Meles Zenawi’s Giveaway of Ethiopian Territory to Omar al-Bashir
By Alemayehu G. Mariam
(English Version of an Amharic Speech Given to Gasha Conference on the Ethio-Sudan Border Dispute at the Washington Mariott Hotel, July 3, 2008.)
I want to thank “Gasha for Ethiopia” for inviting me to speak here today in defense of the territorial integrity of the Ethiopian motherland.
Gasha is a non-profit organization established in 2006 with the objectives of advancing democracy, justice and human rights in Ethiopia. Gasha is irrevocably dedicated to the indivisibility of the Ethiopian nation and the Ethiopian people. In our tradition, the defender bearing the Gasha (shield) must also carry a spear; and Gasha carries the spear of unity, truth, tolerance, brotherhood and sisterhood, and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with all Ethiopians to defend the territorial integrity of the Ethiopian nation. Thank you Gasha.
I also want to thank Prof. Abigail Salisbury who is now the Executive Director of Jurist, the renowned website for legal news and information at the Pittsburgh University School of Law. Prof. Salisbury has taken time out of her busy schedule to share with us her experiences teaching law at Mekele University.
I have the greatest admiration for Abigail. Last February, she was exercising her academic freedom at Mekele law school when she ran smack against Zenawi’s Lie Machine. She told the truth as she saw it at Mekele law school. The truth she talked about in her Jurist article writ large is that Zenawi has made a mockery of higher education in Ethiopia, and made its universities diploma mills and convenient excuses for panhandling the international community for development aid. Thank you for being here with us today Abigail.
I would like to thank and salute the Ethio-Sudan Border Affairs Committee for the fantastic job they have done in exposing Zenawi’s lies about the secret land giveaway in Western Ethiopia; and for their tenacity in pursuing this issue by means of public education, awareness and coordination of global action by Ethiopians. I am particularly thankful to the Committee for staying in close touch with the dispossessed Ethiopians of the occupied/annexed territories of Western Ethiopia and helping tell their individual stories. I would like to humbly propose to the Committee to rename itself to “The Ethio-Sudan Land Giveaway Truth Squad”, because without your outstanding efforts, Zenawi would have auctioned off our people and our land to the Sudan in a secret transaction.
Apocalypse Now!
Let me begin by saying that Ethiopia is not only in the Horn of Africa, she is also on the horns of a terrible dilemma. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding her vales and hills. The White Horseman is spreading famine, pestilence and death across the land. Approximately 10 million Ethiopians are facing hunger and starvation as we speak. The Red Horseman has plunged Ethiopia into a civil war in Somalia. Thousands of innocent Somalis have died and millions more have become refugees in Zenawi’s Private War. Thousands of young Ethiopians have also lost their lives in this illegal war. The Pale Horseman has been killing Ethiopians by the sword. The human rights of Ethiopian citizens are trampled and thousands are rotting in jail without due process of law. Democracy in Ethiopia today hangs from the executioner’s scaffold. Now comes the Black Horseman — the Prince of Darkness — whose Satanic mission is to dismantle and dismember Ethiopia piece by piece.
My friends, wake up! It is Apocalypse Now in Ethiopia!
Ethiopia in Zenawi’s Chop Shop
We are here today to help stop Zenawi from completing his evil plans to dismember our motherland. When Zenawi gave away the Port of Assab, we remained silent and paid the price of being landlocked. In 1998, Badme was invaded and 80,000 Ethiopians sacrificed their lives and drove back the enemy. But Zenawi promptly converted Ethiopia’s battlefield victory into total diplomatic defeat by agreeing to deliver Badme to the invaders in arbitration. This marks the first time in modern world history where a nation that successfully repelled an invasion of its territory at great cost of human lives promptly turned around and delivered that same territory to the enemy on a silver platter in binding international arbitration.
We don’t know but we are told that in the past couple of years Zenawi has also delivered to Egypt water rights to the Blue Nile to last a century. We don’t know what else is being hatched in Zenawi’s Chop Shop, but from the predictable pattern of land giveaway, we expect the Ogaden region will soon be put on the auction block. But now we do know and we told by people who live in Western Ethiopia that Zenawi has delivered their ancestral lands and homes to Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir in a secret agreement.
Oh! What a Tangled Web We Weave When We First Practice to Deceive
What really happened in Western Ethiopia in May, 2008? We do not really know because Zenawi ain’t talking, at least he ain’t talking straight. He has been talking with forked tongue. On May 11, Zenawi’s so-called foreign ministry put out a statement which categorically denied the transfer of any Ethiopian land to the Sudan. That statement accused the “media” and “irresponsible” elements outside the country for creating fear and alarm over something that did not happen.
When Sudanese officials publicly announced acquisition of territory from Ethiopia, Zenawi could no longer keep a lid on his secret deal; and his henchmen began to backtrack on their initial story by mid-May. They said only preliminary work on border demarcation had been done, but nothing had been finalized. Within days, a new lie was invented. They nonchalantly admitted “implementing prior agreements” concluded by the imperial/Derg regimes with the Sudan.
All hell broke loose when the Ethio-Sudan Border Affairs Committee began to aggressively probe the issue and investigate what was really happening on the ground in the border areas. Soon Ethiopians victimized by Zenawi’s land giveaway began giving interviews to the VOA and other international media outlets. They complained bitterly that they had been driven out of their ancestral lands by occupying Sudanese forces. Their farm machinery and tools had been confiscated by the Sudanese and scores of Ethiopians had been arrested and detained in Sudanese jails. They also reported that they were attacked by woyane helicopter gunships for defending their homes, farms and towns. At that point, Zenawi had no choice but to “fess” up and admit that he had indeed signed an agreement with Sudan.
