Skip to content

Ethiopia

101st BAA Boston Marathon: Fatuma Roba Wins

By Michelle LeBrun and Larry Eder

Fatima Roba becomes First African Women to win Boston in 2:26:24!

Lameck Aguta wins the 101rst BAA Boston Marathon today in 2:10:33. Joseph Kamau of Kenya was second in 2:10:44, with Dionicio Ceron in third in 2:10:58.

At 24 miles, Fatuma Roba, the 1996 Olympic Marathon Champion from Ethiopia has a five second lead over Elana Meyer and thirty seconds over Colleen de Reuck. Roba is running well within her self. At 35 kilometers, in 2:01:12, Pippig in fourth, Asari, Tulu, Machonio and Jones.

No Ethiopian since Mekkonen in 1989 has won the Boston Marathon. At 40 kilometers, Roba has 15 seconds on Elana Meyer of South Africa, Roba’s 40k in 2:18:22. One mile to go at 2:20:35 for Roba…

Roba is on her personal best pace, with less than one mile to go—she is headed toward Boylston. Uta Pippig is currently in fourth place–not bad at all for three months of training. It also should be noted that Elana Meyer is recovering from achilled surgery.

Congratulations to Fatuma Roba of Ethiopia, and her winning time of 2:26:24—First African women to win Boston!

A historical explanation as to why members and supporters of TPLF are ethnocentric

By Fikre Tolossa

In these days of ethnic madness, many Ethiopians consider Tigreans to be self-centered, and even tribalistic. “Where is the Tigrean sense of Ethiopian nationalism?” they ask. If they are not Ethiopians, who is? I hesitate to make such a gross generalization about all Tigreans since I haven’t been in Tigray lately to survey their true feelings towards Ethiopia. I would hate to speculate about their national integrity. However, from what I have seen, read and heard about the members and supporters of the TPLF who live outside Tigray in the rest of Ethiopia and in the West, I have come to realize that they display a terrific ethnocentric behavior.

The supporters of the TPLF and those Tigreans now in power in Ethiopia, including Ato Meles Zenawi, have implied time and again that they are Tigreans, first and foremost, and then Ethiopians. In other words, they have suggested that their Ethiopianess comes second to their Tigreaness. Contrary to this, many Amharas, for instance, consider themselves Ethiopians, first and foremost, and then Amahras, thus demonstrating their great feelings of Ethiopian nationalism and patriotism.

Running briefly through the pages of Ethiopian history, let us analyze why the members and supporters of TPLF incline to be more ethnocentric and less nationalistic than the Amharas.

There are two reasons why the Amhara in general appear to be more nationalistic than the Tigreans. First, the Amharas are more heterogenious compared with the Tigreans because of their geographical locations and the fact that they have intermingled with non-Amhara peoples such as the Oromo. Second, they have had access to state power for the past 700 years, and because of that they had to bear the responsibility of playing a leading role in preserving the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church and the territorial integrity of Ethiopia during those years. The opposite holds true for Tigreans during the past 700 years except the second half of the last Century (1872-89) when a Tigrean emperor, Atse Yohannes IV, ruled Ethiopia.

Let us briefly examine the backgrounds of the members of the TPLF and their Tigrean supporters by having a glimpse of the history of the Tigre, and compare it with that of the Amhara. Of course, when we say let us examine the history of the Tigre or even that of the Amhara, we, in reality, mean to say, the history of the ruling classes of both peoples, since these classes were the ones which decided the fate of the two peoples and the course their history took for the past 3000 years. The most important leaders of the TPLF who are now deciding the course which Ethiopian history is taking are from the Tigray ruling class whose fathers and grand fathers, as well as some of their family members, bore feudal titles ranging from Kegnazmatch to Dedjazmatch. And as such, the major cause of their hostility towards the Amhara is nothing but sheer power struggle, for they consider the Amhara to be their political rival. The common people of Tigray and even the masses of the TPLF fighters have nothing to do with this hostility.

The history of Tigray has its roots deep down in the Aksumite Civilization and beyond. It is impossible to talk of the history of Tigray without tracing it back to the Aksumite and the pre-Aksumite civilizations.

The history of Aksum has been documented in monuments, coins, artifacts, paintings, inscriptions, books and oral literature. According to these sources, the regions known today as Tigray and Eritrea and even beyond them, were identified as Pount about 5000 years ago. The people of Pount traded with the ancient Egyptians in spices, myrrh, incense, ivory, gold and other minerals, medicinal herbs, hides and various kind of woods, as well as domestic and wild animals.

History has recorded the existence of a strong state in North East Ethiopia between 500 and 100 B.C. preceding the Aksumite civilization. It was identified as the Empire of Daamatt. The people of Daamatt had their own unique alphabet and were architects and sculptors. Some of their statues and monuments have survived to our day. One of their famous statues, a lady sitting on a chair, was discovered in Tigray. Though it is 2500 years old, it is still intact. One of their leaders, King Lemene, in one of his inscriptions which has reached our age, states that he was the king of the Daamatt, Saba, Aberra, and the red and the black. The Daamatt Empire had commercial, cultural, religious and linguistic relationships with Arabia across the Red Sea.

Aksumite leaders who ruled in the early Christian era followed in the footsteps of their Daamatt predecessors and continued to expand the Empire. Among the powerful kings of Aksum in the Christian Era was Zoscales. According to a book entitled, The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, written by a Greek traveller in the Second Century A.D., a young and wise leader by the name of Zoscales was ruling Aksum when he visited that magnificent City. Zoscales spoke Greek and controlled the international commercial transactions which took place in his seaport of Adulis. Zoscales had a close relationship with the then powerful states such as Egypt, Greece and Rome. He extended his territory as far as near Port Sudan and the Aden Peninsula. Aksum attained international respect and recognition during the reign of Zoscales.

The successors of Zoscales colonized Arabia and stretched out as far as Nubia and Egypt. However, within Ethiopia itself, they went southward and occupied only a few territories such as the ones inhabited by the Agew, Agame and Gambela peoples. The colonization of Arabia enabled Aksum to compete in international commerce with the superpowers of the day, such as the Turks, Romans, Greeks and Persians.

The towering figure among Aksumite emperors in the 4th Century A.D. was Ezana. In fact, he is one of the greatest Aksumite emperors. He was himself converted to Christianity first, and then made Christianity the official religion of his Empire, even though Christianity had been practised by Aksumites since the First Century A.D. By so doing, he laid the corner-stone for the development of Ethiopian Christian inspired theology, literature, arts, culture, architecture, history, law and music. Ezana loved to record history. He documented his valor and the affairs of his days and the history of his time on coins and in three languages: Greek, Sabean and Geez. He established a close relationship with the Coptic Church of Alexandria and enabled Ethiopia to obtain patriarchs from there up until the last century for about 1500 years. He expanded the territory of his empire beyond the Red Sea, and to some extent, within inland Ethiopia. The Geez alphabet and literature began to achieve a new dimension during his reign.

Aksum continued to be a profoundly Christian city even after the death of Ezana, so that it attracted foreign missionaries to come and convert the “pagans” outside Aksum. Towards the end of the Fifth Century, a group of nine saints from the different parts of the then Roman Empire including Constantinople, Antioch, Rome and Asia Minor headed for Aksum. Emperor Ella Amida II, who was the grandfather of Caleb, was delighted to have them around. The people of Aksum, too, welcomed them. The nine saints went, boldly risking their lives, into the remotest parts of the Aksumite Empire and fought against “paganism” by preaching the Gospel. Their spiritual activity is supposed to have lasted through the reigns of four emperors, such as Ella-Amida, Tazena, Caleb and even through that of Atse Gebre Meskal. Besides evangelizing Ethiopia, the nine saints were also engaged in the development of theology and in literary activities such as the completion of the translation of the Holy Bible into Geez which had started in the early 5th century A.D. The life history of the nine monks (Gedle) written by Ethiopian biographers by itself became a source of Ethiopian literature. Moreover, the canonization of the nine monks as saints by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church has deeply affected the spiritual life of all Christian Tigreans and other Ethiopians to this day, since these saints are commemorated in Tigray and the rest of Ethiopia every October, June, March, November, December and January.

Kaleb, the son of Ezana, expanded and consolidated his father’s empire in both Arabia and Ethiopia. In addition, he extended his own territory upto Yemen. He made an expedition to Southern Arabia to subdue a rebellious prince and to restore his colony, besides rebuilding churches and towns. Later, an Aksumite soldier by the name of Abreha became the king of Arabia including Yemen, after murdering the new appointee of the Aksumite Emperor. The Emperor forgave him and approved of his kingship. Abreha colonized almost all of Arabia on behalf of his Emperor, built his capital at San’a, constructed marvellous churches, expanded commerce and attempted to invade Mecca and destroy its Ka’ba to stop the people from worshipping idles before the rise of the Prophet Mohammed. After Abreha’s death, his son failed to rule Arabia as effectively as his father. Eventually, assisted by the Persians, who were Ethiopia’s commercial rivals, the indigenous Arabs were able to free themselves from the domination of the Aksumites.

Kaleb’s son, Gebre-Meskel (534-548) A.D., was as great a leader as his pious father. He held his father’s territory tightly as soon as he ascended to the throne. Moreover, he devoted his time to supporting and building churches such as the Debre-Damo and St. Mary of Zion. He is also supposed to have supervised the construction of the Zur Amba Church in Gaynt, Begemedir. He befriended with St. Yared, the greatest poet-composer of Ethiopia, and appointed him to be his “minister of culture.” The respect and support of a great emperor as Gebre-Meskel helped Yared to compose such great lyrics, hymns and melodies that still thrill the souls of Ethiopians of the Tewahedo denomination. His verses became a model for Geez poetry. Yared and Gebre-Meskel introduced the celebration of Hosanna in imitation of Jesus’ return to Jerusalem riding a donkey. The tradition is still observed in Northern Ethiopia. It was Gebre-Meskel who initiated the crowning of an Emperor in a church. It seems that Gebre-Meskel’s contribution to Aksumite Civilization is more of spiritual than material.

In spite of the fact that Aksum lost Arabia at the end of the 6th Century, its influence on its former colony was remarkable. Those Ethiopians who survived in Arabia continued to participate in the military, political and cultural activities of Mecca. Their impact upon navigation was particularly significant. Many of the Arabic vocabularies which had to do with ships and navigation were of Geez origin. On top of that, Aksum continued to dominate the religious life of Arabia in the early 7th Century when the Prophet Muhammed was yet a young man in Mecca. He had the opportunity to hear both the Torah and the Gospel read aloud and discussed in public by the Ethiopian priests with whom he was a friend. Their impact on him has been evidenced by his knowledge of the Bible and his use of numerous Geez vocabularies in the Koran. His connection with Ethiopia, however, was deeper than that. His nurse when he was a baby was an Ethiopian lady. It was to Ethiopia he sent his followers and relatives to find safe-haven with the Aksumite Emperor when they were persecuted in Arabia at a time when Islam was at its infancy. A significant number of Ethiopians was present among the Prophet’s soldiers and entourage.

