World Bank continues to finance the tribal junta in Ethiopia that is terrorizing the people in the name of development. The following is a press release by the World Bank.
WASHINGTON – The Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank today approved a $350 million grant and a $130 million credit from the International Development Association to the Government of Ethiopia to support an innovative program that is keeping millions of families out of extreme poverty and helping them to achieve food security.
This financing is for the third phase of the Government of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) which provides transfers to 7.6 million rural citizens in 292 woredas in Afar, Amhara, Dire Dawa, Harare, Oromiya, Somali, Southern Nations and Nationalities (SNNP) and Tigray Regions.
Families participating in the Safety Net Program are the poorest and most food insecure in their communities. They earn a monthly transfer by working on public works projects for six months each year. For those participants who are physically unable to work, the Program provides direct grants. Transfers are predictable and timely, thereby enabling families to plan ahead to meet their food needs and preventing the sale of productive assets.
The PSNP goes beyond providing safety nets; it aims to address the underlying causes of food insecurity. Planned within an integrated watershed management framework, the public works under PSNP are designed to reverse a long history of environmental degradation and increased vulnerability to adverse weather. Since 2008, the Program became more flexible, able to scale-up the coverage, level, and duration of support to households in response to shocks in PSNP areas.
Recent reviews demonstrate that the Safety Net Program has registered some impressive results since its launch in 2005. Household food security has improved, especially when transfers are predictable and delivered on time. PSNP households reported a smaller food gap and consumed more calories (19.2%) in 2008 as compared with 2006.
Households participating in the PSNP have also invested in assets and have increased their use of education and health services. Growth in livestock holdings was 28.1% faster among PSNP households than non-participants. An estimated 73% of PSNP participants reported increased use of health facilities compared to the previous year, and the majority attributed this to the Safety Net Program.
There is strong evidence that the combination of the PSNP and investments in productive assets can improve agricultural productivity. Maize yields increased by 38% among households receiving both PSNP transfers and investments through the Government’s Food Security Program (FSP). Households that received FSP investments alone enjoyed only marginal increases in productivity.
But more needs to be done. The third phase of the PSNP will strengthen implementation to maximize the impact of the Program and will institutionalize the risk financing component of the PSNP, which allows the Program to scale up in response to shocks.
The World Bank will also provide financing to support the Government’s Household Asset Building Program (HABP), which is designed to assist food insecure households in PSNP woredas to transform their productive systems by diversifying income sources, improving productivity and increasing productive assets. The support to the HABP aims to make the program more efficient and effective, thereby maximizing the combined impact of the HABP and PSNP so that together they can support sustained graduation from food insecurity for the poorest households.
“Food aid to Ethiopia in the past was often too little, too late, which meant families were often forced to sell livestock, tools or other productive assets to meet their daily needs,” said William Wiseman, the projects’ task team leader. “These programs are different because they provide support that families can count on – and the infrastructure, credit, and training that they need for long-term food security.”
The Safety Net Program is supported by a consortium of donors, namely, the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States, as well as by the European Union and the World Food Program.
If one asks what the contributions of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England, Britain or The UK is in Africa, the answer will be a long list of crimes against humanity! That is an undeniable historical fact.
Britain divided Africa into pieces along ethnic, religious lines to divide and rule. They stole African resources reaping the benefits and giving nothing back to Africans. They enslaved Africa and used the human resources to develop England. For centuries they plundered, pillaged and raped Africa ruthlessly without any accountability. The British hunted African animals for financial benefits and games leaving a terrible legacy that impacts Africa to this day. They belittled Africans with arrogance and pomposity that reverberates into the psyche of present day Africa like tsunami-waves. They redrew African boundaries in ways that are unfit and unnatural for the people of Africa leaving a negative legacy with consequences that linger to date.
All in all, the impact of Great Britain in Africa has been one horrendous experience for Africans without any consequences for England. The legacies still plague Africa but what is incredible is the relentless audacity of the British to continue on the path of the dead empire. They are unapologetic and straight faced as they pursue their ill-conceived hegemonic agendas using the bully pulpit at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). One such example is what is happening in the Horn of Africa, particularly in Somalia.
Great Britain and Italy partitioned and colonized Somalia for extended duration. Following World War II and after independence, Somalia remained united until 1991. At the end of the Cold War, its president, Siad Barre, was ousted and Somalia became a failed state. Since then peace has eluded the Somalis and they are going through one horrific period at this moment in their history. This is a result of divisions Great Britain and other colonialists sewed as well as the legacies of the Cold War that littered Somalia with armaments.
The West has always been interested in the Horn of Africa region for different reasons. But, over the last ten years the focus has sharpened and the tact has been getting extremely aggressive. The West uses terrorism, regional stability, conflict resolution, democracy, peace, piracy and a host of humanitarian – related issues that arise from inner-conflicts as pretexts to get involved.
Historically and in reality no outside actor can solve problems between two brothers. Conflicts that take place within a country are best left to be resolved by the people. The Europeans as well as the US went through their own struggles and came up with their own solutions. But when it comes to Africa must the Europeans and the US get involved? Are they the best guardians for the interest of African people? Are Africans not capable to solve their own problems? Europeans, England and the US care better about the Somalis than the Somalis and Africans who are directly impacted? Is it crocodile tears?