Zenawi’s “Agreement” With al-Bashir
On May 21, Zenawi publicly described his agreement with al-Bashir:
“We, Ethiopia and Sudan, have signed an agreement not to displace any single individual from both sides to whom the demarcation benefits…We have given back this land, which was occupied in 1996. This land before 1996 belonged to Sudanese farmers. There is no single individual displaced at the border as it is being reported by some media.”
Zenawi insists on keeping the actual agreement secret. But his public statement is a treasure trove of information on the basic terms and nature of the secret agreement. From Zenawi’s statement, we now know for certain that there is an actual “Agreement” which is “signed”. Obviously, this means that there is in existence a formal document (instrument) which memorializes the detailed terms and conditions of “The Agreement”. We also know that the agreement is “signed” either by Zenawi himself or a minister he has authorized to sign on his behalf.
As to the subject matter of the “The Agreement”, Zenawi has put on the record that it deals with several issues: 1) the question of non-displacement of persons in the giveaway territories, 2) preservation of benefits of all persons affected by border demarcation, 3) restoration of land rights to Sudanese farmers on land supposedly occupied illegally by Ethiopian farmers, and 5) cession of lands (“give back of land”) “occupied” by Ethiopia “in 1996” back to the Sudan.
Note Well: It is important to understand that “The Agreement” Zenawi “signed” with al-Bashir, by his own description, has nothing to do with the so-called Gwen line of 1902. It also has nothing to do with any other agreements drafted or concluded by the imperial government prior to 1974, or the Derg between 1975 and 1991 for border demarcation or settlement. Zenawi’s agreement deals exclusively with border matters and related issues beginning in 1996, when presumably the occupation of Sudanese land took place under the Zenawi regime.
A clear understanding and characterization of Zenawi’s “Agreement” with al-Bashir is critical to our understanding of the constitutional and international legal issues associated with it. We must understand that Zenawi’s Agreement is no ordinary agreement that deals with mundane matters of foreign policy with the Sudan. It is also not a symbolic gesture to reaffirm some pre-existing formal agreement between Ethiopia and the Sudan. Though Zenawi calls it an “agreement” to hoodwink the public and minimize critical scrutiny of his handiwork, the fact remains that Zenawi has actually “signed” a major “Treaty of Cession to Relinquish Parts of Western Ethiopia to the Sudan”.
Zenawi’s Constitutional Duty of Accountability and Transparency: Why is Zenawi Hiding the Ball From the Public and His Parliament?
Before we get into a discussion of the central constitutional issues, we must ask whether Zenawi has proper constitutional authority to keep the actual text of “The Agreement” (Treaty) secret from the public and the “Council of Representatives”. The answer unequivocally is he does not. In fact, Zenawi as a “public official” has an affirmative constitutional duty to perform his duty in an open and transparent manner. This duty is unambiguously mandated under Article 12 of the “constitution” (“Functions and Accountability of Government”), which provides, “The activities of government shall be undertaken in a manner which is open and transparent to the public… Any public official or elected representative shall be made accountable for breach of his official duties.”
Article 12 applies to ALL “activities of government” and to ALL government officials. It makes no exceptions for secret deals by “prime ministers”. Transparency and openness in government is an important constitutional duty of ALL public officials, not just some ordinary duty to be performed in the course of one’s official activities. The breach of this duty carries with it serious consequences of legal accountability. Manifestly, Zenawi’s defiant refusal to be transparent and open in making public an “Agreement” (treaty) that gives away a large chunk of Ethiopian territory to another country is a monumental breach of constitutional duty for which he should be held accountable.
But why is Zenawi really keeping “The Agreement” (treaty) secret? Many have been perplexed by Zenawi’s refusal to present “The Agreement” to the parliament for ratification. They argue that the rubberstamp parliament would reflexively and unquestioningly ratify it if ordered to do so. We are equally perplexed, but we have some hypotheses about the reasons for keeping the agreement secret. First, we are convinced that “The Agreement” is not what Zenawi has portrayed it to be. Zenawi public statements about “The Agreement” are all lies, nothing but lies. He is lying through his teeth. If his public statements on “The Agreement” truly reflect the words in “The Agreement”, then no harm could possibly come from making the actual written agreement public; and the written “Agreement” itself would verify (be the best evidence) his public statements.
Second, we suspect that Zenawi did not anticipate the land giveaway would spark such interest and intense opposition. After all, no one challenged him when he delivered the Port of Assab and Badme on a silver platter to the enemy. Zenawi thought he could do whatever he wanted with Ethiopian territory, and no one would raise a word of objection. Third, it is possible that Zenawi is afraid that even a slavish parliament dominated by the so-called EPDRF has enough nationalist sentiments among its members to oppose an arbitrary slicing of Ethiopian territory for delivery to another country. We suspect many in the “Council of Representatives” will object, and object very strenuously to any arbitrary land giveaway to the Sudan. That could lead to a wider debate over Zenawi’s dismantlement of the Ethiopian nation, and so on. Zenawi will not take a chance. He has learned from the 2005 elections and his war of aggression in Somalia. Every time he underestimates his opposition, he gets trounced.
Zenawi’s “Treaty of Cession to Relinquish Parts of Western Ethiopian Territory to the Sudan”
Let us recapitulate Zenawi’s description of “The Agreement” with al-Bashir:
We, Ethiopia and Sudan, have signed an agreement not to displace any single individual from both sides to whom the demarcation benefits…We have given back this land, which was occupied in 1996. This land before 1996 belonged to Sudanese farmers. There is no single individual displaced at the border as it is being reported by some media.
