November 2006. One year later. One year since the breakdown of summit talks between GOE and CUD leaders. One year since the call for another round of nonviolent protests, which triggered rounds of indiscriminate killings. One year since the Government arrested more than a hundred Ethiopian critics and charged them with crimes punishable by death in a trial marred by unfair procedures and inexcusable delays. One year since the Government called for an investigation into the killings that has resulted in defections of two high-ranking judges and a report that identifies no particular wrongdoers.
One year, in which 50% of Ethiopia’s children continue to live in diagnostic levels of serious malnutrition; tens of thousands died of AIDS; more than one thousand Ethiopians perished from floods due in part to environmental degradation, floods which left another 280,000 homeless. And the misery grinds on.
It was a year in which Ethiopian Americans organized effectively to launch a controversial bill designed to promote democratization efforts, thereby provoking the Government of Ethiopia to fight back by spending a huge amount on lobbyists. What all those resources diverted to American legislative processes might have done for Ethiopian relief and, yes, Ethiopia’s own democratic processes! (Indeed, what good might have been done if all Diaspora Ethiopians had also made a serious contribution to improve life at home in an area like medicine, engineering, education, IT, or water resources?)
The public processes needed for Ethiopia’s democratization are what I sought to advance during the past year when I attempted, through a series of short statements posted at www.eineps.org/forum and elsewhere, to enhance communication among Ethiopians. To be sure, at times this meant I became no more than a ferinji target for both sides to vent against. Each time I credited the Government with something, certain opposition elements accused me of having been bought out by an unscrupulous regime; each time I credited the opposition with something, some Government apologists accused me of having been brainwashed by revanchist Diaspora extremists.
One critical reader in Sweden, after following my suggestion to re-read what I had written, changed his mind: Selam lersiwo Yihon, Professor!
I have read the material you sent to me and I understand more what this is about. Your view is very balanced and may not be accepted by those who own the only “truth”.
Some respondents who were disappointed with certain of my points encouraged this effort nonetheless, as did Marta Tesfaye:
I beg you to forgive those who have not given you the benefit of the doubt and continue to stand up for Ethiopia/ As you yourself said we have a long way to go before we start learning how to treat each other with respect even when we disagree. But try to do your best and I know I am asking for a lot, their discouragement and the misunderstanding get in the way. As you know the situation is getting worse and even more polarized and we need your help.
And once in a while, my efforts elicited comments such as this from Yohannes Abebe:
Thank you for your courageous efforts to start an honest intellectual debate about the current Ethiopian political crisis. You have no idea the level of impact you are having with my generation.
Whether or not that is so–of course I hope it is–I attempted in each Getz to present “both sides” (as though there are only two; sadly, that’s how the game is being played as of now). It was an effort to let each side see that its position could be understood while at the same time inviting it to consider the perspective of the other.
Getz #1 encouraged the Government to become less repressive toward the media and encouraged journalists to develop more professionalism and integrity in their reporting. A visit to Kaliti Prison occasioned a portrayal of contrasting viewpoints in Getz #2, with a call for “room for dissent, protected by just laws and civil institutions, as well as a willingness to fight nonviolently for divergent views even when in a disadvantaged minority.”
“Two Tales of One City,” Getz #3, sketched seemingly incompatible narratives about Ethiopia’s history that underlie surface resentments in the present. Getz #5 essayed an overview of political developments in Ethiopia since the May 2005 election, listing both achievements and mistakes made by the EPRDF regime, the opposition parties, and the EU observers.
The other Getzotch moved beyond this monopolization of public discourse by the non-stop antagonism between EPRDF and CUD advocates. “What Happened in the Past 12 Months?” simply drew attention to a number of other, neglected happenings. Getz #6, “More People More Hunger” focused on the looming catastrophe posed by Ethiopia’s unchecked demographic explosion. Drawing on the pioneering work of Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam, Daniel Assefa, and Sahlu Haile, I showed that spiraling population growth figures in a vicious cycle including smaller farming plots, deforestation, soil despoliation, chronic hunger, and widespread malnutrition. In Getzotch 7, 8, and 9, which concerned Tigrayawinet, Oromo options, and Beta Israelis, respectively, I dealt with issues of ethnic separatism, arguing that although different groups may have distinct interests and agendas, the historic reality of a successfully multiethnic nation needs to be respected.
In the wake of all these purportedly even-handed interpretations, one of my readers wrote:
You have done an excellent job representing the different sides empathetically. But you have not told us what can be done to move beyond the current impasse.
Perhaps not explicitly enough. But a number of Ethiopians have done so, eloquently.
Consider Professor Alemayehu Mariam’s astute analysis of the principles and dynamics of nonviolent political action.
Consider Ambassador Samuel Assefa, who urges Ethiopians of all persuasions to meet together in small groups to begin to talk to one another openly, honestly, and respectfully.
Consider Ato Michael Aman Andom’s remark regarding my efforts to bring such groups of Ethiopians of diverse perspectives together: “It’s good to hear anytime fellow Ethiopians can gather and communicate effectively. . . . It’s positive whenever we can make such progress because it’s a precedent nonetheless and his conviction, despite all, that “there are open-minded folks who are tempered with pragmatism, understand the modern economic world and how it functions, have respect for the opinions of others, are not quick to judgment, not hot-tempered, know how to lose battles and win wars, respect rule of law, and have a fundamental and profound respect for human life and empathy and desire to cure the Ethiopian people’s plight.”
Or listen to Dr. BT Costantinos, longtime advocate of Ethiopian Think Tanks to provide nonpartisan, professional investigations into the problems of Ethiopia’s development, who commends “innovative political partnerships . . . to marshal our knowledge to play a constructive role in the renaissance of our politico-cultural make-up, values and institutions.”