On Thursday October 08, 2009 Britain’s U.N. Ambassador John Sawers called for sanctions against Eritrea for allegedly supplying weapons to the opponents of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Somalia in violation of a U.N. arms embargo. He cited the African Union, IGAD and a UN monitoring group (a group formed by the former failed Bush Administration diplomat Dr. Jendayie Frazer, avowed enemy of Eritrea) who provided the supporting evidence and the call to action. Previously, in an effort to link Eritrea to terrorism, the same group made-up stories about Eritrean arms shipment to Somalia as well as the claim of 2,000 Eritrean troops fighting alongside the Somali Islamic Court Union (ICU), which turned out to be a fabrication.
The fact is the TFG that is being promoted as a legitimate representative of the Somali people was formed in Djibouti by Dr. Frazer in the wee hours of the Bush Administration by pressuring IGAD and other African leaders. Dr. Frazer excluded the major stake holders and Eritrea from the so called Djibouti-Process and used a weak UN and AU to legitimize it. Dr. Frazer also established a parliament in exile without the participation of the main stake holders, Somali people. Eritrea was vocal in her opposition because the process failed to include the key stake holders and did not allow the Somalis to come with solutions to their own problems.
Eritrea is not the arms supplier of Somalia. The country is awash with arms supplied by Ethiopia. In violation of UN resolutions, Ethiopia sells arms to various Somali factions to fan the flames because the conflict serves its interest. In fact, Ethiopia invaded a sovereign Somali nation occupying it for over two years and committed major crimes against humanities. In addition, The Obama Administration is openly sending arms to Somalia. The US is also openly involved in the Somalia conflict under the pretext of fighting terrorism and piracy. In fact, citing the Grand Rapids Press, Press TV reports US is to make Blackwater-style entry into Somalia.
Eritrea is not a problem, is not the cause of the instability in Somali and not in a position to influence the situation in Somalia in the way they are claiming Eritrea could. Somalia is entirely surrounded by US and her allies making it nearly impossible for any other nation or entity to infiltrate Somalia.
So, why is the British calling for sanctions against Eritrea? Why do the British want to punish the people of Eritrea who are struggling to come out from years of exploitation by the West and from natural calamity?
The Purpose behind the Sanction Call
One of the most useful and important tool the West uses against the people of Iran or countries that don’t tow the line is sanctions or the threat of it. The threat of sanctions is equally as potent as the actual sanction because it discourages investment by scaring investors. If and when investors’ sense uncertainty, they may hesitate to invest. That is how they apply pressure to bring change by frustrating the leadership and people. It also puts pressure on countries like Russia and China for supporting countries the West labels rogue giving the West a PR upper-hand. It is a multi faceted approach that has proven effective and has been working for decades, flawlessly. For that purpose there is no a single day that passes-by without the US or UK talking about Sanctioning Iran.
Conversely, for the first time since her independence Eritrea is openly inviting and attracting foreign investment in various areas. Eritrea is going through some visible and inevitable economic transformation as a result of rich resources the country possesses. Eritrea is undeniably full of resources ready to exploit. Eritrea is also one of the most important strategic locations and very important because she sits in the middle between Sudan and Ethiopia. How Eritrea tilts will impact the geo-political games being played by the US and China. Eritrea is the foundation because if Eritrea falls in the hands of the West the Sudan will fall in a short time because Port Sudan is located very close to Karora in the border of Eritrea and Sudan on the Red Sea.
Therefore Eritrea is a natural buffer for Sudan. The Sudanese understand this and are working closely with Eritrea. This is also taking place in the back drop of the issues in Southern Sudan, Somalia and other fluid dynamic political situations in the region. The stakes are high because it can influence Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and South-Sudan countries that are client states for the US. It possesses far reaching implications than is publicly admitted by the US and the West who are totally focused in the area.
The reality is that there is a renewed scramble for African resources. As the need for these resources grows the desperation of some countries is growing larger. That is precisely what is happening in this case. The strategy they applied in Iraq, though erroneous, was nonetheless effective and they are trying the same strategy in Africa, in this case Eritrea.
Therefore, the British calling for sanctions against Eritrea is a desperate cry that is bound to get louder. All the client regimes in the region spearheaded by the alms-dependent Ethiopia are parroting the sanction song like a new song ad-nauseam. There are new names for Eritrea in think-tank circles names like Eritrea the”Spoiler”. These are the facts.
The Sun Never Sets for the British Empire
Are the British forgetful of the fact that it is their evil design that led to thirty year war for independence costing thousands of Eritrean lives? Do the British truly care about the Somali people?
First of, Britain has no moral authority to call for sanctions against any nation in Africa. If any one should be sanctioned it is Great Britain for all the crimes of humanities it committed, for crimes they have not atoned for, for stealing from Africans for centuries, and most importantly, for the exploiting Africans as slaves.
Secondly, Great Britain needs to return back the goods it looted from Eritrea. The Italian colonizers in Eritrea had built a functional railroad and ropeway (Teleferica) that was an engineering marvel of its time as well as an operational Marine Overhaul Station (Dry Dock) in Massawa. After defeating Italy in World War II, the British Military Administration (BMA) was solely responsible for destroying and looting major part of that system. The BMA also tried to partition Eritrea along religious and ethnic lines unsuccessfully.
