheid’ system set up ten Bantustans or homeland for Black people. It kept the Blacks apart. It made them strangers to each other. There was no Black South African but an ethnic based homeland citizen. Leaders like Chief Buthelezi of the great nation of Kwa Zulu were reduced to serving the White masters at the expense of their people. Exile some, corrupt a few and bully the rest was the hallmark of Apartheid. Kilil is the son of Apartheid. In today’s Ethiopia Kilil defines who you are and that of being an Ethiopian is secondary. Benji Maji is the outcome of Kilil at work. You area a citizen of your Kilil not your Country.

TPLF’s system is working like a charm. The folks displaced from Benji Maji are living proof. The cultivation of hate has made us mistrust each other. The insistence on separate Kilil’s has caused us plenty of civil strife. No place is immune from this sickness. Even places of higher learning such as the University and Kilil based Colleges are the hot bed of ‘ethnic’ clashes. I am writing about it. It has become our everyday experience. We are in the process of becoming strangers to each other. The meaning of being an Ethiopian is being deflated, downsized, given negative connotations and made something to hide out of shame.

Why some people in leadership do that should be left to psychologists, social scientists and historians to explain. Our problem is here and now. We are all affected by this devaluation of a beautiful proud country. We are not the first to be under this type of calamity. Look Iraq was once a proud nation. Today Iraqis avoid Iraq. Syria is entering that zone of madness on a national scale. Ethnic strife is the common thread between the two. Kilil is the breeding ground for ‘ethnic strife’. The TPLF party is the fertilizer.

Are you inoculated against this virus? What do you think when you hear of Benji Maji? Upset? Depressed? Confused? Hope less? You see the current leaders of Ethiopia are free to do what they want. The only way to stop them is by showing them there are consequences to their action. There is a price to pay for bad deeds. The people organized around Timret are building an all-inclusive Front as a solid foundation for our future Ethiopia. ESAT has managed to be our voice. Andenet is still operating under dire circumstances. All these groups and organizations are helping the people of Benji Maji by doing their share so there will be no more Benji Maji’s. Change will not happen with out involvement. We can work together as one to create a “melting Pot’ or a ‘Salad Bowl’ or continue on building Apartheid. It is up to you. Show me rather than tell me.

No Way for Ethiopian Refugees in Norway

Posted on , Updated on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

Alemayehu G Mariam

eth pro osloEthiopians are having a very hard time. Inside their own country, they are victimized by dictatorship, famine and pestilence. Thousands of Ethiopians who have fled political persecution and economic privation caused by systemic and massive corruption and poor governance are facing unspeakable victimization in various parts of North Africa, the Middle East and other parts of Africa.

This past January, I wrote a commentary entitled: “Ethiopia: Middle Passage to the Middle East” on the plight of the tens of thousands of Ethiopian domestic workers in the Middle East and North Africa. Substantial anecdotal evidence showed many of these workers are subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and that they are physically and sexually abused and economically exploited in a system of “contract slavery”. Last August, the daughter-in-law of the late Moamar Gadhafi poured scalding hot water on her young Ethiopian domestic worker totally disfiguring her (video here). Many Ethiopian domestic workers in other parts of the Middle East have faced mistreatment and abuse that would amount to torture under international law (video here). Another young Ethiopian domestic worker was so distraught she confronted a representative of dictator Meles Zenawi’s regime at a town hall meeting and demanded an answer: “Why is that our government does not check on us, follow up on our conditions, ask about us?” (video here). Crying her eyes out, she demanded, “Where is Ethiopia’s flag? I can’t take it anymore. I can’t take it anymore…!!!!”

A few of weeks ago, Alem Dechassa, another Ethiopian domestic worker was severely beaten and forced into a vehicle right outside the gates of the Ethiopian Embassy in Lebanon as Ethiopian “diplomats” looked on without lifting a finger or raising a voice (video here). Days later, Lebanese authorities announced that Alem hanged herself while undergoing treatment in, of all places, a psychiatric hospital!  In the last few days, it was reported that Ethiopian Refugees in Yemen were beaten by Yemeni security forces as they sought help from the UNHCR office. Some 25 refugees were taken into detention.  Another group of Ethiopian refugees protesting at the Yemen Human Rights Office was reportedly attacked by police. In Kenya, the Sudan and even in South Africa, Ethiopian refugees have faced abuse and brutality from law enforcement and vigilante elements. Ethiopians must be the most right-less people in the world!

Ethiopian Political Refugees in Norway 

The latest horror story in the tragic saga of Ethiopian refugees comes from Norway. Recently, the Government of Norway put into place a plan to “involuntarily” (forcibly) deport hundreds of Ethiopian political refugees back to Ethiopia. According to human rights sources, some of these refugees have lived and worked in Norway for over two decades. Most of these refugees were given work permits and allowed to live freely and work in Norway when they first entered. Most learned the language and adopted Norwegian culture. Among the refugees include some 450 children born in Norway and living in “asylum seeker reception centers” for several years. Many of these children attend school and some of them speak only Norwegian.

The vast majority of these refugees had fled Zenawi’s ruthless dictatorship by the skin of their teeth. Many of them are ardent opponents of Zenawi’s regime in Norway. As recently as October 2011, many of these refugees flooded the streets of Oslo to protest the arrival of Zenawi for an energy conference (video here). Zenawi’s operatives reportedly videotaped the protesters in the streets, according to sources. Many of these refugees have a long history of activism in Ethiopian opposition political organizations in Norway at the leadership and grassroots levels taking advantage of democratic freedoms in Norway.