The are three central legal questions that arise from the signing of this “Agreement”: 1) Whether Zenawi has constitutional authority to sign a legally binding “Agreement” (Treaty) for the transfer of “occupied” lands to the Sudan, 2) Whether “The Agreement” (Treaty) itself has any legal significance under the Ethiopian “constitution” and law, and 3) Whether “The Agreement (Treaty) is biding upon successive Ethiopian governments under international law. To answer these questions, we must examine the relevant sections of the “constitution” dealing with foreign policy and international agreements.
Article 51, section (4) specifies that one of the “powers and duties of the Federal government”, is to “determine foreign policy and implement the same. [It also] enters into and ratifies international agreements.” The general foreign relations powers of the federal government are divided between executive management of the foreign policy field, and ratification of “international agreements” by the parliament. Article 55, section 12, specifically reserves as one of the exclusive “powers and duties of the Council of Peoples’ Representatives”, the power to “ratify international agreements signed by the executive branch.”
Article 86 describes the “principles of foreign relations” the federal government (the prime minister and the Council of Peoples’ Representatives) must follow in conducting Ethiopia’s relations with other countries and international entities. Sections 2 and 3 provide that the federal government must follow a foreign policy “based on equality and mutual benefit; ensuring that international agreements entered into, protect the interests of Ethiopia” and requires “respect [for] international laws and agreements that respect Ethiopian sovereignty and are not contrary to the interests of its peoples.”
Article 9 (“Supremacy of the Constitution”) provides that the “Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws, customary practices, and decisions made by state organs or public officials inconsistent therewith, shall be null and void… All citizens, state organs, political organizations, other associations and their officials, have the duty to comply with this Constitution and abide by it… Assuming power in any manner other than as provided by this Constitution is prohibited.”
Zenawi is in Flagrant Violation of His Own Constitution
A simple constitutional analysis of “The Agreement” shows that Zenawi has the constitutional power to negotiate agreements within the sphere of “federal” power with other governments. He could also sign international agreements with other governments. He has the power to negotiate a treaty of cession, but his constitutional powers give him no more authority than the power to negotiate, draft and sign international agreements. Any agreements he signs are not worth the paper they are written on unless the Council of Representatives ratifies it as required under Article 55 (12).
Zenawi has not only failed to present “The Agreement” to the “Council” for ratification, he has also denied it the simple courtesy of reviewing the written agreement and ask questions. Zenawi gave the “Council” a cursory and dismissive lecture about what was in “The Agreement” and told them to go home and not think about it.
By keeping the signed “Agreement” secret and defiantly refusing to disclose its terms to the public and the “Council of Representatives”, Zenawi has trashed Article 12 (duty of transparency and accountability for all public officials), Article 55 (gross interference in the ratification powers of the “Council”) and Article 86 (international agreements must respect Ethiopian sovereignty and not be contrary to the interests of the Ethiopian people) of the “constitution”.
Zenawi’s “Agreement” is Null and Void and Not Binding on Ethiopia
Article 9 of the “constitution” plainly states that “all laws, decisions made by state organs or public officials inconsistent with the constitution shall be null and void.” “The Agreement” signed between Zenawi and al-Bashir is null and void because 1) it is not ratified by the “Council of Representatives”, 2) it is done in secret in violation of the “sunshine” requirements (transparency and openness) of Article 12, and is unquestionably and demonstrably against the fundamental interests of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people (Article 86). Article 9, section 4 of the “constitution” provides, “International agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the law of the land.” Zenawi’s “Agreement” with al-Bashir is not “ratified by Ethiopia” and is not “an integral part of the law of the land.” In fact, it is “null and void”. (Art. 9 (1)). We conclude, therefore, that no future Ethiopian government is bound by “The Agreement”, and has the right to demand removal of Sudanese occupation forces from Ethiopian territory at an international tribunal.
Is a Null and Void Agreement Under Ethiopian Law Enforceable Under International Law?
Zenawi’s “Agreement” with al-Bashir presents the central question: Whether an agreement determined to be null and void under the fundamental laws of Ethiopia is binding on any successive Ethiopian governments under international law. International law gives great weight to the effectuation of treaty obligations between states. But it also recognizes specific legal grounds for a state to withdraw its consent and invalidate an agreement if it can prove the existence of specific circumstances at the time of entry into agreement.
The Vienna Convention on Treaty Law governs resolution of treaty disputes. Article 46 (1) (“Invalidity of Treaties”) provides for invalidation of treaties that are concluded in violation of the “internal laws” of a state party:
1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.
There are other sections of the Vienna Convention that may be applicable subject to discovery of facts on “The Agreement”. Article 49, for instance, provides that “if a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Article 50 enables a state to invalidate an agreement if the “treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State.” If coercion has been used either against the state or the representative of the state in procuring the agreement, such coercion is a further basis for invalidation of a treaty.
What is incontrovertible about “The Agreement” is that it is “null and void” under the Ethiopian “constitution” as demonstrated above. The only other question is whether the ratification requirement was “objectively manifest” to the Sudanese when the agreement was signed. There is little doubt that the requirement of legislative ratification in Ethiopia was “objectively evident” to al-Bashir when he signed “The Agreement”. Sudanese negotiators have a duty to inquire into the ratification process of the Ethiopian state; and the Sudan “conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith” would have easily discovered that particular ratification requirement. Any future Ethiopian government would be well within its legal rights to ignore a “null and void” “Agreement” and demand removal of Sudanese occupation forces from Ethiopian territory.