Listen to the appeals of Ato Abate Kassa, Dr. Berhanu Abegaz, and other signatories of the Citizens’ Charter for a Democratic Ethiopia, who “call on political parties (including the TPLF/EPRDF) and civic organizations to hold back on their sectarian concerns and instead focus on a common agenda” — one that “embraces the diverse Ethiopian family and aims at expanding the political space for exercising those human, civic, and political freedoms that are enshrined in international conventions.”
Consider the spirit behind the proposal of Ambassador Imru Zeleke to convene an all-inclusive Conference to which all civic organization and political parties will be invited to discuss all issues regarding Ethiopia: “our diversity is our heritage and our wealth, and the emblem of our civilization, of which we are all proud.”
What impedes adherence to such evidently constructive visions?
Forty years ago, in Wax and Gold and related statements, when I hoped for a concerted effort by modernizers to form groups devoted to professional development, political democracy, and cultural inclusiveness, I identified a few factors from the traditional culture that impeded such an advance: narrow individualism, verbal sadism, chronic suspiciousness, and circumlocuitous communication (wax and gold). Many Ethiopians agreed with this diagnosis, most recently Dessalegn Shiferaw who, in a round-up of a dozen related traits such as sem matfat (character assassination), teretaray (chronic mistrust), getterenet (stubbornness and lack of compromise), meqeyem (holding grudges) and the like declared it “time to declare war on dysfunctional behaviors” .
At the same time I encouraged Ethiopians to respect and draw on factors from traditional culture that could energize the quest for democracy and national development. These include a time-honored passion for fairness and justice, and a deep pride in their nation and its independence that transcends narrow local interests. They also include an exceptional capacity for compassion and forgiveness, manifest in such customs as those concerning illness and death of close ones, stories like those of Mariam forgiving the cannibal of Khmer, and traditions of political forgiveness following the defeat of enemies. They include the remarkable ways in which Oromo gumi gayo assemblies are organized to promote respectful deliberation and achieve their constant goal of peace, nagaa. Indeed, all of the cultures of traditional Ethiopia have admirable mechanisms of conflict resolution. Ethiopia’s positive factors include the distinctive way in which followers of different religions, despite obvious tensions, got along remarkably well together, sharing holiday celebrations, going on pilgrimages together, and intermarrying. Ethiopians’ realism about the limits of human nature can serve to curb the excessive ambitions of modernization ideologies, their ability to show humor in adversity can cushion the inevitable bumps on the roads to modernity.
Indeed, all Ethiopians deep down have more that links them together than what pushes them apart. I suggested this in Greater Ethiopia in 1974; I sense it more strongly than ever now. I wish all my readers could have shared the experience of talking to the prisoners at Kaliti in the same week that I talked to those responsible for detaining them. I have never heard such similarly eloquent professions of faith in the destiny of Ethiopia and in the vision of a multiethnic country whose citizens were guided by the rule of a common set of laws. This deep commonality of sentiment should be sufficient to prod partisans to step back briefly from their emotionally-driven mindsets, even if the country were not facing troubles from unstable and hostile neighbors.
If there were one single commitment that could sweep the archaic dysfunctional habits away, it might be to enact an Ethiopian variant of the Japanese example depicted in Eiko Ikegami’s book The Taming of the Samurai (1995): to effect a change in the warrior ethic, thereby uniting the courage, hardiness, and social commitments of the old-style gwebez warrior with the values of compassion and justice. The New Warrior employs the tools of nonviolence to destroy the enemy completely–by turning him into a friend. All concerned must practice ways to embody constructive disagreement. Many Ethiopians have taken steps to promote civility in public discourse and nonviolence as a way of life, including the Ethiopian Institute for Nonviolent Education and Peace Studies, research on civility such as Yodit Zenebe Mekuria’s study on civic education in the Somali province, Makeda Tsegaye’s studies with the University for Peace Network, the nonviolence education programs of the Awassa Youth Campus, Mercy Corps’s work in conflict resolution, the UN-supported Ethiopian Peace and Development Institute, and many others.
Troubles internal and external require Ethiopia to rise to new levels of societal health, yet the political crisis of the past year grows like a cancer on the Ethiopian body politic. The crisis can be resolved even if only one of the two parties musters the courage to do the right thing.
The challenge is clear. For the Government, it means to acknowledge its Election-related mistakes: to apologize and make amends for its over-reactions that resulted in excessive killings and imprisonments, for starters; to commit itself more publicly and aggressively to actions that implement reforms of the judicial system, the press legislation, and the human rights record; and to bring the trial to a prompt conclusion. This would show the world how far they have come since harboring the hardcore revolutionary doctrines with which they took power in 1991. For the CUD leadership, it means to acknowledge the mistake they made in not taking over the task they were elected by the people to perform–to administer the capital city and to represent all their constituents in Parliament–thereby provoking protests that led to so many unnecessary deaths. This would show a willingness to acknowledge those changes and manifest a loosening of the hardened images of the other side, which undergird their antipathy to the “system.” It will probably require at least as much courage to take such stands as Ethiopian warriors showed in fighting the Italian armies at Adwa and as underground arbeññotch during the talat gize.
Text of Presentation by Judge Wolde-Michael Meshesha, Vice-Chairman of the Inquiry Commission on Post-Electoral Violence
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to come and make my presentation in person. I regret that I could not have made it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you the work of the Inquiry Commission, which was set up to investigate the 2005 post-electoral violence in Ethiopia. I am particularly grateful for Congressman Donald Payne who initiated this briefing which I believe would help Members of Congress and friends of Ethiopian to understand the process which the Inquiry Commission followed to reach to its conclusions. It is also important what happened once the Commission completed its work. The Government of Ethiopia first attempted to suppress and then to revise the conclusions of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to tell you about my background so that you understand that members of the Commission came from different profession. I am a judge and Vice President of the Federal First Instant Court. The political crisis, which Ethiopia faced after the May 2005 parliamentary and regional elections, was marred by violence. There were protests, which resulted in violence in Addis Ababa and other parts of the country in June and November 2005.
