By Mohamed Olad Hassan, AP
MOGADISHU – Somali and Ethiopian troops entered an insurgent stronghold in central Mogadishu on Wednesday, setting off a battle in which at least seven people were killed and 10 were wounded, witnesses and medical officials said.
Hundreds of masked insurgents confronted the government forces, which were supported by tanks and armored vehicles, said Ali Haji Jama, a resident of the northeastern neighborhood at the center of the fighting.
An AP photographer saw insurgents drag the bodies of Ethiopian soldier and one Somali government soldier through the streets of northeastern Mogadishu and then set them on fire.
“Ethiopian tanks rolled out of the former defense ministry and moved into nearby Shirkole area, which is seen as the stronghold of the insurgent groups and they met with stiff resistance,” he said. Other witnesses said minibuses filled with insurgents were racing through the city to reach Shirkole and defend against the Ethiopian advance.
Muqtar Abdulahi Dahir, a Mogadishu businessman, said he saw the same minibuses carrying away the wounded.
“I also saw insurgents evacuating some of their men with minibuses, but I am not sure whether they were dead or not,” he said.
Medical officials at Mogadishu’s three hospitals said they had recorded at least seven dead and 10 wounded by midmorning. Government officials did not answer their telephones early Wednesday.
Ethiopia sent soldiers into Somalia in December to counter an Islamic movement that threatened to destroy Somalia’s internationally-recognized government. Though they have lost control most of their territory, the Islamic forces refuse to accept defeat, and violence has continued in the capital. Mortar attacks forced dozens of residents to flee Mogadishu on Tuesday.
Somali leaders have said in recent weeks that they were preparing a major offensive to stop the growing insurgency.
Somalia has been without an effective central government since 1991. The present government has so far failed to assert itself and the African Union has deployed a small peacekeeping force to defend it.
Read more here.
By Adugnaw Worku
Ethiopians have been confused and puzzled by America’s indifference to the on-going political crisis in their homeland. During the 2005 Ethiopian election and after, conventional wisdom among Ethiopians assumed that The United States would stand with them in their fight for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. They underestimated the power of national economic interest and national security issues on the part of the United States. While America’s rhetorical support for democracy, human rights, and rule of law around the world is eloquent and impressive, its foreign policy practice falls far short of its rhetorical ideals. And this in turn has angered and disappointed those who took America’s promised support seriously and literally.
The United States of America has the distinction of being the longest enduring democracy in the world, which is still strong, vibrant, and inspiring. Americans believe in their democracy and freedom and they also believe that the world would greatly benefit from it. Many Americans further believe that “the American nation has been chosen by god or by history to promote democracy”. President George W. Bush put it this way. “Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass on”. And he goes on to say that “Americans are a free people who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to humanity.” According to Robert Jervis, “The hope of spreading democracy and liberalism throughout the world has been an American goal.” It is a fact that Americans see themselves as champions of human rights and they have inspired billions of oppressed people around the world.
But the problem comes when American political leaders try to integrate democratic values into foreign policy practices. Unfortunately, the devil is always in the detail. There has been an ongoing debate between two American foreign policy camps on this issue and it still goes on. There are those who argue that American foreign policy should be ethical, moral, and universal and that what is good for America is also good for the world. Americans who represent this view further believe that the United States should be consistent with her values at home and abroad. This camp strongly believes that American foreign policy should be as good as the American people. Besides, promoting democracy and freedom and banishing tyranny will be good for America’s long term security and economic interests.
It is an observed fact that “democracies rarely attack other democracies”. In addition, democracies ensure better stability and that in turn promotes economic growth at home and trading partnerships abroad. This camp claims that capitalism and democracy have been good for America and they will also be good for the world. Spreading democracy can also relieve the United States of the constant worry about the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and rouge states. For example, America is more worried about “nuclear weapon in the hands of autocracies like China, Iran, North Korea” and others like them. But “no American loses sleep that the UK or France has deadly missiles”. It is a documented fact that 70% of terrorists come from authoritarian societies because such societies both breed and shelter them. And that may explain “why those who blow up Americans are rarely Indian or Turkish Muslims, (but are) more likely (to be) Saudis or Egyptians”.