The “Memorandum of Understanding”

The basis for the forcible return of the Ethiopian political refugees is aMemorandum of Understanding (MoU),  between the Norwegian Government and the regime of  Zenawi, which purports to comply with the requirements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other treaties concerning repatriation of refugees to their countries of origin. The objective of the MoU is to facilitate a “dignified process of assisted return”. It provides for the “Government of Ethiopia to carry out the necessary measures for the return of Ethiopian nationals from Norway.” The Norwegian Government is expected to provide “necessary support” for implementation and monitoring. Refugees who agree to voluntarily return are promised a set amount of money upon their arrival. Incredibly, in Annex 3 to the MoU, the Norwegian Government will provide to the “National Intelligence and Security Service of Ethiopia via the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Addis Ababa” detailed personal data on each refugee including, among other things, “personal details”, “passport, national identity, driver license” information, “special circumstances relating to the transferee” and the “observations” of the Norwegian National Police Immigration Service.

Upon signing of the MoU, Norway’s international development minister, Erik Solheim, announced that the regime of Zenawi will receive annual aid in the amount of  350 million kroner. (Perhaps this should not come as a surprise. USD$35 million was paid in the last days of the Derg to let go the Beta Israelis.) Solheim said it is not quid pro quo (refugees for cash). Various Norwegian political leaders, opposition parties and human rights activists have severely criticized and condemned the deportation program.

MoU or RfC?

First, a major clarification. The Norwegian MoU concerning the forcible return of the Ethiopian political  refugees is actually not an MoU in any legal sense. Under international law, an MoU is an important legal instrument which falls under the broad category of “treaties” and must be registered in the United Nations’ treaty database. When properly performed, an MoU could serve in the place of a formal treaty.  Whether MoUs are binding or not binding under international law depends on the intent of the parties, the position of the signatory officials and the specific terms and conditions.

MoU is a disingenuous misnomer for what the Government of Norway has concluded with Zenawi’s regime.  At best the document may qualify as an “exchange of notes” similar to an ordinary private contract. But the MoU is palmed off to the refugees as though it is a binding and enforceable legal document which protects their rights and guarantees their safety and welfare once they are forcibly returned. The MoU provides the illusion of legality and a veneer of moral decency for a despicable act of forcing political refugees to the gates of  Zenawi’s  infamous prison gulags, which have been widely documented.

The Norwegian MoU is what in the old days used to be called a “gentlemen’s agreement” or “letter of intent”. It is merely a collection of aspirational statements (wishful thoughts, desires) contained  in a “memorandum” or a note expressing a general “understanding” (not a binding agreement) about the wholesale deportation of Ethiopian political refugees from Norway. It is a thinly veiled document which expresses the wishes of the Norwegian Government to get rid of the refugees as quickly as possible without creating any legal obligations on the part of Norway or Zenawi’s regime. The MoU contains NO language that is enforceable at law by the refugee third-party beneficiaries (Ethiopian political refugees) and makes no express or implied legal commitment concerning the welfare or safety of these refugees after they are delivered in planeloads to Zenawi. Its enforcement relies entirely on the discretion of Zenawi’s regime. Norway may call its “agreement” an MoU, but to the rest of the world it looks, walks and talks like a RfC (refugees for cash) program.

Delivering Lambs to the Wolf’s Lair

The Norwegian MoU may vaguely remind some students of history the “Munich Agreement” of 1939 selling out Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain victoriously declared, “We regard the agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two people never to go to war with one another again… Here is the paper that bears his name as well as mine…” The world soon found out that the “Munich Agreement” was not worth the paper it was written on. Hitler laughed at Chamberlain.

Concluding an MoU with one who has shredded his own constitution, trampled on his own laws, sneered at international human rights treaties, vilified international human rights organizations, imprisoned tens of thousands of his people, claimed election victory by 99.6 percent, crushed all opposition parties and democratic institutions is an exercise in futility. Concluding an MoU with one who has ignored the plight of 40 thousand  Ethiopia domestic workers in the Middle East is an act of willful denial. Concluding an agreement with one who has weaponized famine and uprooted and “villagized” hundreds of thousands of people from their ancestral homes is a colossal act of moral indifference and callousness to the plight and suffering of Ethiopian political refugees.

It is  laughable for the Norwegian Government to tout the MoU as some sort of “humane” and “dignified” mechanism for “reintegration” and “repatriation” of Ethiopian refugees denied asylum. The Norwegian Government has gone to great lengths to reassure the refugees, Ethiopians at large and the world of its MoU and eagerly pointed out the signatures on the lines and made lofty proclamations about “humane reintegration”. But at the end of the day, Zenawi will be laughing and the returned refugees will crying their eyes out in one of Zenawi’s secret prison gulags. With its MoU, Norway has delivered these persecuted and long-suffering political refugees to the wolf’s lair on a silver platter.

Do the Ethiopian Refugees Have a Well-founded Fear of Persecution?

How Norway applies its asylum laws are matters best left to Norwegian law and judicial and administrative process. However, Norwegian asylum law must conform to 1951 Refugee Convention (Norway ratified the Convention on March 23, 1953) as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” The Ethiopian refugees are making their claims under Art. 1.

Under Article 33 (1)  of the Convention, “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion.” The prohibition on forcible return of refugees is also a widely accepted principle of customary international law, the violation of which requires immediate notification of and intervention by the UNHCR. It does not appear UNHCR assistance was sought in this case.

Whether the Ethiopian refugees in Norway have a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” under the Convention presents interesting legal questions. The Convention requires states to include in their asylum procedures, among other things, an up-to-date knowledge of all the relevant objective circumstances in the country of origin. Such knowledge should play a critical role in the determination of whether to grant asylum. The burden of proof is on the asylum applicant, but the standard of proof in asylum cases is not “well-founded fear of persecution” beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather proof that it is “reasonably possible”.