In addition to Arabia, the Aksumites went as far as Nubia (Sudan) to help the Christian churches there in many ways until the rise of Islam. In the long run, the rise of Islam proved to be an obstacle to Aksum’s spiritual and material progress. Aksum was cut off from Arabia and Christian Europe so that its cultural, spiritual, economic and political developments were thwarted for nearly a thousand years when “the Ethiopians slept forgetful of the world by whom they were forgotten,” as Edward Gibbon put it rightly.

In the 10th Century, the advent of Islam, the lack of a patriarch from Alexandria without which the Ethiopian Emperor and Church were powerless, and the rise to power of a female Jewish (Felasha) warrior named Yodit (Gudit), caused the downfall of the Aksumite Empire. Yodit destroyed many monuments, castles and churches including the illustrious cathedral of Aksum, St. Mary of Zion. She burned countless books of immense value. She persecuted Del Ne’ad, the last Aksumite Emperor of the Solomonic Dynasty and reigned over Aksum for 40 years. When she died, Dil Ne’ad, who had been in exile in Menz, Shewa, restored his Dynasty. He was overthrown again probably around 1030 A.D. by his Agew servant Mera Tekle-Haimanot who claimed connection with the Solomonic Dynasty and established the Zagwe Dynasty.

With the ascension to the throne of Mera Tekle-Haimanot, the link of the chain of the Solomonic Dynasty was broken. The capital city, Aksum, was also replaced by Lasta in Wello, thus moving away the spiritual, political, economic and cultural nerve center of the Aksumites. This way the glorious Aksum lost its significance as one of the cradles of Ethiopian civilization. After the decline of Aksum up until 1974 for about 1100 years, Tigray was first ruled by the Agew, later by the Amhara, Oromo and a few Tigre governor generals who were appointed by the Amhara emperors excluding the time (seventeen years) when the Tigrean Emperor Yohannes IV reigned over the entire Ethiopia.

The Agew are one of the indigenous inhabitants of Ethiopia. They were there and even took part when the Aksumite Civilization was in the making. However, they never had a chance to rule Ethiopia directly until about the 11th Century when they established the Zagwe Dynasty. The greatest leader among them was Emperor Lalibela. It was during his reign that the Amhara started to play a leading role in Ethiopian history. To seize power, when Lalibela waged war against his brother Harbe’ who was supported by the majority of the Agew, the Amhara fought along Lalibela’s side. As a reward for this service, he distanced himself from the Agew and promoted the Amhara to high ranks in his government. As the high ranking officials and soldiers of Lalibela’s government, the Amhara became prominent in Wadla & Delanta, Begemedir, Saint and Weleka. From this time on, the Amhara appeared in the scene to play a vital role in Ethiopian history for more than seven hundred years.

According to Aleka Desta Tekle-Wold, the word Amara or Amhara means people who are free. According to Aleka Taye and Aleka Asme-Giorgis, the Amhara are the descendants of Ethyiopis, one of the settlers of North East Africa, whose name probably Ethiopia bears. Unlike the Tigre, there was no one particular place or defined territory in which the Amhara lived. Nevertheless, it was observed that by the 13th Century, they had settled in Gonder, Gojam, Shewa, Wadla & Delanta, Lasta, Saynt, Meket and Shadaho. The Amhara were as much Christian as the Tigre. Gradually, the word Amhara and Christian became so synonymous that when a non-Amhara was converted to Christianity, it was said of him that he became an Amhara. It has been reported that Emperor Lalibela used the technical know-how of the Amhara to build one of the wonders of the world, the rock-hewn churches of Roha.

The Amhara probably spoke Geez before they created Amharic during the reign of Lalibela out of a mixture of Tigrigna, Arabic and Hebrew, in order to convey across a secret message. Later, when the Amhara mixed with the Oromo, Amharic enriched itself with Oromo syntax, vocabularies and idiomatic expressions. For this reason and as a result of the subtlety of the Amharic language, Aleka Asme-Giorgis asserts that even the Amhara of Gonder and Gojam, let alone of Shewa, would not communicate easily with each other. Gradually, during the reign of Yekuno Amlak, Amharic spread like wild-fire and non-Amhara peoples all over Ethiopia began to speak it. Consequently, they were considered to be Amhara, even as the non-Amhara converts to Christianity were seen as Amhara.

Despite the fact that Emperor Lalibela of the Zagwe Dynasty raised the Amhara to higher ranks and inspite of the fact that he granted them land and tenants, their hearts were yearning for the restoration of the Solomonic Dynasty. This they were able to realize through the help of a famous Amhara monk, Aba Tekle-Haimanot of Bulga, who plotted against Ne’akuto Le’ab, the last Zagwe Emperor, partly because of the promise which the claimant of the Solomonic Dynasty, Yekuno Amlak, made to him to grant the church a third of his Empire if he would help him to dethrone Ne’akuto Le’ab. (Ironically, Yekuno Amlak was in the service of Ne’akuto Le’ab, the last Zagwe Emperor, even as Mera Tekle-Haimanot was in the service of Dil Ne’ad, the last Emperor of the so-called Solomonic Dynasty whom he had managed to overthrow). Moreover, the Patriarch, representing the Church would sit next to the Emperor’s throne at public ceremonies and the Akabe Se’at would control the affairs of the Church in relation to the State. In other words, the Church would have an immense wealth and power in the land. As a result, Christianity, the Emperor and the motherland became synonymous for the Amhara upon Yekuno Amlak’s ascension to the throne. This interrelationship lasted up until 1974 when the Derg separated State and Church after the overthrow of Emperor Haile-Selassie I, who claimed to be the descendant of Yekuno Amlak.

Abune Tekle-Haimanot, supported by the Ethiopian clergy including Aba Iyesus Moa of the Haik Monastery, Aba Yohannes of Debre Damo, and even the Nebure’ed of Aksum as well as the Patriarch of Ethiopia, Abune Kerlos, convinced the pious and God-fearing last Emperor of the Zagwe Dynasty who revered Abune Tekle-Haimanot immensely, that his dynasty was illegal, that he should hand over power without bloodshed to Yekuno Amlak, the “rightful” heir to the throne. After a series of negotiations Ne’akuto Le’ab, whom you can consider either naive or a great man of God, agreed to let Yekuno Amlak sit in the Ethiopian throne upon his death providing the descendants of the Zagwe Dynasty are given due respect and homage as long as the descendants of the Solomonic Dynasty reigned. This way the Amhara throned an Emperor of their choice claiming that he was one of the descendants of the last Aksumite Emperor, Del Ne’ad.

In reality, however, three hundred years had elapsed ever since Del Ne’ad was overthrown. Therefore, the integrity of the lineage was debatable. To legitimize Yekuno Amlak’s Solomonic lineage, he and the Amhara had the Kebre-Negest composed. The Kebre-Negest narrates how, about 1000 B.C., Queen Maqda of Ethiopia traveled to Jerusalem to hear the wisdom of King Solomon by whom she was impregnated to give birth to a son, Menelik, who became the first Ethiopian Emperor of the Solomonic Dynasty. Numerous Aksumite emperors claimed descent from him. Among the Amhara, Haile Selassie claimed to be the 225th Emperor of this Dynasty. The whole story of King Solomon and Queen Maqda is a legend. If he had indeed impregnated her, since King Solomon, who was the greatest womanizer of all time with over 900 concubines, without counting his wives, the fact that he impregnated a dignified Ethiopian Queen who was his guest was not something to be proud of. However, because of the greatness of Solomon and because of Ethiopia’s attachment to Judaism and Christianity, the legend was accepted positively. Consequently, it helped Yekuno Amlak and his descendants to rule Ethiopia for 700 years.

Yekuno Amlak is supposed to be the 9th descendant of Del Ne’ad the Tigrean. If this was true, then the Amhara who had no ethnic relationship with him contrary to the Tigreans, used Yekuno Amlak by whom they were used mutually to seize power. If Yekuno Amlak was indeed the descendant of the last Aksumite Emperor, and as such a Tigrean, then all those emperors who succeeded him and reigned in Gonder and Shoa including Fasiledes, Menelik and Haile Selassie, were all of Tigrean and not of Amhara descent. In that case, the allegation that it was Amhara emperors who sat upon the Ethiopian throne for the past 700 years has no foundation. In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter whether Yekuno Amlak and his descendants were Tigreans or Amharas who usurped the Solomonic Dynasty like the Zagwe emperors. The fact is that they ruled Ethiopia for 700 years supported by the Amhara and the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church. This Church, though Aksumite in origin, empowered itself during the Shoan era, and became for the Amhara the foundation of their monarchy, history, arts, and culture and the source of their inspiration and courage. The Amhara thought that if their Church was threatened their livelihood was at stake. The Tewahedo Church indeed enabled the Amhara, at least nominally, to have an access to the power which the Tigreans had lost about 1100 years ago.

Since Yekuno Amlak was born among the Amhara, even assuming that he was not an Amhara, there is no doubt that he spoke Amharic as his mother-tongue. As a matter of fact, it was during his reign that Amharic began spreading fast throughout the Ethiopian Empire. He made Tegulet (Debre-Berhan) in Shoa his Capital city. Nevertheless, he didn’t stay there all the time. He roamed about the empire to consolidate his power and to build his nation, a tradition which almost all Ethiopian emperors followed.
Contrary to the Aksumite emperors, who made their presence felt mainly in the North and across the Red Sea, Yekuno Amlak and his descendants expanded South, West and East within Ethiopia. Yekuno Amlak, Amde-Tsion (r. 1314-1344), Dawit I (r. 138O-1412), Zera Yacob (r. 1434-1468), Be’ede Mariam (r. 1468-1478), Naod (r. 1494-15O8), Lebene Dengil (r. 15O8-154O), Gelawdewos (r. 154O-1559), Sertse Dengel (r. 1563-1597), Susenyos (r. 16O7-1632), Fasilidas (r. 1632-1667), Yohannes I (r. 1667-1682), Iyasu I (r. 1682-17O6), Bekaffa (r. 1721-173O), Iyassu II (r. 173O-1755), Iyoas (r. 1755-1769), Menelik II (r.1889-19O9) and Haile Selassie (r.193O-1974), all these emperors defended the territorial integrity of their country against foreign powers, upheld Christianity strongly and withstood the forces which used Islam as a pretext to wage war and seize power. They also intermingled with the Oromo and shared with them blood and culture, after a long fight with them.

The Aksumites, in their heydays, crossed the Red Sea, seized Arabia, colonized it and converted their subjects to Christianity. In other words, they were the ones who were aggressive. The Amhara, because of the historical time they were in power, i.e., after the rise of Islam and during the age of imperialism, had to be defensive for the most part. However, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t invade and occupy foreign countries. As a matter of fact, they raided Nubia (Sudan) from time to time. According to his Gedl, Atse Fasil (1632-1667) colonized Nubia and a part of Egypt successfully. Besides trying to expand Ethiopia’s territory, the Amhara played a leading role in defending the territorial integrity of Ethiopia from foreign aggressors.

The Turks were the first foreign aggressors towards the end of the 16th Century who had an immense ambition to colonize eastern and northern Ethiopia, control Ethiopia’s commerce and communication with the outside world, and impose their religion upon her. This they attempted to exercise first by using Muslims of Yifat, as well as Somali and Afar Ethiopians. Gragn Muhammed and his successors were instrumental for the Turks to weaken Christian Ethiopian emperors. The Turks were then one of the super powers of the day.

