In other countries, the first lady is the wife of the president who is the head of state. So why are Woyannes calling Azeb Mesfin, the prime minister’s wife ‘first lady’? This picture below is only for satire purpose.
By Seman Fereja
A few weeks have now passed since Bemnetu and Andargachew posted their article supporting violent forms of struggle to advance the causes of democracy in Ethiopia. Since then both sides of the debate have put forward impassioned views supporting their respective cases. I believe it is time now to take stock of what transpired in these discussions so far and look for a way forward. The aim of this article is primarily thus.
Although I am a supporter of inclusion of violence in our struggles for democracy in Ethiopia, I would like to congratulate the proponents of ‘peaceful forms of struggle only’ for their impassioned love of peace and concern for the well being of the country. For those of us who can recall the moods and emotions of the mid and late 1970s, such a transformation of attitude towards violence is remarkable and deserves applause.
Even more, I believe that this passion for peace can be one of the seeds for the building blocks of the institutional safeguards against violence going wild and defeat its professed purposes. But, the condition of constructive engagement between the two sides, under the sole objective of advancing the cause of democracy in Ethiopia, will be a minimal requirement for the attainment of this objective. I will come to this issue in the later part of this article, after saying a few words regarding the issues that in my view may be obstacles for progress in these directions.
The proponents of peaceful form of struggle have raised several issues why violent forms of struggle shouldn’t be chosen, and they can broadly be summarised along the following lines:
1. peaceful struggle was seen to bear much fruit during the past two years than the armed struggles achieved during the past 30 years;
2. a civilised form of struggle should be peaceful;
3. it would be immoral to support armed struggles from comfortable living rooms in Europe and America;
4. the dynamics of war and conflict is so complex and likely to land us to where we started from, if not worse, as the experiences of previous armed movements can attest for;
5. armed struggle will devastate the country and cause more sufferings;
6. it will be next to impossible to beat woyane on the battle fields, given the current international situations;
7. The feasibility of launching armed struggles is remote, considering the inter-state relations in the neighbourhood of Ethiopia, unless we compromise our national interest for mere sake of seeing the back of woyane.
The last four points in the above enumeration are valid arguments that every one of us should give our best considerations to. In fact, I will be surprised if the proponents of violent forms of struggle hadn’t considered them in details well before publicising their stance on violence and peace. So, I hope that the original authors (or any group entertaining the idea of starting or conducting a movement incorporating violence as one of its means) will give us their views on these matters in time and engage us in another round of constructive debates.
This would leave us with the first three points, about which I have some concerns. I am concerned most about them, particularly because they look to me divisive and unhelpful in keeping the ‘democratic family’ united together even while engaged in constructive discussions. The main weakness these three arguments share in common, in my view, is that each one of them is based on premises or beliefs whose respective proponents uphold with self-righteousness, but are not shared by the opposite side. If these assertions were to be helpful for constructive debates, they should be shown to derive from the common sets of beliefs or understandings of the ‘democratic family’; or, efforts should be made to convince the opposite side to these beliefs prior to asserting them as truisms. Short of either of these, I am afraid such assertions are recipes to provoke polemics and cause the degradation of the debate to a circus from which only Woyane extracts laughter.
I will try to show why the premises for these three points may not be shared by the ‘democratic family’ at large, by challenging each one of them briefly.
1. About the peaceful struggle having born more fruit than armed struggles
It is stated that the struggle EPRP, OLF etc… have been waging for so long hasn’t led them to anywhere while the struggle waged by the diasporas in Europe and America has arguably ‘resulted’ in the release of the incarcerated Kinijit leaders in two years time.
My main problem with this line of argument is the incomparability of the scopes of the two sets of struggles. OLF and EPRP are struggling to oust Woyane from power, while Kinijit support groups were only pleading with western governments for Woyane’s courts of justice to observe Woyane’s own laws. Clearly, success in the safe streets of Washington, London & Brussels cannot in any way be indicative for the possibility of success on the streets of Addis Ababa, Awassa or Mekele.
In my view, the above observation by the proponents of ‘peaceful forms only’ should be a starting point for serious analysis by provoking questions like “why the struggles of EPRP, OLF, EPPF etc… haven’t succeeded so far? How was it possible that the diasporas’ struggle resulted in the release of the prisoners? Can this form of struggle be replicated in the streets and villages of Ethiopia for the purpose of democratising the country? If so, what would be required in order to do that?”
