As British resident (and Ethiopian-born) Binyam Mohamed stepped off a plane at RAF Northolt on Monday February 23, six years and ten months since he was first abducted by the Pakistani authorities at Karachi airport, it was impossible not to sympathize with the words written in a statement made by the tall, thin, slightly-stooped 30-year old, and delivered by his lawyers at a press conference.
“I hope you will understand that after everything I have been through I am neither physically nor mentally capable of facing the media on the moment of my arrival back to Britain,” the statement read. “Please forgive me if I make a simple statement through my lawyer. I hope to be able to do better in days to come, when I am on the road to recovery.”
For the last three and half years, since Binyam Mohamed’s lawyers (at Reprieve, the legal action charity) first released his harrowing account of his torture in Morocco at the hands of the CIA’s proxy torturers, the British resident’s story has, understandably, had few bright episodes. As Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, explained in his book Eight O’Clock Ferry to the Windward Side (known in the UK as Bad Men), during the three days in Guantánamo that Binyam related the story of his horrendous ordeal — for 18 months in Morocco, and then for another five months at the CIA’s own “Dark Prison” near Kabul, until he finally made false confessions that he was involved with al-Qaeda and had planned to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in New York — he explained, “I’m sorry I have no emotion when talking about the past, ’cause I have closed. You have to figure out the emotion part — I’m kind of dead in the head.”
And yet, as Binyam embarks on his long “road to recovery” — attended by his lawyers, and, mercifully, by his sister Zuhra, who flew from her home in the United States to meet him, and to fill what would otherwise have been an aching void, as Binyam has no family in the UK — it is unlikely that the media will, in general, manage to report much of the man behind the myth that has grown up around him.
To that end, I thought it appropriate to relate a few anecdotes that bring Binyam the human being, rather than Binyam the prisoner, to life. The first comes from Stafford Smith’s book, where he describes his first meeting with Binyam as follows:
Binyam was twenty-seven. He was tall and gangling, dark-skinned, originally from Ethiopia. He smiled and immediately told me how glad he was to see me. He spoke quietly, with a particular dignity. Some prisoners would take many hours of convincing that I was not from the CIA, but Binyam immediately opened up.
Of particular interest is an extraordinary chapter, “Con-mission,” which relates the farcical story of Binyam’s first hearing for his proposed trial by Military Commission at Guantánamo, in 2006, just before the Commissions were declared illegal by the US Supreme Court. It’s worth buying the book for this chapter alone, as it explains in extraordinary detail quite how farcical Guantánamo’s rigged trial system was, and how it was exploited mercilessly by Binyam, who arranged for Stafford Smith to get him “a proper type of Islamic dress,” dyed orange (he wanted a Dutch football shirt, but Reprieve couldn’t find one), to make a clear visual statement in court that he was no ordinary defendant and this was no ordinary trial. He also asked for a marker pen and a piece of card, and, during the hearing, after he had thrown the judge, Marine Col. Ralph Kolhmann, off his stride by launching into a rambling monologue about justice that Kohlmann found himself unable to interrupt, he took the marker pen, scrawled “CON-MISSION” on it, showed it to the gathered journalists, and declared, “this is not a commission, this is a con-mission, is a mission to con the world, and that’s what it is, you understand.”
Warming to his theme, as Col. Kohlmann “was staring into the headlights of Binyam’s speech and could see no way to cut him off,” he continued:
When are you going to stop this? This is not the way to deal with this issue. That is why I don’t want to call this place a courtroom, because I don’t think it is a courtroom.
I am sure you wouldn’t agree with it, because if you was arrested somewhere in Arabia and Bin Laden says, “You know what, you are my enemy but I am going to force you to have a lawyer and I give you some bearded turban person,” I don’t think you will agree with that. Forget the rules, regulations and crap … you wouldn’t deal with that. That is where we are. This is a bad place. You are in charge of it.
Stafford Smith then proceeded to explain:
It was an extraordinary lecture. Binyam finally came to a firm conclusion. “I am done. You can stop looking at the watch,” he said. He then turned away from Kohlmann, as if to ignore any response. He was holding up his sign, “CON-MISSION,” and waving it to the journalists behind him, just in case they had missed it the first time.