Furthermore, The British have no credibility. The Blair Administration openly and blatantly misled the international community with a hoax claim of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) leading up to the Iraq WAR. The whole charade was designed to serve as a pretext to get access to the huge oil reserves in Iraq. It had nothing to do with justice, democracy or concern for the Iraqis.
In addition, The British does not support the Eritrean economy in any way. They don’t import any goods from Eritrea or provide any assistance to the people of Eritrea to make calls like that. Their main contribution is and has been to create problems for the people of Eritrea.
Throwing Stones from a Glasshouse
The mistake the British could make in Africa is to remind Black people of the terrible deed the British committed in Africa. It is also a mistake to call for sanctions to a country one has no economic connection with because that exposes British products worldwide as targets for boycott and rejection unnecessarily.
For example: Eritreans, Ethiopians and Africans in general are major consumers of British products. Smoothly, and for decades the British have sold many products around the globe. In Africa, Johnny Walker is one of the best selling high-end status-drinks that has turned into liquid Gold for the British. The same with cigarettes like Rothman, Dunhill and other cigarette brands. In addition The British do not grow tea but they have sold tea grown in poor countries like Kenya as English tea for decades. These are popular tea products like Twinings of London and many the like.
The government of Eritrea and others could simply prohibit the entry of Johnny Walker into their countries and set a precedent and effectively apply unspoken sanction against these products. It also empowers Africans because they now know they have leverage because they have the power to say NO to British products.
Conclusion
The people of Eritrea have never committed any crimes against the British people. It is arrogant, belittling, racist and stupid to instigate hostility simply because they think Eritrea should be subservient to their whims. The British do not hold the moral authority and they are not better than their Eritrean counterpart in any way.
The Eritrean people are humble, brilliant, hard working, independent, fierce and ready to make history by creating their own path. Eritrea is a nation born in defiance from the hurdles placed by the US and British for decades. Eritreans have no illusion to believe a just view can emerge from Great Britain, United Kingdom, England or Britain because history attests otherwise.
The British need to look at their history and make amends with the past by compensating Africans of lost resources both human and natural that was unlawfully attained. They don’t need to recycle hate and thuggish behavior that is unproductive and inhuman. Hence, it is incumbent upon the British people to engage better by treating Africans equally and live with Africans in peace because they stand to lose a lot if they keep pressing on the wrong path just as they have lost their imperial prowess.
Although this debate began because Professor Messay claimed the ideology of self determination is to be blamed for OLF’s lack of success in the past two decades, he has not shown any evidence to back up his assertion. He has not provided us with a single case where the “right” ideology resulted in success and “bad” ideology led to the failure of insurgency, nor does he explain how exactly advocating for the right to self determination weakened the OLF. Even though I have shown cases where organizations advocating similar ideology produced different results, he refuses to accept that organizational efficiency is primarily a result of strategy and committed leadership. Instead his two articles focused on pointing out the deficiency of self determination as an ideology and he seems to be attempting to drag me into this ideological debate. I refused to engage in such a debate because my article which he reacted to took no side on the ongoing ideological debate. I concluded that ideology was not among the major factors that hindered the organization’s performance.
Reading through Professor Messay’s two essays I have come to realize that the various points he discussed arise from his distaste for “ethnic politics” in general and for the OLF in particular. I believe it is unhelpful to assess organizational performance based on our ideological preferences as doing so would take away our objectivity. Failure or success of an organization should be evaluated based on stated objectives not using what the analyst thinks is a right objective. In my views it is this lack of objectivity that leads many individuals and groups to underestimate, misunderstand and mishandle nationalist movements. In this essay I would like to briefly discuss this issue.
Underestimating Nationalism: OLF’s Ideology, Success beyond Expectation or Bankruptcy?
I challenge Professor Messay’s repeated declaration that OLF’s ideology is bankrupt. I think such an assumption is quite far from reality. Assuming that the ideology he is referring to is the “nationalist agenda”, neither me nor the professor would have been interested in debating this issue had Oromo nationalism not been the most powerful political mobilizing force that is likely to determine the future of the Ethiopian state. Had the OLF ideology failed, there would not exist a land known as Oromia in country where once it was shameful to identify yourself as an Oromo. Had this ideology bankrupted, some 20 million children would not be studying in Afan Oromo, in a place where it was taboo and a sign of backwardness to speak this language.
It’s my understanding that a political ideology is said to be bankrupted when it fails to attract supporters. Yet when we look at OLF’s “nationalist agenda”, it enjoys an incredible level of support across all sectors of the Oromo people despite the very poor performance of the organization. In fact, one can rightly argue that OLF’s biggest accomplishment(“s”) since its inception is artfully articulating and developing Oromo nationalism. The evidence for this is the fact that, although they differ on ways and means of achieving the goal, all Oromo political forces share a unanimous rejection and determination to fight cultural domination, political repression, social alienation and economic exploitation. That is why Oromo nationalists remain the number one threat to the current regime for the last two decades and as a result they make up over 95% of political prisoners as testified by several Ethiopians. This fact will continue to be the case as long as identity based injustice remains the rule of the game.