I will not attempt to dwell on these questions here, except a few comments on the scope of the diasporas’ peaceful struggles during the past two years. Needless to say, the release of the prisoners was made possible because of the influence USA had over Woyane, whose conduct had become despicably embarrassing to the super power whose incumbent leader started by evangelising freedom and liberty to the oppressed peoples of the world. The role of the diasporas’ struggle was to keep this embarrassment persistently in the limelight until a cost-benefit analysis would convince both Woyane and USA to choose the option of releasing the prisoners as beneficiary to both of them. Frankly speaking, the prisoners were released on terms most suitable for Woyane, and I don’t see reasons to be overjoyed about our achievements.1
This experience should by no means convince us to believe about a similar form of struggle to bear fruits when the objective may be shifted to the higher ideal of democratisation of the country. This is mainly because: 1) USA’s foreign policy is based on the preservation of global interests rather than adherence to humanist principles or international laws and a stance against Woyane on the part of USA would require the development of a situation which will be seen as affecting these vital interests adversely; 2) Woyane is likely to stand fast despite pressures from or possibilities of confrontations against USA, if the stakes become so high as to require the relinquishing of political power.
Of course, we should draw lessons from the failures of EPRP, OLF etc… But, that lesson definitely is not the virtue of peaceful struggle to lead to desired outcomes. If the right lessons are to be extracted from this experience, in my belief, we should start by asking “why is it that these movements haven’t delivered their goals despite such length of time having been spent in the struggles? “
If our analysis of the above question may lead us to the answer “because they chose armed struggles”, then proponents of armed struggles should mince their words. But, I very much doubt whether that answer can be an outcome a serious analysis.
2. About peaceful struggle being the only civilised form
The forms of struggle we choose are not merely determined by our tastes only, but predominantly by a multitude of circumstances constituting the situation we find ourselves in at a particular historical juncture. We may be of the highest refined tastes; but that cannot be a sufficient condition for us to practice our values, if our adversaries with whom we are fatefully entangled in a societal inter-relation may have different standards that make the practice of our values impossible. Under such circumstances, we need to compromise some of our sets of values in order to advance the values we believe to be of paramount significance; because the alternative will be to live according to our values individually only (i.e.; abandoning the situation that inter-locked us with our adversaries in a societal relationship).
The ‘civilised’ argument can be given any credence only if a given situation may be such that peaceful forms of struggle can be feasible, and there may be groups who wilfully want to ignore that option in favour of the armed form of struggle. But what is being said here by the advocates for inclusion of violence as a means of struggle is that the current situation in Ethiopia doesn’t allow any meaningful peaceful struggle to be conducted; and if that may be desired to come, Woyane should be pushed to it by use or threat of violence. In my view, for those who disagree with this analysis, the right argument, under these circumstances, should develop by showing how peaceful forms of struggle may be possible in Ethiopia at this moment. If that may be too much to ask for some unknown reasons, questions of the following type should be appreciated and answered in earnest:
“How it was possible for countries of Eastern Europe to achieve their goals through peaceful struggle in a very short time where Burma & Tibet failed for twenty and fifty years respectively?”
As we know, the level of civilisation humanity achieved so far hasn’t extricated the world from use of force to advance various interests. As we speak, American and British defence forces are using superior military force to advance their interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. Different peoples may have different views about these wars, but they remain to be wars started and being conducted by civilised countries. The best we can speak about in our present world is about just and unjust wars, codes and norms of executing wars etc…
3. About the immorality of support for armed struggles from afar
If I understood correctly what the morale proponents are saying in this regard is that, “advocacy for actions that may put others in harm’s way is bad so long as the advocate himself is not partaking in the said actions”.
I think this is invalid argument on two counts. Firstly, what we are doing at the moment is exchange of ideas and actions cannot be started without preparations. By the same token, persons living in Ethiopia but supporting armed form of struggle can ask the proponents of peaceful struggle in the diasporas why they don’t return back to Ethiopia and live under Woyane peacefully. Secondly, the proponents of armed struggle were not heard saying that they would not be part of the struggle they are advocating for. I don’t think they should be expected to say what they will be doing in public.
In the interest of the debate, I would go further and declare that support for something you believe in to be ‘good’ is morale, even when you do not put yourself in harm’s way while others sharing your views did. For example, multitudes of US and European citizens supported ANC fighters during the apartheid era from the comforts of their country houses, not even social housing flats. Are we to declare these ANC supporters as immoral, because the peoples they were supporting were dying fighting against apartheid and them not?