As a result of the post-electoral crisis, many lives were lost, property was damaged and thousands of people were rounded up and detained in several remote places (military camps) without proper legal procedures. The manner in which the government handled the post election crisis was criticized. There was indeed intense international pressure on the government to set up an independent inquiry commission to look into the reaction of the security forces and the police. In response to internal and external pressures, the government enacted a law (Proclamation 478/2005), which established an independent inquiry commission. According to the proclamation, the Inquiry Commission was mandated to identify:
Whether the force used by the security forces was excessive or not;
Whether human rights in matters related to the problem was conducted in accordance with the constitution and the rule of law; and
Damage caused to life and property.
Moreover, in accordance with the proclamation, eleven members, including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, were appointed by Parliament as members of the commission. I joined initially the Commission as an ordinary member but after the resignation of the Deputy Chairman, I was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, The Commission, which was given this important task, faced serious problems before it even started its functions. Four out of the eleven members of the Commission tendered their resignation on the ground of health problems. This indeed shows the tense condition in which the Commission started its function. The remaining seven members of the Commission began their investigation at the end of January 2006. As the Commission found it difficult to pursue its task, it requested parliament to appoint new individuals in order to replace those who resigned. The newly appointed five members joined the Commission in March 2006.
The Commission, which earnestly began its activities after overcoming these hurdles, adopted code of conduct for members of the commission; voting procedure and a work plan. These were meant to help the Commission execute its tasks in an effective, transparent, and an impartial manner. The Commission also hired its own six investigators and twenty support staff, despite the suggestion of the Speaker of the House to use investigators who will be assigned to the Commission by the executive.
At the start of its work, the Commission gave a press conference and called upon the members of the general public, civil society institutions, the press and other institutions to provide any information relating to the violence. More importantly, the Commission called upon victims and families who lost their loved ones to come forward and give their testimonies. The Commission also approached different local communal institutions, which organize funeral services for urban dwellers to testify what they know about the post election violence. Moreover, the Commission interviewed those government officials who had direct and indirect connection with the incidents. Moreover, Commission members visited different prisons/military camps, which were used as detention centers during the crisis, and government hospitals. After a laborious effort, the Commission successfully concluded its investigation in June 2006.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, The next important task of the Commission was compiling and categorizing the data, which it collected as provided in the proclamation. At this stage of the work of the Commission there were some signs of uneasiness of some government officials. There was pressure on members of the Commission who were government employees. In order to minimize government intervention and pressure, the Commission decided to hold its final deliberations and decisions out of Addis Ababa. The Commission was thus moved to Awassa, which is the capital of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region (SNNPR). In Awassa, the Commission used the office premises of the Supreme Court of the SNNRP. This was facilitated through the Chairman of the Commission, Frehiwot Samuel, who was also then the President of the SNNPR Supreme Court. In Awassa the Commission prepared the list of people who lost their lives (196) and those who were injured (763). It also confirmed from the data gathered the violation of the human rights of thousands of people who were rounded up from different regions.
After establishing the facts, i.e. death and injuries; and damages to property, the next task of the Commission was to decide on the crucial question of whether the government used excessive force. On the basis of the procedure of voting which we adopted initially when the commission started functioning, abstention was precluded. Before voting on the issue of excessive force every member of the Commission was required to comment on the findings of the Commission. Finally a vote was taken on the question of excessive force. The members of the Commission decide d eight to two (8-2) that the government used excessive force to control the protests. Because of the national and international significance of the investigation and also the demonstrated uneasiness of government officials about the findings of the Commission, members of the Commission agreed to document their findings on video and audio. Retrospectively speaking, putting on record the deliberations of the Commission and the voting was one of the wise decisions of the Commission. The video record clearly shows the decision of each member on the question of excessive force. In my humble opinion, this is a clear testimony of every thing that went wrong with the promises of rule of law; independence of the judiciary, and democracy in
Ethiopia. One can imagine the pressure in which members of the Commission were subjected to so that they would suppress the true findings of the Commission and present an illegal report to the Ethiopian people at the end of October 2006.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
After the Commission gave its final verdict on the question of excessive force on Monday July 3, 2006, the Commission proceeded to transcribe its deliberation on paper and write its final report. The Commission had in fact decided to present its findings to the last session of parliament on July 7, 2006 before the beginning of summer recess. This was communicated to the Speaker of the House and the presentation of the findings of the Commission was tabled as an agenda item for the last session of the Parliament.
The next day, July 4, 2006 , members of the Commission began to write the final report on a computer on the premises of the SNNPR Supreme Court. The writing of the report, however, only proceeded till midday. After a lunch break the same day, electricity was shut off in the entire town of Awassa so that we would not continue to process the report on a computer and the compound of the SNNPR Supreme Court was swarmed by plain clothed security personnel. The effort of the Chairman of the Commission to use the standby generator in the compound of the court was not successful obviously because of the intervention of the security personnel. While we were stranded on the premises of the court, the Chairman of the Commission, Ato Frehiwot Samuel was summoned to the office of the President of the Southern Region to meet some ministers who were sent from the office of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The rest of us had to go to our hotel. Upon our return to the hotel in which we stayed for few days we learnt that it was also swarmed by plain clothed security personnel like the premises of the Supreme Court of the Southern Region.