Hence, unless one kid himself/herself for the sake of the argument, OLF’s ideology has been a success beyond expectation. What led to success of this ideology is clear, it is incredible level of cultural, economic and social repressions by successive tyrants that backfired and broadened alienation of the Oromo and strengthened the spreading of nationalism.
Anyone interested in making practical influence on Ethiopian politics knows that it has long become impossible either to maintain or change the status quo without taking this force into consideration. That is why forces who oppose the demands of Oromo nationalism, both the ruling party and opposition groups, continue to make gradual concession to soften the nationalist position and win their alliances. Cornered with ever increasing uprising, the regime has been instituting reforms such as increasing local autonomy in Oromia and allowing expansion of Afaan Oromo both in academia and in the media. It is to be remembered that hundreds of students were killed in the last decade for these demands to be met. On the other side, opposition groups who in 2005 used the excuse of “no ethnic politics” either to ignore the issue or rally against the gains of the Oromo movement, now have made a U-turn by embracing the reality as it is shown with their swift acceptance of Afaan Oromo as a national language.Remembering that a few years back, some of those individuals organized a rally in Washington DC opposing the extension of time for Afaan Oromo on the VOA, their current move is an encouraging step that should be embraced by Oromo nationalists.
I encourage people to take off their vale of fear for the rising tide of Oromo and acknowledge the many positive contribution this movement had brought for Ethiopians as a whole. Its the awakening of the giant that forced successive regimes to remove state sponsored cultural and linguistic genocidal policy against the South. Without the awakening of the giant, oppressed minorities of the South would still be called “bariya” , “Shanqilla”, “Walamo” and so on by the state media who degrades them while relying on their wealth for financing.
When we speak of Oromo nationalism and its demands, the ‘self-mutilation’ the Professor wants to discuss also has to be analyzed historically. The Oromo are only a demographic majority but has always been a political and social minority. Just 35 years ago a majority of “Ethiopians” never acknowledged that a people called the “Oromo” lived in the greater part of Ethiopia, and that it constitutes of humans with certain dignities and inalienable rights. Thanks to the Oromo nationalists and the Ethiopian student movement, and as well as the sacrifices made by the Left, now the “Gimatam Galla” is accepted as a dignified “Oromo”. There are still remnants of the old, including the Woyane security, who push for an anti-Oromo stand-up comedy in Finfine, but their days are closing. Now, in the third millennia, after notable achievements by the struggle, if Ethiopians demand that Oromo nationalists move to the center and take leadership of democratizing and strengthening unity of the country, that is an understandable quest. But this demand for ‘taking the leadership’ will not echo as genuine, if one purports to demean and destroy Oromo nationalism which brought the movement to the respected position it finds itself now. Oromo nationalist will heed the call for “move to the center” if and only if that ‘call’ is supported by empathy and understanding the sacrifices they made up to this point. Otherwise it sounds like an “Arada”call that lacks genuinety.
That is also why Professor Messays’ call for unity while accusing me of an Amhara hater, without any evidence whatsoever, is a wrong approach. In the typical paternalistic fashion of elites of the dominant culture, he advises me saying “what keeps you in chains is the diatribe against Amhara, Abyssinians and the correlated discourse on the Ethiopian colonization of the Oromo.” Since the Professor is willing to sacrifice facts and along the way his honor, to defend his own ‘ideology’, he seems to have been forced to misrepresent me, while I am alive. I have no diatribe against the Amhara, nor a hang-up on a colonial theory, these are just mind creations of the Professor to appear as the ultimate defender of Ethiopia’s unity. One thing I want to say, however is that, Ethiopia is an unfinished project. All of us have a role in its final shape. But for this to happen the minimum code of conduct is to listen to each other, to feel each other’s pain, and to represent the facts as they are without misrepresenting them. The tactics and machinations which foiled the Ethiopian Student Movement and all the political movements that came in its wake are outmoded and tested by our joint failure to advance mutual understanding. We should try a new way, a new beginning.
Misunderstanding Sources of Nationalism: Elite Manipulation or Manifestation of Grievances?
Highly dismissive of the real cause of nationalism – which is identity based injustice – Professor Messay repetitively accuses “ethnic” elites for manipulating their people. Speaking of Oromo nationalism he asserts that “… what Jawar presents as a fact is not yet a fact; it is an elitist manipulation that uses past mistreatment to justify partition.” What I do not understand is how about the state backed, institutionalized and often violent “counter manipulation” orchestrated by those who oppose these “ethnic” elites? Wasn’t the entire field of academia and state institution exclusively controlled by the “unity or death” group for most part of the 20th century? Has the professor ever thought why a bunch of young college kids were able to convert peasant grievance into nationalism fueled revolutionary force and topple the guys with the “right” idea and the finest army? Why did “ethnic” movements outlive class struggle? It is too easy to dismiss nationalism as “elite manipulation” but we know that such approach has not helped in the past forty years. What those who advocate “unity-at-all-cost” fail to understand are that their violent, disrespectful and often chauvinistic approach to quell ethnic discontent helps fuel nationalism rather than defuse it.