I can see the morale point to be holding some water only under two circumstances: 1) if you decry the non-action on the part of the populace and move on to do damaging things against it on the basis of that judgement; 2) if you become the ultimate beneficiary of the outcome that followed from the suffering of the people while you always stayed away from harm’s way.
But, neither of these charges can stick to proponents of violent form of struggle. These proponents, rather than blaming the populace for not rising up against Woyane as ‘civilised people’ would do under similar circumstances, are suggesting violence as the right form of struggle because they appreciated the impracticability of conducting peaceful struggle in Woyane’s Ethiopia. Also, as far as I can understand, they haven’t yet made a call for the Ethiopian people to revolt against Woyane now; or stated their plan to stay in USA or Europe when such calls may be made in the future.
I don’t think these personalities in the diasporas can be so crazy as to think that they will called from their comfortable residences in USA and Western Europe to assume political power after the struggle against Woyane comes to fruition through the violence of the ordinary Ethiopians. If anyone entertains such possibilities even theoretically, let alone as probable realities, I suspect this may be a health issue or a case of ignorance of the highest order about the capabilities of the Ethiopians in the homeland.
Let us be clear about one thing: the role of the diasporas in the struggle for democracy can only be supportive, not central. The diasporas cannot be the main actor in the struggle, save those elements which join the movements on professional level. In this situation, one of the things the diasporas can do best is development and exchange of ideas. Even this, not because diasporas know better; but because Woyane’s repression doesn’t allow the free flow and exchange of ideas.
In my view, the moral preaching, whether pronounced by diasporas or domestic elements, springs from feudalistic arrogance. If I am to tell a ten year old girl or mentally deranged person to take actions that puts her in harm’s way, I can be charged as morally irresponsible. But airing my views to my equals about what will be the right thing to do, cannot be put under this category by any stretch of imagination. If someone comes to charge me as morally irresponsible for having done so, he must clearly have presumed my superiority. And if he belongs to the same social category as mine, his allegation against me would impliedly be a clear revelation of his arrogance.
Let me conclude this section by posing the following moral question to the moralists: “will it be morale of me if I withhold a view which I truly believe will deliver the peoples of Ethiopia from their sufferings from those very peoples? ”
In arguing as above, I have no doubt about the well meaning and concern on the part of most of the commentators of the above views. My interest here is to try to put the discussions in what I believe to be the right tracks so that the movement will benefit ultimately. When this debate calms down, each one of us may leave with our original stances intact or some of us may be swayed to the opposite view point. Whichever, all of us can be gainers by having clarity about the view points of our respective opposite sides. The challenge to address the concerns of our opposites will also benefit us by sharpening of our own respective standpoints and hence advance the cause of the struggle.
I think all of us would deplore what we witnessed during the past two years about Kinijit’s movement cannibalising itself. I believe that two of the lessons we can draw from this unpleasant experience should be: 1) elevation of our discourse style to a higher level; 2) mutual respect between members of the ‘democratic family’ even while disagreeing on political matters and ideologies.
In this series of debate, we have seen Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi cited by the different sides in order to justify their respective stand points. True, Ethiopia is not yet so fortunate to have a person of such great stature. But, this should not be a pretext for self-absolution from responsibility for not doing enough within the bounds of our limitations. I believe that each one of us should attempt to the best of our abilities to learn from great personalities, at least by imitations, if not on more profound levels.
Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King & Mahatma Ghandi were great, thoughtful and serious personalities. Because they were thoughtful, they were able to understand the difficulties of their oppressors let alone the situations of the various bodies fighting for the same goal but with secondary level differences. Because they were serious, they were always focused on their goals and never swayed by threats of death or personal sufferings let alone second level differences on matters of tactics for the struggles. Because they were great, they didn’t need to indulge in moralising or emotive rhetoric against members of the broad church of their respective movements in order to attract political followers. Rather, they led by example and multitudes flocked and remained stuck to them till the end.
This brings me to the point I mentioned towards the beginning of this article and deferred to later—constructive engagement. I think we all in the democratic family agree that our main goal is the institutionalisation of democracy in Ethiopia. As our country has always been under autocratic or totalitarian rule, this goal requires am immense task and can effectively be a complete overhaul of our socio-political system. By the same measure we may also have differences on how to achieve these goals.