For the Ethiopian political refugees, obtaining corroborative evidence of “well-founded fear of being persecuted…” is difficult and sometimes impossible given the extremely oppressive nature of Zenawi’s dictatorship. Because of language issues and inability to legally articulate their factual circumstances, inability to remember all dates, times and places and other minor details and statements that may contain minor inconsistencies or are incorrect for lack of understanding of the process, it is easy to mistake an applicant’s claim for asylum as lacking credibility. Under the Convention, the totality of factors is taken into account in the overall assessment of the applicant’s credibility. If the applicant presents a claim which is coherent, credible and plausible, the Convention Convention urges giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant as regards those statements for which evidentiary proof  is lacking.

The “up-to-date knowledge of all the relevant objective circumstances” in Ethiopia has been documented by nearly every major human rights organization in the world and the world’s major media. The facts are incontrovertible and summarized in the Human Rights Watch World Report 2012: Ethiopia:

Ethiopian authorities continued to severely restrict basic rights of freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Hundreds of Ethiopians in 2011 were arbitrarily arrested and detained and remain at risk of torture and ill-treatment…Long-term pre-trial detention without charge, often without access to counsel, is common, notably under the Anti-Terror law, which allows police to request additional investigation periods of 28 days each from a court before filing charges, for up to four months. Human Rights Watch is aware of at least 29 opposition party members, journalists, and an actor who at this writing were currently held in remand detention under the Anti-Terror law… The restrictive Charities and Societies Proclamation, adopted in 2009, which prohibits organizations receiving more than 10 percent of their funding from abroad from carrying out human rights and governance work, continues to severely hamper basic rights monitoring and reporting activities…  No independent domestic or international organization has access to all of Ethiopia’s detention facilities; it is impossible to determine the number of political prisoners and others arbitrarily detained or their condition.

What Could Happen to the Political Refugees Forcibly Returned by Norway?

MoU or no MoU, the Ethiopians political refugees forcibly returned will very likely face all forms of overt and subtle persecution. Without a doubt, upon their forcible return, they will be rendered right-less. Though the Ethiopian Constitution grants them a panoply of rights fortified by international human rights conventions (Eth. Const., Art. 13), they will have absolutely no constitutional protection. In the absence of freedom of speech and of the press, they will be unable to communicate their circumstances to anyone. In the absence of an independent judiciary, they will have no means of seeking justice or redress for grievances under law or the MoU. In the absence of  civil society institutions, they will have no one to champion their cause and defend their rights. In the absence of the rule of law, one by one they will be picked up, jailed and tortured.

Zenawi is a cunning, calculating and spiteful dictator. He knows that in a few months the issue of these refugees will fade out of public awareness. He knows there will be no one to follow on their welfare or circumstances. He knows there are no groups and organizations in the country who will closely monitor the situation of these refuges. Zenawi will bide his time. When no one is noticing, he will nab each one of these repatriated refugees and there will be no traces of them. That is his M.O. It can be predicted with reasonable certainty that in one year’s time, few of the returned refugees will be available for a head count!

The Norwegian MoU, like the Ethiopian Constitution, will offer nothing but lofty words and empty promises to the refugees. It will have little practical meaning or effect in the face of Zenawi’s brutal dictatorship. History will show that the Norwegian MoU will amount to nothing more than just a scrap of paper.

What Would Dr. Fridtjof Nansen Do with the Ethiopian Refugees?

Norway is known for many great things — the Nobel Prize, international peace and the Oslo Accords. Norway was even rated as the most peaceful nation in the world in 2007.  Norway is also known for its extraordinary humanitarian service to refugees worldwide. The internationally renowned Norwegian Refugee Council has provided assistance and protection to millions of refugees and returnees worldwide since the end of WW II.

When it comes to helping refugees, few equal the great Norwegian explorer, scientist, diplomat and humanist, Dr. Fridtjof  Nansen. Dr. Nansen was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922 for his humanitarian efforts on behalf of stateless persons (the “Nansen Passport” that was an international identity card for stateless refugees). Because of Dr. Nansen’s work and efforts, the lives of millions of Russian, Greek, Turkish and Armenian refugees were saved. More recently, former Norwegian soccer star Bjorn Heidenstrom cycled from North to South Africa to put the spotlight on millions of forcibly displaced Africans.

Regarding the Ethiopian political refugees, the prominent Norwegian author Jan Kjerstad perhaps described it best:  “It is possible this is the right thing to do (deportation) seen from a bureaucratic point of view… Nevertheless, in the big picture, this is an ethical act for which there is only one word: shame.”

If I could ask one question of Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg and his ruling party, it would be this:  What would Dr. Nansen do with your MoU, or better yet your RfC program?  I believe he would offer an MOU of his own to his fellow Norwegians: Moral Outrage Urged!

Shame!

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

and  http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/  and

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

The Dam and the Damned: Gibe III Ethiopia

Posted on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

Alemayehu G Mariam

Cry Me a River, Cry Me a Lake

Three years ago to the week, I wrote a weekly commentary entitled, “Cry Me a Lake: Crime Against Nature”. That commentary focused on the plight of tens of thousands of Ethiopians who are sick and dying from drinking  the polluted waters of Lake Koka, once a pristine lake, located some 50km south of Addis Ababa. A world renowned scientist from the University of Durham, U.K., analyzed water samples from Lake Koka and found “high concentrations of the microcystis bacteria”, which he said are among “some of the most toxic molecules known to man.” I argued:

The Lake Koka environmental disaster is only the tip of the iceberg. Ethiopia is facing an ecological catastrophe: deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, overgrazing and population explosion. The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute says Ethiopia loses up to 200,000 hectares of forest every year. Between 1990 and 2005, Ethiopia lost 14.0% of its forest cover (2,114,000 hectares) and 3.6% of its forest and woodland habitat. If the trend continues, it is expected that Ethiopia could lose all of its forest resources in 11 years, by the year 2020.