We believe there are many unknown, but suspicious factors in the secret “Agreement”. Is there corruption on the part of Zenawi or his regime within the meaning of the Vienna Convention in the negotiation and signing of the “The Agreement”? It has been suggested in the media that Zenawi has made a deal with the Sudanese over oil exploration in the Gambella region in exchange for the land giveaway. If this allegation is true, it would be necessary to look for evidence of corruption in the oil-for-land giveaway deal. Others have suggested that the land give away was “payment” for years of Sudanese support for Zenawi’s regime, and advanced “payment” for political asylum in the Sudan when Zenawi is forced out of power. Whatever may be the real reasons, all of the secrets about “The Agreement” will be laid bare and the truth revealed to the world when litigation begins to eject the Sudanese occupiers under a new patriotic government.
Other Problems of Occupied/Annexed Western Ethiopian Territories
There are a number of problems that require separate attention from the general legal disputes over the secret “Agreement”. I will only touch upon them briefly here. The testimonial evidence provided by Ethiopians in the occupied territories reveals large-scale violation of human rights and constitutional rights. There is evidence to show that at least 35-50 people have been abducted by Sudanese forces and jailed for allegedly farming on Sudanese territory. There is substantial evidence of beatings and persecution of local residents of the occupied/annexed territories by a joint command of woyane and Sudanese forces for peacefully protesting the land giveaway. Many Ethiopians in the occupied/annexed territories have also sustained significant loss of property, including farm land, harvest, and farm equipment and implements. They have also suffered destruction of their homes and hamlets. Numerous Ethiopians have also been killed by woyane helicopter gunships as they defended themselves against the Sudanese occupiers.
Article 13 of Zenawi’s constitution incorporates by reference international human rights conventions and agreements. Both under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the “constitution”, Ethiopians in the occupied/annexed territories have suffered widespread violations of their human rights. The arbitrary arrests and detentions, extrajudicial killings and massive confiscation of private property by woyane and Sudanese forces and widespread repression in the occupied/annexed territories points to intolerable violations of human rights.
Zenawi has also violated the collective rights of the people of the occupied/annexed territories under Article 39 (right of nations, nationalities and peoples) by imposing upon them an “Agreement” which effectively forces them to separate from the Ethiopian state without their consent. Zenawi has no constitutional power to bargain away the territory and nationality of the occupied/annexed territories, or to unilaterally force upon the “nationalities and peoples” an agreement over which they have not been consulted. Article 2 of the “constitution” provides that “the territory of Ethiopia shall, as determined by international agreements, comprise of the borders of the member states of the Federation.” This constitutional language implicates a direct role for the member states as their internal and external borders are determined and set. It requires a plebiscite (vote of the people) in the occupied/annexed territories before Zenawi’s “Agreement” could be effectuated by any organ of the “federal” government.
Call for the Legal Defense of Occupied Western Ethiopian Territories
I call upon all Ethiopian lawyers, scholars and researchers, and all others who wish to help to join hands in the legal defense of the territorial integrity of the Ethiopian motherland. We need to establish legal defense committees that will undertake the broadest possible factual and legal research to counter Zenawi’s secret Agreement, whatever it is. We must learn from the past. When the Badme matter was submitted to binding international arbitration, we know Ethiopia did not get the best legal defense of its claims. In fact, Zenawi was passing documentary evidence to the opposition that undermined Ethiopia’s position. There were prominent names in international law — scholars and experts — listed on the brief for Ethiopia, but in the final analysis Ethiopia was sold down the proverbial river by Zenawi and his henchmen. That must not be repeated in the occupied/annexed Western territories.
No one can defend Ethiopia better than her own children. I know there are many young Ethiopian lawyers in the Diaspora, particularly in America. I ask them to accept the challenge and defend the integrity of the Ethiopian motherland. The preparatory legal work that needs to be undertaken is enormous, and we are at a disadvantage in gathering relevant evidence. But let me briefly mention some of the important documentary materials we need for a successful legal defense. We need to gather every official document that has ever been prepared on the border issue between any government of Ethiopia and the government of the Sudan. We need to gather all cartographic evidence (maps) for expert review and analysis. We need to research historical and government archives in Ethiopia, the Sudan and the relevant colonial countries, scholarly works and even contemporaneous journalistic accounts of matters related to the Ethio-Sudan border. We need to interview longtime residents of the now occupied/annexed territories and keep a record of their testimony with respect to known border land marks, settlement patterns and other local practices. It is also necessary for us to preserve the testimony of human rights victims in the occupied/annexed territories. These are just a few examples of things we need to do to mount an effective legal defense of the territory of the motherland and our people.
Call for Unity for the Preservation of the Territorial Integrity of the Ethiopian Motherland
I want to thank Gasha for taking a bold and public stand against those who plot to dismember Ethiopia. Members of Gasha have risen above petty ethnic issues and concerns and resolved to work with Ethiopians from all walks of life to protect the territorial integrity of Ethiopia and to defend the human rights of the Ethiopian people. They have decided to cast their fate with the Ethiopian people, and have steadfastly rejected Zenawi’s narrow ethnic chauvinism. They are Ethiopians first before they are members of any ethnic group. That is the stand Gasha has taken. We are Ethiopians first before we are Tigreans. We are Ethiopians first before we are Oromos. We are Ethiopians first before we are Amharas or a member of any other ethnic group. Let me also add that we are Ethiopians first before we are Ethiopian Americans or Ethio-Europeans. That is my humble call for unity among all Ethiopians. Let us unite around the powerful values that bind us — respect for human rights, love of freedom, establishment of democratic institutions, and above all else, the absolute territorial integrity of mother Ethiopia and the indivisibility of the Ethiopian people. If we agree to unite on the basis of these values, what could possibly divide us? I believe no tyrant — no dictator — should be allowed to put asunder what God has put together. One Ethiopia Today. One Ethiopia Tomorrow. One Ethiopia Forever.
(BBC News) — There are fears that the stimulant khat is contributing to mental health problems within the UK’s east African communities. Dil Neiyyar of the BBC’s Asian Network reports.