But, so long as we remain serious about our main goal, we can’t lack the understanding for the others’ positions in their respective situations. By focussing on the main goal and doing our preferred roles or parts only, we remain united and make healthy and constructive engagement with the other members of the ‘democratic family’ possible. It is only if we stay united as such that our movement can develop the strength which may make it very difficult for those countries who professedly support freedom and democracy to ignore.
In my view, these are basics the leaderships of the Ethiopian democratic movements can afford to lose sight of at the minimum. In fact, with some modest vision, these basics can de-facto be transformed to be some of the starters of institutionalising democracy in Ethiopia. For example, if ways may be devised and effected whereby the peaceful political and mass organisations may serve as checking organs for the armed movements, that would be a great achievement in the direction of transforming our society.
To conclude, let us not forget: ‘United’ we have a better chance for success, but ‘divided’ we certainly will fail. The best way of staying united under the present Ethiopian circumstances is by: 1) focussing on the main goal of achieving democratic system in Ethiopia; 2) seriously executing the respective lines of activities we sincerely believe to be leading to our common goal; 3) staying engaged in constructive exchange of ideas between the various trends of the democratic movement; 4) supporting and checking on each other within the family of the democratic movement as and when the needs arise.
———————–
The author can be reached at the following email address: [email protected]
By Laura Wiessen | Israel21c.org
As a baby, diplomat Beylanesh Zevadia’s first word was neither “mama” nor “papa.” It was “Jerusalem.”
“That’s how our parents directed us,” the Ethiopian-born Zevadia explains. “[As children] our play was to go to Jerusalem. It was the center of our lives, that someday we could go there.”
And, at the age of 16 Zevadia did go there, becoming, just nine years later, the first Israeli-Ethiopian member of Israel’s diplomatic corps.
Geographically, at least, Beylanesh grew up far from the stones of Jerusalem. She was born in the Gondar region of Ethiopia, where her late father was the Chief Rabbi of the Ethiopian Jewish community. Beylanesh, the youngest of eight siblings, grew up in a rural village without modern conveniences such as running water or electricity. The Zevadia’s village, Ambover, was, however, the center of Jewish life in the region and home to a Jewish elementary school where the young girl learned Torah and Jewish studies from teachers such as her father and brother.
“I was very lucky that I was born to a family that knows what an education means,” she says.
Education, Jewish observance and Israel were the pillars of her family life, so it was little surprise when, in 1984, after finishing high school, it was time for Beylanesh to go to Israel.
She left home with mixed feelings. “On the one hand I wanted to go because it was Israel,” Zevadia remembers, “but on the other hand, to leave my family…I missed them so much.”
She wasn’t the first in her family to leave Ethiopia for Israel – her oldest brother Joseph had gone to Israel in 1957 and returned to teach Jewish studies in Gondar, an occupation that landed him in jail for a time. Another brother, David, made aliyah in 1973. It was David who helped Beylanesh obtain a visa from the Swedish Embassy to allow her immigration.
“Culture shock, of course,” is how Zevadia describes her first weeks and months in her new home. “To find my way wasn’t easy. It was new. Especially when you talk about Ethiopian immigrants, we’re from… a mostly rural, mostly undeveloped area. And to come to Israel which is a mostly developed country, and the language, the culture shock. It’s not easy to assimilate in a short time.”
Like so many other young new immigrants Zevadia, a native Amharic speaker took a crash course in Hebrew at Ulpan Etzion. And then, with Operation Moses, the Israeli government’s airlift of Ethiopian Jews to Israel in late 1984 and 1985, Zevadia went to work for the Jewish Agency, helping smooth the way for the new immigrants whose difficult journeys had left them disoriented and exhausted.
From the Jewish Agency to Hebrew University for a BA in International Relations, then a Master’s Degree in Anthropology and African Studies. And then, in 1993, Zevadia joined Israel’s Foreign Ministry, becoming, at age 25, the first Ethiopian in the Israeli Diplomatic Service.
“When I finished [university], diplomacy seemed very interesting to me,” explains Zevadia. “Because I would be representing the country I love, I could go around and speak on behalf of Israel, representing Israel wherever I go.”
Zevadia brings more than just her intelligence, humor and passion to her work in the diplomatic service. She also brings a new image of what it means to be Israeli to many of the people she meets. Today, the Israeli Deputy Consul General in Houston, Texas, Zevadia travels the Southwest region speaking on behalf of Israel.