The other story was related by another British resident held at Guantánamo, Bisher al-Rawi, who was released in March 2007, and his words capture how Binyam’s concern for justice permeated his entire approach to his imprisonment, and, in Bisher’s opinion, also reflected a very British approach that he had learned during the seven years he had lived in the UK before his capture:
He is so British — I mean so British! The way he stands, the way he talks, his painstaking use of logic. He’s such a gentleman. And he is knowledgeable and he stands up for his rights in a really British way. Like with S.O.P. This is something the guards have. It is called Standard Operating Procedure — S.O.P. And the funny thing about this Standard Operating Procedure is that it changes every day. Every day you have new Standard Operating Procedure. And Binyam, he draws attention to this and insists on his entitlement to be treated the same way as the Standard Operating Procedure dictated the day before. And they hate him for this. But he’s just being British.
Perhaps the media snipers who are asking why Binyam should be allowed back into the UK would like to dwell on this as they ignore both the seven years that he lived in Britain, when, as MI5 confirmed, he was “a nobody,” and was not wanted in connection with any crime, and the seven years that he spent in the custody of the United States — or its proxy torturers — when, as David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has conceded, he had “established an arguable case” that “he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States,” and was also “subject to torture during such detention by or on behalf of the United States.”
In addition, as the British government struggles with claims that it has regularly fed intelligence information about British “terror suspects” seized in Pakistan to Pakistani agents, knowing full well that the Pakistanis regularly use torture, those same critics might want to recall the words of the judges who reviewed Binyam’s case in the High Court last summer. The judges explained that the British government’s involvement in Binyam’s case, and its relationship to the US — which involved sending agents to interview him in Pakistan, even though he was being held illegally, and providing and receiving intelligence about him while he was being tortured in Morocco — “went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.”
There are more revelations to come about torture policies that involve — or involved — the US, the UK, Morocco, Pakistan and a host of other countries, but for now I’m content to let one of its victims try to rebuild his life in peace. As Binyam also explained in his statement after his release,
I have been through an experience that I never thought to encounter in my darkest nightmares. Before this ordeal, “torture” was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim. It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways — all orchestrated by the United States government.
(The Daily Nation) – The International Criminal Court in The Hague will announce on March 4 whether it will issue an arrest warrant for Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur.
President Bashir, the most senior figure pursued by the court since it was set up in 2002, dismisses the allegations and refuses to deal with the ICC, calling it part of a Western conspiracy.
The court’s chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo requested the warrant for Bashir last July, making him the first sitting head of state to be charged by an international court since Liberia’s Charles Taylor and Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic.
The court will announce its decision “concerning the prosecution application of 14 July 2008 for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan”, the ICC said in a statement.
LONDON (AP) — A former British resident who claims he was brutally tortured at a covert CIA site in Morocco has been freed from Guantanamo after nearly seven years in U.S. captivity — an ordeal that could come back to haunt the U.S. and British governments.
Binyam Mohamed was en route to Britain on Monday.
“I am so glad and so happy, more than words can express,” said Mohamed’s sister, Zuhra Mohamed.
The 30-year-old Ethiopian refugee has few remaining links to Britain. His brother and sister live in the United States. His parents are said to be back in Ethiopia. And his British residency that he obtained when he was teenager has since expired.
“I hope you will understand that after everything I’ve been through, I am neither physically nor mentally capable of facing the media on the moment on my arrival back to Britain,” Mohamed said in a statement released through his attorneys. “I hope to be able to do better in days to come when I’m on the road to recovery.”
Upon his arrival, Mohamed will have to submit to a police interview and apply for temporary right to remain in Britain. A Home Office spokesman, who spoke on customary condition of anonymity, said he expected Mohamed’s interview process would be brief.
“His biggest challenge will be to get someplace quiet before he makes any decisions about anything,” said his defense lawyer, US Air Force Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley.
Mohamed’s case is raising uncomfortable questions for President Barack Obama — who has promised a new era of government accountability — and for Britain, America’s closest partner during its war on terror.
Lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic are suing for secret documents they say prove the United States sent Mohamed to Morocco where he was tortured and prove that Britain knew of the mistreatment — a violation under the 1994 U.N. Convention Against Torture.
Britain’s Attorney General has opened an investigation into whether there was criminal wrongdoing on the part of Britain or a British security agent from MI5 who interrogated Mohamed in Pakistan, where he was arrested in 2002.
Two senior British judges, meanwhile, have reopened a case into whether 42 secret U.S. intelligence documents shared with Britain should be made public. The judges say they ruled to keep documents — which detail Mohamed’s treatment — secret last month because of a British claim it could hamper US intelligence sharing.
Several other lawsuits are underway in the United States against a Boeing subsidiary that allegedly supplied planes for rendition flights to Morocco and for the disclosure of Bush-era legal memos on renditions and interrogation tactics.