In a courtyard, two men sitting on a bench are staring intensely at a pond.
The pair appear mesmerised by the gentle and repetitive splash of the water from a small fountain.
This walled oasis in London’s East End is the Tower Hamlets branch of the mental health charity Mind.
In one of its many rooms, Abdi Rahman is playing pool with a friend.
He explains why he thinks the stimulant khat is responsible for the loss of his job and subsequent slide into mental illness.
“While I was working as a postman I got depressed and stressed, so I was admitted to hospital, and at the same time I was using khat as well, so they all added up and eventually I ended up mentally ill.”
Roukiya Omar is one of the workers whose job is to educate the community about the dangers of khat use and encourage people to stop chewing.
She believes the stimulant is moving away from its traditional use as a social pastime because of unemployment and social exclusion. She says it’s a growing problem, particularly with women.
“[They are] resorting to khat to seek any comfort from the real problems they are having,” she says.
“It’s like with any addiction, when people can’t handle life they just go and get a drink or go for drugs, so khat is becoming something like that.”
About 15 minutes’ walk from Mind is a building which was once home to Captain James Cook. Out of its dilapidated basement, Ahmed Abdillah runs a “khat house” where the plant can be bought and consumed.
Today there are three men sitting on the floor.
They all have a tell-tale vacant stare and their clothes have seen better days. One of the men describes how chewing khat can feel.
“It gives a little bit of a high but not as high as a drug or high as alcohol, it just makes you relaxed and comfortable and then you just enjoy yourself.”
Ahmed, the owner of the khat house, has no reservations about selling the substance that he says isn’t harmful if used in moderation.
“When you do it 24 hours, chewing, you become like an alcoholic… I eat four pieces a day, and no problem for me. When I eat, wake up in the morning, go to work – no problem.”
Twice a week, Ahmed drives to Heathrow to pick up a fresh delivery.
Social lives
Around seven tonnes of khat is flown into Britain every week from Ethiopia, Kenya and Yemen and then sold in cities with large east African communities like London and Birmingham for about £4 a bunch.
The khat plant, Catha edulis , has been chewed by east Africans for hundreds of years and plays a large part in the social lives of both men and women.
A typical session might consist of consuming several bundles.
Cathinone and cathine are the main ingredients of the plant. Both are class C drugs in the UK, but the plant khat itself is not classified and can be bought openly in shops.
Cathinone is almost identical to amphetamines and it is this that creates a high. It’s known to cause mental health problems like psychosis and depression.
At the Mile End Hospital in Tower Hamlets, consultant psychiatrist Dr Eleni Palazidou treats many people from the Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities, and claims khat is a serious factor in many of these cases.
She says it exacerbates existing mental health problems but believes it can also directly trigger psychosis if used in excess. One of the main problems facing treatment of these effects is habitual usage.
“They may have a new episode triggered off by the use of khat or they may get better from an episode of illness and they chew khat and go back to square one,” she says.
“It’s difficult to effectively control their illness, because it stimulates those particular chemical systems in the brain that we are trying to control with the medication.”
The Home Office says it is aware of the concerns surrounding the side-effects of khat but that it stands by the decision in 2005 not to classify it after it took advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
It reported that “the extent of khat use in the UK is relatively low” and that the evidence of harm resulting from khat use is “insufficient, relative to those drugs that are under control”.
However, it continues to keep an eye on the matter, with plans to improve understanding of khat misuse and the impact on communities.
But that doesn’t go far enough for the Conservative Party, which plans to ban the plant if it gets into power.
Tory spokesman for social cohesion, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, believes that advice and education about khat is simply not enough to tackle the problem.
“When there are barriers to the equality of opportunity and when there are barriers to integration – like a drug which is disproportionately affecting a certain community – then it is the responsibility of government to deal with that.
“This government’s not dealing with it and that’s why we’re setting a very clear direction as to what we in government will do.”
The “Unity for Democracy & Justice Party (UDJ)” held a historic meeting on July 6, 2008, at the Marriott Hotel in Washington DC. The meeting, organized by Kinijit North America Association of Support Organizations (KNAASO), in collaboration with Kinijit DC Metro Support Chapter was attended to full capacity.
When a name like Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, an internationally renowned Human Rights leader, democracy activist, author and arguably the most celebrated Ethiopian academic, appears on the roaster of panelists, it is bound to generate enormous interest. The second panelist, Ato Asrat Tasse, is Secretary General of UDJ and a respected academician in his own right. Their visit to the US and particularly to the DC-Metro area, which houses the largest Ethiopian community outside of Ethiopia, is significant in more ways than one.
The panelists made an elaborate analysis of the pre and post 2005 election environment in Ethiopia. They made no attempt at covering up mistakes made by Kinijit’s leadership, which is the predecessor of UDJ.
Ato Asrat Tasse, Secretary General of UDJ, presented a candid portrayal of Kinijit’s shortcomings that led to its fracture soon after the leadership was released from prison. He highlighted lack of political integration and the tendency of some leaders who brought their personal ambitions before the interest of the party.
Professor Mesfin, in his trademark forthright way, pointed out that the fight within our own persons must be guided by fact and reason rather than by emotion. He said that politics which is fueled by hatred, grudge, and the desire for revenge will feed the cycle tyranny and deny our people their right for democracy and stable life. “This ugly state of mind”, he warned, “is not an exclusive domain of the ruling party but regrettably present even in some quarters of the opposition.” He reminded the audience that no matter how stark their political differences, Ethiopian parties shall refrain from looking at each other as “enemies” but rather as political contenders with differing viewpoints. “The opposition”, he added, “should guard itself from demagogues who never hesitate to exploit the tender emotion of the human mind to rally support and propel to power. Typically, they do it a good distance away from the bullet and the hardship”, he added.
