The initial source of my reflections is Lahra Smith’s article titled “U.S. Engagement in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa”. Even before I finished reading the article, I could not suppress my perplexity as to its utility. U.S. engagement in the Horn of Africa and especially in Ethiopia in the name of countering terrorism is a well-know fact. The presence of political regimes little inclined to democratization is also an established fact. What does the article tell us about the region that we did not know before?
Smith talks about the dilemma of U.S. engagement in the region. The U.S. wants to fight terrorist organizations, but to do so it must ally with undemocratic regimes. The latter use American support to consolidate the state and suppress the democratic aspirations of their people. As a result, the U.S. government finds itself in the uncomfortable situation of closing its eyes to extensive abuse of human rights for fear of losing allies in the war against terrorism.
The dilemma is not new; it recalls U.S. Cold War policy of containment of Soviet expansion by supporting anticommunist but undemocratic regimes abroad. The outcome was then the proliferation of leftist organizations denouncing American imperialism. Is a different outcome likely if the war against terrorism overrides the concern for the spread of democratic ideas and institutions?
Smith fails to clearly portray the defense of democracy as the best weapon to prevent the proliferation of terrorist organizations. Instead, she opts for a policy of appeasement of brutal regimes with the hope that the alliance will give the U.S. enough leverage to put pressure on them and bring about their gradual democratization. To quote her, “the United States must remain engaged, but in ways that signal its concern for democracy and human rights.”
Unfortunately, the experience of the Cold War advises against the belief that regimes democratize under the pressure of a friendly ally. So long as the U.S. does not give primacy to human rights violation over other concerns, it does no more than ascribe debilitating limits to its own pressure. Moreover, to the extent that repressive policy encourages terrorism, the appeasement policy turns the U.S. into a hostage of undemocratic regimes.
The new thing is that the U.S. House of Representatives has initiated a fresh and bold policy by voting unanimously in favor of the Ethiopia Democracy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2003). Clearly, the bill is meant to resolve the dilemma of American involvement in Ethiopia, since it ties U.S. support to the progress of human rights and democratization. It even stipulates punitive measures for officials violating human rights. It replaces the practice of putting pressure in the framework of an already established alliance with the more promising method of making the alliance itself conditional on democratic behaviors on the part of the Ethiopian government.
Smith notes that the Senate is unlikely to ratify the bill, but refrains from expressing her disappointment, thereby suggesting that the current policy of the Bush administration is the best approach, provided the democratic pressure is strengthening. For instance, the American government should insist that coming elections should be free; if nevertheless interventions occur, it should “strenuously object.” This position of making the American government unable to do nothing more than object derives from the primacy accorded to the war against terrorism. The longer the American government opts for such a policy and considers Meles as a necessary ally in the fight against terrorism, the more it sets limits to its pressure and hence hatches its own inefficiency.
I hear the objection that this policy is ultimately in the best interest of Ethiopians, for the ratification and application of the bill will only force Meles to reject the conditions and even retaliate by restricting U.S. involvement in Ethiopia. In addition to hurting the fight against terrorism, “partial or complete disengagement would likely reduce the prospects for democratization and stability in Ethiopia.” Democratization has a better chance to proceed if the U.S. has some influence, however small, than no influence at all.
The irony is that Meles uses the fear of retaliatory reactions from him to cripple American pressure. In thus thinking that he can behave undemocratically with impunity, he shows his confidence that the American commitment to democracy never overrides concerns of national interests. This blackmail has worked so far and there is no reason to assume that it will not continue to work so long as the defense of democracy remains a secondary concern.
The additional pressure that Smith’s article advocates thus does nothing more than endorse the continuation of the status quo. Only in urging the Senate to pass the bill could Smith contribute to the resolution of the deadlock of the U.S. involvement in Ethiopia. The overriding concern should have been whether the bill helps or thwarts the democratization of the Ethiopian society, and not whether it jeopardizes an alliance, which everybody agrees is unnatural.
Let us assume that the bill is passed and that Meles reacts by restricting the American presence in Ethiopia. The question is: will his regime survive without Western supporters? Of course, he will resort to intensified methods of repression to stay in power. But can he suppress for long seeing that, in the words of Smith herself, “the Ethiopian government has a number of enemies, both internally and in the region?” Whatever the U.S. government can do to curtail the repressive power of Meles regime––and it can do a lot of things––contributes to the untenability of the repressive policy. In thus siding with and concretely supporting democratic forces, the U.S. weakens the regime, thereby forcing it to become more receptive to external pressure. The leverage that the U.S. needs to resolve its dilemma thus originates, not from the support it gives to dictatorial regimes, but from its ability to hurt them. Dictators do not listen to friends; they listen to those who can hurt them.