Dam, Dams and Damned Dams

omoLike the people who are dying around Lake Koka, the people who live in the Omo River Basin in Southwestern Ethiopia are facing an environmental disaster that could push them not only to hunger, starvation, dislocation and conflict, but potentially to extinction through habitat destruction. According to International Rivers, a highly respected environmental and human rights organization committed to “protecting rivers and defending the rights of communities that depend on them”:

“The Omo River is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of indigenous people in southwest Ethiopia and northern Kenya. The Gibe 3 Hydropower Dam, already under construction, will dramatically alter the Omo River’s flood cycle, affecting ecosystems and livelihoods all the way down to the world’s largest desert lake, Kenya’s Lake Turkana. The Lower Omo Valley, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is home to an estimated 200,000 agro-pastoralists from eight distinct indigenous groups who depend on the Omo River’s annual flood to support riverbank cultivation and grazing lands for livestock.”

The Omo River and its tributaries are being exploited for their hydro electrical potential, and the surrounding areas are handed out to so-called international investors for export commercial agriculture. “Gilgel Gibe I” was built at a cost of nearly USD$300 million provided by the World Bank and other European investment banks. It became operational in 2004 after 6 years of construction and generates 183 MW. The 63 square-kilometer reservoir created for the dam displaced some 10 thousand people. “Gilgel Gibe II”, according to Salini Costruttori, the Italian company that built it, “is a continuation of Gilgel Gibe I project” and is “not a dam” but “instead will use the water discharged by the Gilgel Gibe I channeled through a 26km tunnel under Fofa mountain to Omo River Valley.” It was built at a cost of 373 million euros provided by Italy and the European Investment Bank. Gilgel Gibe II collapsed in February 2010 just weeks after its official inauguration.

The “Gibe III” Dam is the one that has raised the most concern among environmentalists and multilateral institutions because it poses the most serious hydrological risks to the quarter of a million people and the flora and fauna of the Omo Basin. Experts fear that Gibe III could destroy the fragile ecosystem for an additional 300,000 people downstream in Lake Turkana, a UNESCO World Heritage Site (a site of special cultural or physical significance to the world at large) which gets up to 90% of its water from the Omo River.

“Gibe III”- A Dam Environmental Disaster Under Construction

In 2006, construction began on the Gibe III Dam. In July 2008, Ethiopia’s Environmental Protection Authority issued the Gibe III Environmental Social Impact Assessment approving the project. The report was a shameless whitewash which rubber-stamped the project. The report unabashedly concluded that there will be little adverse environmental impact and that the reservoir area for Gibe III is unfit for human habitation because it is infested by deadly mosquitoes and tsetse flies (which cause “sleeping sickness”):

In 2006, an estimated 253,412 people around the Gibe III… However, as a result of steep slope and Tsetse fly infestation, there is no settlement in the future reservoir area and settlements are concentrated on the highland in areas outside the valley… As the result of the less favorable rainfall, Tsetse fly infestation and the consequent occurrence of cattle disease, trypanosomiasis, there is very little farming activity around the Omo valley bottom lands. The project areas are highly endemic for malaria with continuous transmission and malaria is by far the most common of the diseases… The presence of several rivers (tributaries to Omo River) provides ideal breeding habitats for mosquitoes…The the population living within the proposed dam and the reservoir areas are not in close proximity to this UNESCO designated heritage site. No visible archaeological remains, which have scientific, cultural, public, economic, ethnic and historic significances, have been observed in the area and dam sites. The sites have no archaeological importance… A wide range of livestock diseases affect animal in the Lower Omo.

This “environmental impact statement” has been roundly criticized for “its poor preparation and belated release two years after construction began, a flagrant violation of Ethiopian environmental law, which requires an impact assessment be approved prior to construction.”

Tewolde Geber Egziabher, the General Manager of the Environmental Protection Authority of  Ethiopia, is dismissive of human rights groups and other international institutions who have expressed doubt or criticized the lack rigorous environmental analysis in the construction of  Gibe III. Geber Egziabher said:

I doubt if they [international rights groups] know where Gibe III is except on the map. Those who have been shouting about Gibe III Hydroelectric Project they know it only from thousands miles away. I really do not take their voices seriously… None of the opponents of the Project are from Ethiopia. I  know one from Kenya and several others from Europe. The only person who claimed to have gone to the Gibe III dam site was the BBC reporter; and he can also not judge such measure undertakings from one –day- visit… The interest behind the adverse comment against Gibe III Dam is ignorance. Therefore, I simply dismiss the complaints as they are irrelevant.

An independent study by the African Resources Working Group (ARWG), an expert group of “scholars and consultants from the United States, Europe and  eastern  Africa, with extensive experience in  large hydrodam and  river basin  development research  and  policy issues in the Horn and East Africa,” presented a detailed rebuttal pointing out numerous flaws:

The document [Environmental Impact Assessment] rests on a series of faulty premises and that it is further compromised by pervasive omissions, distortions and obfuscation. The downstream EIA is laced with tables and figures with multiple types of ‘quantitative data’, creating the illusion of a scientific work. While this practice is well known to increase the likelihood of approval by development, finance and oversight agencies, it is fully unacceptable…

An accurate assessment of environmental and social processes within the lower Omo Basin indicates that completion of the Gibe III dam would produce a broad range of negative effects, some of which would be catastrophic in the tri-country region where Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya intersect… The indigenous peoples of the lowermost Omo Basin are dependent on riverside and delta recessional cultivation, as well as grazing resources, food gathering, fishing  and other activities wholly  dependent on flooding  by  the Omo  River. This population would face massive economic losses, with widespread severe hunger, disease and loss of life occurring on a regional scale, if the Gibe III dam is completed.