Peaceful struggle covered a good part of the panelists’ speech and an equally good part of the question and answer session. Both panelists stated that peaceful struggle was, is and will remain the Kinijit/Andnet way. UDJ will intensify its struggle knowing fully well that the political space opened during the 2005 election was never courtesy of EPRDF but one induced by the combined pressure of our people, political parties, the press and the international community. “We are confident the political conditions that prevailed then and forced EPRDF to open up are still around albeit in a more pronounced manner”.
“On the other hand”, they concluded, “contemporary history, the prevailing geo-political landscape, the objective and subjective realities in our country do not point to armed struggle as being a viable option let alone guaranteeing transfer of power to the people”.
Both Professor Mesfin and Ato Asrat Tasse reiterated their own commitments and the commitment of the entire UDJ leadership to bring systemic change to the country. They reaffirmed that despite repeated natural and manmade hardships our people were subjected to and despite the repressive practices of EPRDF, the future for Ethiopia and Ethiopians is indeed bright if we choose to work with resolve, warm hearts and minds.
The delegation is scheduled to make several stops within the USA before it heads back home.
Putting Unity First: Sharing the Values of Human Rights, Social Solidarity and Social Justice in Ethiopia!
There are many things that can easily be used to create distance, to separate people from one another, to subtract their dignity, their humanity and solidarity. How can those who believe and those who do not believe, for example, in one supreme creator express empathy and solidarity or respect each other? How can those who believe in religion and those who believe in evolution come together? For those who wish to exclude others with differing beliefs from themselves, let alone on such big differences like a belief in religion or science, but even on minor differences and anxieties of every day life, can be a cause to create distance and even wage divisive and unwarranted quarrels without any desire to end it.
The truth is that even science and religion have something shared in uncovering the deep mysteries beyond. For religion God is the ultimate mystery. For Science, the universe is the ultimate mystery. What is shared and common between them is indeed the different ways of fathoming the respective deep and big mysteries. The instruments of understanding are different.
Religion relies more on revelation. Science relies more on reason. But what they try to uncover is the deep mysteries that have eluded human capabilities to understand. Scientists have not unlocked yet why there is a universe or universes, from the source of the origin to its trajectories, though they have made big strides in understanding how the universe functions. There are as many religions perhaps as there are scientists showing human understanding of the ultimate ordering principle-God- is also not as unified as one may have expected it to be.
If religion and science can share a common space occupied by mystery, one would have thought those who use different political parties, different policies, programmes and platforms might find it easier to open a space where they can compete whilst consulting each other on the matter of how to realise in the best possible and least expensive way human rights, social solidarity and social justice for human communities across the world.
For some reason what we see is that those who dabble in politics often tend to polarise rather than find and reach out beyond their own loyal circle of like minded persons to others who oppose them to find a common ground to move a shared agenda to change a poor country into a self-respecting country, a hungry country into a well-fed country.
When Will the Suffering End?
Ethiopia is one of the oldest most suffering nations in this planet. It went through hell in the Second World War under Mussolini’s fascist aggression.
It emerged from the war to confront a number of civil wars where external and internal actors coalesced to make the people, country and nation suffer.
Its elites imported undigested ideas that simply became a reason to impose red terror and whit terror. It fell for a virulent form of ethnic and vernacular decomposition that has undermined Ethiopian citizenship rather than build it, despite the claim by those who imposed this particular form of ethnocentrism.
Then it fell for the modern famine that begun in 1973 and has not been put behind us. Very sadly, once again a spectre of famine re-haunts Ethiopia! This is not because Ethiopia cannot feed itself. It can. But the requisite values that put human rights, human solidarity and social justice for all Ethiopians irrespective of origin, religion, age, gender, politics, rather than the happiness, life and liberty of the elites and their backers, have not been given the hearing of a day let alone to get the values of human rights, social solidarity and social justice to become institutionalised and sustained.
Then we saw the politics of practising the deception of election. The deception was openly exposed particularly since the May 2005 Election. The claim that peoples voices, choices and votes matter turned into a farce when in reality their votes, choices, preferences turned into sending the elected to prison and some of those who voted to death, and others into exile.
It is time Ethiopia comes out of this self-inflicted prison of successive compounding of problems. It is time for each one to understand solidarity with others is what makes one to be human, and not the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness for the individual alone. The latter makes one a carefree and careless individualist and egoist going for self even if this tramples upon the acts of solidarity with humans and nature.
The acknowledgment of the principle ’I am because you are’ is more than ever necessary specially for all those who are involved in setting up parties and waging struggles to change society, people, nation and country. It is an obligation that they have to stop attacking each other and begin conversation with tolerance not because they have to like each other; rather it is the necessary and sufficient obligation to get Ethiopia out from the prison of problems into the freedom of possibilities and opportunities. In Ethiopia, those who do not have the capability and tolerance to express spirits of solidarity may be advised to refrain from creating difficulties for the country and should be self- critical, evaluate themselves and stop spoiling public life from evolving into directions that can truly tackle the real problems of real people in Ethiopia.
From Unity to Fragmentation
May 2005 showed if it showed anything else that the people can choose if those who seek to be elected public servants and not masters present their case with clarity. What came to light with compelling force was the reality that losing power for those who hold it was not on the agenda whether the people invited to vote choose to reject existing power, uphold it or were prepared to welcome new power.
What became demonstrated is this: a game of invitation to the people to choose had nothing to do with power conceding to respect the choices, votes and voices of the people? It had everything to do with playing the multi-party election game often demanded by those who make conditions of ‘good governance’ for the qualification of low-income states like Ethiopia for G8 funding and multilateral and bilateral ‘budget support.’