I argued that, it’s not some abstract ideological aspiration that gave birth to ethnic based rebellion, but rather it was identity based political repression, economic exploitation and cultural subjugation. Thus, Eritreans, Tigreans, Oromos and others supported their perspective liberation front’s not because their elites were so effective in making the peasants study Stalin’s work, but because the people were yearning for an end to repression by any means necessary.
It’s this misunderstanding of the source of nationalism which leads the professor to give too much credit to Stalin on the raise of nationalism. For instance he says “According to the Stalinist vision, the liberation of the ethnic group has precedence over the consideration of unity with other groups” I am not a student of Stalin, but I never came across any research that puts Stalin as a good friend of nationalists. On the contrary, Stalin is well known for persecuting his own “Georgian” nationalists, because he ardently believed that the class solidarity of the workers takes precedence over the nationalist interest of the bourgeoisie. As an old student of Stalin, how could the Professor miss this fact? When fact and logic are thrown out the window, it seems there is no turning back but misrepresenting others is also acceptable because it serves a ‘higher purpose’ that of ‘maintaining unity at all costs’. But when trust is sacrificed to win, we will make ourselves the second Meles Zenawi of a different brand.
In connection to this, another issue which the professor keeps bringing up, but fails to substantiate with evidence, is the correlation between leftist ideology, nationalism, secessionism and armed struggle. He asserts that leftist ideology is responsible for growth of “ethnic” nationalism, secessionist demand, and armed struggle. This theoretical argument could have been persuasive four decades ago when the debate was based on assumptions, but now all those assumptions and theories have been tested and we have the benefit seeing real case studies that have made constructing imagined theories unnecessary. The world has been full of secessionist movements that do not advocate Leninist politics. There have been leftist movements who are not secessionist. There have been several secessionist struggles that are not armed. Here are some of the examples that debunk the said correlation.
* The Tibetan movement is a secessionist one but it is neither Leninist nor armed, the same is true for Quebecois secessionist movement in Canada.
* The Farc in Columbia is a leftist armed group but it is not secessionist, the same is true for the Moist in Nepal
* The BJP in India is an ultra-right wing Hindu nationalist movement which is neither armed nor leftist.
* Far left movements have taken power in several Latin American countries without armed struggle.
* At home front, EDU was a feudal party engaged in armed struggle opposing socialism, while EPRP was a leftist armed movement but it was not “ethnic” nationalist.
Many more of such cases can be listed. Therefore the reality is that movements, be it secessionists or those who want to reform an existing state, pick up guns when they think that all other venues and means of advancing their cause are no longer on the table or they avoid armed struggle when they do not see comparative strategic advantage in violent uprising. Hence, Professor Messay is making a very wild conclusion.
The issue of armed struggle leading to subordination has not been the rule as well. The Zimbabweans and South Africans were trained by Ethiopia, but never made them Ethiopia’s satellite. The EPLF was assisted by the West, but it never succumbed to their interest. Maoist China was assisted by Stalin’s Soviet Union, but it didn’t lead to China’s subordination as well. Hence Professor Messay’s argument that getting assistance from foreigners during the armed struggle will necessarily lead to subordination is not supported by life and experience. It’s worth noting here that my criticism of OLF’s relation with Eritrea is based on the nature of the relationship whereby there is neither strategic benefit due to distance from the battlefront, nor has there been tangible financial and logistical support. Worse, being in Eritrea, the leadership insulated itself from pressure and also became a hostage that cannot make independent strategic and institutional decisions.
Mishandling Nationalism: Redress or Repress Grievance
Nationalism is like boiling water, the pot is the repressive system, the heat is repression and grievance is its steam. The solution to such a problem depends at what stage the movement is or how hot the pot is. At an early stage, for instance, you defuse the tension by reducing the heat so you can prevent stream formation. If you miss the first stage and steam has formed, then you must use a combination of strategies which might include reducing the heat, adding cold water and loosening the cover. If it passes that stage, you have no control over the situation as either the pot will explode or the cover could be blown off.
Unfortunately, those who oppose nationalism often increase the pressure instead of systematically defusing such tension. At every stage they increase the heat by stepping repression which helps spreading resentment and galvanizing the oppressed. This often happens because of the gross underestimation of the potential force of grievance. By the time rulers realize their backers the real nature of the problem, they are no longer in the position to influence the outcome.
For instance so much resource and sacrifice was paid to keep Eritrea as part of Ethiopia but the effort was fruitless. Every attempt to crush the movement backfired, strengthening the rebels and further radicalizing their determination. To defuse the Eritrean nationalism and maintain the integrity of the country, Mengistu Hailemariam and his “Abiyotawi Ethiopia or Death” supporters could have negotiated for “Federation”, well before the political will for such consideration became null. And such an outcome wouldn’t have become considered a ‘defeat’ as the Professor suggested. It would have been a win-win situation. In fact, in 1981 EPLF had made the proposal for such negotiation, but was not accepted by the Dergue because it was believed EPLF was initiating a “referendum” talk because it was weakened militarily. The Professor should have learnt from his own experience from the Dergue years, that ‘politics is the art of compromise’ and not a place to shine with high sounding slogans.