Besides occupying the coast of Eritrea and the Red Sea islands of Ethiopia such as Harkiko, they even came as far as Tigray to wage war against Ethiopia. One of the Amhara emperors who fought the Turks ferociously was Atse Sertse Dengel. In 1588-89 he mobilized a large army and waged a decisive war against them in Tigray and what is now called Eritrea. He managed to wipe them out of Eritrea and Tigray liberating Massawa and Debarua. They escaped to the sea and either hid in the island of Arkiko or fought back with canons mounted on their naval fleets from the Red Sea. Since Ethiopia’s great navy had ceased to exist with the decline of the Aksumite Empire, Sertse Dengel could not pursue them with ships. As a result, he kept his troops at the coast of the sea for a while and due to scorching sun and lack of provisions, he retreated inland lest his solders die from dehydration and starvation. The Turks returned and seized the Red Sea coast including Massawa and Debarua. Later, another emperor, Atse Fasil, realizing the futility of fighting with them, chose diplomacy and made a pact accepting to live with them. History repeated itself in time of Menelik II. Atse Sertse Dengel’s defeat of the Turks and Atse Fasil’s pact with them is amazingly similar to Menelik’s defeat of the Italian imperialists 308 years later at the Battle of Adwa. Emperor Menelik, too, had to make a pact with the Italians who were in Eritrea and return to his Capital lest his soldiers die from drought and starvation if he were to pursue the Italians any further to the sea. In any case, in 1896 and 1936, the role of leadership in defending Ethiopia twice from European imperialism during the scramble for Africa and the rise of fascism, was played once again by the Amhara and Amhara emperors, Atse Menelik and Atse Haile Selassie, who mobilized the various ethnic groups to resist the aggression.

The reason why the Amhara and their emperors played a leading role in defending Ethiopia was not that they loved Ethiopia more than the Tigreans or other ethnic groups. It was because they happened to rule Ethiopia when her independence was at stake. The Tigreans and Emperor Yohannes IV, too, had fought the Italian and Mahdist aggressors on several occasions when the Tigreans once again were ruling Ethiopia albeit briefly. In fact, it was while fighting against the Mahdists that Atse Yohannes lost his life. The time in which the Tigreans once again ruled Ethiopia after they lost power for about 1100 years were too short (seventeen years, 1872-89) to create in them a strong feeling of nationalism for the entire Ethiopia. Moreover, in contrast to the Amhara who went to Tigray several times from southern, central and western Ethiopia to liberate Tigray including Eritrea from the Turks and Italians, the Tigreans were fighting against the foreign invaders only within Tigray proper (except Metema where Yohannes IV died to avenge the Mahdists for raiding Gonder) to liberate their own land. The fact that the Amhara were defending Tigray and the rest of Ethiopia for 700 years helped them to develop a strong sense of Ethiopian nationalism.

Before the rise of Islam, the Afar and the Somali peoples were first under the sovereignty of the Aksumites, and later under those of the Zagwe emperors to whom they paid tribute. With the rise of Islam, however, Aksum began to decline and these Ethiopians were converted to Islam. Later, during the reign of Yekuno Amlak and his descendants, supported by the Arabs and the Turks, they rebelled against their Christian sovereigns who ruled them from Shoa. They defied their authority and waged Jihad wars against Shoan emperors such as Amde-Tsion, Seife-Ar’ed, Dawit, Zere-Yacob, Be’de-Mariam, Lebene-Dengel and Gelawdewos. Though there were other Ethiopian Muslim leaders (for instance, the Sultans of Yifat such as Sabredin, Kadi Selehi, Hakadin and Se’adadin) who had waged unsuccessful Islamic wars against the Shoan emperors, Ahmed Gragn, who was based in Harer, was able to defeat them and rule a good part of Ethiopia for about 16 years, until he was killed by a Portuguese soldier in a battle in 1543. Ahmed Gragn’s nephew, Nur Ahmed, avenged his uncle later by killing Emperor Gelawdewos in 1560. After that, the Amhara emperors didn’t resume fighting against their Afari and Somali countrymen until 1577 when Sultan Mohamed IV rose against Emperor Sertse-Dengel in a battle at the Wabi Shebele region. He lost this battle and his life. To temper the aggression of the Afar, the Shoan Emperors sought marriage with the daughters of the Afar chieftains. This strategy helped them to some extent.

In 1887, Emperor Menelik II established a total dominion over Harer and ended the emirate and sultanate once and for all. The fact that the Amhara were ruling Ethiopia until the rise of Emperor Yohannes IV, who empowered the Tigreans once again, made them historically responsible to defend Ethiopia and to play a leading role in her expansion and unity. This situation stirred in them a strong national feeling as well as unbreakable bond to and an identity with Ethiopia for whose sake they shed their blood willingly.

Whereas the expansion of the Aksumites within Ethiopia was very limited, the Amhara, basing themselves in Gonder and Shoa, stretched to the peripheries in their nation-building endeavor in which they succeeded to bring together Ethiopia under their sovereignty, so that when the Derg collapsed in 1991, the TPLF and EPLF were able to inherit the present large territory of Ethiopia including Eritrea. Of course, there were two non-Amhara emperors who have also contributed to the expansion and unity of Ethiopia, namely, Atse Tewodros of Quara and Atse Yohannes of Tigre. Even though these emperors were not Amhara, they followed in the footsteps of Amhara emperors linking themselves to the Solomonic Dynasty and maintaining the status quo which the Amhara had established.

The Amhara were not lucky enough to live in peace. Shortly after the Islamic wars were over, they engaged in a war with their other countrymen, the Oromo, who had started expanding into their territories in the 1520s when the Amhara were busy with their Muslim brothers. Compared with the Tigre, the Amhara lived in the most fertile regions of Ethiopia. Initially, the different Oromo tribes fought the Amhara wherever they happened to be, looking for ideal grazing lands for their cattle. Tigray being arid, the Oromo were not interested in it. So, they looked at it from afar and ignored it. After the Amhara moved their capital city from Shoa to Gonder in order to be less accessible to the Muslim invaders, the Oromo had engaged in many battles with the Amhara in Gonder and Gojam. In one of such battles, a little “Amhara” prince by the name of Susenyos was captured by the Oromo and was adopted by one of them. He learned the Oromo language and grew up in accordance with the Oromo culture. After he lived six years with them, he reunited with his royal family in Gonder. Upon the death of his father his power rivals chased him out of Gonder. He found refuge among his former Oromo friends and persuaded them to follow him claiming that he was their king. Indeed, they accepted him as their leader and fought for him in Shoa and other parts of central Ethiopia where he emerged victorious. Gradually, he marched with them to Gonder and seized power and became emperor. He filled the court with his Oromo friends and soldiers and spent most of his leisure time with them ignoring the Amhara. He appointed them to higher posts in his empire. Whenever the Amhara of Gojam and Gonder rebelled against him, he sent the ferocious Oromo fighters whom he allowed to rule over the rebellious Amhara as governors and landlords. This way the Oromo rooted themselves in Amhara territories consolidating their power and exerting their influence upon the Amhara. Their presence and influence were felt more in Gonder when Emperor Iyasu II married an Oromo lady by the name of Wabi and begot Iyoas. Later, Wabi appointed her Oromo brothers and relatives to higher positions in the empire, and her son, Emperor Iyoas, favored them more than the Gonder Amhara. Elsewhere in Shoa, Wello, Meket and Shadaho, the Amhara got tired of fighting with the Oromo and intermingled with them through marriage and Oromo adoption systems known as Mogassa and Gudifecha.

Eventually, the Amhara and the Oromo, besides mixing blood, influenced each other’s language, religion, culture, arts and crafts, warfare and horsemanship to mention just a few. This mixing of blood and culture resulted in creating great emperors, kings and empresses of Oromo descent such as Iyoas, Tekle-Haimanot of Gojam, Menelik II, Haile Selassie I, Itege Tewabech, Itege Taitu Betul and Itege Mennen, even without mentioning the myriads of Oromo princes, Rasses and Dedjazmatches. This phenomenon coupled with the fact that the Amhara were more or less dispersed all over the length and breadth of Ethiopia, expanded their world-outlook and sense of belonging to the entire Ethiopia. Instead of being locked within their own ethnic shell, they broke out of it and achieved universality. Instead of feeling being only Amhara, they considered themselves, first and foremost, Ethiopians. Further more, the fact that the Amhara were dispersed in different provinces mixed with various ethnic groups by whose languages, religions, culture and psychological makeups they were influenced, each Amhara group, depending on its location, evolved as a unique entity with its own characteristic features, which to a degree distinguish it from the others. In other words, it lacked homogeneity to be so ethnic-minded. Particularly the Shoan Amhara which both the TPLF and EPLF resent extremely, formed an independent state with its own unique political, economic, cultural and social system unlike that of the Gonder and Gojam Amhara, when they refused to pay tribute to the Gonder Amhara in 1738. Atse Iyasu Adiam-Seged, who was then the Emperor of Ethiopia, sent his army to subdue the Shoan Amhara, who, led by Mered Azmatch Abiye, won the battle, thus cutting off Shoa from Gonder for about 125 years until Emperor Tewodros II captured young Menelik upon the death of his father King Haile-Melekot in 1863. This lack of homogeneity among the Amhara turned out to be a positive factor which helped them to evolve as Ethiopians first and foremost, and as such, to develop a strong feeling of a “wider nationalism” as opposed to narrow nationalism.

That was not the case with the Tigreans. Since the Tigreans, compared with the Amhara, were confined to their own province without mixing with the Oromo or other ethnic groups, which would imprint a lasting impact upon them for the past 1100 years, kept themselves homogenous. For this reason, their language (inspite of the fact that many of them spoke Amharic), religion, culture, psychological makeup and geographical territory (except Eritrea’s separation from it), remained predominantly the same as they were for hundreds of years. This fact made the leaders of the TPLF so ethnocentric that their most articulate members such as Meles Zenawi and his associates declared that they were Tigreans first and foremost. Hence, their lack of Ethiopian nationalism. Hence their opting to wage ethnic war against Mengistu Haile-Mariam’s regime, whereas the great majority of the Amhara youth chose to fight for all Ethiopian oppressed masses irrespective of their ethnic origin.

After the fall of Aksum, Tigre was ruled first by the Agew, later by the Amhara and Oromo emperors, regents, Dedjazmatches, Rasses or by Tigrean chieftains appointed by them. The Tigrean ruling class submitted to the Amhara emperors or the enderasses of Ethiopia (regents) whether they were Oromo or Amhara, and expressed their allegiance to them whenever they (the Tigreans) were weaker. On the other hand, when they felt that they were strong enough or oppressed too much, they defied their authority, refused to pay tribute and even fought them. One typical example of such Tigre warlords was Ras Se’ul Mikael. In 1745, when he felt that he was powerful militarily, he rebelled against Emperor Iyasu Birhan Seged, but when he realized that he couldn’t withstand him, he submitted to him. Around 1805 Ras Wolde-Selassie rebelled against the Oromo Regent of Ethiopia, Ras Gugssa. After his death, Dedjazmatch Sabagadis defied the Authority of his son, the Regent Ras Mariye. After the death of Ras Mariye, his brother, Dedjazmatch Dori became the Regent of Ethiopia. Dedjazmatch Sabagadis’ son, Dedjazmatch Kahssaye, refused to submit to Dedjazmatch Woube who was appointed by Dedjazmatch Dori.