There was neither debate or an opportunity to sharpen ideas and policies how to evolve a governance system that can sustain human rights, social solidarity and social justice for all in Ethiopia to create change without disrupting the inner security of all citizens irrespective of language, creed, gender, age, ethnic origin or religion.
What emerged also during the entire process and leading up to the Election Day on May 15, 2007 was remarkably how opposition unity continued to hold despite the fact that the units and fractions that came to form alliances and coalitions appear to have variations in philosophical outlooks, age differences, strategies and perhaps even visions. The unity of the opposition was strong enough to induce fear of loss of power and a nightmare scenario of subsequent events by those who had reason to worry losing a grip on power!
For those of us who wish to see the novel experience of peaceful democratic transition involving all citizens and also achieved by all citizens, the sheer excitement was to see change come to the country. We hoped naturally for forces to come that put priority above all on values such as the attainment of human rights, social solidarity and social justice achieved by no other means other than through peaceful policy dialogue, reflection and foresight by the country’s own citizens who have chosen to engage, organise and compete for public office.
The process run into a hitch and eventually those who fear prevailed over those who had hope to bring the novel experience of transition with peaceful means by transforming power from one set of political groups to others competing against the incumbents.
Like a driver who always makes the wrong turn, history moved away from the lofty aim of securing a peaceful transition through the choices, voices and votes of the people back to the uncanny and worn out reliance on the barrel of the gun to maintain power! What eventually came is not change but more of the same situation that has not expanded human solidarity, human rights and social justice for all.
The aftermath of the election led to the disintegration of the opposition unity where some of those who called for civil disobedience went to parliament and those who showed unity by supporting calls which they did not initiate for the sake of opposition unity ended up in prison.
The prison period seems wasted in terms of ironing out differences, and it appears, contrary to expectations, to have not united but exacerbated conflicts and divisive differences. This was not helped by the division outside prison and abroad by those amongst those most actively organised in supporting the call to free the prisoners of conscience.
The post- prison situation continued the fragmentation and exposed some of the most unusual insults we have ever heard in any political situation in our life times. We hope it has ended for good never to return ever into public life. It is a self- indulgence that the nation cannot afford. The people cannot afford. The country cannot afford. Even those who indulge in it cannot afford. It is very embarrassing that it ever happened at all, as it is also so needless.
Unfortunately web sites and pal talks are full of unhelpful exchanges that must be stopped. Freedom does not mean the right to insult others. It is an abuse of freedom to insult and assassinate the character of those who may have different approaches to ones belief. It is critical that all stop the abuse of freedom to personalise and attack persons rather than ideas, systems of oppression and plans that may fall far short of delivering human rights, human solidarity and social justice.
From Fragmentation to Regroupment
In a poor country like Ethiopia, had we been lucky to have people who can lead the nation, with the spirit that is broad minded and deep, and by being ready and willing to’ widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty,” at least that of our own Ethiopia and Africa, we would have been able to create and institutionalise a system of governance where at least those amongst us who wish to engage in public service will join two competing parties that also make it a principle to learn, to behave, and cultivate to consult each other on the major issues that affect the well being of the people, the nation and the country.
But we seem to be very far from that goal yet. We have a number of types of forces at present: those who grouped or clubbed together to rule, those in parliament who oppose them loyally, those who are both inside and outside parliament, and those who are outside parliament, and others who wage armed opposition connected partly to the condition of a self-torturing region that lacks neither a security community or inner security with the many unending conflicts.
In principle they all should find a way to find a rule of the game to enter into a process where they can compete and consult each other provided they share values of human rights, human solidarity and social justice as the core overriding value just as religion and science find a shared space in the fact they both seek to unravel deep mysteries that has defied human intellection to date as far as we know.
What is needed now is a broad social movement that includes who ever can be included to make sure key values are shared by all those who join public life and those who do not share these values are encouraged to share them, if they fail to share them, a collective action is mobilised to restrain them from spoiling the destiny of this far too much abused nation. Ethiopia must come out of the prison of problems, conflicts and disasters that put into jeopardy millions of its citizens. Ethiopia must be liberated and be made to enjoy the freedom of human possibilities and solidarities.
It means the overriding values must be learned and shared by all especially those choosing to engage in public life voluntarily. The values then become the guiding principle of political conduct for all those who have self-organised themselves to enter into public life seeking either power or change. Let those, who under the guise of exercising ones freedom and happiness, complicate the opportunity to develop a shared political space refrain and restrain themselves from misinforming, ill-informing and spreading malicious rumours and innuendos based on grievances, greed or vengeance, real or manufactured. It is time that the country must not remain consigned to the barbaric humiliation of not being able to feed itself when it can, not being able to govern itself by empowering all citizens, when it can, not to come out of conflict both internal and regional when it can, not to come out of poverty and begging, when it can- the key to it all is putting unity of values first by going beyond the fragments to anchor human rights, human solidarity and social justice in the beliefs, institutions and politics of the country.
From Re-Groupment to Consolidation and Unity
The current regroupment came in the wake of a process of unity that led to fragmentation and from the latter to the sort of regroupment we see now underway, and from the latter hopefully consolidating unification. It matters therefore very much how each regrouping unit functions and the principled way it behaves towards others in order to keep open always the chance to enter into some workable alliance or coalition based on key values that matter to fostering the well being of the people.