Terrorists will be exposed in open and free societies sooner than later because there is transparency. People in democratic countries are national stake holders and would not protect or shelter those that disturb the peace and destroy their way of life. Liberal foreign policy proponents further argue that the promotion of democracy abroad would bring consistency and coherence between what America says at home and what she does abroad. Charles Pena says that “People love what we are; but they often hate what we do”. The one question asked by many Americans after September 11 was, “Why do they hate us?” Liberals say it is because of the inconsistency of America’s foreign policy and her support of those regimes that abuse their citizens with impunity.
The realist camp of American foreign policy on the other hand believes that the world is a complex and dangerous place. And moralistic and universal approaches are impractical, ineffective, misguided, and unwise. And they insist that “No responsible U.S. decision maker can allow our foreign policy to be driven by a single imperative, no matter how important”. Realists seem to agree with the great British statesman, Lord Salisbury, who once said “It has generally been acknowledged to be madness to go to war for an idea”. Unfortunately, democracy, freedom, and human rights are often considered good ideas but are rarely acted on when it comes to foreign policy decisions. The realist camp further argues that “different circumstances require different methods and sound foreign policy must be calculating and particular by necessity, because success depends on decisions other nations make and that their cooperation is necessary to achieve foreign policy goals”.
These foreign policy hardliners believe that in the world of realpolitik the essence of foreign policy is deciding between two or more difficult choices when dealing with nations whose values and practices are different and undemocratic. This is further complicated by internal political pressures coming from lobbyists and campaign contributors who have their agendas and self-interests in some foreign policy decisions. Furthermore, national security and economic interests overshadow democratic ideals. These factors in turn create a serious disconnect between deeply held American democratic ideals and foreign policy practices. Consequently, what America says at home and what she does abroad create serious confusion and disappointment and anger.
More often than not, deals are made with the devil to achieve short term goals at the expense of deeply held ideals and long term interests. In reality, American foreign policy as practiced creates hypocrisy and vulnerability instead of security and stability. Without minimizing or oversimplifying foreign policy challenges, one can conclude that consistency between democratic ideals and foreign policy practices is far than undemocratic shortcuts. That is the way to win friends and influence people around the world with lasting effect. As the old saying goes, “action speaks louder than words” and the world sees, hears, and remembers what America says and what America does.
Unfortunately, Ian Williams is correct in saying that “A constant element in American foreign policy for decades has been that it is reactive to perceived threats rather than agenda-setting in support of any positive value such as humanitarianism or democracy”.
He goes on to say that “In practice, American governments have found it difficult to separate words and actions”. And Robert Jurvis adds to this by saying, “No American government has been willing to sacrifice stability and support of U.S. policy to honor democracy”. The truth is that the “United States has had close, even intimate, relationships with many undemocratic regimes for the sake of American security and economic interests”. Through the years, America has had many unsavory and fair weather friends around the world who make the United States look bad and vulnerable.
In the past, the United States supported and continues to support “tyrannical governments prone to disregard agreements and coerce their neighbors just as they mistreat their own citizens”. There is a long list of unsavory and tyrannical friends around the globe stretching from Latin America to Africa and Asia that successive American governments supported. . Trojillo of the Dominical Republic, Marcos of the Philippines, Mobuto of Zaire, the Batistas of Cuba, the Somozas of Nicaragua, Salazar of Portugal, Franco of Spain, and Pinochet of Chile are just a few examples of a very long list of tyrants supported by the United States. These tyrants and others like them got away with murder until their people got fed up and threw them out of power.
Cold War politics and foreign policy interests made it possible for tyrants of the past to enjoy the support of the United States and Western Europe. And now, the War on Terrorism has spawned support for new tyrants around the world. The latest addition to this foreign policy laundry list is Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia. Shortly after Meles Zenawi’s EPRDF shot itself to the presidential palace and took power in Ethiopia, Mr. Herman Cohen, who was Assistant Secretary of State for East Africa, came to California to address Ethiopians about the situation in their homeland. In a speech he gave to an Ethiopian audience in the city of Oakland in California, Mr. Cohen made it clear that His Administration had informed the new Ethiopian leaders that the United States would only cooperate with them and assist them if they committed themselves to democratic governance. And the catch phrase he used over and over was during his speech was, “No democracy no cooperation”.