Any revelations from the lawsuits could be particularly damaging for the British government, which unlike the Obama administration, doesn’t have its predecessors to blame. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labour Party has been in power for more than a decade.
“I assure you that we have done everything by the law,” Brown told reporters last week when faced with questions over Mohamed’s case.
Mohamed’s family came to London from Ethiopia in 1994. They applied for asylum following the ouster of Marxist dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam’s ouster but they were only given temporary residency. Mohamed’s residency was to be renewed in 2004, the year he arrived in Guantanamo.
Schooled in West London, Mohamed worked as a janitor and later became a student of electrical engineering before converting to Islam in 2001.
Shortly afterward, he said he went to Pakistan and Afghanistan to escape a bad circle of London friends and experience an Islamic society. But he was detained in the Pakistani port city of Karachi in 2002 for using a false passport to return to Britain.
For three months, he says he was tortured by Pakistani agents, who hung him for a week by a leather strap around his wrists. He says at least one MI5 officer questioned him there.
He claims he was handed over to US authorities in July 2002, and then sent to Morocco where he was tortured for 18 months. According to his account, one of his foreign interrogators slashed his penis with a scalpel.
Many of the estimated 750 detainees who have passed through Guantanamo prison camp since it opened in January 2002 have reported mental and physical abuse, but few have detailed such sustained physical and mental abuse at an alleged CIA covert site.
Mohamed claims he eventually confessed to an array of charges to stop his abuse — a confession that laid the groundwork for his transfer to another CIA site in Afghanistan, where he said he was starved and beaten before being sent to Guantanamo in 2004.
The United States refuses to account for Mohamed’s whereabouts for 18 months but has previously denied sending terror suspects to countries with track records of torture. British authorities, such as former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, have said they depended on those US assurances.
Mohamed will be met by a doctor and his lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith and Gareth Pierce.
“He is a victim who has suffered more than any human being should ever suffer,” Stafford-Smith said.
In May of 2008, Mohamed was charged with conspiring with al-Qaida members to murder and commit terrorism. He was also accused in a “dirty bomb” plot to fill U.S. apartments with natural gas and blow them up.
But then in October all charges were dropped — only months after his lawyers filed a lawsuit in Britain for the disclosure of the 42 secret documents.
Two other former British residents remain in Guantanamo.
Saudi-born Shaker Aamer, 37, came to Britain in 1996. Married to a British woman, he was captured in 2001 after he went to Afghanistan.
Algerian Ahmed Belbacha, 39, was a professional soccer player who came to Britain in 1999. A laundry worker and waiter, he was denied asylum was given residency but it expired after he was captured in Pakistan.
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – Ethiopian Airlines said on Monday it was cutting flights to the United States and China as the global financial crisis hit passenger numbers.
Girma Wake, chief executive officer of the airline — one of Africa’s leading carriers — said they had seen a fall in the number of incoming passengers coming from the two countries.
“Ethiopian Airlines began to feel passenger and cargo contraction in November 2008, but December 2008 was when the changes became noticeable,” he said in a statement.
Girma said the six weekly flights to the United States would be cut to four, while the number of weekly flights to China had been cut to 12 from 14. The airline hopes to boost operating revenue by more than 6 percent to $1 billion this year.
Tourism represents just 2.5 percent of Ethiopia’s gross national product. But the government has set an ambitious goal of attracting a million foreign visitors a year by 2010, quadrupling current figures.
Seeking Paths to Ethiopian Diaspora Dialogue and Consultations (wu-yi-yit and me me-ka-ker)
At the beginning of the year, we pledged to help initiate and sustain an Ethiopian Diaspora dialogue and consultation process with the aim of building broad consensus for collective action. We expressed our hope that with the proper groundwork it is possible to clearly identifying a set of issues over which pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians could take a unified position and speak in one thundering voice. We boldly proclaimed the inspirational theme, “Ethiopian united can never be defeated!”
For the past several weeks, we have been hard at work seeking ways of wiring Ethiopian Diaspora worldwide through dialogue and consultations. Our preliminary efforts to this end have involved exploratory dialogues and consultations with numerous progressive and forward thinking Ethiopians who are not only committed to creating a just and humane society in Ethiopia, but are also keenly aware that the most effective method to bring that outcome is to broadly engage in dialogue and consultations groups and individuals from diverse backgrounds who are equally committed to the survival and progress of the Ethiopian nation and people.