In June 2011, UNESCO concluded that “GIBE III dam is likely to significantly alter Lake Turkana’s fragile hydrological regime, and threaten its aquatic species and associated biological systems” and “urged the State Party of Ethiopia to immediately halt all construction on the GIBE III dam [and not] damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage located on the territory of another State Party.” Terri Hathaway, director of International Rivers’ Africa program, said Gibe III is “the most destructive dam under construction in Africa.” The project would condemn “half a million of theregion’s most vulnerable people to hunger and conflict.” 

Other regional and international organizations have similarly concluded that Gibe III will have “catastrophic consequences for the tribes of the Omo Riverwho already live close to the margins of life in this dry and challenging area.” They assert that the “dam would dramatically alter the Omo River’s flood cycle, affecting ecosystems and livelihoods and ultimately destroy the local food security and economy. The dwindling of resources caused by the dam is likely to increase local conflicts between ethnic groups.” Even the traditional sources of funding – the European Investment Bank, the African Development Bank, the World bank, the Italian government and others – have withdrawn their support for Gibe III.

Dictator Meles Zenawi responded to the international critics of Gibe III in his usual demeaning and contemptuous style. He claimed those who call for a halt to the construction of the dam “don’t want to see a developed Africa; they want us to remain undeveloped and backward to serve their tourists as a museum.” Zenawi’s representatives followed suit directing their ire at the “vociferous campaigners against the dam: International Rivers and Friends of Lake Turkana”. They charged, “Western activists have no monopoly of concern of environmental issues. Nor do they have any monopoly on accuracy.” They claimed that the international environmentalists make unsubstantiated “assertions” and are “ignorant”.

Verbal pyrotechnics against critics is stock-in-trade for Zenawi and his regime. When the European Union declared in November 2010 that the May 2010 election in which Zenawi claimed victory of 99.6 percent does not meet international standards for fair elections, Zenawi frothed at the mouth calling the report “trash that deserves to be thrown in the garbage. The report is not about our election. It is just the view of some Western neo-liberals who are unhappy about the strength of the ruling party. Anybody who has paper and ink can scribble whatever they want.” Last month, Zenawi shredded Human Rights Watch for criticizing his flagrant abuse of a so-called anti-terrorism law to decimate the independent press and political dissent in Ethiopia:

A campaign has been launched against us… There’s a reason behind it.  This institution [Human Rights Watch] is playing a role of [promoting] ideologies.  This organization and its friends’ world view are playing a role to speak against some countries, if they look to be on the road to success on an ideology that is different from the current world view.  So it’s a campaign to [bring] those of us to our knees that deviate from the current world view.  There’s no connection with human rights.”

So the official view is that all of the opposition to Gibe III is an international conspiracy by the usual boogeymen suspects of  “neocolonialists” “neoliberals”, and perhaps “neoideologists” and “neonates.”

African Dictators and African White Elephants

African dictators like to build big projects. It is part of the “Big Man” syndrome in Africa where public office is a means to private gain and personal glory. Africa’s “Big Men” undertake big projects as a means to achieving glory, greatness,  immortality, and more importantly, as a means of accumulating wealth for themselves and cronies. But these projects in the main are “white elephants” (wasteful, and useless projects).  In the Ivory Coast, Félix Houphouët-Boigny built the largest church in the world, The Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro, at a cost of USD$300 million. It stands empty today. Mobutu built the The Inga Dams in western Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) on the largest waterfalls in the world (Inga Falls). Inga I and Inga II were advertised to provide vast amounts of power domestically; today operate at low output.  When civil war broke out in the late 1990s, these dams went unmanaged and fell into disrepair. Bujagali dam in Uganda had a devastating effect on communities in the area. The backflow submerged a huge area of cultivable and settled land forcing migration and resettlement of large numbers of people. Self-appointed Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic built a 500-room Hotel Intercontinental for hundreds of millions of dollars in the middle of a residential district while millions of his people suffered from starvation.

African dictators like to build dams, shiny glass buildings and commission all sorts of extravagant projects as their people remain trapped in a relentless cycle of poverty. They do it to accumulate great personal wealth, increase their prestige, feed their fragile and insatiable egos, mask their gross incompetence, cover their bloody hands and justify their clinging to power indefinitely. They seek to clothe their naked dictatorships by displaying veneers of progress and development. These dictators could not care less if the people starve, are displaced from their ancestral homes, remain in poverty or go to hell. They could not care less if the environment is destroyed, cultural and archaeological relics are lost or the  ways of life of indigenous people and communities are obliterated. Zenawi wants to be known for having built the “240-meter  Gibe III, the tallest dam in Africa.” He wants to be known as an “African Messiah”. In February 2011, announcing the development of a massive 245,000 hectare sugar plantation in the lower Omo Basin, Zenawi declared with rapturous certainty: “In the coming five years there will be a very big irrigation project and related agricultural development in this zone. I promise you that, even though this area is known as backward in terms of civilization, it will become an example of rapid development.”

The price to be paid for “rapid development” by the Mursi, Suri and Bodi agro-pastoralists and others – those damned by the dam — in the Omo Basin is dislocation, displacement, destruction of traditional ways of life, persecution, loss of ancestral lands, starvation, conflict and potential extinction.