Gone is the time when dictators could play superpowers against each other. The end of the Cold War no longer allows them to obtain their way by threatening to give their allegiance to the competing superpower. What remains true, however, is that third world dictators need external patronage, all the more profusely when, as in the case of Ethiopia, they are subject to increasing internal opposition and threatened by hostile neighbors. In such a situation, the withholding of external support can only heighten the fragility of dictatorship and precipitates its downfall.
This raises the question of knowing whether the U.S. government has the ethical and legal right to intervene in the Ethiopian politics with the intent of instigating political change. In effect, the TPLF regime has argued that the passage of the bill is nothing less than an open and direct violation of Ethiopia’s sovereignty. Many of the supporters of the regime have alluded to a second Treaty of Wuchale and have accused top CUD leaders of treason when they supported the bill before members of the House of Representatives.
At first look, the accusation appears to have some justification. The bill does open the path of an external power impacting on the internal affairs of a sovereign country. It can even be argued that the support that the Ethiopian diaspora and opposition forces give to the bill simply illustrates their powerlessness to remove the regime without an external intervention. Such is the demeaning impact of dictatorship that it goes to the extent of talking people into silencing their nationalism for the prospect of getting rid of an internal foe.
Even so, I support the bill because the argument of external meddling is not cogent. What the bill supports is the very wish of the Ethiopian people, as unmistakably expressed in the 2005 election. As such, I see it as a helpful factor in a process initiated and controlled by the Ethiopian people. That is why the comparison with the Treaty of Wuchale is quite infantile. Ethiopians did not agree to become an Italian protectorate; it was a forceful and imperialistic imposition of an external power. Not so with H.R. 2003, since the bill only supports the wish and determination of the Ethiopian people to bring about a democratic political system. It is not an imperialist intervention; it is a helping hand in the struggle of a people in bondage. When Western powers pressured the South African apartheid regime to reform itself, nobody accused them of violating the sovereignty of the country. On the contrary, they were asked to intensify their pressure under pain of being accomplices of the regime.
According to modern understanding, the source of sovereignty and hence of legitimacy of all political power is the will of the people. In view of the fact that the people cannot govern themselves directly, the state becomes the expression of the general will. The state is thus not the source but the exercise of sovereignty, which belongs to the people. When an external power assists in the democratization process, it does not violate sovereignty; it helps the people regain their original right as the sole source of political legitimacy. And indeed, democratization is how governments become accountable to their people.
A word of caution: the preservation of the status of the foreign power as a helper is crucial. Sovereignty would be violated if the foreign power acting as a substitute for the people initiated or implemented democratization. The involvement must not go beyond the act of assisting a people to recover its rights; it must never reach the point where the foreign power directly installs a political regime or intervenes in ways that curtail the sovereignty of the people.
When a person is drowning, he/she has the right to call for assistance and passers-by have the duty to rescue the person. In the same way, a people drowning in the abyss of state terrorism can call for help and foreign nations have the obligation to provide the assistance. When British troops helped in the liberation of Ethiopia from Italian occupation, neither Ethiopians nor foreign democratic nations considered the assistance as a violation of Ethiopia’s sovereignty. Though there was foreign intervention, to the extent that the intervention only restored a power that was already legitimate, it was rightly called assistance. If the intervention had instituted an illegitimate power, it would have been nothing short of a colonial design.
To sum up, the prospect of peaceful change in Ethiopia rests on an international situation strongly favoring democratization. People and political leaders believed in peaceful change because they thought that the international pressure would guarantee the holding of free elections and the handing of power to the winning party. Without an international context favorable to democratization, it would be utterly naïve to assume that dictators could be removed by peaceful competition. If the international pressure does not live up to expectations, then people have no other choice than to appeal to violent methods of political struggle with all the dangerous implications that such methods often carry.
Since the project of a peaceful change of dictatorial regimes is viable only when strong external pressure combines with internal democratic movements, the ratification and implementation of H.R. 2003 constitute the indispensable component for Ethiopia’s entrance into the path of democratization. Herein lies the crucial role of the Ethiopian diaspora: more than its financial support, its effectiveness depends on its ability to channel the international impulse for democratization since the end of the Cold War toward the plight of the Ethiopian people in such a way that it manifests itself with concrete political acts of the type exemplified by H.R. 2003.