“Most people, when they invite an Israeli diplomat, expect to see an Ashkenazi Jew or a Sephardi Jew and here I am, an Ethiopian representing Israel. It’s something unique we can contribute to the country.”
“When I talk to people I say here I am. You may think something different of Israeli diplomats, but here I am. Or if they ask me negative things about Israel – I have an answer. I am the answer. I can tell you my story. I am educated in Israel, I represent Israel and I was born in Ethiopia. That’s what I say.”
Today, there is a second Ethiopian-Israeli diplomat in the Foreign Ministry, a junior diplomat who joined the diplomatic service 13 years after Zevadia, and is now stationed in South Africa.
While she acknowledges that there may be some prejudice against Ethiopians in Israel, Zevadia says she’s never experienced it at the state or municipal level. And she strongly believes that Ethiopian-Israelis must take advantage of government programs, especially educational programs, intended to help career advancement. “Education is the key,” she says from experience. “There are opportunities and we have to use them and we have to push ourselves.”
Zevadia’s diplomatic career brought her to the United States for the first time as a cadet in 1995, when she spent four months at the Israeli Mission to the UN. She describes it as a very good experience despite the fact that, in her words: “it was not easy to be an Israeli diplomat in that environment.”
She returned to the US in 1996 as the Israeli Consul to the Midwest, based in Chicago, where she served until 2002.
Today, living in Texas, Zevadia is often mistaken for African-American or Caribbean. And she’s happy to explain her background to whoever is interested.
She, her husband and six-year-old daughter Lee, are enjoying living in Houston. “It’s a very nice community, it’s very pro-Israel, even among non-Jews. There are things here and there criticizing Israel, but most of the time it’s pro-Israel. So I feel very lucky to be here,” says Zevadia.
Even after nearly three years in Texas, Zevadia is still struck by its scale. “The highways are very big, the houses are very big. But there are no cowboys!” she jokes.
One thing Zevadia says she doesn’t like is the hot, humid weather. But otherwise, she enjoys the city she will call home until 2009 or 2010. And she continues to love her work.
“I most enjoy speaking about Israel, because most of the time people don’t understand what Israel is. In most people’s eyes, Israel is only the conflict. It’s not true. It’s a very diverse culture, very diverse society, and a very developed economy.
“I always say, wherever I go, and wherever I speak, I’m black and Jewish and a woman. Three minority identities. That’s who I am, I represent Israel very proudly, and that’s the message.”
By Aweys Yusuf and Mohamed Abdi
MOGADISHU (Reuters) – Hospitals in Mogadishu overflowed with the wounded on Sunday and the death toll from mortar strikes on the city’s sprawling main market reached at least 17.
Scores of civilians at the Bakara Market were hurt on Saturday when troops positioned at the Villa Somalia presidential palace returned fire against Islamist insurgents who attacked it with mortar bombs, witnesses said.
Abdi Hussein, a 25-year-old hawker, was selling a pair of sunglasses to one shopper when the shells detonated around him.
“The shrapnel tore into my legs. Three people near me died instantly,” he told Reuters at the capital’s Madina Hospital, where a nurse was treating him under a tree.
“The customer who was buying from me lost a leg,” he said.
President Abdullahi Yusuf was meeting Ethiopian Woyanne Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin at Villa Somalia at the time of the attack, but no one in the white-washed hilltop complex was hurt.
Residents said Ethiopian Woyanne soldiers guarding Yusuf then began launching shells into Bakara in the city below. Seven people were killed in the part of the market used by money changers, witnesses said, while four others died in its food section.
One patient who did get a bed at Madina Hospital was Ahmed Nur Botan, who had been sitting close to the money changers and suffered wounds to his torso.
“I saw two people standing just a few meters from me and the shrapnel cut them to pieces,” he said.
ANGER IN BAKARA
Ali Moalim Adde, Madina’s deputy director, said two more victims died while being rushed to hospital, and four more had died on the operating table. About 50 wounded were admitted.
That brought the toll to at least 17, but a leader of the business community in Bakara Market said more people had died.
The market was teeming with Saturday shoppers when the attack occurred.
Ali Mohamed Siad told Reuters by telephone that 28 people had been killed, including traders, customers and porters.
“We believe the Ethiopian Woyanne troops targeted Bakara deliberately,” Siad said, adding that the market traders had hired their own guards to stop Islamist rebels using the area to strike at government forces and their Ethiopian Woyanne allies.