After the death of Atse Yohannes IV, Ras Mengesha, who claimed the throne, supported by Ras Alula and Ras Hagos, did not express his allegiance to Menelik and submit to him in the beginning. It took Menelik a long time to reconcile with both Ras Mengesha and Ras Alula of Tigre.

In the days gone by, in the regions known as Tigray and Tigre, located on both sides of the Mereb River, the ruling classes used to fight each other for the sake of territories and power. For example, the ruling family of Shum Agame Woldu, the father of Dedjazmatch Sabagadis from Agame, the family of Shum Tenben Mircha, the father of Atse Yohannes IV from Tenben, the family of Ras Wolde-Selassie from Enderta and the family of Kentiba Tesfa and Zeray, Dedjazmatch Wolde-Mikael and Dedjazmatch Hailu from Hamassien, were bitter enemies who battled often for the acquisition of land and power. Nevertheless, they were all united in their opposition against and their feelings of resentment towards the Amhara, even though this or that group may have appeared to be preferred by the Amhara or seemed to favor and collaborate with the Amhara.

In the 20th Century, the Tigre ruling class persuaded by the British, stirred the peasants to rise (the Woyane Uprising) against the Shoan Amhara and Emperor Haile Selassie, after the liberation of Ethiopia from fascist Italy in 1943-44. A special force led by Ras Abebe Aregay suppressed the uprising. Taking the place of the Italians, the British had a scheme to rule both Tigray and Eritrea as one entity of Tigre-Tigrigna. To this end, they attempted to use Atse Yohannes’ close relatives such as Ras Seyum and Dedjazmatch Haile-Selassie Gugssa who had already been appointed as the Governor General of Tigre by the Italian fascists. Ras Seyum accepted the British offer to be the Governor General of Tigre, and then changed his mind when he found out that Emperor Haile-Selassie had arrived in Ethiopia from exile. The British replaced Ras Seyum with the opportunist banda Dedjazmatch Haile-Selassie Gugssa whom they promoted to Ras. The Emperor had to put immense pressure on the British government to assert his sovereignty. Despite Ras Seyum’s expression of his allegiance to Emperor Haile-Selassie, the latter was at times suspicious of the former, remembering his initial collaboration with the British. Even the young Ras Mengesha Seyum, who was then only 16 years old was implicated with being a part of the Woyane Uprising and brought to trial in Addis Abeba.

Evidently, the leaders of the TPLF sympathize with the Woyane Uprising and regret its failure since they have named their organization the Woyane Harenet Tigray. Some of the important leaders of the TPLF such as Meles Zenawi and Hayelom Araya (TPLF’s militia leader who was posthumously promoted to general), to mention only the two as an example, were from the Tigre ruling class. Ato Meles’s grandfather and Ato Hayelom’s father were Dedjazmatchs. Usually, the son of a warlord had a chance to inherit the title of his father if he was favored by the Emperor of Ethiopia. Ato Zenawi, the father of Meles, did not either serve fully under Emperor Haile Selassie, or if he did, obviously was not favored by the Shoan Emperor, since he didn’t confer upon him his father’s or any title for that matter. It is not surprising then if he disliked the Emperor Haile-Selassie, in particular, and the Amhara ruling class in general, and if he passed on this sentiment to his son. Tigrean leaders and warlords who disdained the Amhara ruling class, in particular, and the Amhara, in general, are likely to influence their children including some of the important leaders of the TPLF with their negative attitude towards this class and ethnic group. Therefore, the hatred towards the Amhara by some of the TPLF leaders is primarily subjective and vindictive. The feelings of the leaders of the TPLF towards the Ethiopian feudal system and its officials was the same as that of the progressive Amhara youth. However, their resentment of the Amhara ruling class, in particular, and that of the Amhara, in general, originates mainly from the influence of their families.

There are a few more reasons behind why Tigrean elites resent the Shoan Amhara, and all Amhara, in general. These Tigreans have a contradictory relationship with the history of Tigray. Even though because of their Marxist orientation they tend to label the history of Tigray as feudal, in essence, deep down inside, they are proud of Aksum’s glorious past. The fact that Aksum declined, that Tigreans in general lost power, that the capital of Ethiopia moved from Tigray first to Lasta, then to Shoa and Gonder and back to Shoa, that Tigray is arid, less attended and poverty-stricken pains them deeply. As mentioned previously, since it was the Shoan Amhara who throned emperors who claimed to be of the Aksumite, Solomonic Dynasty and ruled Ethiopia including Tigray for the past 700 years with the exception of the time when Ras Mikael Se’ul as the Enderasse of Ethiopia was governing Tigray and the rest of Ethiopia before the Era of Princess (Zemene Mesafent) for whose occurrence he himself was partly responsible, and the reign of Atse Yohannes IV (1872-89) during the last century, they make these Amharas as an scapegoat for the demise of Tigray. That is one reason.

Another reason why they accuse the Amhara is to consolidate their power since they are afraid of the greatness in number of the Amhara, their seasoned experience for 700 years in warfare, diplomacy, the political arena and bureaucracy. In order to withstand all of these and survive, the leaders of the TPLF have resorted to demonizing the Amhara to unite against them the other Ethiopian ethnic groups including the Oromo who are actually related to the Amhara. That was why the TPLF regime neither protected when innocent Amharas were butchered mercilessly in Harer, Arsi, Shoa and elsewhere, nor cared to bring the criminals to the court of justice.

With the exception of some individuals, the majority of Tigrean intellectuals have chosen to remain silent about the division of Ethiopia along ethnic lines and the attack on the Amhara. First of all, because of the historical reasons given above, ethnicity has always been in their blood regardless of how well they have been educated. Therefore, they feel at home with the division of Ethiopia along ethnic lines. Moreover, this scheme can weaken for them the Amhara, whom they consider to be their fiercest rivals. Most important of all, they think that the status quo is in favor of their home province which is prospering and developing rapidly at the expense of the rest of Ethiopia. Consequently, they have “ye egna lijoch nachew gid yelim yigzu” kind of attitude towards the TPLF leadership. For the opportunist Tigreans, there is no better time than this to secure power and amass wealth. So, why should they oppose the present Tigrean government which, in their opinion, is working around the clock to make up what Tigray has lost for the past 1100 years?

Even though their political system was far from being perfect, the Amhara leaders at least did not so openly campaign to promote only the interest of their own ethnic group and take total advantage of the fact that they were in power. Striving to accommodate all, they somehow shared power and wealth with the ruling classes of the other major ethnic groups including the Oromo and Tigre. The Amhara people were not treated in any special way by the ruling Amhara class. Consequently, the Amhara of Gonder, Gojam, Wello and Shoa remained as poor and as miserable as the common folks of Tigre, Harer, Sidamo, Keffa, and the other regions.

Whereas the Amhara, and particularly the Shoan and Wello Amhara, because of the vastness of their territories, their active engagement in war, politics and commerce, as well as their open-mindedness, easily intermingled and assimilated with various non-Amhara peoples of Ethiopia, whose ways of life, language and culture they inherited and by whose religion and tradition they were deeply affected, the Tigreans who lived in Tigray proper, as indicated earlier, were intact and all alone by themselves with no other non-Tigrean people settling amongst them to influence them linguistically, culturally and psychologically for at least 1100 years. True, some Tigreans found their way to other provinces such as Gonder, Wello and even as far as Shoa to seek out their fortune. However, the number of such Tigreans is insignificant in relation to the vast majority of Tigreans who have never been out of Tigray proper. In our time, though these Tigreans have been exposed to the life-style, language and culture of their “hosts,” many of them remained to be a closed society preferring often to speak their own language even in the presence of non-Tigrigna speaking friends of theirs, sticking together as much as they could. Even those who were born and raised away from Tigray and Eritrea portrayed themselves as foreign nationals with their hearts craving for Tigray and Eritrea where they have never been. Indeed, they were mightily ethnocentric. That was why they used to support financially and otherwise their own ethnic political organizations such as the TPLF and EPLF. This, of course, excludes those Tigreans and Eritreans who were broad-minded enough to join non-ethnic Ethiopian political organizations such as the student movement, the EPRP and Meison. Unfortunately, some of these Tigreans abandoned the student movement and the EPRP and joined their own ethnic fronts eventually. I know of numerous Tigreans and Eritreans who were born and raised in Addis Abeba and elsewhere in Ethiopia, who struggled in the Ethiopian student movement until they joined their own ethnic front. What is more, they waged a war against the EPRP and chased out its members from Assimba, Tigray, claiming that they were not of the Tigre ethnic group to operate there militarily.

Those who consider themselves Ethiopians first and foremost have responded bitterly to the division of Ethiopia along ethnic lines; to the way the referendum was conducted in Eritrea; to the fact that Eritrea is still the economic and political burden on Ethiopia despite her declaration of independence; to the sacking of Amharas from government institutions en mass and their replacement with Tigreans and Eritreans; to the disbanding of the Ethiopian army; and to the political and economic domination of Ethiopia by the political organization of a single ethnic group which safeguards only its own interest though it was supposed to cater to the welfare of the whole of Ethiopia. Even some Ethiopians, who in the beginning welcomed the TPLF when it seized power from the Derg regime, have now withdrawn their sympathy from and are disappointed with the TPLF Government. These Ethiopians fear that TPLF’s ethnic policy will lead to genocidal conflict like that of Ruwanda, Somalia and Bosnia and destroy Ethiopia. Ato Meles contends that his policy will stop this from happening. What he refuses to admit is that there is ethnic-cleansing albeit on small scale going on in Ethiopia, which may transform itself into a larger scale unless it is checked now. That is not all. This policy has established the political and economic domination of one ethnic group, namely the Tigre, over the rest.

I am not of the opinion that the TPLF deliberately designed its ethnic policy to annihilate Ethiopia totally. It organized itself ethnically to overthrow the Derg. Mobilizing some of the people of Tigray by exploiting their hatred for the Derg, it liberated Tigray. In the same way, it marched to Addis Abeba exploiting the hatred for the Derg by the rest of the Ethiopian people including the Amhara and the military which refused to continue the fighting. Instead of dragging Ethiopia back to an outdated form of social order after she had already achieved statehood as a result of 1000 years of struggle by visionary Ethiopian leaders, it would have been correct to only implement a policy which will secure Ethiopian unity based on equality and regional autonomy.

As things now stand, it is unlikely that the TPLF will destroy Ethiopia and return to Tigray, as numerous Ethiopians fear. The TPLF will lose its economic resource if Ethiopia is eliminated totally. It keeps Ethiopia in such a way that she is neither united to resist the TPLF nor totally fragmented to be controlled by it. That is why it suppresses any ethnic movement which seeks complete independence from its grip, though on paper, it grants such rights. In the long run, however, I don’t think it can continue to play this game effectively. The people of Ethiopia, whose level of consciousness is rising every minute, will definitely challenge it.