More Power for Ethiopians, No Power for Dictators

Ethiopia, like all other African countries, needs to develop its energy resources to meet the needs of its people,  support its long range economic development plans and improve the standard of living of the people.Ethiopia’s population is expected to triple to 280 million by 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. There is no question that the country needs diverse sources of energy, including renewable energy sources, for its future.

But Gibe III is not intended to meet domestic power needs. Rather, much of the estimated 1,870MW is planned for “export” to Djibouti, Sudan and Kenya, presumably generating 300 million euros annually in profits. That is not particularly reassuring. A recent report by the Global Financial Integrityshowed that between 2000 and 2009, 11.7 billion was stolen out of the country.  In light of this evidence, those claiming to develop Gibe III for national economic development are fooling no one. As the old saying goes, “We may have been born yesterday, but not last night.”

The Toxic Ecology of African Dictatorships 

In December 2009, I wrote a commentary entitled, “The Toxic Ecology of African Dictatorships”:

The inconvenient truth about Africa today is that dictatorship presents a far more perilous threat to the survival of Africans than climate change. The devastation African dictators have wreaked upon the social fabric and ecosystem of African societies is incalculable…. Africans face extreme privation and mass starvation not because of climate change but because of the rapacity of power-hungry dictators. The continent today suffers from a terminal case of metastasized cancer of dictatorships, not the blight of global warming…. The fact of the matter is that while the rest of the world toasts from global warming, Africa is burning down in the fires of dictatorship. While Europeans are fretting about their carbon footprint, Africans are gasping to breathe free under the boot prints of dictators. While Americans are worried about carbon emission trapped in the atmosphere, Africans find themselves trapped in minefields of dictatorship… Africa faces an ecological collapse not because of climate change but because of lack of regime change.

Geber Egziabher, the General Manager of the Environmental Protection Authority, made a comment which Ethiopians should heed carefully. He said those who criticize Gibe III “know it only from thousands miles away. I really do not take their voices seriously… None of the opponents of the Project are from Ethiopia.” He said critics of the dam were “ignorant”.

The fact of the matter is that Zenawi’s regime provided little public information on Gibe III prior to the start of construction and stonewalled any request for information once the project got underway. There has been little  consultation with the people in the Omo River Basin, and the few locals who were “consulted” got the opportunity long after construction was under way. Obviously, in the absence of free speech and a free independent press, it is difficult to discuss, propose alternatives or criticize the dam project. But the evidence is clear that those locals who disagreed with Gibe III and/or the Omo land-grab were treated harshly. A report by the Oakland Institute, a US-based think-tank, has documented how regime soldiers “arrived at Omo Valley villages (and in particular Bodi, Mursi and Suri villages) questioning villagers about their perspectives on the sugar plantations. Villagers are expected to voice immediate support, otherwise beatings (including the use of tasers), abuse and general intimidation occurs”.

Geber Egziabher’s criticism that “none of the opponents of the Project [Gibe III] are from Ethiopia” should be clearly understood. What he is saying is that Ethiopians (including those in the Diaspora) are so environmentally unaware and uninformed that outsiders are making the case for them. Obviously, environmental advocacy is best done by civil society institutions (an Amnesty International report issued last week concluded, “Human rights organizations in Ethiopia have been devastated by the impact of the Charities and Societies Proclamation  passed in January 2009”) but such institutions have been decimated, leaving Ethiopians uninformed about the environmental impact and potential risks of public projects, including free land give-aways to foreign “investors”. It is said that the Chinese will complete work on Gibe III. But there are many environmental challenges looming in Ethiopia; and in addition to taking on the enormous political, social and economic challenges, Ethiopians must now take on the environmental challenge.

We should be grateful to the great international human rights organization that have created awareness on Ethiopia’s precarious environmental situation, particularly on the destruction of Omo River Basin. But we cannot have them do all of the heavy lifting for us. We need to join them and help them help us, and engage in vigorous environmental activism of our own. That means we must create our own environmental civil society organizations, particularly in the Diaspora, and ensure that Ethiopia’s rich and diverse ecosystem is preserved and protected today and for future generations. If we fail to do that, we will all find ourselves in the same  position as the people of the Omo River Basin who are damned by the dam.

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

 

Wikileaks: Eritrea innocent in kidnapping of Europeans

Posted on , Updated on by Negash 

S E C R E T ASMARA 000300
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAE #0300/01 0741405
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 151405Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY ASMARA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8774
INFO RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA IMMEDIATE 6069
RUEHDJ/AMEMBASSY DJIBOUTI 2940
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM 0222
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1308
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1485
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEPADJ/CJTF-HOA J2X CAMP LEMONIER DJ
S E C R E T ASMARA 000300 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

LONDON FOR AFRICA WATCHERS
PARIS FOR AFRICA WATCHERS 

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/15/2017
TAGS: PREL PINR PTER ET ER
SUBJECT: MORE DETAILS: KIDNAPPED EUROPEANS RELEASE IN
ERITREA 

REF: A) ASMARA 282 B) 070649Z MAR 07 ASMARA IIR 6 908 

     0216 

Classified By: AMBASSADOR SCOTT H. DELISI, FOR REASONS 1.4(B) AND (D) 

1. (S/NF) SUMMARY:  On March 14, British Embassy officials
provided additional details about the kidnapping and release
of the five Europeans by the Afar Revolutionary Democratic
Union Front (ARDUF).  The British officials also shared a
report issued by the Government of the State of Eritrea (GSE)
which outlined its efforts to secure the release of the
kidnapped Europeans.  The report indicates that the GSE had
knowledge and access to the abductees as early as March 6,
although the Eritreans shared no information with the British
Embassy until notification of the release and travel of the
abductees to Asmara on March 13.  Despite the GSE,s lack of
transparency in communication with the British and French
Embassies and despite the questions lingering around possible
linkages between the GSE and the ARDUF, there is no
indication at this time that Eritrea was involved in any way
with the kidnapping, and in fact, the GSE appears overall to
have played a proactive role in facilitating the release of
the abductees.  End Summary. 