________________________
Dr Messay Kebede can be reached at [email protected]
The debate over the issue of dialogue and outrage caught my attention so much so that I decided to contribute one of my own. I disagree with Dr Messay, but I do so with all due respect. All the individuals who contributed to the debate are thoughtful and have taken their time to share their views and concerns with the internet audience. They deserve respect and nothing else. But I am certainly disappointed with Drs. Messay and Maimire Mennasemay for not expressing outrage against Ato Hailu and his unreasonable friends.
The two gentlemen should be the last ones to show indifference to the cause of justice and freedom. It is not about the person, Ato Hailu, per se. It is about his actions that wrecked the organization for which many paid the ultimate sacrifices with their lives.
How is it possible to be a neutral arbiter in the face of glaring facts pointing in the direction of Ato Hailu as the person responsible for the current stalemate within Kinjit?
Dr Messay’s plea for dialogue would make sense if repeated attempts were not made to resolve the issue peacefully and amicably. But his argument that he lacked “enough information to make any categorical judgment,” is rather disingenuous. Ato Fekade, in his latest response (posted on Jan 8), has articulated with eloquence, clarity, and precision the cultural underpinnings and norms that govern our decisions, actions, motivations, and behaviors as Ethiopians. I couldn’t agree more with Ato Fekade, provided that I understood him correctly. However, I like to add a few facts here.
Dr Messay ignores the fact that many people, including the delegation headed by Birtukan, have tried to resolve the impasse between the two groups.
• Wizt. Birtukan Medeksa, at a public forum in Boston, made an impassioned appeal to Ato Hailu to lead the delegation as chairman of Kinjit.
• Again, Birtukan and two other members of the delegation went to his hospital bed in Minnesota, wished him speedy recovery, and extended an olive branch to resolve the problems that engulfed the organization. It did not stop there.
• The delegation headed by Wizt. Birtukan made every effort to mend differences until the time of their departure for Ethiopia. That wasn’t the last attempt either.
• Dr Yacob Hailemariam was authorized to continue the effort to resolve the disputes between the two groups. In a recent interview, Dr. Yacob expressed his frustration about the intransigence of Ato Hailu and Co.
There are many examples to cite how the other side, not only through intermediaries but also directly, attempted to persuade Ato Hailu to come to his senses. Even to arrange a meeting with Ato Hailu has been a daunting task. According to people I talked to, Emperor Haile-Sellassie would not have been that difficult to access. By the way, how did I come to know about all theses efforts? I don’t have a special communication line. I use the same public media that is available to every one including Dr. Messay. Of course, I also make the extra effort to get accurate information from both sides. I am not and have never been a member of any support committees of Kinjit, and for this reason I am not suffering from partisan diatribe. But I cast the issue in terms of justice and injustice. I ask myself, given the information I have, where do I stand? Who is right or wrong? Am I on the side of justice or injustice? Is it morally acceptable to stand on the sideline and say “it is their problem?” Taking a stand on the issue does not necessarily preclude support for engaging in dialogue. In fact, knowing the facts will enhance our ability to apply more pressures at the group that is found to be culpable in the public eyes.
So, my question is what else can be done other than expressing outrage? Dr. Messay argued that there is nothing to be gained from outrage other than “solidifying the split.” But I ask, what is there to be gained by prostrating in front of a stubborn man? Outrage is an expression of our inner feelings against injustice. A leader who has the interest of his people at heart would reconsider his position in response to the overtly expressed outrage of the people. We are not showing our outrage. In fact we are trying to appease and please him. I believe that is absolutely wrong.
Does any one other than the core group of his inner circle know what exactly Ato Hailu wants? Does he have ideological or political differences? If so why can’t he tell us? By the way, Dr Messay made a factual error in what he said about EPRP and Meison. They have never been one party. They were two distinct parties, but I agree that they both claimed to have espoused Marxist ideology. Now coming back to the issue of Ato Hailu, what really does he want? Dr Messay seems to have a clue about the problem within Kinijit. He writes: From Haile Shawl’s declarations and the complaints of his supporters one gets the clear idea that the main problem emanates from the fact that his party, although otherwise the core organization in the alliance both in terms of popular mobilization and material assets, was yet overshadowed by individuals representing far less important organizations. This core organization especially attributes the victory of the May 2005 election to its mobilization of rural population to the great dismay of the ruling party which had wrongly counted on peasant support to retain its absolute majority.