The reason given by Ato Meles Zenawi for the current economic, industrial, educational and cultural boom in Tigray and the absence of these elsewhere in Ethiopia is that the Tigreans are working harder under a peaceful circumstance, whereas the other ethnic groups of Ethiopia are fighting each other instead of using their energy in constructing their respective killils. What Ato Meles has lost sight of is the fact that it is his administration which has created such a hostile atmosphere which encourages ethnic clashes. On top of that, the TPLF doesn’t allocate as much funds to the other regions as it does to Tigray. Ato Meles’s assertion that Tigray is not the most favored killil of his government is far from the truth. There is no doubt that, under the pretext of reconstructing war-torn Tigray, the TPLF is pumping into the region money donated and borrowed in Ethiopia’s name. I have no objection if Tigray makes economic, educational and cultural progress as long as the downtrodden people of Tigray can benefit from it. In fact, I will be delighted about it as I deem the downtrodden Tigreans as my own people. Nevertheless, I want to see the same progress in Gojam, Gonder, Illubabur, Keffa, Bale, Sidamo Harer, and the other regions of Ethiopia. As long as these forgotten Ethiopian provinces do not get the same attention as Tigray, then the TPLF is indeed out there to plunder Ethiopia. I don’t think Ethiopians will tolerate this sort of injustice for a long time.

Will the people of Tigray get anything out of TPLF’s undertakings? I doubt that they will. Since almost all of the industries are owned by a few TPLF officials and supporters, it is this group of the “new rich” which will have the lions share of it, and not the Tigray people.

Some enraged Ethiopians accuse all the peoples of Tigray to be the supporters and collaborators of the TPLF. They also assume that since the TPLF had an army of about 100,000 Tigreans, by proportion, all Tigreans must be its supporters. The Derg too, had about 500,000 soldiers and militiamen. Does it mean that the Derg was supported by all Ethiopians just because it had a large army? Of course not! It was the Derg itself which created all the forces which united against it. When the EPRP was waging guerrilla warfare against the Derg in Assimba, Tigray, before the formation of the TPLF, or when it was yet in its infancy, many Tigre peasants embraced the EPRP. After the EPRP was forced to leave Assimba due to TPLF pressure, however, the people had no choice but to side with the TPLF since it was the only group operating in Tigray against the tyranny of the Derg. That was it. The only way any government can gain the total support of its people is by winning their hearts. Even if the people of Tigray were to profit from all the projects launched by the TPLF, it wouldn’t be that easy for the TPLF to win their hearts by buying them out with material luxuries. Individuals who have travelled to Tigray and Addis Abeba witness that there is more freedom in Addis Abeba than in Tigray. How could then the TPLF win the hearts and total support of the Tigray people as some of us think?

For any political entity to succeed in Tigray without resorting to violence, it should base its philosophy and cultural policy on the historical, traditional and spiritual foundation of the Tigray people. This holds true to the TPLF and even to Tigrean Alliance for National Democracy (TAND), which is opposed to government of Meles Zenawi; for neither of these political organizations could deeply root itself and last long without taking into consideration the cherished values of the Tigray people.

So far, I attempted to explain why the members of the TPLF and its Tigrean supporters are ethnocentric. Pertaining the Tigre people who now live in Tigray, as I pointed out in the beginning, one cannot know for sure their exact feelings towards the TPLF and the rest of Ethiopia, since they haven’t yet been granted the opportunity to articulate their true feelings. Theoretically speaking, however, most of them can’t be the supporters of the TPLF, since the TPLF doesn’t have much regard for their religion, history and culture which it negates as being feudal and backward, regardless of the fact that it is working round the clock to industrialize Tigray.

Upto the present time, the Amhara have voiced their sad condition through the All Amhara People’s Organization. This Organization was necessary in the beginning in exposing the atrocities committed against the Amhara. Now, however, in the best tradition of the Amhara, it should transform qualitatively and call itself, All Ethiopian People’s Organization, and champion Ethiopian nationalism and unity by uniting with all Ethiopian ethnic groups including the Tigre, which genuinely believe in Ethiopian unity based on equality. By so doing, it will win the support of the other ethnic groups to protect its members more effectively and to realize Ethiopian unity based on equality and mutual respect, for whose attainment the Amhara have shed their blood the past 700 years. Otherwise, it will contribute indirectly to the ethnic division of Ethiopia against which it has struggled upto now.

Obituary: Crown Prince AsfaWossen HaileSelassie

By Richard Greenfield

The death of Asfa Wossen, Crown Prince of Ethiopia since 1930, almost certainly marks the final demise of thousands of years of Ethiopian monarchic tradition.

He was born in 1916 in the ancient Adare walled city of Harar, for centuries an important Islamic centre of learning and trade in the Horn of Africa. Thirty years previously, in 1887, Harar had been captured and incorporated into the expanding (and traditionally Christian) Ethiopian Empire by Emperor Menelik II, King of the Kings. Menelik had appointed Asfa Wossen’s grandfather, Makonnen, to be its first “Abyssinian” Governor, and in due course Makonnen’s son Tafari (Asfa Wossen’s father, later the Emperor Haile Sellassie) succeeded to the Harar governorate.

It was an unsettled period throughout Ethiopia. With the decline of the historic power centres in Northern Ethiopia and Tigray and the growing role of influential Muslims, Menelik’s grandson and heir, Eyasu (who ruled uncrowned from 1913) spent a lot of time in the conquered provinces. In 1916 Tafari, then governor of Harar, was recalled to Addis Ababa, where he played a prominent role in a coup d’etat against Eyasu being prepared by the traditional Orthodox Christian leaders and the Shewan nobility, with clear foreign support. Tafari had his wife, Menon (grand-daughter of the Negus – king – Mikael of Wello, Eyasu’s father) and son smuggled out of Harar. The young Asfa Wossen was left, in a traditional cradle attended by two servants, at the British Legation in Addis Ababa, to the supposed embarrassment of the Minister, the Hon Wilfred Gilbert Thesiger (father of the explorer).

On 27 September 1916, at a meeting of notables and Orthodox clerics in Addis Ababa, Abuna (bishop) Mattheos announced the deposition and excommunication of Eyasu, accusing him of apostasy, by way of submission to Islam, and treason. Eyasu’s angered father, the Negus Mikael, at once took the field against the Shewan conspirators but surprisingly was defeated.

On 11 February 1917, Zaudito, a barren daughter of Menelik, was crowned Queen of the Kings; a Ras (leading nobleman) was made Negus and the youthful, modern Tafari became Regent with the title of Ras.

It was still some years before Asfa Wossen’s position was further secured. His father was created Negus in 1928 and, finally, on 2 November 1930, crowned King of the Kings Haile Sellassie (Power of the Trinity); Asfa Wossen was himself given a Shewan royal title, Merid Azmach. In conversation most people began to refer to his new status by the popular term Algorash. He grew up fast in the strict court, fashioned after that of Sweden by the reformist Emperor with the help of an adviser from that neutral country. Asfa Wossen was only 16 when he, in turn, was married to Walata Israel, great-grand-daughter of the Tigrean Emperor Yohannes. Although, with others at the coronation, he had publicly pledged his loyalty to his stern autocratic father, and accompanied him on state duties whenever possible, Asfa Wossen was always closer to his mother.

Over the years a seeming gulf developed between the prince and his father, who openly favoured his second son, Makonnen. Asfa Wossen was appointed governor of Wello in the early 1930s, and after a major flare-up, in which his mother interceded, he began to spend more time in Dessie, Wello’s capital city. The wily and suspicious emperor filled his son’s household with informers. In the early 1930s Mussolini sought to create a situation by which he might invade Ethiopia without incurring military reaction from members of the League of Nations, particu- larly Britain and France. Ethiopia’s feudal and ethnic divisions were exploited by Italy, but Asfa Wossen and his father – unlike several other nobles – resolutely refused all offers to their own advantage, endeavouring to safeguard the last outpost of African independence.

When in 1935 all else failed and the Emperor’s mobilisation order arrived, Asfa Wossen and his mentor Dejazmach Wodajo Ali found it difficult to raise troops, for the local people were bribed and many retained some allegiance to the Negus Mikael and Eyasu, unaware of the latter’s mysterious death that year at his prison near Harar. Eventually, Asfa Wossen had to slip out of Dessie to the capital via Warra Hailu, after being warned of imminent treachery. The under-equipped Ethi-opian armies were repeatedly defeated and on 2 May 1936, the Imperial Ethiopian family fled by train to the coast and on to Jerusalem and Bath in England, but not before Asfa Wossen had witnessed the horrors of modern warfare.

The Italian forces had used mustard gas, which burnt the soldiers’ often bare feet and their lungs. Even Red Cross field hospitals which the prince visited were bombed by Capronis which enjoyed undisputed control of the skies. In exile, Asfa Wossen amicably divorced his wife, who had been unable to give him a son, and married Medfariashworq Abebe. For years he kept in secret touch with several patriot leaders who fought on in the Ethiopian mountains and meantime studied at Liverpool University and, once Italy declared war on Britain, at the Sobat Military Academy in the Sudan. There he lived at the “Pink Palace” on the Nile north of Khartoum, but was with his father and younger brother when, on 20 January 1941, their small force crossed the Dinder River into Ethiopia. British Commonwealth forces had already invaded Eritrea and Somalia and were converging on Addis Ababa.

Asfa Wossen accompanied his father, Orde Wingate, Brigadier Sandford and others into Gojjam. After its liberation, he travelled north to co-ordinate the patriot forces in the last phase of the liberation struggle at Gondar. Having been promoted Major-General by his father, he resumed his governorate in Dessie, Wello. Leul (prince) Makonnen was increasingly favoured in the capital until, in 1957, he is said to have been accidentally killed in a car crash. Most Ethiopians believe there was a cover-up, for he had acquired a reputation as a philanderer. Attention reverted to the first son, though his relations with his father did not improve. He was reticent, but always dignified, and was kept so short of funds by the Emperor that his mother, a rich land-owner, was constrained to make him a secret allowance.

As the winds of change swept over Africa in the 1950s, Asfa Wossen’s name was linked, most probably without his knowledge, to a number of conspiracies. Then, on the evening of 13 December 1960, he was escorted to the Headquarters of the Imperial Guard by its commander, Brigadier General Mengistu Neway. He, with his brother Girmame and the heads of the Police and Intelligence, conspired peacefully to change Ethiopia into a modern constitutional monarchy. The Emperor was away on a series of state visits and that night many, but not all, of the empire’s powerful officials and ministers were rounded up on the pretext that the Empress was ill. The Crown Prince broadcast more than once in support of peaceful change and the myth has developed that he had a pistol at his back and also later that a loyal officer shielded him from machine-gun bullets. In fact, although he had no prior knowledge of the coup attempt, there was no coercion and his speeches were tape- recorded in an office and taken to Radio Addis Ababa. He left the Palace during the confusion and fighting and was of course at the airport to welcome the Emperor on his return, inspiring much press speculation – the headline, “The Once and Future King”, was fairly typical – but Haile Sellassie made no public display of his anger. Privately, he was sad and often furious. “We forgive you and forget you,” he is said to have told Asfa Wossen, and although he thought it prudent to excuse the prince from participation in the show trial of the surviving conspirators – several had taken their own lives – the Emperor spent many evenings listening to secret tapes of the trial grasping for hints of what had really happened.