The Way A Head
One might dislike the OLF or another might wish that Oromo nationalism never came to surface. These are good wishes given we add that the repressive systems that gave birth to the movement should have never existed at the first place. Now we have to deal with the reality. Oromo nationalism is a reality and we better come to terms with it and develop a strategy so that it can be channeled towards the common good. I believe that Oromo nationalism, properly understood, effectively organized and led by committed and visionary leadership, could be the greatest force, in cooperation with other movements, that can uplift the country and the wider region from the never ending crisis.
Towards this I propose that opponents and proponents of the movement understand the situation for what it is: Oromo Nationalism is borne out of identity-based injustice by successive regimes that culturally subjugated and ridiculed the Oromo reducing them to subhuman condition on their own land. It’s also a manifestation of grievance from economic marginalization of these people by forces who exploit their resources. Thus, opponents of this movement should understand that such social dynamics cannot fade away under repression or by condescending slogans such as extremism, tribalism or cover up of historical injustice. If those Ethiopians who genuinely lose their sleep over the balkanization of their country, love it earnestly and wish for a better future, they must embrace reality and work towards bringing a democratic, fair and integrated country. In short a justice based on fairness. Oromo nationalists should also know that the objective of the movement is not to “defeat” the oppressor, but to uplift our people. As such we need to overcome our bitterness that was caused by fresh scars of a century long process of dehumanization. As Paulo Freire nicely put it “the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed is to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well”. It is not enough to blame others for all the wrongs and expect difference; we must take leadership to bring about mutual understanding. I hope to say more on this in my upcoming essays.
While U.S. attention is fixed on Afghanistan’s contested elections and the need to insure a democratic process, in another part of the world, democracy has been under siege at the ballot box with terrible consequences.
African elections have devolved into rituals of absurdity. In the last five years we have witnessed attacks on democracy in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.
In Ethiopia in 2005, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s Ethiopian People’s Democratic Revolutionary Party was thumped in parliamentary elections by the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy. Zenawi hijacked that election and bushwhacked the opposition by simultaneously declaring victory and a state of emergency. In the following months, his security forces killed nearly 200 protesters and imprisoned over 30,000 others.
In Kenya in 2007, the opposition Orange Democratic Movement swept the political landscape, cleaning out the incumbent President Mwai Kibaki’s cabinet, including his vice president, foreign and defense ministers, and a host of plutocratic parliamentarians. Yet Kibaki held on to power, leading to riots that killed 1,500 people and displaced more than 250,000 Kenyans.
In Nigeria, after nine months of legal wrangling, a presidential election tribunal in 2008 upheld Umaru Yar’Adua’s declared victory, despite evidence of widespread rigging and fraud. In the same year Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF suffered massive defeat in Zimbabwe’s national elections. After intimidating supporters of his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, with violence, Mugabe, at 84, “won” an uncontested runoff election.
Warnings from the West have had no effect. For example, in response to Zenawi’s crackdown on the opposition, European governments temporarily withheld aid, and multilateral institutions suspended loans to the regime. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 2003) to hold Zenawi’s regime accountable, but it failed to clear the Senate. And in Kenya and Zimbabwe, though the West pressed Kibaki and Mugabe to form coalition governments, the country remains more divided than ever.
Spanish philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Because of Africa’s failure to implement reforms, we are ready to restart that cycle, as parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place in Ethiopia in May 2010.
This time Zenawi seems even more determined to circumvent Ethiopia’s democracy. In April, his regime announced that in local elections, the opposition won a paltry three out of 3.6 million “contested” seats.
Elections in Ethiopia under Zenawi’s dictatorship, now spanning two decades, have manifested two recurrent patterns. First, Zenawi has spared no effort to eliminate his opposition. He has used intimidation, threats, arbitrary arrests and detentions, bogus prosecutions, extreme violence, fraud and trickery to wipe out his opposition. Recently, Zenawi invited the opposition for 2010 election talks, but promptly demanded that they sign a “code of conduct” before discussions could be held. Leaders of an alliance of opposition parties under an umbrella organization known as Forum for Democratic Dialogue in Ethiopia walked out of the talks, plainly sensing a trap. Zenawi retaliated by initiating a campaign of harassment and intimidation that sent nearly 500 opposition members to detention.
Zenawi has succeeded in distracting the opposition from making the election about issues or a referendum on his regime to inconsequential issues about personalities and individual grievances. There is little discussion by the regime or the opposition about the formidable and apocalyptic issues facing the country.
Famine threatens to wipe out one-fifth of the Ethiopian population. There are thousands of political prisoners held in regular and secret prisons without trial. Gross abusers of human rights walk the streets free. Ecological catastrophes, including deforestation, soil erosion, over-grazing, over-population and chemical pollution of its rivers and lakes, threaten the very survival of the people. Galloping inflation has made life unbearable for most Ethiopians. Rampant corruption and plunder of the public treasury has left the country with only a few weeks of foreign currency reserves. And there has been no accountability for the reckless intervention in the Somali civil war, the squandered resources and wasted young lives, among many other issues.