What We Mean by Civic Dialogue and Consultation (wu-yi-yit and me me-ka-ker)
We define Diaspora civic dialogue and consultation as a creative process of communication and exchange of ideas for the purpose of enhanced understanding of issues of common with the view to taking coordinated collective action. We regard dialogue and consultations as the methodology of the oppressed who seek to develop a common language of struggle for their ultimate liberation. In dialogue and consultations, we aim to learn to reason and think together and harness our collective intelligence for the good of the motherland.
Our conception of civic dialogue and consultation (wu-yi-yit and me me-ka-ker) among pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians is based on four simple ideas: 1) Ordinary Diaspora Ethiopians can be effective agents of change in their motherland if they share a common understanding of the problems and challenges, and collaboratively and decisively act to address them. 2) To be effective agents of social change, Diaspora Ethiopians need to unlearn ingrained habits of debate and argumentation and re-learn skills of civic dialogue and consultation. 3) The dialogic and consultative processes require openness to perspectives and views that are very different from our own; and stakeholders must make a commitment to respectfully and genuinely engage others with different ideas, backgrounds and communication styles. 4) The outcome of Ethiopian Diaspora dialogue and consultations depends on building trust, dispelling stereotypes, and the creation of an environment of teamwork and partnership founded on fairness, candor and honesty.
The Year of Dialogue, Consultations and Action
We believe most ordinary pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians have come to realize that they can play a direct role in helping to bring about major changes in Ethiopia. Many Diaspora Ethiopians seem to agree with the inspirational words of Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children’s Defense Fund: “You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.” We believe that in 2009 there are enough committed ordinary Diaspora Ethiopians who are willing to “bite” strategically to bring about substantial improvements in Ethiopia by working to prevent human rights violations and bringing to justice those responsible for past violations; by mobilizing resources to secure the release of hundreds of thousands of political prisoners currently held throughout the country; by working together with pro-democracy elements in Ethiopia to re-establish democratic rights and facilitate the free operation of the independent media and civic society institutions; by promoting free political competition and helping to ensure free and fair elections are held; and by exposing corruption and exploring legal mechanisms to bring to justice those who have violated international law. In the past, we believe, Diaspora Ethiopians have lacked the dialogic and consultative mechanisms to achieve these values through collective action.
Today, many in the pro-democracy sectors of the Ethiopian Diaspora have come to appreciate the futility of rancorous debate with each other, and have chosen the path of dialogue and consultation. They are willing to transcend the “culture of argumentation” of the past in which we have engaged in political and social discourse principally to prove the legitimacy or correctness of one viewpoint over others, or to use strategic verbal encounters to outwit and belittle our “opponents”. Polarized debates and personal attacks have rendered pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians weak, divided and ineffective; and we must grudgingly admit that we have made ourselves the laughing stock of dictators. In our dialogue and consultations, we aim to change the terms of Diaspora engagement from debate to dialogue, from competition to cooperation, from criticism to appreciation, from secrecy to openness and from distrust to collaboration. We have chosen the path of dialogue and consultations because the motherland is crying for her children to work together to deliver her from evil.
Our Fierce Urgency of Now: Preliminary Step 1 – Dialogue and Consultation to Consensus Building
We regard ourselves as one of many facilitators in the ongoing Diaspora consensus-building process. “We” are the face of Diaspora Ethiopians from all backgrounds: academics, professionals in a variety of fields, business entrepreneurs, members of political parties, community and civic society leaders, political and social activists, journalists, students, women’s group members, service workers, retired public servants, senior citizens and ordinary concerned Ethiopians who wish only the best for their country and people. For the past several weeks, we have actively engaged a broad cross-section of the Ethiopian Diaspora activist community and others to identify potential stakeholders to engage in dialogue and consultations for the purpose of consensus-building and collective action. We have had numerous brainstorming sessions. We have held small group discussions using available internet technology, and we have done myriad one-on-one interactions.
From our preliminary efforts to date, we have ascertained two basic facts which we would like to share with all Ethiopian pro-democracy elements. First, we have detected an overwhelming sense of “fierce urgency” to undertake broad dialogue and consultations now, and devise and implement a step-wise plan of Diaspora action to produce positive change in Ethiopia. This sense of urgency, we believe, is supported by substantial anecdotal evidence:
1. There is widely shared belief that divergent elements in the Ethiopian Diaspora can begin to work together immediately on a common purpose despite their differences. For instance, improving human rights in Ethiopia is one of several issues for which there is broad Diaspora consensus as an action item.