For the moment let me accept the above assertion for the sake of discussion. If, indeed, the source of the problem is what is quoted above, then why doesn’t he come out in the open and say it so? This would have been a good case to make if that is the real problem. Why would he refuse to meet with the KIL group? Why would he refuse to attend the public forum in Crystal City where thousands of people were eagerly awaiting his arrival? Why didn’t he go to the meeting as the leader of the delegation and chairman of Kinjit and make his case in front of that large gathering? What have the people done to deserve his contempt? If he felt that the other group was trying to undermine his authority, why didn’t he assert his leadership by appearing at the public forums organized by Kinjit support committees throughout United Sates? Why would he surrender his responsibilities as chairman of the organizations without a fight from within? Million more questions can be asked, but I don’t think Ato Hailu would come up with plausible explanations. Besides, he is debilitated by disease, a frequent excuse for his unpredictable disposition, and he should have resigned as chairman of the party.
Now let me turn to the unsubstantiated claim that his party played a pivotal role in the 2005 election. So what? Is that a good and logical reason to destroy the organization now? First of all, the people voted for Kinjit as one entity and not for individual parties. There is no way to know how the people would have voted had Kinjit not been created. The creation of Kinjit created the synergy that allowed effective mobilization of the Ethiopian people in the entire country. It is unlikely that AEUP could have done the job alone. The Ethiopian people including those of us in the Diaspora were demanding united action instead of going it alone. I remember that “ተባበሩ ወይም ተሰባበሩ”, roughly translated as “unite or breakup”, was the motto. In the Washington area, where I resided for a long time, AEUP, in five or so years, never managed to get the support of even one-tenth of what Kinjit did in less than six months. Of course, I arrived at this conclusion based on my own estimation and not based on any statistics. I don’t think the situation was any different in Ethiopia. To attribute “the victory of the May 2005 election to [AEUP’s] mobilization of rural population” is, in my judgment, pure sophistry and an attempt to mask the real problem that besets the organization.
I am, by no means, trying to belittle AEUP’s contributions to the mobilization effort. In fact, I have heard that Ato Hailu had traveled several times to the rural areas to educate and mobilize the rural community in the Amhara region. I certainly commend him for that. However, the mystery to me is that why would he now resort to a strategy that is likely to destroy the very organization that he labored hard to build? If he strongly feels that his former organization is marginalized, and he thinks that it deserves a prominent role within Kinjit, why doesn’t he fight for it without breaking Kinjit? Do all the members of former AEUP feel the same way as he does? My information is that the vast majority of former AEUP members are against him.
Moreover, why would Ato Hailu care so much about his group if his declared goal is to create a democratic order in Ethiopia based on the principle of one person one vote? Doesn’t he subscribe to the idea of creating a democratic Ethiopia where the equality of all the people is guaranteed? Does he have misgivings or a second thought about creating a system where individual freedom, justice, equality, the rule of law, and the respect for human rights are guaranteed? I need the answers from him, but I am sure I never will. But I know one thing for sure; the Ethiopian people will never tolerate a system of inequalities. That is why they are fighting the current regime and they will continue to do so against any future regime that promotes inequalities in any shape or form. Unlike AEUP, which is predominantly a party of one ethnic, Kinjit is a national party, and members of other ethnic groups are represented in the top leadership of the party; that is how it ought to be, and should continue to be that way in the future. If Ato Hailu and his cohorts are unhappy about it, so be it. The Ethiopian people will continue the struggle with or without them. But, I would add that if he is fighting for the dominance of his group in the future political establishment, we might as well start fighting back now by engaging in a public debate in a civilized, reasoned, and logical manner. If we don’t, our struggle against EPRDF would be morally unacceptable. I am not, however, convinced that Mr. Hailu is adamantly concerned about AEUP.
My hunch is that the collusion between the two groups emanated perhaps from mistrusting each other and from having conflicting misperceptions about each other’s motives; otherwise genuine differences could have been resolved amicably through dialogue. Nevertheless, Ato Hailu Shawl’s intransigence demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the wrong man was charged with the daunting task of leading the democratic struggle. One of the characteristic traits of great leaders is the ability to maintain party unity and integrity under the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances; on the contrary, Ato Hailu created the problem and undermined his own organization; he never uttered differences of a substantive nature other than regurgitating and prating absurdities with the greatest seriousness. His sycophant and egotistic collaborators blinded with a primitive drive for future power exasperated the problem making it difficult for reconsideration and reconciliation. A leader with courage and vision would rise above the fray and manage the conflict in a manner that would allow the integrity and continuity of the organization he is leading. Ideas bent on destroying the organization should not have been allowed to float let alone accepted. On this count, too, Ato Hailu has failed terribly. Imagine what could have happened to the country if a stubborn Hailu assisted by selfish fawners had taken the helm of state power? Even today the trend of the dispute is scary. Recently I heard, as Fekade also noted, that a group of youngsters from the Hailu camp were bullying and shoving Dr Hailu Araya and other Kinjit executive members outside the office that rightfully belongs to Kinjit. If Dr. Hailu and friends had made the wrong move or put the slightest resistance, it was possible that the confrontation would have turned violent. The executive members of Kinjit made a wise decision to leave the area, but there is no reason to believe that the internecine fighting we witnessed in the 1970s will not be repeated this time again. I am concerned that the situation does not bode well for the future of our country. It is, therefore, imperative that we express outrage not appeasement.