Can Ethiopian democracy be salvaged by the 2010 elections? Many of us think it can be saved, but only if we restore the pre-2005 opposition. Back then, there were real opposition parties that were allowed to campaign vigorously. There were free and open debates throughout the society. A free private press challenged those in power and scrutinized the opposition. Civil society leaders worked tirelessly to inform and educate the voters and citizenry about democracy and elections. Voters openly and fearlessly showed their dissatisfaction with the regime in public meetings. On May 15, 2005, voters did something unprecedented in Ethiopian history: They used the ballot box to pass their verdict. That’s how the 2010 election can be saved – by letting the people pass their sovereign verdict.
Only a transition to a constitutional democracy can end the kind of dictatorship that robbed Ethiopians of a chance to advance. As President Barack Obama said, “Africa needs strong institution, not strong men.” Ethiopia’s history is full of strong men on horses, in tanks and boardrooms. As a result, Ethiopia has weak legislative, judicial and electoral institutions.
Clues to saving Ethiopia and other African countries from strongmen may be found in Ghana’s nascent democracy. Since Ghana’s military dictatorship ended in 1992 when it adopted a new constitution, Ghanaians have shown the essential prerequisites for a successful multiparty democracy in Africa. They institutionalized the rule of law and conformed their laws to meet international human rights standards. They created a strong judiciary with extraordinary constitutional powers that made failure to obey a Supreme Court order a “high crime.” They included strong protections for civil liberties, allowing Ghanaians to freely express themselves without fear of government retaliation.
Ghana established an independent electoral commission responsible for voter registration, demarcation of electoral boundaries, conduct and oversight of all public elections, referenda and electoral education. Above all, Ghana’s uncompromising constitutional language made it illegal to have tribal or ethnic-based political parties, the root of most conflicts in Africa.
The glimmer of hope shimmering in the Ghanaian experiment proves that multiparty democracy can be successfully instituted in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa, without bloodshed. Failure to do so may once again force Africans to prudently heed Victor Hugo’s admonition: “When dictatorship is fact, revolution becomes a right.” If it gets to that point, it’s going to be a quagmire too difficult to get out of this time.
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. For comments, he can be reached at [email protected].)
Israeli government representatives returned to Ethiopia to assess the eligibility for aliyah of approximately 3,000 Ethiopians who may be entitled to immigrate but had never filed petitions. Advocates had pressed Israel to expand its assessment to a much larger group of Ethiopians—8,700 people in all—but Israel had demurred.
Now, however, a campaign by advocates that stresses the health risks facing the 8,700 Ethiopians, along with the support of Israel’s interior minister, Eliyahu Yishai, may throw open the aliyah gates for all of them.
If that happens, mass Ethiopian immigration to Israel likely would continue through 2017, at a rate of 100 immigrants per month, officials say.
The group at issue is comprised of so-called Falash Mura—Ethiopians who claim links to descendants of Jews who converted to Christianity generations ago, but who now seek to return to Judaism and immigrate to Israel.
A major sign of change came last month when Yishai, who became interior minister when Benjamin Netanyahu’s government took office six months ago, sent a letter to a U.S. Jewish aid group saying there were “steps in place” to consider the aliyah eligibility of 5,700 Ethiopians in addition to the 3,000 the ministry already was checking.
The letter, sent to the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, urged the JDC to reopen its medical clinic in the northern Ethiopian city of Gondar, where the 8,700 people live. The JDC had shuttered the clinic in July after those the Israeli government deemed eligible for aliyah had moved to Israel.
At the same time, the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry, or NACOEJ, an aid organization and the main advocacy group for Ethiopian aliyah, stepped up efforts portraying the 8,700 aliyah hopefuls in Gondar as at grave medical risk.
NACOEJ took a prominent Israeli physician to Ethiopia to assess the medical condition of the Gondar community, whose members NACOEJ considers Jewish but whose Jewish links remain unverified by Israel. While the assessment did not include any physical exams, the physician, Dr. Arthur Eidelman, told JTA he saw “clear signs of malnutrition in children, particularly under age 6.”
Eidelman, formerly the chief of pediatrics at Shaare Zedek hospital in Jerusalem, produced a report calling for the reopening of the JDC clinic.
Once the JDC, which says it takes its cues from the Israeli government on Falash Mura-related issues, received Yishai’s letter, it began taking steps to reopen the medical clinic in Gondar, JDC officials said. Now the organization says it needs $250,000 to operate the clinic.
In the meantime, NACOEJ says children are dying of malnutrition.
“Many children in the Jewish community of Gondar, Ethiopia have already become ill or died from hunger this year,” said a fund-raising e-mail NACOEJ sent to its mailing list in mid-September, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah.
The group has sent similar e-mails throughout the past decade, even when the JDC clinic in Gondar was open. During that time, JDC officials maintained that accounts of children dying of malnutrition were untrue or unverified.
But with the shuttering of JDC’s clinic and the decline in food aid at NACOEJ-sponsored aid centers in Gondar—due to budget cuts from federation sponsors in North America, NACOEJ officials say—the health of the Gondar population has grown more precarious, according to NACOEJ.
The group’s director of operations, Orlee Guttman, told JTA that several children from the community had died in the last year from hunger, malaria and tuberculosis.