2. There is evidence which suggests that Diaspora Ethiopians are thinking less in terms of narrow constituencies or group interests, and are embracing the totality of Ethiopians society as their constituency. For instance, there is a clear tendency among members of diverse groups to look beyond special group grievances and injustices to strong support of human rights protections for all and opposition against government wrongs towards any.
3. There is broad agreement that it is not necessary to wait for the development of a perfect Diaspora political program before taking action. There is a sense of urgency to put values into action (praxis), and a belief that both dialogue and action can be works in progress. For instance, many believe global advocacy efforts can be undertaken in host countries in the short-term while cooperation and collaboration on other issues can be built over time.
4. There are few issues of importance to the Diaspora that need “redefinition or reframing”, paving the way for broad-based collaboration and development of a tentative action plan. There is manifest complementarity of interests, positions, values on the important issues of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
5. There is substantial evidence of a general Diaspora readiness to work together on a common purpose and in the process build trust across political, ideological and ethnic lines. We believe pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians want “win-win” solutions not for themselves or their special groups or parties, but for the glory of Ethiopia and progress of all Ethiopians. For instance, we are inspired to hear representatives of groups who have long perceived themselves as competitors and rivals resonating agreement on core issues that are vital to the motherland.
Second, we have also come to appreciate in our preliminary efforts that there may be many challenges to overcome: Could we build the necessary collaborative trust, understanding and momentum to begin acting on core issues of common concern in the short-term? Is a centralized coordinating body for Diaspora efforts the most efficient and effective method to proceed? How can we best engage the “silently concerned” Diaspora Ethiopians in the dialogic and consultative process? How do we accommodate stakeholders that are not ready to participate in the dialogic and consultative process? How can we maximize engagement of the of the Ethiopian Diaspora community given traditional barriers of ethnicity, religion, gender, age, class, education, language and other factors? How can we neutralize and marginalize those elements who will spare no efforts to drive multiple wedges among pro-democracy Diaspora elements and work furiously to ensure our dialogue and consultations process will fail? We are confident all of these issues will be adequately addressed in the give-and-take process of dialogue and consultations.
Lessons in Dialogue and Consultations
In the past few weeks, we have learned first hand important lessons in dialogue and consultations. Though none of us are professionals in the field of dialogue facilitation, we have experience in a wide range of professional and human relations areas. Most importantly, we value the life experiences of our many colleagues who have suffered grievously under the current brutal dictatorship. We have learned that dialogue and consultations are two faces of the same coin. Dialogue is a process of understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue becomes silky smooth when we listen to each other respectfully and offer our views with sincerity and civility. We have developed sensitivity to each other’s feelings, hopes, and dreams and have become less judgmental and argumentative and more willing to walk in the shoes of those who may not agree with us. We have come to learn that we have a lot in common, and few differences of great magnitude. We have become more open-minded, and willingly acknowledge that we could be wrong about our long held beliefs. We have also learned about the gravitational power of truth to keep us all grounded in common sense and reality.
Reaching the “Tipping Point” for a Sea-Change
Doing little things over time can make a big difference. Our preliminary survey of the Diaspora activist community suggests that a “tipping point” (or critical mass) has now been reached to bring about a sea-change (massive transformation) in the way Diaspora Ethiopians can work together for the good of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people. There is a pervasive can-do spirit that is palpable; and there is self-confidence that nothing is beyond our means if we tenaciously pursue our common goals with a clear mind and a clean heart. We have much to be optimistic about the motherland in 2009 and beyond; but nothing will come easy on our long walk to freedom. We should be inspired by President John Kennedy who said, “We will go to the moon. We will go to the moon and do other things, NOT because they are easy but because they are HARD.” And so we will dialogue and consult with each other without end to help our motherland not because it is easy but because it is very, very hard. But none of us should doubt that we are assured of victory in the end if each one of us becomes “a flea against injustice.” And if enough of us “fleas” bite strategically, we have the awesome power to make the meanest, nastiest and most vicious junkyard dog uncomfortable, and transform the Ethiopian nation. Wu-yi-yit and Me me-ka-ker Yasteseryal!
________________
The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (IAAF) – African 10,000m bronze medallist Wude Ayalew’s shock {www:defeat} of cross country specialists Gelete Burka and Meselech Melkamu in the senior women’s 8km was the highlight of the 26th Jan Meda International Cross Country — Ethiopia’s trials for the World Cross Country Championships — held at the Jan Meda race course in Addis Ababa this morning.