The next day members of the Commission were told by the Chairman of the Commission that he was told by the representatives of the Prime Minister that we should not publish the report and if we proceed to publicize our findings we would face serious consequences. He also informed us that we were told to see Prime Minister Meles Zenawi at his office in Addis Ababa on July 06, 2006. Members of the Commission aware of the danger they were in, returned to Addis Ababa on July 05, 2006. On July 6, 2006 members of the Commission met the Prime Minister in his office. Mr. Zenawi who was obviously enraged by the conclusion of the Commission report sternly instructed members of the Commission to reverse their decision. He lectured us about our failure to consider the context in which force was used and ˜advised us to use the report of the Gambella Inquiry Commission as a template.
The Prime Minister also told us that if the Commission publishes its findings without revision, it would have serious implications for the country. As we were going to the meeting with the Prime Minister, we learned that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Teshome Toga had adjourned Parliament before the official date for the beginning of parliamentary recess, i.e. July 7, 2006 though the agenda for the presentation of the findings of the commission had already been published. The closing of the Parliament without receiving any report from the Commission was a deliberate contravention of the law as all the deadlines, which were given to the Commission by the Parliament, would have expired after July 2006. The action of the Prime Minister who ordered the members of the Commission to revise their report and the Speaker of the Parliament who prevented the submission of the report to Parliament not only violated the sanctity and legality of the Commission but also show the mismatch between the practices and the promises of Mr. Zenawi’s government about rule of law, transparency, and accountability.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The mandate of the Commission, which ended at the beginning of July 2006, could only be renewed by another parliamentary decision. The members of the Commission who were faced with these great difficulties contacted the Speaker of Parliament about their mandate. The Speaker told us to continue our work, revise the original decision on the basis of the instruction of the Prime Minister.
The members of the Commission who initially believed that the government was committed to the investigation process were left with two difficult choices, i.e. to revise the findings of the commission or flee the country and bring the genuine findings of the Commission, which the government was seeking to suppress to the world. Moreover, any activity of the Commission after July 7, 2006 was illegal as the Commission’s mandate has expired.
At this stage, I had known that I had to make a difficult choice. At the personal level the choice was between betraying my own conscience and fleeing out of the country with the genuine report by endangering my family and myself. After several nights of soul searching, I decided not to betray my own conscience and also the trust of several hundreds of people (victims and families of victims) who despite intense scepticism in the general public about the independence of the Commission gave their testimonies and shared their agonies sometimes by endangering themselves. That is why, despite all the risks it involved, I decided to flee, leaving my family behind in order to bring the findings of the Commission to the Ethiopian people and the international community.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Commission has overwhelmingly decided in its July 3, 2006 meeting that the security forces of the government used excessive force. The so-called report, which was released at the end of October, 2006 accused the victims for their own suffering is not only illegal but also shows the true nature of the regime in Addis Ababa. I am a judge by profession. There is one good legal principle which applies to the report which was officially released in Addis Ababa any evidence which solicited by force is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law and as such the report produced in Addis Ababa cannot be taken seriously, as the members of the Commission even those who voted on the July 3, 2006 deliberations were forced to sign on the report and appear before Parliament. The official report is indeed a clear testimony about the problem of rule of law and independence of the judiciary in my country.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before the formation of the Commission, I was working as Vice-President of the Federal First Instant Court in Addis Ababa. I worked as a judge for 14 years believing that things would improve and the supremacy of the rule of law would gradually take root in my country whose people have suffered for many decades from lack of rule of law and state violence. But my experience as a member of the Commission starkly showed me not only the brutality in which the security forces of the government deal with any opposition but also utter lack of respect to the rule of law by officials of the government beginning from the very apex of the system.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
For Ethiopia to move forward from the present standoff and to pave the way for rule of law and respect for human rights, those who were responsible for the unnecessary death of more than 196 people and the wounding of 763 people, should be held accountable. The members of the Commission, despite all the difficulties and believing that the work of the commission make important contribution to national reconciliation among the many political actors in Ethiopia. I also hope that the commission’s findings could lead to a serious reconsideration by the government about its methods of dealing with protestors and its political opponents. I still do hope that friends of Ethiopia who would like to see stability, peace, and reconciliation, and democratization would put the necessary pressure on the government in Addis Ababa for the official publication of the suppressed report and also seek ways in which those who were responsible for the death, injury and detention of innocent civilians would be held responsible.
The recent “Scientific research finding†on the low IQs of Africans in general and Ethiopians in particular by a man called Satoshi Kanazawa associated with the London School Of Economics (LSE) is not less than a wild insult to humanity. I wonder if there is a universal measurement or method, which determines the IQ or intelligence of a
person. I wish to know if there is one. There are numerous organizations, schools of thoughts and centers of research institutions in our planet, which have developed their own doctrines in view of realizing their hidden interests.
In my lifetime, I have heard so many rubbish things what you may call “scientific researches†heralded by “reputable†media, which took the monopoly of news in our planet, such as the BBC, VOA and the like talking about various aspects of life including the consequences of drinking coffee. I mentioned coffee because it explains the credibility of the so-called scientific researches by reputable institutions. In
the past 25 years alone, I heard four scientific findings on coffee, each in different periods, probably in a span of three to five years, on the consequences of drinking coffee. The first report of the “scientific findings†revealed that drinking more than one cup of coffee per day causes high blood pressure and heart attack, and the second finding repeals the first one and goes on saying that drinking coffee is useful for those people suffering with high blood pressure and with heart problems. The same has happened with the third and fourth findings. What I can understand from such inconsistent “scientific researches†is interest groups or lack of knowledge influences the so-called scientists to talk about two realities where there is only one. The worst thing is reports of such institutions are widely heard, since they have access to the giant monopolies in the media.