But in an interview with Voice of America soon after Ethiopia’s first democratic election in 2005 and its bloody aftermath, the same Herman Cohen said that democracy in Ethiopia is not as mission critical for the United States as the war on terrorism is. He admitted that Meles Zenawi is as dictatorial and as ruthless as Mengistu Hailemariam, and then added in the same breath that Meles Zenawi is an important ally of the United States in the war against terrorism. And once again, Ethiopia has become a pawn in the chase game of geopolitical expediency. Meles Zenawi got away with murder and the United States got a loyal partner in the troubled region of the Horn of Africa. Meles Zenawi’s current involvement is Somalia has further endeared him to the American government.
Meles Zenawi is a smart man and a survivor and he read the international political chase board correctly relative to the likely positions of Europe and North America. He knew that the war on terrorism has overshadowed all other foreign policy considerations in Europe and North America and he carefully calculated their likely response to his cruel and undemocratic actions against innocent and unarmed Ethiopian demonstrators and duly and fairly elected opponents. First, he stole the election. Next, he banned demonstrations. Then, he managed to stall the momentum of the opposition and confuse the diplomatic community in Addis Ababa. He took actions step by step and measured the diplomatic rhetoric of Europe and North America accurately. He stripped elected members of parliament of their constitutional immunity and eventually struck hard at the core of the opposition by jailing the entire leadership on trumped up charges of genocide and treason.
The democratic world simply shook its head with mild and diplomatically sugar coded concerns for the situation in Ethiopia. There was no outrage like there was on behalf the Ukraine and Georgia under similar circumstances. And financial aid was not withheld significantly from the Ethiopian government. The rational was and still is that withholding aid would end up hurting poor Ethiopians and therefore must continue. The truth of the matter is that Ethiopians have become poorer despite the large donations and financial aids to the tune of billions in the last sixteen years. Where did it all go? The aid does not reach the people and that is a documented fact. For the record, Great Britain and the European Union have withheld some financial aid from Ethiopia but not enough to pressure Meles Zenawi to change his ways. Besides, what Europe withheld has been made up by generous handouts from the World Bank and the United States.
What happened to President George Bush’s promise? Didn’t he say to a national and international audience that “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know—the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors”? Didn’t he also say that “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you”? These eloquent promises were conveniently side stepped in the Ethiopian situation. And once again, American foreign policy hardliners have carried the day arguing apparently convincingly that stability in a troubled region and the war on terrorism are more critical than democracy in Ethiopia. But in so doing, they have undermined the long term stability of the region that a democratic Ethiopia would have contributed to.
This is not to say that all is lost. No, all is not lost. The struggle for democracy in Ethiopia will continue until both the oppressed and the oppressors are free to live peacefully. And Ethiopians are not alone in their struggle. There are influential allies on both sides of the Atlantic represented by Chrstopher Smith, Donald Payne, Tom Lantos, and Mike Honda in the United States and the indefatigable Ana Gomez and company in Europe. For now, North America and Western Europe have chosen stability over democracy and human rights when it comes to Ethiopia, and they consider Meles Zenawi the winner of the political fight in Ethiopia. As the saying goes, “Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan”. American and European foreign policy makers and diplomats know the intimate details of Meles Zenawi’s actions and intentions against his real and imagined political opponents. Election observers sent to Ethiopia from both sides of the Atlantic have fully documented the events prior to and during and after the 2005 Ethiopian election and its aftermath. The diplomatic core in Addis Ababa has also watched the goings-on from very close range. And there is a general consensus that Meles Zenawi’s government committed gross violations after an otherwise peaceful and profoundly historic election and continues to do so to this day. Meles Zenawi got away with murder for the same reason others like him past and present have gotten away with. Ethiopians must realize that the United States and Western Europe are not going to liberate them from the tyranny they are suffering under. Ethiopians must liberate themselves once and for all. Ethiopians must also remember that the international community will inevitably side with the winner for its own national security and economic interests.