In later years, Asfa Wossen’s mother and younger brother Leul Sahle died. For several years he remained in the background, not invariably unpopular with the new generations, although they were becoming increasingly radical in their disaffection with the imperial regime. Then, in 1973, he suffered a serious stoke, and paralysed down one side and, barely able to communicate, was flown to London. When the revolution eventually occurred the following year, some announced that Asfa Wossen would be their choice for constitutional monarch, but they were soon displaced by more radical forces. Surviving royals were incarcerated and in subsequent struggles for power many atrocities occurred. However, even the revolutionary regime (1974-91) which the most violent eventually established in Ethiopia, could not cope with the regional and ethnic pressures which had played so large a role in the rise to power of Tafari’s family. Abroad the descendants of other prominent nobles began to adopt styles and titles and otherwise promote themselves until, in 1989, resentful and probably equally ambitious relatives prevailed on the ailing prince to hold a reception at the Ghibbi (palace) on a third floor in Portland Place, in London, to declare himself Emperor Amha Sellassie, his son Zara Yacob Crown Prince and his late father “Haile Sellassie the Great”. It was a non-event and ill- advised.

In 1990, the family moved to the United States. In north-east Africa today, distantly related sons of important northern families and their followers have re-established independence in Eritrea, and in Ethiopia the influence of Tigray has been greatly restored. The national President is an Oromo, but the absorption of Negus Mikael’s people and particularly their cousins in the south-west and south, is by no means complete. There remain many questions to be answered about the Somali peoples on all sides of Ras Makonnen’s borders.

Had his son Haile Sellassie not clung to power for so long and had his son Asfa Wossen’s own health not failed him, the basic realities of Ethiopian politics would still have had to be addressed. Richard Greenfield Asfa Wossen, crown prince: born Harar, Ethiopia 27 July 1916; Merid Azmach 1930; Governor General of Wello Province, Ethiopia; married 1932 Woizero Walata Israel (marriage dissolved; one daughter), Woizero Medfariashworq Abeba (one son, three daughters); died Fairfax, Virginia 17 January 1997.

Berihun Assfaw v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Berihun ASSFAW, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

March 10, 1995

ARGUED: Antoinette Josepha Rizzi, LAW OFFICES OF ANTOINETTE J. RIZZI, Arlington, VA, for Petitioner. Joan Estelle Smiley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Berihun Assfaw seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen and remand his case for consideration of his application for suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(a)(1). Specifically, he says the BIA abused its discretion in finding he did not establish that his deportation would result in “extreme hardship.” Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

A.

2

Berihun Assfaw is a fifty-one-year-old unmarried citizen and native of Ethiopia. According to Assfaw, in 1976 he fled from Ethiopia and ended up in Bonn, West Germany. West Germany granted him refugee status. He lived and worked there for about ten years. He received a housing subsidy from the West German government. He had good medical care, which apparently was free to all citizens and refugees in West Germany. He was free to practice his religion, and the West Germans helped him establish a church for his Ethiopian colleagues there. He owned a car. He had a bank account with the equivalent of around $5,000 in it. He attended school and traveled extensively throughout Europe and Africa.

3

After about ten years in West Germany, Assfaw decided he wanted to live permanently in the United States. He says that decision was motivated in large part by health concerns, specifically, lower back pain with associated muscle spasms. Bonn’s cold climate aggravated this condition, and Assfaw thought the United States climate would make him feel better. However, when he requested a visa to come here, he mentioned neither his health problem nor his intention to become a permanent United States resident. Rather, he applied for a nonimmigrant visitor visa and told the consular officers that he simply wanted to visit two of his brothers. (At the time, those brothers were lawful United States residents. They now are United States citizens.)

4

Assfaw got a visa and was admitted to the United States on June 4, 1986, as a visitor for pleasure for six months. He initially lived in Arizona. In March 1987 he moved to Washington, D.C., and has since remained in the D.C. area. He has earned a living as a taxi cab driver and author on Ethiopian history and politics, and he receives some financial support from his brothers.

B.

5

To repeat, on June 4, 1986, Assfaw was admitted here as a visitor for pleasure. He was authorized to stay only through December 4, 1986. However, he failed to leave by that date. Instead, he filed an application for asylum, alleging that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia because of his political views. His application was denied on June 23, 1989, and he was ordered to depart voluntarily by July 23, 1989. Once again, he failed to leave. Consequently, in an August 2, 1989, Order to Show Cause, Assfaw was charged with deportability for remaining here longer than authorized. A hearing was held, and he conceded deportability. The day before the hearing, he filed another asylum application.

6

On January 22, 1990, an immigration judge held a hearing on the merits of Assfaw’s application for asylum and withholding of deportation. (An application for asylum made during deportation proceedings is treated as a request for both asylum and withholding of deportation. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.3(b).) The immigration judge, exercising his discretion, denied the application on the ground that Assfaw had been “firmly resettled” in West Germany prior to his visit to the United States and had not demonstrated countervailing equities that would justify asylum or withholding of deportation. (8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.14(c)(2), effective October 1, 1990, now requires the denial of asylum relief to any alien who had firmly resettled in a third country prior to entering the United States. It is no longer a discretionary matter. See Farbakhsh v. INS, 20 F.3d 877, 881 (8th Cir.1994).)

7

Assfaw appealed, and the BIA affirmed in an order dated December 19, 1991. The BIA gave him thirty days to depart voluntarily. Once again, Assfaw failed to leave. On May 19, 1992, he filed a motion to reopen the deportation proceedings for reconsideration based on “new evidence.” His motion alleged he could no longer be considered firmly resettled in West Germany (now the Federal Republic of Germany) for two reasons. First, he said the highly publicized acts of persecution toward foreigners and asylum-seekers by neo-Nazis there suggested that Germany is no longer a safe haven for him. Second, he alleged he could not get the travel documents he needed to go back to Germany.

8

While his motion to reopen was pending before the BIA, Assfaw became eligible to apply for suspension of deportation because he had been living in the United States continuously for seven years as of June 4, 1993. So, he filled out an application for suspension of deportation and filed with the BIA a motion to reopen and remand for consideration of his application.

9

In an order dated February 10, 1994, the BIA denied both the motion to reopen for reconsideration on asylum and withholding of deportation and the motion to reopen and remand for consideration of his application for suspension of deportation. As for the latter motion, the BIA found that Assfaw failed to establish that his deportation would result in “extreme hardship,” making him ineligible for suspension of deportation.

10

Assfaw then filed this appeal. He challenges only the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen and remand for consideration of his application for suspension of deportation. He has not appealed the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen for reconsideration on asylum and withholding of deportation, i.e., the issue of firm resettlement.

II.

11

The Attorney General has the discretion to suspend deportation and adjust an alien’s status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma nent residence. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(a). Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(a)(1), an alien is not eligible for suspension of deportation unless he can establish that he “is a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence[.]” Extreme hardship may be interpreted narrowly because of the “exceptional nature of the suspension remedy.” INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 145 (1981) (per curiam).

12

Assfaw contends the BIA abused its discretion in failing to consider three types of evidence relating to extreme hardship. First, he says the BIA failed to consider his extensive family in the United States. Second, he says the BIA failed to consider that the cold German climate will aggravate his back problem. Third, he says he might be persecuted in Germany as a foreigner and asylum-seeker, and he claims he cannot return to his native Ethiopia as an alternative because he will be persecuted there for his political views.

13

As for the hardship he might suffer upon being separated from his family members in the United States, the BIA clearly addressed it. The BIA noted that Assfaw has two brothers and many other relatives living in the United States. The BIA observed, however, that Assfaw is unmarried and has no children living here; his only child lives in Ethiopia. His parents are deceased, and his several other siblings live outside the United States.

14

The BIA did not abuse its discretion. “General allegations of emotional hardship caused by severing family … ties are a common result of deportation.” Marques-Medina v. INS, 765 F.2d 673, 677 (7th Cir.1985). “When the potential hardships the alien may encounter are the same faced by any alien to be deported, the ‘extreme hardship’ standard has not been met.” Cortes-Castillo v. INS, 997 F.2d 1199, 1204 (7th Cir.1993). “[T]he cases are consistent in finding [extreme hardship] lacking where the deportation would result in nothing more than the emotional or even financial tribulations which generally follow the separation of a family.” Chiaramonte v. INS, 626 F.2d 1093, 1101 (2d Cir.1980). See, e.g., Dill v. INS, 773 F.2d 25, 31 (3d Cir.1985).

15

As for Assfaw’s back problem, the immigration judge and the BIA (in its initial decision) questioned the seriousness of that condition for two reasons. First, Assfaw did not bring it up when he applied for a visa to come here. Second, he left Arizona for Washington, D.C., where the winter climate is not substantially warmer than Bonn’s. Thus, the BIA did not really mischaracterize the record by saying that Assfaw “appears to enjoy good health,” and it did not abuse its discretion in concluding that his deportation would not aggravate his medical condition enough to constitute an extreme hardship.

16

As for the persecution Assfaw says he might face in Germany (or in Ethiopia, for that matter), “the BIA may define ‘extreme hardship’ narrowly, so as to give consideration to persecution claims only under applications for asylum or prohibition of deportation, and not with applications for suspension of deportation.” Kashefi-Zihagh v. INS, 791 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1986); accord Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 40 (1st Cir.1993); Farzad v. INS, 802 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1986).

17

In sum, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Assfaw failed to establish that his deportation would result in extreme hardship, and therefore the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen and remand.

18

One final note. Assfaw let his West German travel document expire during his illegal stay here, despite his opportunity to renew it. In his brief to us he alleges he cannot get the necessary travel documents to return to Germany, and he suggests this is relevant to extreme hardship. We disagree. Moreover, we agree with the BIA that it is irrelevant to the issue of firm resettlement. See Abdalla v. INS, Nos. 93-9590, 94-9530, 1994 WL 720719, at * 3 (10th Cir. Dec. 29, 1994).

III.

19

We affirm the BIA’s denial of Assfaw’s motion to reopen and remand.

AFFIRMED

Makonnen v. INS

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Makonnen v. INS

Janis M. Clay, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for appellant.

Richard M. Evans, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, argued (Frank W. Hunger, U.S. Asst. Atty. Gen., and David J. Kline, Asst. Director, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
1

Elizabeth Makonnen petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the BIA or Board) denying her application for political asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158 (1988 & Supp. V 1993) and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h) (Supp. V 1993), granting her request for voluntary departure instead, and denying her motion to remand her case to the Immigration Judge for consideration of additional evidence. We grant the petition and remand to the Board for further proceedings.