In late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s when I was working on my doctoral (PHD) dissertation thesis in one of the European countries, I knew that it will take me three years to get my PHD degree. A humble and an intelligent professor was assigned as an advisor to help me prepare my thesis. From time to time, I had to present a progress report on my findings to a group of professors. Fortunately, all the comments I got from the group of professors were encouraging and positive. At the end of the third year, when I was planning to finalize my research and go back home, my professor told me that I have to stay there and go on working on my research for one more year. Disappointed with his proposal, I asked the professor why he is proposing
one more year, since the evaluating professors, including himself, have positive comments on my research works. He then asked me to come to his residence and told me the following, which I will never forget in my life. He reminded me about my early
lessons on calculus. He mentioned about the Limit (∆) and the Infinity (∞) explaining that any scientific research is carried out within a limited period, otherwise there would be no limit for any research. He further explained that if one cannot make
a limit, he could go on researching and finding new results infinitively, but no results could be applicable in time. He concluded by telling me that everyone in the advisory board knows that there is additional cost for the university to cover my expenses. Had I not been a prospective researcher, this chance would have not been given to me. Instead, I would have been stopped within the limited period (three years) and get my grading accordingly.
I have no data on Mr. Kanazawa’s autobiography, his level of education, qualification or his method of research and motivation. Nonetheless, I question the IQ of the researcher Mr. Kanazawa. May be the time limit given to Mr. Kanazawa was too short to analyze his assignment. However, if he still wants to stay as a researcher and the LSE agrees with it, he should keep on working on his research infinitively and the
result will be nil (0+0=0). His attitude, however, looks like the dogs in the animal farm story, in a book written by George Orwell. The dogs were not equal with the pigs, but they always bark for the pigs. I write this with due respect to all nations and nationalities, including the Japanese people, since I believe the great majority of people on our planet are good, humane and not dogs barking for pigs.
I think it was ten years ago that I was invited to listen lectures on good governance and economic performances by two prominent personalities from Japan and South Korea in Addis Ababa. These lecturers were sharing their views with us about good governance and the economic performance of different countries. They were comparing the present and the past economic performances of Ethiopia and both North and South Korea. By presenting some statistical data, they told us that the GDP of Ethiopia in the beginning of the 1950s was more than three folds as compared with the GDP of both Koreans, and explained the present status by giving reasons. What I want to say is that the new formula found by Mr. Kanazawa, which determines
intelligence in association with poverty applies only to the present era of globalization by ignoring evolutionary processes and historical facts. What a wonderful revolutionary formula in the era of globalization! In my country, people say “too many axes on a fallen treeâ€Â
I do not intend to argue, by presenting scientific evidences, to show the IQs of black peoples, in general, and Ethiopians, in particular, are not less than the other races. I would rather like to ask Mr. Kanazawa to go to libraries and read about the history of
Ethiopians, compare their achievements with other nations, and rewrite his findings like the coffee researchers did. If he does that, I am sure he will surprise the world community by his ingenuity.
However, if Mr. Kanazawa can understand the very fact that civilization emanates out of intelligence, let us see some of the circumstances affecting the lives and contributions of the Ethiopians to the world’s civilization:
 Historical records and archaeological findings show that Ethiopia is a very old country with rich culture and civilization.
 Recent scientific researches show that Ethiopia is the origin of mankind with the excavations of fossils of early human ancestors (Ramides Afarensesis, Selam,
Lucy and many other fossils).
 It has a recorded history of more than three thousand years. If Mr. Kanazawa is not a frequent library visitor and he has no chance to read tones of facts written about Ethiopia, I recommend him, at least, to watch the Opera Aida, written by Jossepe Verdi, to have a simple observation about the intelligence of the Ethiopians.
 Ethiopia has its own alphabets and own numbers (different than the Arabic numbers) recognized as one of the thirteen old alphabets of the world.
 It also has its own calendar (different than the Gregorian) and its own time calculation and counting.
 When many of the nations in our planet, including the white people, lived on trees and in caves in uncivilized manner, the Ethiopians have built their temples, stales, churches, monasteries, mosques and palaces, since more than two thousand years ago, which evidently exist to date.
 When most of the people in Europe, America and in Asia lived in savagery, worshiping temples, trees, rivers and mountains, Ethiopians have accepted
Christianity, which was then a sign of civilization, in 330AD at a national level and have translated religious and other books from Hebrew, Arabic, Latin and Greek languages to their own language Geez.
 The peoples of Ethiopia have good records in religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence amongst the more than 80 different nation and nationalities, even though there is continuous interference by external forces to disrupt their ways of life. We
Ethiopians consider this is a higher level of civilization and intelligence, which differs us from selfishness and savagery.
 The peoples of Ethiopia are not a “give and take†society as one may think this is a sign of civilization. Ethiopians are primarily believers, they are also people with high level of integrity and with a strong sense of independence. Hence, for us the
measurement of intelligence is not the material possession alone, since there are other tangible and intangible values, which for some reasons or another, the give and take society can never understand.
 As opposed to the past millennia, it is true that we are at present one of the poorest nations in the world. Behind this scene, however, many reasons can be cited. Once, it was the Ethiopians, the Egyptians in the times of the Pharoses, the Mayas, the Babylonians and other non-white races ruled the world and introduced civilizations to the world. Hence, the recent scientific findings, which concentrate to show that the white race is the most intelligent race, do not have any scientific base other than superimposing doctrines of white supremacy and promoting neocolonialism.
 I wonder whether the author of IQ and human intelligence, Mr. Kanazawa, who is sponsored by LSE knows that Ethiopia is an independent country, which has never been colonized. I also wonder whether he understands what it means to be independent. It takes hundreds of pages to explain these questions for a nonprofessional, but a “scientist†like Mr. Kanazawa, would have visited his library before reaching at such a mistaken conclusion.