Eventually, the truth will prevail; the dictators will fail; the prisoners of conscience will be freed; and a new day of freedom, peace, and prosperity will dawn in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian political genie is out of the bottle and the day is soon coming when democracy, human rights, and the rule law shall prevail for all Ethiopians. And to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the children of political oppressors and the children of the oppressed will be able to live as brothers and sisters bound together by a common destiny in a beautiful land called Ethiopia. That is a dream worth fighting for. So, cheer up and continue the democratic struggle until victory is won!
Prof. Adugnaw Worku resides in California.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Berhane Kifle GEBRESADIK, Petitioner,
v.
Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the petitioner was Phillip F. Fishman of Minneapolis, MN.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the respondent was Lonnie F. Bryan, AUSA, of Minneapolis, MN.
Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
1
Berhane Gebresadik petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition.
I.
2
Gebresadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, was born to an ethnic Amhara father and an Eritrean mother. She entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor in March 2000. She remained beyond her authorized stay, and removal proceedings were commenced against her in May 2001. Gebresadik conceded that she was removable, but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT.
3
Gebresadik’s application was largely based on her claim that she was persecuted by individuals affiliated with the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) because of her involvement in the All Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO), a group she joined on April 16, 1992, so that she could help oppose the persecution of the Amhara people and promote a united Ethiopia. According to Gebresadik’s application and testimony, she served as an organizer of a 200-person AAPO demonstration the day she joined. She also helped collect money and distribute leaflets for the organization. Gebresadik stated that because of her involvement with the AAPO, two EPRDF security agents entered her home on April 25, 1992, arrested her, and took her to jail, where she was tortured and interrogated. The agents reportedly claimed that the donations gathered on April 16, 1992, were used to buy weapons for anti-government activities and demanded that Gebresadik identify other activists. Gebresadik further asserted that on April 30, 1992, two gunmen, who identified themselves as members of “Harnet Tigray” (the freedom fighters of the Tigray people), entered her cell, blindfolded her, and shouted that she was an informant for the AAPO who had betrayed her Eritrean heritage. She said that one of these men then tore her clothes, raped her, and spit on her. Gebresadik also testified that her interrogators accused her of performing intelligence work for Eritreans.
4
According to Gebresadik, she was eventually released from jail on September 15, 1992. She stayed away from all AAPO functions and members thereafter, and the incident was never reported to the AAPO. She left Ethiopia in December 1992 and went to Egypt, where she worked as a servant until her arrival in the United States. Despite Gebresadik’s absence from Ethiopia, her father, who remained in Ethiopia, reported that men have continued to come to his home looking for her.
5
Gebresadik also asserted in her application and testimony that she believed she would face persecution due to her Eritrean heritage if she were to return to Ethiopia. She reported that relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea deteriorated after she left Ethiopia and that Ethiopians of Eritrean origin were being arrested and deported to Eritrea. Individuals that she alleged had been deported to Eritrea included her mother, who reportedly died shortly after being deported, and Habtemickeal Asnakie, the father of her two children. Gebresadik’s father feared that because of Gebresadik’s Eritrean heritage, she would also be deported if she returned to Ethiopia.
6
Attached to Gebresadik’s application were various documents, one of which was an October 2002 letter from Wondayehu Kassa, the AAPO representative from North America, whom Gebresadik said she had met during the demonstration in 1992. The letter stated that Gebresadik had been subjected to mistreatment and injustices at the hands of EPRDF agents, but did not mention her arrest. Another document was an affidavit from an individual who reportedly knew Gebresadik in Ethiopia. The affidavit recounted the same information listed in Gebresadik’s affidavit regarding her AAPO involvement and arrest. Gebresadik also submitted a copy of her passport, birth certificate, and various reports and articles that contained country information for Ethiopia and Eritrea.