“We have our own forces dressed in special uniforms with the consent of the president and prime minister … insurgents are not allowed to carry out attacks from our zones,” he said. “We tried to contact the president but his aides obstructed us.”
Somalia’s interim government has long said Bakara, which is infamous for its open-air arms bazaar, is a stronghold of guerrillas blamed for an Iraq-style insurgency of mortar blasts, assassinations and roadside bombings.
The fighting, which killed 6,500 people last year in Mogadishu alone, has sharply worsened what aid workers warn is a fast deteriorating humanitarian disaster.
More than 1 million Somalis are now internal refugees, and some 20,000 flee the capital every month. Most of them end up in areas suffering from the worst drought in years.
(Writing by Daniel Wallis, editing by Mary Gabriel)
By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times
HARARE, ZIMBABWE — The main opposition party and independent observers said today that President Robert Mugabe was suffering a resounding defeat as election results were tallied, but no official returns were released and capital was rife with speculation that they were being rigged.
Tension was high in the capital, Harare, with police deployed on most corners as the delay in announcing results from Saturday’s balloting wore on. Usually, the first official results are released within hours of the polls’ closing.
There were unconfirmed reports that key ministers and Mugabe loyalists lost their seats in parliament.
In a briefing to diplomats, independent election observers said that with 66% of the vote counted, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, had 55% of the vote. Mugabe, 84, had 36% and ruling party defector Simba Makoni had 9%, it said.
Tsvangirai’s party said that with 12% of the polling stations reporting, he was winning 67%.
The estimate was based on figures posted at individual polling stations after election officials had signed off on them, the first time such counts have been posted under recent reforms to election law.
“The wave of change was too strong,” said one shocked official of the ruling ZANU-PF, who lost his seat. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.
He said conditions were extremely tense, with speculation rife in the ruling party that the military might step in to back Mugabe and block the opposition from taking power.
The MDC defied government warnings that any early claim of victory would be considered an attempted coup.
“We’ve won this election,” said an exhausted Tendai Biti, MDC secretary-general, who had been up all night as MDC representatives sent in their results.
“The results coming in show that in our traditional strongholds we are massacring them. In Mugabe’s traditional strongholds they are doing very badly. There is no way Mugabe can claim victory unless it is through fraud. He has lost this election,” Biti said. “We must savor these scenes, as for the rest of our lives we’ll say we were there.”
A chirpy state television bulletin Sunday night announced that Zimbabwe Election Commission officials were “verifying” results before broadcasting interviews across the country on how smooth and peaceful the elections had been.
It was equally quiet at the ZEC “command center,” where results are normally posted. One independent observer who visited the center said there were just a few people sitting around reading the paper.
Noel Kututwa, chairman of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, an independent monitoring group, said the delay in results created tension and speculation, and called on the ZEC to release the results.
“The issue of the delay of the announcement of the results raises tension which is why we are saying the ZEC should release these results as quickly as possible,” he said. “Clearly the delay is fueling speculation that something might be going on.”
By Chris Turner, IAAF
Edinburgh, Scotland – The heat of Mombasa is now but a memory, a nightmare of course, in the history of Ethiopian distance running.
In cold, occasionally rainy and blustery conditions in Edinburgh’s Holyrood Park at this afternoon’s 36th IAAF World Cross Country Championships it was not just a climatic differences between the previous and current venues of these championships which were noticeable but competitive ones too.
In Kenya last year the women’s senior team title had been the only success for the green vested runners from the Ethiopian highlands otherwise they had been routed by their Kenyan hosts, Eritrea’s Zersenay Tadese and the Netherlands’ Lornah Kiplagat.
Had it just been the heat of the Indian Ocean coastal city which had defied Kenenisa Bekele, Tirunesh Dibaba and their compatriots?
Whatever the reason Ethiopian flags were enthusiastically unfurled over the course in Holyrood Park today as a large expat community among an estimated overall crowd of over 20,000 spectators, celebrated their country’s first ever sweep of the four indivdual race titles in the slippery muddy conditions of the heavily rain and wind swept grass circuit.
The last time such a feat had been achieved was 1994 when Kenya’s William Sigei (Men), Hellen Chepngeno (Women), Philip Mosima (Jnr men) and Sally Barsosio (Jnr Women) occupied all the top steps of the World Cross Country podium.