I.
2

Makonnen, an Ethiopian national and a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), entered the United States on September 21, 1988, on a non-immigrant student visa. She accepted employment without Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) authorization. Consequently, an order to show cause alleging deportability under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(9) (1988) was issued on July 31, 1990, with a telephone hearing held on January 29, 1991. Makonnen admitted the factual allegations in the order and conceded deportability, but requested asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158, withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h), or, alternatively, voluntary deportation, asserting that she feared persecution if forced to return to Ethiopia.
3

After a final administrative hearing on March 25, 1992, the Immigration Judge noted that Makonnen had supported the OLF when she was a child and had assisted her father in its activities, opposing the former Marxist government. Since her arrival in the United States Makonnen had attended monthly OLF meetings, where she taught youngsters about Oromo culture and cooked ethnic food. Makonnen believed that the Ethiopian government was aware of her OLF activities, and for this reason she feared persecution if she were forced to return to Ethiopia. The judge noted that
4

respondent’s claim principally rises and falls on her own testimony and general background information concerning the present conditions in Ethiopia. The court takes administrative notice that the Mengistu regime fell in May 1991 and that the respondent’s previous fear of returning to Ethiopia no long[er] exists…. While the respondent seems to say that she fears the general ethnic conflict and unrest existing in Ethiopia at the present time, this information is insufficient to establish eligibility for Asylum per se.
5

In re Makonnen, No. A XX-XXX-XXX, Oral Decision of the Immigration Judge at 6 (Mar. 25, 1992). The judge denied Makonnen’s request for asylum and for withholding of deportation, but granted voluntary deportation with an accompanying order of deportation should she fail to leave the United States within the period prescribed for voluntary departure.
6

Makonnen appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and moved the Board to remand her case for a further hearing
7

based on material evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the final deportation hearing–departure of the OLF from the coalition government and a pattern of human rights abuses by the new government in Ethiopia, including the arrest and arbitrary detention of Makonnen’s own father just days after Makonnen’s March 25, 1992 hearing.
8

Brief of Petitioner at 2. The Board dismissed the appeal and denied Makonnen’s motion to remand.
9

Petitioner timely filed a petition for review, and requested leave to adduce additional evidence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c). In her petition, Makonnen argues that the Board erred (1) in applying a stricter standard to her political asylum claim than that mandated by law, (2) in rejecting her claim for asylum based on political opinion because she had not shown that all ethnic Oromos were being persecuted, (3) in denying procedural due process by refusing her the opportunity for a hearing on evidence crucial to her case, (4) in failing to find that, more likely than not, Makonnen would be subject to persecution in Ethiopia, or at least had the requisite fear necessary for a grant of asylum, and (5) in refusing to grant her motion to remand for consideration of her additional evidence.

II.
10

Before discussing Makonnen’s issues, we first supply some general background information based upon published studies.1 The OLF was established in Ethiopia in July 1973. As the most recent manifestation of resistance to central government control, the OLF is in the tradition of the Azebo-Raya revolt of 1928-30, the Oromo Independence Movement of 1936, and the Bale revolt of 1964-70. The OLF’s stated goal is autonomy or independence for the southern provinces of Ethiopia, known by OLF partisans as Oromoland.2 While the Oromo (Galla) people, Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group comprising close to forty percent of the population, are dispersed throughout the country, the southern provinces are considered their heartland. The Oromo penetrated Ethiopia from the south in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and by 1600 established control over the regions they inhabited. Not until the late nineteenth century were they conquered by the Kingdom of Ethiopia. While many Oromo assimilated with the politically dominant Amhara, the Oromo possess distinct physical characteristics and have their own language.
11

The OLF first began operations against the Ethiopian government in Harrege province in 1974. These actions continued when it became apparent that the Dirg, the Provisional Military Administration Council of the Ethiopian government, would not allow use of the Oromo language in newspapers or at school and when the group was prevented from running its own peasant association. While operations spread to Welega province, the OLF apparently had only scattered successes in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Its inability to mobilize popular support has been attributed to a failure “to organize an effective antigovernment movement, to convince the majority of Oromo people that separation was a viable political alternative, or to sustain military operations in … geographically separated areas.” Thomas P. Ofcansky & LaVerle Berry, U.S. Dep’t of State Ethiopia: A Country Study 247 (1993). From 1989-91 the OLF achieved more success than it previously had in the struggle against the Mengistu regime, although at least some of this was attributable to the support of other resistance groups, including the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the umbrella Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), of which the TPLF is a major constituent.
12

After the fall of the Mengistu government in 1991, the OLF, the EPRDF, and other groups formed a coalition regime. “Relations between the OLF and the EPRDF,” however, “seem to have been ambivalent even at the best of times because the Oromo were deeply suspicious of the ultimate designs of the Tigrayan leadership.” Ofcansky & Berry, supra, at 311. In June 1992, the OLF withdrew from the coalition government due to alleged EPRDF intimidation of its members and manipulation of the regional election process. According to a State Department report that Makonnen has called to our attention, and which she wishes to have the Board consider, the regional elections
13

were flawed by numerous irregularities, including fraud, harassment, intimidation, and political assassination–and the OLF forces took up arms against the Government. In subsequent clashes, the EPRDF forces defeated the OLF units and, at the beginning of 1993, the [Transitional Government of Ethiopia] held more than 20,000 OLF prisoners in several camps. During 1993 most of these detainees were released; the remaining 1,200 are to face criminal charges. The OLF remains outside the Government; much of its senior leadership is abroad.
14

U.S. Dep’t of State, Ethiopia Human Rights Practice, 1993 (Jan. 31, 1994) (citation omitted). This, then, is the general background for petitioner’s claim to asylum.

III.
15

Petitioner first contends that the Board erred in applying a stricter standard to her asylum claim than that mandated by law. She also asserts that the Board erroneously rejected her claim based on political opinion because she has not shown that all ethnic Oromos are being persecuted. We combine these contentions for purposes of our discussion. Both Makonnen and the Board agree that the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42) (1988), set out in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448-49, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1221-22, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), is less stringent than the “more likely than not” requirement for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h). Both cite the Board’s opinion, which in turn cited Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (1987), to the effect that “[a]n applicant for asylum has established a well-founded fear if he shows that a reasonable person in her [sic] circumstances would fear persecution for one of the five grounds specified in the Act,” namely, race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In re Makonnen, No. AXX-XXX-XXX, Order at 3 (Nov. 18, 1993), quoted in Brief for Respondent at 23 and cited in Brief of Petitioner at 24.
16

Use of the appropriate standard by the Board is a question of law, which we review de novo. In its own review of the case, the BIA noted that
17

[t]he immigration judge determined that the respondent failed to sustain the burden of proof and so denied the requested relief…. Following [a] recitation of the respondent’s evidence, the immigration judge … made an adverse credibility finding…. The immigration judge also concluded that the respondent had not established a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Act. The immigration judge found that her fear stemmed from the general ethnic conflict in Ethiopia and such did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.
18

In re Makonnen, No. AXX-XXX-XXX, Order at 3. The Board concurred with the Immigration Judge’s findings, specifically noting that Makonnen “fears the overall ethnic conflict in Ethiopia and such does not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Act unless there is some evidence that [Makonnen] will be singled out for persecution or that all members of the Oromo ethnic group are being persecuted.” Id. at 4-5. Makonnen suggests that this is where the Board erred. Her position is supported by 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.13(b)(2)(i) (1994),3 which states that
19

[i]n evaluating whether the applicant has sustained his burden of proving that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, the Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge shall not require the applicant to provide evidence that he would be singled out individually for persecution if:
20

(A) He establishes that there is a pattern or practice in his country of nationality or last habitual residence of persecution of groups of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and
21

(B) He establishes his own inclusion in and identification with such group of persons such that his fear of persecution upon return is reasonable.
22

The regulations do not define what constitutes a “pattern or practice … of persecution.” We would take this language to mean something on the order of organized or systematic or pervasive persecution. In any event, we believe that for the Board to construe the regulation to require a showing of persecution of all the members of the applicant’s group represents an unreasonable reading of the “pattern or practice” language. The BIA thus was incorrect as a matter of law in holding that, if Makonnen is unable to show she would be singled out for persecution, her claim for asylum must fail unless there is evidence that all members of the ethnic Oromo group (or of the OLF) are being persecuted.
23

The Board also failed to consider whether Makonnen might have a well-founded fear of persecution even if she is unable to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of the Oromo people or of the OLF. The Ninth Circuit has noted that 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.13(b)(2)(i) “does not purport to cover the entire range of persecution related to group membership. Rather, the regulation leaves the standards governing non-pattern or practice cases to be developed through case law.” Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir.1994). In such cases,
24

although members of the disfavored groups are not threatened by systematic persecution of the group’s entire membership, the fact of group membership nonetheless places them at some risk. That risk can rise to the level required for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution either as a result of an individual’s activities in support of the group, or because an individual is a member of a certain element of the group that is itself at greater risk of persecution than is the membership of the group as a whole.
25

….
26

In the non-pattern or practice cases, there is a significant correlation between the asylum petitioner’s showing of group persecution and the rest of the evidentiary showing necessary to establish a particularized threat of persecution. Specifically, the more egregious the showing of group persecution–the greater the risk to all members of the group–the less evidence of individualized persecution must be adduced.
27

Id. at 853. In the present case, the Board failed to consider the possibility of non-pattern-and-practice persecution.
28

Similarly, the BIA required evidence of persecution of all members of the Oromo ethnic group, yet it appears Makonnen bases her claim primarily on her active membership in the OLF. The government notes that Makonnen stated as part of her asylum application that “[b]eing an Oromo in Ethiopia was the main ground for me and my family’s mistreatment by the gov[ernmen]t.” Certified Administrative Record at 390. The government argues that Makonnen “did not tell the Board in what ‘group’ she claimed inclusion,” and that “her testimony was peppered with comments about the alleged persecution of the Oromo people.” Brief for Respondent at 28. What the government’s own brief makes crystal clear, however, is that the petitioner’s grasp of English, while certainly better than our grasp of Gallinya,4 is not sufficiently precise to allow the Board’s conclusion “that–when the alien claimed persecution because of her inclusion in a group–she meant inclusion in the Oromo ethnic group.” Id.5 Indeed, the close identification between the OLF and the Oromo people makes it probable that an OLF member would fail to maintain a clear verbal distinction between the two. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that Makonnen sufficiently apprised the Immigration Judge and the Board that her fear of persecution was based on her connections with the OLF, and not merely on her status as an ethnic Oromo. The Board erred to the extent that its decision rested only on Makonnen’s status as an ethnic Oromo, and failed to consider her membership and activities in the OLF.
29

The Board also stated that, “although we do not categorically hold that entitlement to asylum relief can not be established by an individual based upon actions taken following entry into this country, we find that there must be specific evidence that a government would target an individual outside of its borders for persecution.” In re Makonnen, No. AXX-XXX-XXX, Order at 5. The BIA has itself commented on the poor quality of the evidence in this case, yet its action here severely restricts the utility of uncontroverted evidence of the petitioner’s activities in the United States, which Makonnen has offered as part of her factual showing in support of her claim of a well-founded fear of persecution if she is forced to return to Ethiopia. We hold that the Board’s treatment of this evidence was unduly restrictive and reflected an incorrect understanding of the law. Congress, in defining “refugee,”6 put no limitation on what might constitute evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution. While the Board is “entitled to a presumption of regularity,” see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), it may not create “new law” under the guise of assessing evidence. In this respect, too, we conclude the Board erred.
30

We hold that the BIA was incorrect as a matter of law in suggesting that it must be shown that all ethnic Oromos were being persecuted, in not considering the possibility of non-pattern-and-practice persecution, in holding that Makonnen’s claim was based entirely on her Oromo ethnicity rather than on her membership in the OLF or her adherence to OLF beliefs, and in requiring specific evidence that the Ethiopian government would target an individual outside its borders for persecution. For these reasons alone, we believe the case must be remanded to the Board for further consideration.