7
On December 23, 2002, the IJ denied Gebresadik’s application. In his decision, the IJ questioned Gebresadik’s credibility and the plausibility of her claims. The IJ noted that Gebresadik had initially testified at the hearing that her AAPO involvement and subsequent arrest took place in March of 1992, but then corrected it to reflect that it had occurred in April. The IJ also stated that Ethiopia and Eritrea were allies in 1992 and that he therefore did not “understand why the respondent would be questioned as to being involved with Eritrean intelligence at that time.” He further thought it “seem[ed] a bit implausible . . . that a person would be given a position of authority, in organizing a demonstration on the very same day the person joined the political organization,” and that it was “just not plausible . . . that Ethiopian authorities would still be looking for the respondent 10 years after her brief period of AAPO involvement.” The IJ also commented on the insufficient corroborating evidence supplied by Gebresadik. He noted that she provided no contemporaneous objective documentation of her joining the AAPO, and he also discounted the value of the letter from the AAPO representative because it did not mention anything about her being arrested and because Gebresadik had testified that she never told the AAPO of the events when they occurred. In addition, the IJ commented that “the evidence regarding respondent’s connections to Eritrea are (sic) quite limited.” For these reasons, the IJ ultimately concluded that Gebresadik had not met her burden of proof.
8
The BIA eventually remanded the case to the IJ.1 On remand, Gebresadik was permitted to submit additional evidence, and another hearing was held. During this process, Gebresadik asserted that she had suffered not just one but five sexual assaults during her time in prison. Most of the other evidence presented by Gebresadik was the same as that provided in her original application. The IJ once again denied Gebresadik’s application, specifically incorporating its prior decision and also noting that Gebresadik had “really not offered any new evidence to support her claim” or “offered any corroborating evidence going to her AAPO activities, or to her Eritrean ethnicity.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
II.
9
Gebresadik contends that the IJ and BIA erred in denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. “We review the IJ’s decision directly where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms it,” Aziz v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir.2007), and will “defer to the IJ’s findings of fact and disposition of the case unless the record evidence is `so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find [the petitioner] eligible for asylum, withholding of deportation, or relief under the Convention Against Torture.'” Onsongo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir.2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir.2004)).
A.
10
To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner must show that he or she is a refugee —a person “who is unable or unwilling to return to his country of nationality `because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.'” Berte v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the fear must be “both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 983 (8th Cir.2005). A petitioner who is able to establish past persecution is “entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, which can be rebutted by evidence that country conditions have changed.” Lengkong v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir.2007).
11
As recounted above, Gebresadik’s claims of past and future persecution were discounted by the IJ because he questioned her credibility and because of the lack of corroborating evidence. We will uphold an IJ’s adverse credibility determinations as long as “they are supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” Celaj v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8th Cir.2006). Further, “[o]ur court has held that an IJ may properly base a credibility finding on the `implausibility’ of an alien’s testimony, as long as the IJ gives specific and convincing reasons for disbelief.” Mamana v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir.2006). “[A]n IJ’s adverse credibility findings `are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.'” Id. (quoting Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 668 (8th Cir.2005)).