Ethiopia’s Kenenisa Bekele, Tirunesh Dibaba, Ibrahim Jeilan and Genzebe Dibaba will now be lauded in Addis Ababa on their return home.
Kenya will be relieved to have pulled together team victories ahead of their foes in the senior and junior men’s race but this was redemption day time for Ethiopia’s Mombasa defeated who surprise, surprise, secured the other two team titles.
One could almost describe the day as ‘normal service resumed’ had the Ethiopian performance not in itself been unique in the annals of their all ready illustrious history at the World Cross Country Championships.
———————-
No ‘sole’ can stop Bekele
By David Powell for the IAAF
Edinburgh, Scotland – In a remarkable triumph over adversity and the spirited endeavours of defending champion Zersenay Tadese, Kenenisa Bekele cleared a series of obstacles to win a record sixth Senior Men’s classic distance title – and US$30,000 – at the 36th IAAF World Cross Country Championships, at Holyrood Park, today.
Bekele overcame, in turn, a missed flight, overnight stomach troubles, a dislodged shoe early in the 12km race, and Tadese’s determined mid-race surges, to regain the crown he had won in five successive years from 2002 to 2006. Today’s victory takes his record number of individual World Cross Country titles to 12 (6 Long Course, 5 five Short Course, 1 Junior).
After increasing his total number of World Cross Country gold medals to 16 (including 4 team golds) and his record total count to 27 (16 gold, 9 silver, 2 bronze), Bekele acknowledged that his six classic victories might be the statistic that stands above all the others. Until today, the 25-year-old Bekele had shared a record five classic distance triumphs with Kenyans John Ngugi and Paul Tergat.
Having failed to finish in Mombasa last year, suffering stomach problems in the heat and humidity, Bekele fought back from the troubles thrown at him here to pull clear in the eleventh kilometre. In the end, it proved a comfortable victory over runner-up Leonard Patrick Komon, from Kenya, and Tadese, whose valiant title defence was rewarded with the bronze medal.
“As far as the sixth Long Course win is concerned, I tried to accomplish it last year but, because of the weather, I was not able to do it,” Bekele said. “This has a very high honour in my life. I have won the double five times but I think this compares to that. However, I leave the judging to those of you in the media.”
It was in the third kilometre that Bekele’s shoe was caught from behind, and worked loose, as the field bunched taking a bend. From his place near the front, he dropped way down the field as he stopped to secure it. “My shoe did not fall completely off but I had to stop to undo it and put it back on, so it was as if it fell off because of the effort needed to put it back on,” he said It was the first time, he added, such a misfortune had befallen him.
Having secured his shoe, Bekele worked his way back up the field and, before long, was in the leading group. When Tadese picked up the pace in the seventh kilometre, Bekele was well placed to respond. Dictating from the front, Tadese threw in several bursts, by the end of which he and Bekele had opened a small gap on the last challenging Kenyans, Komon and Joseph Ebuya.
A brief relaxation of pace allowed Komon and Ebuya to close up but, with four kilometres to run, the front four were well clear. With Tadese at the head, and the Kenyan pair side-by-side behind him, Bekele sat at the back before seizing his moment. Of his recovery from his near shoe disaster, he said: “It was near the beginning and I knew it would make the competition difficult because it is not easy to catch up after losing your shoe.
“I knew it would make the rest of the race tough. After the shoe came off I began to think a great deal about what I had to overcome and I had to focus a great deal on my race. If I had tried immediately to catch up it may have affected the rest of my race but instead I controlled my pace.”
Bekele had arrived later than planned in Edinburgh the day before the race. He missed his flight connection at London Heathrow after a delay to his original Ethiopian Airlines flight from Addis Ababa left him with only 30 minutes to connect in London. His delay was unrelated to the widely-publicised teething problems at Heathrow’s new Terminal 5.
Explaining how stomach trouble almost cost him dearly again, as it had last year, Bekele said: “The day before yesterday, as I was flying in from Ethiopia, there was a delay and I spent the night in London and arrived here yesterday about midday. I had eaten breakfast there before I left and, after it, I didn’t feel well. I then had lunch and dinner here and at night I didn’t feel well. I had to get up three or four times in the night to go to the bathroom and I wasn’t feeling good.”
Tadese said that he was happy with his run – “a bronze medal for my country is still important to me” – while Komon made a big impression in his first year out of the junior ranks. Aged 20, he led Kenya to a third successive team triumph (39 points) with Ethiopia second (105) and Qatar third (144).