We emphasise human rights , human solidarity and social justice to make it clear what Ethiopia needs is to come out of conflict to get all to work so that all the peoples needs for education, health, food, water, shelter, milk, sanitation, hygiene and well being is fully met. This is the human right of every Ethiopian. And no Ethiopian fills fulfilled until all Ethiopians have their human rights to be educated, to be fed, to be cared for from ill-health, to have clean water, milk, shelter, sanitation and the conditions for a safe environment are met. That is the social solidarity that we all must express to one another. One Ethiopian is diminished when the other goes hungry. The human solidarity of the Ethiopian is to behave, to feel, to think, to work very hard so that all Ethiopians have all that they need to have to function to be competent and to be capable to solve any problem confronting them by any means necessary. There must be a willingness to reach out beyond ones inner loyal circle with toleration by bearing the demand to enlist all that can come together to help the country to come out of the recurrent humiliation!
Fairness and equality of opportunities and hardships govern the sphere of justice. The moral principle that is just is linked the fairness and equality that assigns hardships to some and opportunities to others. This moral disequilibrium often creates conflict. There must be a way to bring social justice as fairness and equality to compensate those that have been put in harms way through no fault of their own, like those who died during the election in May 2005. Those that have caused harm should acknowledge at least what they did was wrong and not make and humiliate their opponents to sign culpability when they did not commit any crime. Benefits and burdens, opportunities and liabilities must be distributed fairly and equitably. Policies that favour some and punish others, reward some and deny opportunities to other create and expand the sphere of injustice. It is not only wise to be fair and equitable in practice, it is critical to practice what has been described as procedural justice. The latter is associated with the principle of fair decision practices, procedures and agreements with the various regrouping parties in the process of emerging consolidated and united. The rules and processes that distribute the rewards and losses, and the benefits and costs must not only be fair in actuality but also in perception.
In Ethiopia, a divided society the role of social justice is a paramount value to reconstitute the foundation for promoting the infinite wellbeing of the people, the nation and the country.
The moral is this: those engaged in moving from regroupment to consolidation cannot afford to snipe at each other and look back to the hurt and harm of previous times. They must concentrate in forging the future and building to bring about the values that must be paramount in guiding this nation from the protracted dilemma of not being able to escape out of misery, starvation, suffering, conflict, war and inter-elite mistrust and in-fighting.
Concluding Remark
We think all that care to self-organise to change the conditions of Ethiopia from the current ill-being state to well-being state must learn to increase the’ conversation capital’ into a higher level than what it has been in recent times.
Perhaps it may not all have been that bad to move from unity to fragmentation, from the latter to a state of re-groupment, and from the latter to consolidated unification. As long as the move is across this trajectory what happened in the past may be seen a regrettable and painful learning experience. If people revert to actions that lead to fracturing once more, then there is good reason to worry. It means the hard and bitter lessons have not been learnt.
We call upon all to refrain to resort to practices that undermine the ability of Ethiopians to enter into solidarity and achieve in a record time the capability to make sure the nation comes out of the state of humiliation that it is right now. For how long can we tolerate Ethiopia as a country sadly that cannot feed itself when, in fact, it can.
We call all involved in public life in whatever arena and whatever method to enter into a conversation with toleration and patience to put values of human rights, human solidarity and social justice as the unifying purpose and vision to build a bright future for all Ethiopians and indeed Africans for that matter.
We thus call upon all to increase the “trust capital’ and remove the tendency to personalise issues, go for seeing the bigger picture, and stop concentrating on issues that divide those wishing to engage in public life rather than bringing them together.
The main challenge is for all those having chosen to engage in public life to identify overriding core values that can bring all together and share such as- human rights, social solidarity and social justice- and try to concur and move the debate into issues that can switch the methods used now from struggling by any means necessary to finding solutions by any means necessary. Ethiopia is longing for it. Let all those who have chosen to engage in its public life never fail her again!
Mammo Muchie, Dphil
Coordinator of DIIPER
Research Centre on Development Innovation and IPER and
NRF/DST SARCHI chair holder, TUT, South Africa
Aalborg University, Fibigertraede 2, 9220-Aalborg East, Aalborg, Denmark
Tel.no. 00-45 9940 9813
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.
The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.
The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.
The “yellowcake” uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government at the encouragement of the U.S. government, Whitman said.
The United States approached Canadian company Cameco to bid for the material, according Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn. He would not disclose the winning bid amount.
Krahn admitted that this was not a “routine transaction,” but he said the agreement was approved by the Canadian government and was carefully monitored.
The undertaking, named “Operation McCall” by Pentagon officials, was in the planning stages for months and was completed Saturday after the material had been in transit for weeks, according to Whitman.
He said yellowcake uranium is a commonly traded commodity used for nuclear power generation. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process, he said, but because of the unstable nature of Iraq, the United States and the Iraqi government decided it should be moved out of that country. Iraq has no nuclear power generating plants.
The uranium was packed into 110 shipping containers moved by convoy from a facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq, about 12 miles south of Baghdad. The containers were first moved to the secure International Zone in central Baghdad and then to Baghdad International Airport, where thery were loaded onto C-17 cargo planes.
It took 37 flights to move the shipping containers out of Iraq to a “third country,” Whitman said.
A Pentagon official who asked not to be named said that third country was Diego Garcia, a British territory in the Indian Ocean where the United Kingdom and the United States operate a joint military base.
From that third country, Whitman said, the containers were loaded onto the SS Gopher State, a U.S.-owned crane ship normally used to haul equipment in and out of war zones. The ship carried the uranium to Canada, where it was bought by Cameco, a private firm.
The uranium will be sent by truck to two processing plants in Ontario, Krahn said. Once it has been enriched for energy use it will be sold to power plant operators, he said.
The United States is Cameco’s largest customer, Krahn said, but he did not specify if the Iraq yellowcake would ultimately end up in the United States.
Whitman said the Department of Defense’s cost of securing and transporting the uranium from Tuwaitha to Canada was $70 million, and the government of Iraq had agreed in principal to reimburse the United States for part of that cost.
He said he could not say how much Iraq intends to repay the United States.