12
After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the IJ gave satisfactory reasons for questioning Gebresadik’s credibility, particularly as it pertains to her claim of past persecution. We agree with the IJ’s assertion that it is implausible for the AAPO to have given Gebresadik the authority to organize a 200-person AAPO demonstration on the very day she joined the organization. Moreover, despite the fact that the IJ expressed disbelief on this matter in his initial decision, Gebresadik offered no evidence on reconsideration that would tend to diminish the implausibility of her contention. In addition, and despite Gebresadik’s assertion to the contrary, it was not unreasonable for the IJ to question Gebresadik’s credibility based on her claim that she had been accused during her detention of being an Eritrean spy, as the country reports included in Gebresadik’s application showed that the controlling governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea were in cooperation in 1992.2 We consequently cannot say that it was unreasonable for the IJ to question Gebresadik’s credibility.3
13
We also cannot say that it was unreasonable for the IJ to state that the lack of corroborating evidence is detrimental to Gebresadik’s claim of past persecution. As we have noted, the “lack of corroboration . . . combined with other credibility issues, can provide support for an adverse credibility finding.” Onsongo, 457 F.3d at 855. Gebresadik did not provide any contemporaneous objective documentation regarding her joining the AAPO. In addition, the IJ found the AAPO letter from Kassa to have little value because it did not mention her arrest and because Gebresadik had testified that she had met Kassa only once, on April 16, 1992, and had not seen him since.4 The only other piece of corroborating evidence that Gebresadik provided regarding her AAPO membership or her arrest was an affidavit from an Ethiopian acquaintance. The IJ found the corroborating evidence to be insufficient in this case, and we cannot say that the record compels a contrary finding. The IJ also noted that Gebresadik had failed to offer additional corroborating evidence regarding her AAPO activities or detention during her remand proceeding. While we recognize that “petitioners cannot be expected to get substantial documentation from their persecutors,” Ombongi v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir.2005), we believe that the lack of corroboration here, combined with the credibility issues discussed above, provides a reasonable basis for undermining the credibility of Gebresadik’s claim of past persecution.5
14
We also believe that it was reasonable for the IJ to discount Gebresadik’s claims of future persecution, especially in light of the credibility concerns addressed above. In regard to future persecution based on AAPO membership, the IJ found it implausible that Ethiopian authorities would still be interested in her, because it had been more than ten years since her brief involvement with the AAPO, she had not been politically active since her detention, and she had been given an exit visa to leave Ethiopia. In regard to future persecution based on her Eritrean heritage, the IJ noted that the evidence was rather limited. We cannot conclude that the record compels a contrary conclusion.
15
After considering the record as a whole, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the IJ’s conclusion that because Gebresadik failed to meet her burden of proof, she is not eligible for asylum.6
B.
16
Because Gebresadik has failed to meet the standard for asylum, she also fails to meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. See Turay, 405 F.3d at 667. Furthermore, the conclusions that support a denial of Gebresadik’s asylum and withholding of removal claims also support the denial of her CAT claims. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir.2006).
17
The petition for relief is denied.
Notes:
1
The BIA had initially affirmed the IJ’s decision, concluding that even if Gebresadik’s testimony was deemed credible and even if she had established past persecution, her claim would fail because there had been a fundamental change in circumstances and internal relocation was appropriate. After a reconsideration of the decision pursuant to Gebresadik’s motion, however, the BIA concluded that it had misinterpreted a Department of State Report that it relied on in its initial affirmance and remanded the case to the IJ
2
The reports reveal that in 1992 Ethiopia and Eritrea were still one country and that the EPRDF and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) had just recently ousted former President Mengistu’s regime. A.R. 1320, 1391, and 1548. These reports also show that in 1992 the EPRDF, which headed the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, was sympathetic to Eritrean independence and accepted the EPLF as the provisional government of EthiopiaId.
3
Gebresadik additionally asserts that it was erroneous for the IJ to question her credibility based on her initial misstatement of the month of her AAPO involvement and arrest at her first IJ hearing. After a review of the transcript, we agree with Gebresadik that this appears to have been a simple misstatement and does not necessarily support an adverse credibility determination. In any event, this does not appear to have been an essential factor in the IJ’s determination, and we are satisfied that the other credibility issues addressed by the IJ are sufficient to support his credibility assessments
4
The IJ noted that while the AAPO letter did state that Gebresadik was a victim of mistreatment and injustice at the hands of EPRDF Security agents, this information must have been provided to the AAPO representative by Gebresadik in 2002 because she stated that she had not told the AAPO of these events
5
We reject Gebresadik’s argument that the IJ wrongly excluded her alleged physical evidence of torture. At her March 30, 2005, evidentiary hearing, Gebresadik attempted to disrobe and show the IJ a scar that she claimed to have received during her detention in Ethiopia. The IJ prevented her from doing so. This decision was not erroneous, particularly in light of the fact that Gebresadik was permitted to testify about the scar. At the same hearing, Gebresadik also attempted to obtain a continuance to procure expert testimony regarding her scar. This request was also denied by the IJ. As we have previously recognized, we have “no jurisdiction to review an IJ’s purely discretionary decision to deny a continuance of a removal hearing, unless that ruling resulted in such procedural unfairness as to implicate due process,”Grass v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 876, 879 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1079, 126 S.Ct. 1793, 164 L.Ed.2d 533 (2006), which Gebresadik does not allege here.