------------------------------
THE ACCOUNT FROM THE ABDUCTEES
------------------------------ 

2. (C) On March 1, in an ARDUF raid on a tax office in
Hamidella, Ethiopia, the five Europeans and thirteen
Ethiopians were, seemingly, caught in the wrong place at the
wrong time.  One of the Europeans reported that, during the
raid, an ARDUF rebel appeared surprised by the presence of
the foreigners in the area and signaled to them to go away.
The leader of the ARDUF attack overruled this decision,
however, and detained the thirteen Ethiopians and five
Europeans.  The Europeans reported that the Ethiopians in
their tour group appeared to recognize the kidnappers,
through tribal or clan affiliation but not through any
complicity in the kidnapping.  The Ethiopians were able to
translate what was happening for the Europeans from Afar and
Amharic into English.   The ARDUF kidnappers provided the
abductees with their manifesto at the start of their
detention, leaving the Europeans no doubt as to the identity
and agenda of the group from the outset. 

3. (C) After capture, the group was marched for the next four
to five days through flat terrain.  During this time, ARDUF
permitted four of the Ethiopians to leave the group.  One of
the Europeans reported that on Day 2 of their march, the
ARDUF leader announced they were now in Eritrea.  On the
fifth day (probably March 5), they arrived at a location
which the British Embassy believes to be the ARDUF
headquarters near, or in, the locality of Wandidel.  From
there, they were marched to a wadi (dried river bed) with an
oasis several hours away.  The group stayed there until
Monday, March 12, spending the days in the oasis and nights
on top of a barren plateau to evade the mosquitoes in the
oasis. (Note:  The kidnap victims also reported the oasis was
located near a cemetery. End note.) 

4. (C) On March 12, the Europeans were informed they were
being released.  Prior to their departure from Wandidel, they
attempted to give shoes and other supplies to the nine
Ethiopian hostages who remained behind, however, they were
prevented from doing so by their ARDUF kidnappers.  The five
were then transported by car with members of the ARDUF to an
Eritrean military camp.  The Europeans said that the ARDUF
members appeared to know, and be friendly with, Eritrean
military members stationed at the camp.  At 1100, an Eritrean
helicopter arrived at the camp.  The Europeans were loaded
into the helicopter and, at approximately 1530, departed the
camp for Asmara.  Accompanying them in the helicopter were
the Sultan of the Eritrean Afar, three other Afar leaders,
and the leader of ARDUF.  Upon arrival in Asmara, the Sultan
and the Afar leaders remained with the European hostages but
the ARDUF leader was swept away by Eritrean officials, a
group which reportedly included a representative from
President Isaias, office.  The hostages were taken into the 

care of the British Embassy until their departure for Addis,
via Djibouti on March 14.  The group was scheduled to fly to
London from Addis Ababa on March 15. 

---------------------
THE ERITREANS ACCOUNT
--------------------- 

5.  (S/NF) The GSE presented to the British Embassy a written
account of its efforts to secure the release of the
Europeans.  The account made it clear that the Eritreans had
been in communication with ARDUF since Tuesday, March 6 and
had full knowledge of both the abductees, location and
physical conditions.  (Note:  As reported reftel B, the GSE
had notified the British and French Ambassadors on March 6
that they had learned of the location of the abductees in
Ethiopia and would try to arrange for their release.  End
Note.)  The GSE provided no further information to the
British and French Embassies until contacting the British
Ambassador on March 13, to inform him of the abductees,
release and expected arrival in Asmara that evening. 

6. (S/NF) The GSE report said that the GSE learned on
Tuesday, March 6 that the kidnapped group was located in
Wandidel (Wayima), 30 kilometers south of the Eritrean
border.  The GSE then contacted three Afar Sultans of the
region: Sultan Abudulkader of Rahaita, Sultan Shahira of Bada
and Sulton Mohamed Abdella of Aiyum.  Through these
intermediaries, the GSE requested a March 7 meeting with
ARDUF at Oasa Gala, 10 kilometers south of the Eritrean
border in Ethiopian territory.  Initially, ARDUF refused.
However, on March 8, a group of Afar elders met and applied
pressure on ARDUF to negotiate with the GSE.  On March 9, an
Eritrean doctor was granted permission to see the abductees.
(Note:  The  Europeans confirmed they saw the doctor on
Saturday, March 10.  If the GSE claim as to the location of
the abductees at that time is accurate, then the Eritrean had
to cross the border into Ethiopia to see them.  End note.)
The Europeans reported that they were aware that negotiations
were ongoing for their release, which they believe is a
likely reason for their earlier transfer to the oasis away
from the camp where the Eritreans, Afar and ARDUF were
reportedly meeting. 

7.  (S/NF) The GSE reports that during the negotiations, the
ARDUF presented three political demands.  First, ARDUF wanted
political recognition for the organization.  Secondly, they
sought restitution for the salt mines taken over by the
Ethiopian government.  Thirdly, they wanted the Government of
Ethiopia to reimburse the Afar for salt harvested in the past
few years. The GSE reports that it dismissed ARDUF,s demands
and continued to press for the Europeans, release and
further claims that ARDUF eventually &bowed to the pressure
of the Afar elders8 and agreed to hand over the abductees.
On March 12, the European were returned to Wandidel and
traveled by car to Aiyumin in Eritrea ) a 45 kilometer ride
that took 2 hours of travel.  They arrived in Aiyumin at
1900.  The next day they traveled to Asmara by helicopter. 