In conclusion, I kindly advise Mr. Kanazawa to apply proper research methodologies and adhere to the basic principles of research. If he wants to make his research on intelligence associated with poverty, he should first analyze the causes and effects of
poverty, and not to conclude his findings based on effects only. With proper analysis of causes of poverty, the black people, in general, and the Ethiopians, in particular, cannot be totally blamed for it, and most of all, their intelligence cannot be associated with it.
When Mr. Hastert bottled H.R. 5680 in the International Relations Committee just before the midterm recess, most supporters of the bill were deeply disappointed, and angry. We had labored long and hard to get the bill to the floor, and done a marvelous job of generating unanimous bipartisan support for it in committee. In the eleventh hour, we found out that we had been double-crossed by Speaker Hastert.
Hastert’s action in blocking the legislation from floor action was not entirely unanticipated, but we considered his intervention so remote that we failed to develop effective counter-strategies. After all, Hastert showed no signs of opposition to the bill at any prior time, nor did he manifest the slightest interest in it until late September. Hastert gave us a September surprise.
We felt Hastert had bushwacked us, mugged us in broad daylight. But we could not figure out why he would block the bill. H.R. 5680 was ready for floor action. He could have worked with the International Relations Committee and addressed any concerns he may have had about the bill. Supporters felt betrayed. For the first time in Diaspora history, Ethiopian Americans were poised to use the American legislative process to advance the cause of human rights and democracy in their homeland; and as we hurtled to the end zone for a touchdown, we ran into a stonewall.
But we did not take it lying down. We went directly to Hastert’s constituents and made our case. They listened to us, and in less than a week we were able to enlist the support of local evangelical, civic and media leaders. The heat was on! Hundreds of telephone calls poured into Hastert’s Hill office from the 14th Congressional district. His staffers were amazed, but not amused, by the ferocity of our grassroots efforts.
As Congress recessed for the midterm elections, we had made extensive plans to undertake grassroots work in Hastert’s backyard with support from key individuals in the local media, academic institutions, churches and synagogues and civic institutions. We were ready to take on the Speaker; but we did not have to: Divine intervention was to deliver Hastert an October surprise. Within days of sabotaging H.R. 5680, “Stonewall†Hastert, principal linebacker for Zenawi’s regime, was himself backed into a corner with the Mark Foley scandal. He had apparently been coddling a pedophile who preyed on Congressional pages (high school students who serve as messengers for members).
Early in the Hastert controversy, I had a chance encounter with an elderly lady who tried to cheer me up after listening to my tales of woe over the recent turn of events in Hastert’s office. Her words proved prophetic: “ayozoh lije, gid yelem, yeEtiopia amlak yikeflewal.†(It’s alright my son, the God of Ethiopia will hold him accountable.â€Â) What a difference a few weeks can make! And how the God of Ethiopia has worked in mysterious ways!
In a speech I gave at the University of California, Los Angeles on September 16, 2006, the premier of Obang Metho’s documentary “Betrayal of Democracy,†I urged supporters of H.R. 5680 to shout a great shout around the U.S. Congress, like Joshua’s army fighting the Battle of Jericho, and bring down the walls of DLA Piper lobbyists. And we made a great shout on the Hill, and thank God, our mighty adversaries — those on the Hill and their lackeys peddling influence on the Hill– have fallen down like the walls of Jericho.
Mr. Hastert is now history, repudiated by the American people. Mr. Armey and the whole lot of parasitical lobbyists of his ilk that thrive on the misery and suffering of poor countries like Ethiopia will now be forced to seek a more humane line of work.
But we are the survivors. We are still here, strong and determined than ever, to make history.
Lessons to be learned…
There are many lessons to be learned from the 2006 midterm elections. What the American people did on November 7 is not unlike what the Ethiopian people did on May 15, 2005. They did major house cleaning (no pun intended). After 12 years in power, the Republicans had grown arrogant, disdainful and imperious. Corruption was rampant among some of their members, and a number of their senior lawmakers were selling influence, taking bribes, engaged in sexual debauchery and all sorts of other unethical and immoral conduct. In the end, the Republican House was sending a steady supply of its convicted members to the jail house, or the Big House.
Lesson #1: When the Republicans launched their revolution in 1994, the Democrats had held control of Congress for nearly four decades, and in the end they had fallen from grace. In their “Contract With America,†Republicans promised greater fiscal responsibility, middle class tax relief, legal reform, enhanced national security and many other things. But after only 12 years of controlling the legislative branch of government, the Republicans had abused their power and the trust of the American people. The American people said: “It is time to throw out the rascals!†And a boatload of Republicans was thrown out, and President Bush magnanimously admitted: “We got thumped, it’s time, let’s go.â€Â
In May 2005, Ethiopians voted for fundamental change in their system of governance. They wanted to sweep out 14 years of EPDRF mismanagement. 14 years of misrule. 14 years of misgovernment. 14 years of malfeasance. And 14 years of corruption. And when they voted with a 90 per cent turn out, they thought they had thrown out the EPDRF rascals, given them a good “thumping.†But the rascals would not accept the verdict of the people. Instead, they jailed the opposition leaders for having won the election fair and square. The lesson for Zenawi and company is that when you are repudiated by the people, you graciously accept your fate and work to create an atmosphere of bipartisanship for the good of the country. Even die-hard communist and socialists have figured this one out. Just this week Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, leader of the Sandanista socialist revolution in the 1980s, won the presidential election after 16 years of conservative rule. Zenawi and his party have a great opportunity to do the right thing. Acknowledge the people’s verdict of May 2005. Be magnanimous. Step aside, become part of the loyal opposition, and give the opposition a run for their money in the next election.