6
At oral argument, Gebresadik asserted that on remand the IJ should have performed an analysis regarding her ability to relocate internally. Because this argument was raised for the first time at oral argument and was not briefed, it is waivedSee Twin Cities Galleries, LLC v. Media Arts Group, Inc., 476 F.3d 598, 602 n. 1 (8th Cir.2007).
By Neda Ulaby, NPR’s Morning Edition
A generation of Ethiopian Americans is making its mark on the arts. They are part of a wave of young people whose families fled Ethiopia in the 1970s and who came of age in the United States. Their writing, music and art are adding a new chapter to the epic of American immigration.
Author Dinaw Mengestu teaches
at Georgetown University in
Washington, DC, and lives in
New York City.
[Photo: Blair Fethers] Author Dinaw Mengestu’s first novel, The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears (Read an Excerpt), came out this month to warm reviews. At an Ethiopian restaurant near downtown Washington, D.C., Mengestu, 29, is thinking back on the journey that brought him here. Born in Addis Ababa, he left Ethiopia at the age of 2, then spent the next seven years in Peoria, Ill. Now Mengestu teaches at Georgetown University and lives in New York City.
Incongruous as this path may seem, Mengestu says it began with the bloody revolutions that followed the overthrow of Ethiopia’s Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974. Tens of thousands of Ethiopians were imprisoned and executed.
Mengestu’s novel follows a character who, after his father is killed, makes his way to the District of Columbia. Mengestu drew on family history to imagine the past of his main character. Sepha Stephanos eventually opens a grocery in a gentrifying D.C. neighborhood and begins a relationship with a white academic and her biracial child.
At least 22,000 Ethiopians call the District of Columbia home. About half a million live in the United States. Some survived the horrors of the 1970s and 1980, and now their children are trying to make sense both of that period, which they never experienced first hand, and being young and black and African and American here.
Hip-hop musician Gabriel Teodros
lives in Seattle. Gabriel Teodros, a hip-hop musician who lives in Seattle, is part of a rising movement of young writers, artists, and musicians who are figuring out how to explain the various worlds they traverse and the sometimes odd cultural interconnections they find.
Take, Teodros says, Jamaica’s Rastafarian culture, the trappings of which are popular in the United States. It literally venerates Ethiopia’s former emperor.
“What do Ethiopians think when they come to this country and they see all these people who really don’t have too much knowledge about what’s going on in Ethiopia, like [sporting] Haile Selassie on a shirt or wearing red, yellow and green [the Ethiopian flag colors]? I think for the most part, like when Ethiopians see that, they’re either like flattered, like ‘Wow, these people think Ethiopia’s really cool…’ Or they feel that it’s cultural appropriation. Like, ‘Why do you have the emperor’s face on your shirt?'”
Teodros complains that most Americans just associate Ethiopia with famine. But this generation has the pride of being from a place that remained largely independent while other African countries endured decades of European colonization.
Born in Addis Ababa, artist Julie
Mehretu was brought up in
Kalamazoo, Mich. She has
lived in New York and Senegal.
[Courtesy The Project, New York] Born in Addis Ababa, painter Julie Mehretu is an art-world star. Her work is coveted by collectors and fetches hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mehretu, 36, was brought up in Kalamazoo, Mich., and has lived in New York and Senegal.
In her huge paintings, Mehretu layers together fragments of maps and architectural drawings into a shattered whole with shapes and markings that seem to have a meaning of their own, says Mik Awake, who covers arts and letters for an Ethiopian-American magazine called Tadias.
“There’s a whole language she’s invented that draws not just from one tradition or another, Ethiopian or American, but it’s just this completely new and ambitious take on the world and the world as a kind of gathering place where all these different symbols divorced of any kind of direct direction meet, converge and separate,” Awake says.
Julie Mehretu’s Stadia II, 2004,
acrylic on canvas, is part of an
exhibit by the artist in Hannover,
Germany. [Kunstverein Hannover] He says that like every first generation in America that’s preceded them, this one has new answers to the question of who Americans are.