Gebregziabher Gebremariam produced a trademark sprint {www:finish} to take {www:victory} in the men’s 12km race. Ayele Abshiro and Sule Utura were comfortable winners of the men’s and women’s junior races respectively.
Ayalew stuns Melkamu for 8km victory
After a series of domestic cross country races throughout Ethiopia, the {www:meeting} at the Jan Meda brought together the finest Ethiopian hopes in this cross country season. With Ethiopia’s golden trio Kenenisa Bekele, Tirunesh Dibaba, and Sileshi Sihine all missing the race due to injury, it gave the chance to the country’s upcoming and established runners to push for places in Ethiopia’s World Cross Country Championships squad.
Perhaps the biggest winner of the day was the 20-year old Ayalew who has looked impressive on the road in the 2008/09 season with victories in the Great Ethiopian Run (10km) and Sao Silvestre 15km road race in Brazil.
In her debut cross country race in 2009, Ayalew proved that she can not only compete against the so-called cross country specialists, but also beat them.
After a frenetic start to the race, a group of ten runners initially led by Burka started to push on the pace after the first lap (2km). But with the warm and windy conditions affecting the field, the runners were forced to slow down to a virtually walking pace that allowed lagging runners to catch up on the field.
Melkamu, Burka, Ayalew, and Koreni Jelila all exchanged leads at the head of the pack before Burka at the start of the final lap and looked {www:comfortable} for her second ever 8km victory at the Jan Meda race course.
With 200m of the race left, Melkamu was the first run to inject a serious pace at the head of the pack. But Ayalew covered that superbly and launched her own kick to take victory in front of an appreciative crowd.
Melkamu beat Burka for second place with Jelila, Sentayehu Ejigu (winner of the Boston indoor 5000m two weeks ago), and Mamitu Deska occupying the top six places.
The biggest disappointment of the race was defending world cross country silver medallist Mestawet Tufa, who aggravated a leg injury and dropped out of the content with laps of the race left.
“It was a very tough race and I am happy with the victory,” says Ayalew. “I am hoping for a medal in Amman. Although I have not run much recently, cross country is quite important for me. I want to win something this year and hopefully make the Ethiopian 10,000m team for the world championships in Berlin.”
Gebremariam outsprints young field in men’s 12km
In contrast, the men’s 12km had a great element of predictability with African 10,000m champion Gebregziabher Gebremariam taking a sprint victory over upcoming runner Feyissa Lelisa.
A thoroughbred of the course since he made his debut running for his Tigray regional team in 2001, Gebremariam has now won the senior men’s 12km race a whooping three times.
Gebremariam’s Yuriy Borzakovsky-esque-come-from-the-back is often a risk he happily takes. And in a course like Jan Meda where heavy winds prevent any emotional front running, such tactics do not have such pronounced effects always giving him the edge.
The only runner who tried to apply pressure to the field at various intervals was All-African Games 10,000m silver medallist Tadesse Tola, but with the likes of World indoor 3000m champion Tariku Bekele and Abebe Dinkessa following suit, his moves were always covered.
At the bell, Tola led the quartet in a scramble for positions at the head of the pack. Young runners Hunegnaw Mesfin and Habtamu Fekadu also tried their hand at the lead, but Gebremariam, who at this point was the back of the pack, made his move with 150m left. At the end, his burst of acceleration had taken a full 20m ahead of the chasing pack before he started celebrations way ahead of the finishing tape.
Lelisa, who has been the top domestic performer in the Ethiopian cross country circuit this season, beat Tola for second place, while Tariku Bekele, Mesfin, and Fekadu made up the other qualifying positions for Amman.
Utura beats Genzebe Dibaba in the battle of the future
Much like their older compatriots Tirunesh Dibaba and Meseret Defar, youngsters Sule Utura and Genzebe Dibaba who are widely hailed as the future of Ethiopia’s women distance running are developing into fierce rivals each time they come up against each other.
After Genzebe, youngster sister to Tirunesh Dibaba, defeated Utura in last year’s race, Utura gained revenge at the World junior championships last year when taking the 5000m title.
The outcome of the latest instalment of the Dibaba v Utura went the way of Utura who powered ahead of her archrival with 200m of the race left for victory. It was Utura’s second junior race title in three years, the last race she will compete as a junior before moving up the ranks in 2010.
Unlike Dibaba, Utura has never won a medal at the World cross and victory in Amman looks more likely following her impressive performance here.
In the men’s junior race, world junior cross country silver medallist Ayele Abshiro lived up to his pre-race billing taking a comfortable victory ahead of Yetwale Kinde and Dejen Gebremeskel.