NACOEJ does not conduct medical assessments or perform autopsies; Guttman said it relies on parents to determine cause of death.
In response to JTA’s inquiries, NACOEJ disclosed the names of five toddlers it said had died over the past year. Four died of malaria and one, 2-year-old Benyam Derebie Abere, had “hunger” listed as cause of death, according to the organization.
There appears to be little dispute that reopening the JDC clinic in Gondar for the 8,700 aliyah hopefuls would improve their ability to receive considerably better health care. What is in dispute is who they really are and whether they truly are linked to Ethiopian Jews.
Many Israelis believe they are mostly Christian Ethiopians deceptively claiming Jewish links and adopting Jewish observances in a bid to escape Africa’s desperate poverty for the relative comfort of the Jewish state.
“We are creating a hell of a job for ourselves because of political correctness or trying to be nice,” Israel’s previous interior minister, Meir Sheetrit, told The Jerusalem Post in a 2007 interview about the 8,700.
Advocates say the people in Gondar are Jews who have been left behind by Israel.
Ethiopian immigration long has vexed successive Israeli governments. On several occasions, Israel has committed to bringing in a finite number of immigrants that they believed constituted all the remaining Ethiopians eligible for aliyah, only to be told once the number had been reached that thousands more had been left behind.
Israel completed the most recent phase of mass Ethiopian aliyah in the summer of 2008, when the last of some 16,095 immigrants arrived under a 2003 decision by Ariel Sharon’s government to bring those eligible from a 1999 Israeli census of possible Ethiopian olim.
But in September 2008, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked the Interior Ministry to return to Ethiopia to check the eligibility for aliyah of those from the 1999 census who had never filed petitions—a group said to comprise approximately 3,000 people. The Interior Ministry representatives left for Ethiopia this summer and are still there.
Due to the difficulty of proving Jewish lineage among the Falash Mura, those who wish to make aliyah must meet several conditions: They or their spouse must demonstrate Jewish maternal links at some point in their provenance; they must have had a relative in Israel file a petition on their behalf by July 31, 2009; they must be listed on the 1999 census; and they must be among the group in Gondar.
Designed to limit the number of Ethiopians who qualify, the conditions also are more relaxed than those that apply to would-be immigrants from elsewhere in the world, such as the United States or the former Soviet Union. While Americans or Russians would be disqualified for aliyah for being less than “one-quarter” Jewish or if their only Jewish grandparent converted out of the faith, Ethiopians are not disqualified for ancestral conversion to Christianity—as long as they can demonstrate maternal links to a Jew.
Ultimately, the battle over these 5,700 additional people—an Interior Ministry list puts the total number, with the 3,000, at approximately 9,300—is part of a debate that has raged in Israel and among American Jews since the beginning of the aliyah of the Falash Mura over where to draw the line.
The line has changed with nearly every Israeli government. Where, exactly, it is drawn under Benjamin Netanyahu remains to be seen. (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Des Moines, IOWA — World Food Prize laureate Gebisa Ejeta says he’s “greatly optimistic” that Africa can have its own green revolution because of improving national leadership and increased international support.
However, the Ethiopian-born plant breeder warned that outside aid agencies and governments need to let Africans take the lead in deciding how best to improve farming.
“An African green revolution need not be a mirage,” he said Friday at the final day of the annual World Food Prize conference.
But he said boosting crop production will “require an uncommon recognition of the empowerment of local people, local institutions and local governments.”
Ejeta, who was raised by illiterate parents in a thatch hut, discovered ways to dramatically increase yields of an African staple crop, sorghum, by making the plant resistant to drought and a parasitic weed.
He followed his achievements in genetics by setting ways to get the high-yielding seeds widely distributed to poor farmers.
Ejeta argued that small farmers in Africa could increase production of other crops and pull themselves out of poverty with training in simple agronomic practices, such as fertilizer usage and correct timing of planting.
He said an erosion in agricultural expertise in rural Africa in the past few decades fostered a reliance on aid agencies for assistance.
Ejeta also faulted the United States and other countries for reducing agricultural development assistance in favor of shipping their own food into African countries, a practice that hurt local farmers.
U.S. farm groups have traditionally pressured Congress to buy U.S. crops and ship them to areas with food needs rather than provide assistance to farmers in those countries.
However, that approach may be starting to change as result of the sharp increases in commodity prices in 2008. The United States and other members of the G-8 group of developed countries earlier this year pledged $20 billion in agricultural aid.
Although it’s unclear how much of that aid will be new money and how much was already planned, Ejeta welcomed the new emphasis on helping small farmers.
But he said “no amount of external assistance” can improve African farming without the support of an “inspired citizenry” and the commitment of political leaders.
Whether the United States and other rich countries maintain their interest in agricultural aid is an open question.
“Much of this attention is owed to the price spike of mid-2008,” said J.B. Penn, a senior official in the U.S. Agriculture Department during George W. Bush’s administration and now the chief economist for Deere & Co.
“That was a wake-up call to lots of people and lots of governments, not so much because of the hunger concern, I’m afraid to say, but because of fear of political instability.”
But he said that interest in agricultural development typically wanes once commodity prices fall. “We have to see now if the interest is going to be sustained.” (Des Moines Register)