____________________
The writer can be reached at [email protected]
THE EITHER/ORCHESTRA
With special guest
MULATU ASTATKE
Saturday, February 2, Historic Sweets Ballroom, Oakland
OAKLAND CA – Ethiopian Arts Forum presents the Either/Orchestra, led by Russ Gershon, with special guest Mulatu Astatke on Saturday, February 2, 9:30 pm at Historic Sweets Ballroom, 1933 Broadway, Oakland CA. Tickets are $20, $30 for VIP area.. Tickets are sold “At The Door”.
The concert unites the Massachusetts-based ten piece Either/Orchestra (E/O) with composer/vibraphonist/percussionist Mulatu Astatke, the inventor of Ethio-jazz. This is Mr. Astatke’s first ever appearance on the West Coast, and the first time the E/O has appeared in the Bay Area since 1994. Mr. Astatke has been collaborating with the E/O since 2004, including concerts in Boston, New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Stockholm and Helsinki.
The concert will bring together the Ethio-jazz of Mr. Astatke with other Ethiopian material arranged by the E/O, plus originals by Gershon and other E/O members. The strong influence of Latin music in the E/O by way of Dominican conguero Vicente Lebron and Venezuelan drummer Pablo Bencid combines with the percussion and vibes of Mulatu’s Ethio-jazz to guarantee hot rhythms. The show is rooted in the sounds of Africa as transplanted to North and South America, reflected back to Ethiopia and back again to the US.
Mulatu Astatke was born in Jimma, Ethiopia in 1943. In the 1950s he was sent abroad for extensive musical study, first to London, then to New York, and eventually to Boston to attend The Schillinger House of Music, now known as Berklee College of Music. At Berklee, where he was the school’s very first African student, Astatke became a student of jazz, focusing on the vibraphone. After finishing at Berklee, Astatke moved to New York and recorded two albums with this band, The Ethiopian Quintet. With this group, Astatke gave birth to “Ethio-jazz,” a genre that features the sonic cocktail of traditional Ethiopian melodies and modes mixed with the sounds of modern jazz and Latin music. In the late 1960s, Astatke returned to Ethiopia, bringing with him his new sound and new (to Ethiopia) instruments, congas, Hammond organ and the vibraphone among them.
A cultural ambassador and musical icon in Ethiopia and among super-hip club DJ’s around the world, Astatke has an international fan base which grew in 2005 when three of his songs were included on the soundtrack to Jim Jarmusch’s Broken Flowers, starring Bill Murray. In 2004, one of his songs was used in The Sopranos, during Tony’s climactic dream sequence. At home in Addis, Mr. Astatke is known as a radio disc jockey, a television presenter, the proprietor of a jazz club / jazz school and music researcher. He is probably Ethioipia’s best-known non singing musician, and Ethiopians of his generation see their popular music and being hugely influenced by his work as a composer and arranger. During the 2007-08 academic year, Mr. Astatke is in residence at Harvard University as a Radcliffe Fellow, working on an opera based on Ethiopian church music, a book, and various other projects.
The ten-piece Either/Orchestra was formed in 1985 by saxophonist/composer Gershon. Gershon brings a unique ear to the large jazz ensemble, producing a sound larger and more orchestrated than a jazz combo, but more streamlined and improvisation-oriented than most big-bands. The band has earned a Grammy nomination and perennial victories in the Down Beat International Critics Poll (“Rising Star Big Band”). They have released ten albums and a DVD, and have played in 34 states and nine foreign countries.