Lesson #2: Abe Lincoln was right: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. After 12 years of Republican control of national government, the American people were tired of being fooled. They had enough of the lies and deceptions, and the diversionary tactics and campaign tricks of Karl Rove. In the end, the Republicans could not fool anybody, except themselves. The jig was up! The outcome is no different for Mr. Zenawi: The jig was up for him in May, 2005.
As country folks like to say: “You can’t fool nobody, no more, no how.†Sure, you can arrest your opponents, jail them, torture them, exile them, whatever. You can terrorize and make the lives of ordinary Ethiopians hell. But despite your army, your money and you influence, there is one thing you can’t and will never be able to do: Fool the Ethiopian people anymore. They know who you are!
Lesson #3: The imperative of democracy is that you must accept the judgment of the people. When the American people voted for the Republicans in 1994 and elected President Bush in a tightly contested race in 2000, they made a decision. Americans who did not support President Bush accepted the verdict of the razor thin majority that elected President Bush along with the electoral college system that made it possible for the candidate with the fewer number of popular votes to win over the candidate who had the most popular votes.
Strange things happen in the polling booths. Things like people getting disgusted with the way their leaders exercise political power and authority. Americans struck back and withdrew their consent on November 7. But Republicans did not see it coming, or were blinded by their own arrogance. They got zapped by the people, and they will have many years to pay the price of their arrogance.
Well, strange things also happened to Zenawi and company in May, 2005. Ethiopian voters went to the polls and said: “We don’t want you. We want the opposition.†Very simple and clear message.
The lesson for Zenawi and company is that when you play by democratic rules, you always take a chance. If you have not been doing a good enough job while in power, you get “thumped.†Zenawi and his EPDRF party should understand that a thumped party is a dumped party. Their best option is to accept the fact that they have been rejected by the people, and organize to win the next election. That is what the Republicans will do, and that’s the price you pay in a democratic system when you lose an election.
Lesson #4: Democracy is a funny thing: When you thumb your nose at the people, exploit and oppress them, mistreat and terrorize them and violate the very rights guaranteed them in the Ethiopian Constitution, they grow weary and impatient. Americans learned the lesson of tyrannical abuse of power in their struggle for independence. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
* But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world….â€Â
Ethiopians can do better, and bring about a just and fair society through democratic and peaceful means. They are ready, willing and able to do so. In May 2005, they demonstrated their ability and readiness to engage in democratic selfgovernance beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ninety percent of the eligible voters turned out and said: “Meles, EPDRF and the whole lot of you, you gotta go!†Let the people’s decision stand, and Zenawi and his party stand down.
Lesson #5: There comes a time in all human events when enough is enough. That time came for the Republicans on November 7, 2006. They lost their way after 12 years of controlling Congress, and now they must find their way back to the political wilderness.
For Zenawi and the EPDRF, enough was enough on May 15, 2005. Zenawi and the EPDRF have lost their vision, if they ever had one. Ethiopia remains at the bottom of the list on indicators of human rights, democracy and economic development. Famine, HIV and other plagues menace the country year after year. Our youth wander aimlessly and hopelessly. The rich get richer and the poor are reduced to subhuman levels of existence. Government officials and their cronies line their pockets and accumulate wealth while young people are executed in the streets like wild animals. Dissidents and ethnic minorities are massacred and
persecuted. Mr. Zenawi: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
On November 7, 2006, the American people spoke. And Mr. Hastert got the message: “It’s time to pack it up and go.†So, “Farewell, Mr. Hastert, Good Bye, Mr. Armey!†And Mr. Zenawi: If you are listening to the voice of your people which still echoes from May 15, 2005: The jig is up! “You got thumped, it’s time, let’s go.†So long!
In the November 2006 issue of the British Journal of Health Psychology, entitled “Mind the gap in intelligence: Re-examining the relationship between inequality and health, author Satoshi Kanazawa from the London School of Economics and Political Science argued under the guise of an allegedly “objective” and statistically supported study that “individuals in wealthier and more egalitarian societies live longer and stay healthier, not because they are wealthier or more egalitarian but because they are more intelligent” (pg. 623). By this logic, diseases are allegedly associated with low national IQs in developing countries with Ethiopia heading the list with the lowest national IQ of 63 out of 185 nations followed by Sierra Leone.
The author, building upon his own previous theories that have not gained any recognition, and through showing an insignificant correlation between income, on the one hand, and life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality rate, on the other, attempts to prove that there is a strong correlation between intelligence and life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality rate. He further tries to expound this argument on a microlevel through surprisingly applying verbal intelligence test measured by GSS rather than IQ test to measure intelligence. The conclusion being as noted above.
The author heavily overelies in the majority of his work on highly controversial figures
like A. Jensen, and works like and “the Wealth of Nations” (by Lynn and Vanhanen) from which he uncritically copies the national IQ measurements!
In the highly controversial, and the Wealth of Nations, the IQ measurements and methodology are strongly criticized, which makes the work as a whole unreliable.
Even though so-called “national IQs†(if such a category/measurement can be viable at
all) for most of the 185 nations they study do not exist at all, they find ‘creative’ ways to undertake the measurement. So for example the national IQ for El Salvador is calculated out of the average of the national IQ for Guatemala and Colombia since they are both neigbours of the country in question? But in the case of Kyrgyzstan, they calculated the national IQ through an average of Iran and Tukey in which both are not negibours of the country in question. While in the case of Vietnam they calculated the national IQ out of the average of that of China and Thailand, even though historically the vietnamese are not related to the Thai while there is strong ethnic, cultural and historical affiliation to China.
From here, the authors ignore the ethnic diversity and heterogeneity of third world
countries, the shifting and imposition of national boundaries and movement of populations via immigration, for example, factors which all deem the calculation of a
national IQ impossible, not to mention Kanazawa’s conclusions. If empirically tested, one
can assume to find that Ethiopians in the Diaspora enjoy a healthier life than those at
home even though their IQ, according to Kanazawa, is necessarily the same since it’s
genetically inherited!