V.
31

We now turn to the Board’s denial of Makonnen’s motion that her case be remanded to the Immigration Judge for consideration of additional evidence. Makonnen also has filed a motion with this Court for leave to adduce her additional evidence under the terms of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c).7 The government argues that the standards of federal agency review set forth in Sec. 2347(c) apply only to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a (1988 & Supp. V 1993), which apply specifically to judicial review of final orders of deportation.8 In this case, according to the government, there is a conflict between the sections.
32

Section 1105a(a)(4) requires that a petition for review be “determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the deportation order is based….” Section 2347(c) necessarily requires the existence of evidence which is not contained within the administrative record and plainly conflicts with Section 1105a(a)(4) which directs the Court never to look outside the administrative record.
33

Makonnen v. INS, No. 93-4010, Respondent’s Opposition to Alien’s Motion for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence at 3 (8th Cir. April 14, 1994) (Respondent’s Opposition).
34

Sister circuits have considered and rejected the government’s argument. In Osaghae v. INS, the Seventh Circuit held that
35

[t]here is no inconsistency [between Sec. 1105a and 2347(c) ]. True, we are not to take evidence and base our decision on some mixture of that evidence with the evidence that was before the Board. But if the administrative record is inadequate because the Board has failed without justification to consider newly discovered evidence, we can remand for the creation of an adequate record.
36

Osaghae v. INS, 942 F.2d 1160, 1162 (7th Cir.1991); see also Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir.1978); Coriolan v. INS, 559 F.2d 993, 1003 (5th Cir.1977). We here adopt the reasoning in Osaghae and hold that 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a does not preclude a remand to the Board under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c).
37

Utilizing the criteria enunciated in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c), we observe that any additional evidence sought to be introduced must be material, and reasonable grounds must be shown for the initial failure to adduce it before the agency. The first piece of additional evidence proffered by Makonnen is a four-page letter dated January 22, 1994, written to Makonnen by her father, Makonnen Daka. This was penned upon his release from a twenty-one month incommunicado detention by the Ethiopian government, and details the facts of his seizure, holding, and release. Makonnen argues that the letter is material, bearing precisely on “the likelihood of Makonnen’s being subject to persecution if forced to return to Ethiopia…. [T]he treatment of relatives, particularly immediate family members who share one’s political beliefs, is highly material to one’s own likelihood of persecution.” Makonnen v. INS, No. 93-4010, Reply of Elizabeth Makonnen to Respondent’s Opposition to Alien’s Motion for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence at 6-7 (8th Cir. June 9, 1994) (Reply to Respondent’s Opposition). The INS argues that petitioner, “whose asylum claim is premised on her cooking, day secretarial work and babysitting for the OLF in the United States[,] is not similarly situated to her father,” and points out that no evidence had been presented of any persecution of Makonnen’s mother or other family members. Makonnen, Respondent’s Opposition at 5.
38

The issue of materiality has come before this Court in a similar context on a prior occasion, in Alsheweikh v. INS, 990 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir.1993). In that case we rejected the proffered additional evidence because of its “inconclusive, speculative, or duplicative” nature. Id. at 1027. Materiality requires both relevance to the matter at hand and probative value. Moreover, the evidence should be more than merely repetitive or cumulative of evidence already in the record. Here the letter relates to a member of Makonnen’s immediate family who, like the petitioner, has espoused the political views of the OLF and has been active in the OLF’s cause. The variance between the services performed by Makonnen Daka and those rendered by his daughter for the OLF does not affect the materiality of the letter under consideration in view of their familial relationship, similar political views, and active participation in the OLF. The letter is relevant to Makonnen’s claim for asylum and probative on the issue of whether she has a well-founded fear of persecution. It does not duplicate prior evidence and is not inconclusive or speculative. We believe it clearly passes the materiality test.
39

Alsheweikh held that reasonable grounds for failure to present relevant evidence were not shown as the evidence involved “was readily available during [the] deportation proceedings.” Id. Here, the letter from Makonnen’s father could not have been in her possession at the time of the hearing, not only because of the date on which it was written, but because of an underlying cause, Makonnen Daka’s incommunicado detention. As the statutory standards have been satisfied, we grant leave under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c) for petitioner to adduce this evidence.
40

Petitioner further seeks to adduce as evidence the United States State Department Country Report on Ethiopia of February 1, 1994, “addressing, inter alia, the current treatment in Ethiopia of persons who support the Oromo Liberation Front.” Makonnen, Reply to Respondent’s Opposition at 2. Conversely, the government merely argues that the reports ” ‘do not establish that [Makonnen] ha[s] a well-founded fear of political persecution.’ ” Respondent’s Opposition at 6 n. 4 (quoting Alsheweikh, 990 F.2d at 1027) (alteration in Respondent’s Opposition). In Alsheweikh, however, the evidence of political dissident persecution was rejected because “Alsheweikh testified under oath that he did not belong to any political organizations.” Alsheweikh, 990 F.2d at 1027. Here, Makonnen is an acknowledged member of the OLF, and the evidence she proffered relates to the treatment in Ethiopia of those who support that organization. The report is relevant, has considerable probative value, and does not duplicate material already in evidence. We hold that it is material. As in the case of Makonnen Daka’s letter, the date of the report shows that it was not available to Makonnen during her deportation proceedings. Again, we conclude that Makonnen is entitled to have this evidence considered by the agency.
41

Makonnen’s motion for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c) is granted. In light of this ruling, we decline to decide whether the Board abused its discretion by denying Makonnen’s motion that her case be remanded to the Immigration Judge. On remand from this Court, we leave to the Board’s sound discretion the question whether the case should be remanded to the Immigration Judge for initial consideration of Makonnen’s additional evidence.

VI.
42

The conclusions we have reached concerning the issues discussed above make it unnecessary for us to address the other issues Makonnen has raised. For the reasons stated, we grant Makonnen’s motion to adduce her additional evidence, grant her petition for review, and remand this case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1

The U.S. State Department studies cited in this opinion, although not considered in the administrative proceedings, provide a general historical background of the relationship of the OLF and the Ethiopian Government. We make reference to these studies in this part of our opinion only in terms of providing a general background for petitioner’s claim to asylum
2

The OLF initially called for the “total liberation of the entire Oromo nation from Ethiopian colonialism.” Thomas P. Ofcansky & LaVerle Berry, U.S. Dep’t of State Ethiopia: A Country Study 247 (1993). Later, it worked “for the establishment of an independent Democratic Republic of Oromia, which would include all of central and southern Ethiopia, excluding the Ogaden and Omo River regions.” Id
3

This regulation became effective on October 1, 1990. See Asylum and Withholding of Deportation Procedures, 55 Fed.Reg. 30,675 (1990)
4

Gallinya is the Cushitic language of the Oromo (Galla) people. See Ethiopia in 10 Encyclopedia Americana 620, 623 (1984)
5

In support of its contention, the INS cites to Makonnen’s testimony at her deportation hearing before the Immigration Judge: Transcript at 20 (“new government is still killing Oromo people”), Transcript at 31 (“there’s, uh, some paper that, um, say a lot of killing and people missing going on in the Oromo”), and Transcript at 66 (“they arresting Oromo’s people”). While the first presumably refers to the tribal group, the second and third could as easily apply to the region or to the OLF itself. Moreover, within the portions of the record cited by the INS, Makonnen makes numerous references to the OLF and related organizations: Transcript at 24 (“he’s active member of Oromo”), Transcript at 25 (“we Oromos … have … a group”), Transcript at 32 (Union of Oromo, North America), Transcript at 35-37 (discussion of the OLF), Transcript at 53-54 (discussion of the OLF), Transcript at 54-55 (discussion of Union of Oromo, North America), Transcript at 55-58 (discussion of the OLF), Transcript at 62 (OLF), Transcript at 64 (OLF), Transcript at 65-66 (OLF)
6

According to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42)(A) (1988) the term “refugee” includes:

any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country 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.
7

28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c) (1988) states:

If a party to a proceeding to review applies to the court of appeals in which the proceeding is pending for leave to adduce additional evidence and shows to the satisfaction of the court that–

(1) the additional evidence is material; and

(2) there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce the evidence before the agency;

the court may order the additional evidence and any counterevidence the opposite party desires to offer to be taken by the agency. The agency may modify its findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and may modify or set aside its order, and shall file in the court the additional evidence, the modified findings or new findings, and the modified order or the order setting aside the original order.
8

8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a(a)(4) (1988 & Supp. V 1993) states:

The procedure prescribed by, and all the provisions of chapter 158 of title 28, shall apply to, and shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial review of all final orders of deportation, heretofore or hereafter made against aliens within the United States pursuant to administrative proceedings under section 1252(b) of this title or comparable provisions of any prior Act, except that–

….

(4) … except as provided in clause (B) of paragraph (5) of this subsection, the petition shall be determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the deportation order is based and the Attorney General’s findings of fact, if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.

Ethiopia: Profesor Asrat Woldeyes jailed

On Monday 27 June, the Central High Court in Addis Ababa sentenced a medical professor and four other members of an opposition group, the All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO), to two years’ imprisonment.

“The five convicted prisoners appear to have been imprisoned on the basis of slender and dubious evidence and without direct proof of the alleged conspiracy”, Amnesty International said today. The human rights organization has not yet received the full details of the judgment, but at this stage it seems that the judges relied on prosecution evidence which was not properly corroborated.

This evidence included a written note apparently found by the police at the university and a statement made to the police during the preliminary investigations by a witness who died before the trial. All five men denied the charges of incitement to violence and are appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn the sentences.

Professor Asrat Woldeyes, 65, had been free on bail during the long trial but the other four – Sileshi Mulatu, 61, AAPO’s office manager, Teshome Bimerew, an Addis Ababa University student, former army lieutenant Chane Alamrew and Ambelu Mekonnen, a farmer from Gojjam, had been in prison for over a year. A court had granted them bail but the Supreme Court overruled it. The five men were arrested in July 1993 and charged with holding a meeting in the AAPO office nine months earlier at which they were alleged to have planned violent attacks on the government.

Professor Asrat was previously accused of inciting inter-communal violence in 1992 following an AAPO rally speech in Debre Berhan. He denied these charges and has constantly maintained that AAPO is committed only to non-violent opposition.

The government, however, and the state-controlled news media have persistently accused the organisation of “war-mongering”, although without producing evidence to substantiate this. In a recent interview, the Minister of Defense accused Professor Asrat of “unsuccessfully declaring war against the government for the last three years”. Although the trial of Professor Asrat and his four co-defendants was held in open court and with defense representation, Amnesty International is concerned whether they received a fair trial according to international standards. The human rights organization is continuing its investigation into the case, but so far it believes all five men to be prisoners of conscience who should therefore be immediately and unconditionally released.

The defendants denied any plan of anti-government violence. They said the meeting had been about complaints the AAPO had received of abuses by government soldiers of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and pro-government militias against AAPO supporters and Amharas.

The AAPO, one of many nationality/ethnic-based political groups in Ethiopia, was founded in 1992 to defend the interests of the formerly dominant Amhara nationality (or ethnic group) and to propagate the “unity of Ethiopia”.

The AAPO has reported numerous cases of detentions, “disappearances” and alleged torture and extrajudicial executions of AAPO supporters and Amharas — including some cases in the past month — by government troops and pro-government militias in the central Amhara Region and in other regions where Amharas are a minority. The AAPO, along with all other opposition parties, boycotted the Constituent Assembly elections of 5 June 1994.

Source: The Indian Ocean Newsletter July 9, 1994