-------
COMMENT
------- 

8. (S/NF)  The GSE played a facilitating role in the release
of the European abductees and for that the British, French,
and Italian Ambassadors are all grateful.  However, all of us
are puzzled, to say the least, by the fact that the GSE
appeared to know first-hand of the abducted group,s location
and of their physical status for at least seven days prior to
their release and yet offered no additional information to
any of the concerned Embassies in Asmara.  Two possible
explanations offered by our British colleagues for the GSE,s
reticence to coordinate more closely include the Eritreans,
fear of losing face should their efforts prove unsuccessful
and possible GSE concerns that the British government might
use the information to attempt a rescue of the abductees
using force.  A third explanation is that the Eritreans were
just being themselves, i.e., difficult to deal with and
insensitive or oblivious to how their actions would be 

perceived.  As noted reftels, Post has no basis for believing
that the GSE either ordered or orchestrated the kidnapping --
nor, despite its likely ties to ARDUF, do we have any reason
to believe that the GSE could have taken any further actions
to resolve the situation more expeditiously than it did.  The
GSE has, however, managed to turn a potentially positive
bridge-building opportunity with the Western nations into one
where we will continue to harbor questions and doubts about
the Eritrean role, even if they truly acted constructively on
behalf of the abductees.  END COMMENT

Eritrea: Zenawi deflecting attention from internal troubles

Posted on , Updated on by Negash

Ethiopia Military Aggression Diversionary Ploy, Says Eritrea

By Peter Clotty | Voice of America (VOA)

Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu said Ethiopia’s admission of its military attack is a calculated ploy to divert the international community’s attention from its continuous 10-year occupation of Eritrean territory.

He expressed little surprise that Ethiopia embarked on what he called “a military bellicosity that encroaches on Eritrea’s sovereignty.”

Abdu said Eritrea is not to blame for what he said is Ethiopia’s failure to resolve its internal crisis.

“By its own admission, it’s an aggression against the sovereignty of Eritrean territory,” said Abdu.  “The internal crisis in Ethiopia is due to the marginalization and exclusion of minor Ethiopian groups [because] of the regime’s narrow and backward policy of divide and rule being conducted by the Ethiopian regime.”

Ethiopia announced its forces attacked a military base inside Eritrea as an act of retaliation after accusing its neighbor of sponsoring groups that have carried out attacks inside Ethiopia.

Ethiopian government spokesman Shimeles Kemal said Ethiopian troops moved 16 kilometers into Eritrea early Thursday and launched what he called a “successful attack” against two military posts used by “subversive groups.”

Ethiopia has often accused Eritrea of backing rebel groups that attack targets in Ethiopia’s Afar area.  But, Abdu said Ethiopia’s accusations that Eritrea supports terrorism are like accusing (inventor) Thomas Edison of supporting darkness.

“We have fought terrorism long ago before it became the talk of the town for politicians… and who are these terrorist subversive groups?” asked Abdu.  “Almost all Ethiopians are fighting against the regime for the obvious reason because the regime is pursuing a narrow, corrupted policy, which services a very small family of the elite.”

Abdu said Asmara resists being dragged into “this kind of acrimony and provocation.”  He said the Eritrean government is pondering its next line of action.

In its “final and binding” ruling on April 13th 2002, the UN-backed Eritrean and Ethiopian Border Commission awarded the town of Badme to Eritrea. But, Asmara insists Addis Ababa has repeatedly refused to implement the ruling.

Abdu said the UN Security Council has yet to take disciplinary action against Ethiopia’s decision to ignore the ruling for the past 10 years, despite Asmara’s repeated requests.

“We have been asking the Security Council to take serious measures against the Ethiopian regime, which is occupying our sovereign territory. The United Nations has not fulfilled this mandate and has not taken necessary measures,” said Abdu.  “The United Nations should take action, legal punitive measures against the Ethiopian regime for its violations against the Eritrean and Ethiopian Border Commission verdict.”

The United States has urged both sides to exercise restraint.  State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Washington is seeking further clarification from Ethiopia about its intentions.

19 killed in Gambella, Ethiopia attack – govt. blames “unkown gunmen”

Posted on by Negash

At least 19 people were killed and 8 wounded in a surprise attack on a bus.  Tensions have been on the rise in Gambella, Ethiopia.  There has been much anger at the government as people are evicted from their land that is being sold to wealthy foreigners.  The most recent killings took place as calls have increased for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to bring Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to justice for  the massacre of over 425 people in Gambella in 2003.
“An atmosphere of terror continues to permeate innocent people in Gambella as crimes of inhumanity against them are so regular that it has become part of their everyday life, changing even the most basic life events such as traveling between towns. Yesterday March 12, a minibus traveling from Godere district to Gambella city was attacked by unknown assailants. 17 people or more were reported killed. It is a hideous act that must be condemned. Details are sketchy at this time. We are trying our best to find out more information. We will keep you post it.” — Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE) statement, March 13, 2012
Ethiopia official says gunmen kill 19, wound 8, in bus attack in country’s southwest

By Associated Press

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — An Ethiopian official says unknown gunmen in the country’s southwest have killed 19 people in an attack on a public bus.

The president of Ethiopia’s Gambella region said Tuesday that eight people were wounded.

Omod Obang Olum said the victims were Ethiopian residents traveling in a public bus that got ambushed near a town called Bonga by attackers with machine guns.

He says Gambella security forces are still chasing down the attackers. He said he had no detailed information about the attackers’ objectives.

Gambella is a traditionally marginalized area of the country that suffers internal conflicts over resources like water and land. It also is affected by its border with South Sudan, as refugees pour across into Gambella when violence erupts in that newly independent nation.