In addition, one wonders if a calculation of IQ is possible at all, and if so considering the
culturally biased current IQ measurement tests if their results are of any applicibality to
third world people, not to mention that the correlation between IQ tests and intelligence
which Kanazawa heavily relies on is one that awaits proof.
Furthermore, the Copenhagen Consensus Project have showed that deficiency in iodine
results in lower IQ scores and thus the relationship between inequality and IQ scores,
since particuarly in inland territories where iodine is scarce, only people with capacity
can obtain it. Also, the “Flynn Effect” that indicates that IQ scores improve with time is
totally neglected for the benefit of genetic explanations of IQ?! Moreover, Kanazawa
explains poorly why IQ itself cannot be a consequence of income inequality.
A quick look at the table by Lynn and Vanhanen of national IQs and a comparison
between Denmark and the US shows that even though Denmark ranks higher in
egalitarianism and wealth, the US still leads in life expectancy at birth, infant mortality
and age-specific mortatlity. Findings from the table Kanazawa himself so relies upon conflict strongly with his conclusions.
After carefully reading Kanazawa’s article, I came to see clearly that it is a miserable
attempt to stir debate through imposing his bankrupt theories of the Savanna Principle
and the evolution of general intelligence on the academic community and thus gain some
recognition! Having said that, I believe it is still a mistake to leave these views
unchallenged. The ideological conviction behind these views invokes only Western race
theorists of the 19th century that brought to the emergence of the Eugenics movement.
From here, I call upon Ethiopian and African health and medical professionals to
challenge these views publicly. I further call for the formation of a body of scholars that can follow and challenge such disgraceful views.
In the November 2006 issue of the British Journal of Health Psychology, entitled “Mind the gap in intelligence: Re-examining the relationship between inequality and health, author Satoshi Kanazawa from the London School of Economics and Political Science argued under the guise of an allegedly “objective” and statistically supported study that “individuals in wealthier and more egalitarian societies live longer and stay healthier, not because they are wealthier or more egalitarian but because they are more intelligent” (pg. 623). By this logic, diseases are allegedly associated with low national IQs in developing countries with Ethiopia heading the list with the lowest national IQ of 63 out of 185 nations followed by Sierra Leone.
The author, building upon his own previous theories that have not gained any recognition, and through showing an insignificant correlation between income, on the one hand, and life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality rate, on the other, attempts to prove that there is a strong correlation between intelligence and life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality rate. He further tries to expound this argument on a microlevel through surprisingly applying verbal intelligence test measured by GSS rather than IQ test to measure intelligence. The conclusion being as noted above.
The author heavily overelies in the majority of his work on highly controversial figures
like A. Jensen, and works like and “the Wealth of Nations” (by Lynn and Vanhanen) from which he uncritically copies the national IQ measurements!
In the highly controversial, and the Wealth of Nations, the IQ measurements and methodology are strongly criticized, which makes the work as a whole unreliable.
Even though so-called “national IQs†(if such a category/measurement can be viable at
all) for most of the 185 nations they study do not exist at all, they find ‘creative’ ways to undertake the measurement. So for example the national IQ for El Salvador is calculated out of the average of the national IQ for Guatemala and Colombia since they are both neigbours of the country in question? But in the case of Kyrgyzstan, they calculated the national IQ through an average of Iran and Tukey in which both are not negibours of the country in question. While in the case of Vietnam they calculated the national IQ out of the average of that of China and Thailand, even though historically the vietnamese are not related to the Thai while there is strong ethnic, cultural and historical affiliation to China.
From here, the authors ignore the ethnic diversity and heterogeneity of third world
countries, the shifting and imposition of national boundaries and movement of populations via immigration, for example, factors which all deem the calculation of a
national IQ impossible, not to mention Kanazawa’s conclusions. If empirically tested, one
can assume to find that Ethiopians in the Diaspora enjoy a healthier life than those at
home even though their IQ, according to Kanazawa, is necessarily the same since it’s
genetically inherited!
In addition, one wonders if a calculation of IQ is possible at all, and if so considering the
culturally biased current IQ measurement tests if their results are of any applicibality to
third world people, not to mention that the correlation between IQ tests and intelligence
which Kanazawa heavily relies on is one that awaits proof.
Furthermore, the Copenhagen Consensus Project have showed that deficiency in iodine
results in lower IQ scores and thus the relationship between inequality and IQ scores,
since particuarly in inland territories where iodine is scarce, only people with capacity
can obtain it. Also, the “Flynn Effect” that indicates that IQ scores improve with time is
totally neglected for the benefit of genetic explanations of IQ?! Moreover, Kanazawa
explains poorly why IQ itself cannot be a consequence of income inequality.
A quick look at the table by Lynn and Vanhanen of national IQs and a comparison
between Denmark and the US shows that even though Denmark ranks higher in
egalitarianism and wealth, the US still leads in life expectancy at birth, infant mortality
and age-specific mortatlity. Findings from the table Kanazawa himself so relies upon conflict strongly with his conclusions.
After carefully reading Kanazawa’s article, I came to see clearly that it is a miserable
attempt to stir debate through imposing his bankrupt theories of the Savanna Principle
and the evolution of general intelligence on the academic community and thus gain some
recognition! Having said that, I believe it is still a mistake to leave these views
unchallenged. The ideological conviction behind these views invokes only Western race
theorists of the 19th century that brought to the emergence of the Eugenics movement.
From here, I call upon Ethiopian and African health and medical professionals to
challenge these views publicly. I further call for the formation of a body of scholars that can follow and challenge such disgraceful views.