Over the past decade, the Either/Orchestra has become perhaps the world’s leading non-Ethiopian exponent of that country’s exotic melodies and scales. Bandleader Gershon’s deep interest in the music led the group onto a trail that led to the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa in 2004, where they absorbed the local sounds and collaborated on a concert with five Ethiopian musicians, including Mr. Astatke. The concert recording has been released in the prestigious Ethiopiques series by Buda Musique of Paris. The E/O has continued its collaboration with Mulatu and other top Ethiopian performers, including superstar singer Mahmoud Ahmed. In August 2007, a DVD documentary of the E/O-meets-Mahmoud concert in Paris was released by Buda Musique.
In 1993 Gershon’s friend, the late Mark Sandman of Boston rock group Morphine, brought back from France an album entitled, Ethiopian Groove: the Golden 70s. The album reflected Ethiopia’s long and unique musical history, specifically the surprising influence of American jazz, soul and Latin music, much of this by way of Mr. Astatke.
The sound of Western band instruments first caught the imagination of Emperor Haile Selassie I in 1924 on a visit to Jerusalem. There he was impressed by a military band composed of Armenian orphans, and brought the children back to Ethiopia to be the country’s imperial brass band. The emperor’s interest in military bands supported musicians learning trumpets, trombones, clarinets and saxophones, and by the mid-1950’s a variety of big-band had become popular in the clubs and theaters of Addis Ababa, merging Western influences and instruments with the powerful tradition of Ethiopian singing.
Gershon, captivated by the music and its undeniable jazz influences, began arranging Ethiopian songs for theEither/Orchestra in 1997. Several of these arrangements were included on the orchestra’s 2000 release, More Beautiful Than Death (Accurate) and caught the attention of Francis Falceto, the producer of Ethiopian Groove: the Golden 70s. Falceto’s engineered an invitation for the E/O to the third Ethiopian Music Festival in Addis Ababa in 2004, making the E/O the first American big band to visit Ethiopia since Duke Ellington’s in 1973. The E/O’s historic performance was recorded and released as a live album, Ethiopiques 20: Live in Addis, in September, 2005 on Buda Musique. The album features many guests, including the renowned Ethiopian musician and father of the “Ethio-Jazz” movement, Mulatu Astatke.
Siye Abraha from his Dedebit Terrorist Camp to Addis Ababa, made a very long march to destroy our country and humiliate our people. He once was referred as a TPLF Military Commander and later as Minister of Defense, which was his second skin and has since shed that skin without accountability and ceremony and currently shed his third skin to fool us. Regardless of what outfit he wears, Seye Abraha has left our country with many scars and he is accountable for various high crimes.
Even though the criminal Siye Abraha suffers from memory loss, Ethiopians and history will never forget what he did to our people and country. He was one of the criminal gangs who call themselves a government who routinely engage in murder, torture, beatings, systematic abuse, cruel inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment of opponents and innocent citizens and destroyed Ethiopian resources. He is one of the TPLF gangs who were above the law and who chose division over unity. At last, he became hostage of his own wrongdoings and prisoner of his false propaganda. It took him more than three decades to learn in a hard way from his destructive actions and involvement.
He is one who:
• Participated in historical revisionism (negationism) of the history of our country;
• Took part in imposing puppet government on Ethiopians without their will;
• Orchestrated violence by setting one ethnic group against another;
• Was one of the architects to put in place an economic, social and welfare policies which favors one minority ethnic group over the majority and others;
• Betray to dismember Ethiopia and worked with Shaebia;
• Played a role to make Ethiopia landlocked;
• Spearheaded to disband the Ethiopian defense forces;
Siye Abraha is a person who is individually and collectively responsible for his crimes against peace, TPLF military command responsibility, mass murder, ethnic cleansing and crimes on humanity, high treason, war crimes, disappearances of many innocent citizens and many more. In the mid 1990’s, when his power was at its peak, he extended his web of corruption systematically through his family members and friends by giving back-up support using his position. He should be accountable in the court of law for all these crimes before anything. Don’t expect something good to come from a criminal, except his empty pile of words to cover his crimes.
The TPLF gangs will murder your sisters and brothers yesterday and they will expect you to forget it the next morning, and suppose you would dance and dine with them tomorrow. Is that the type of democracy we are struggling for? Is that why we support H.R. 2003? Why a double standard in our actions, where Addisu Legesse was humiliated from East to West and North to South in the big cities of U.S.A.? We need to learn from history, because the past is the basis and the present is the reality that we base our vision for the future. Let us come back to our senses. Shame on those dancing with a criminal!!!
Mr. Siye Abraha, just for you: “A cat may go to a monastery, but it still remains a cat.”
_____________________
The writer can be reached at [email protected]
