“Karuturi’s First Corn Crop in Ethiopia Destroyed,” announced the headline. Karuturi Global Ltd., is the Indian multinational agro company that has been gobbling up large chunks of Ethiopia over the past few years. This time, Mother Nature gobbled up Karuturi. The company reported last week that its 30,000 acre corn crop in Gambella in western Ethopia was wiped out when the Baro and Alwero rivers overflowed their banks and overwhelmed Karuturi’s 80km long system of protective dikes. Head honcho Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi said his company took a $15 million “hit” from the floods. He was manifestly puzzled by the intensity of the calamity: “This kind of flooding we haven’t seen before. This is a crazy amount of water.”
Karuturi is today the proud owner of “2,500 sq km of virgin, fertile land – an area the size of Dorset, England-” in Ethiopia. Truth be told, Karuturi did not ask for this bountiful giveaway, nor did it lay eyes on it when it was presented with a 50-year “lease” on a golden platter by the ruling regime in Ethiopia. Karuturi was offered the land together with generous tax breaks and other perks for £150 a week ($USD245). Karuturi Project Manager in Ethiopia, Karmjeet Sekhon, giggled euphorically as he told Guardian reporter John Vidal the amazing story of how his company became the beneficiary of one of the largest free land giveaways in post-colonial African history:
We never saw the land. They gave it to us and we took it. Seriously, we did. We did not even see the land. (Triumphantly cackling laughter.) They offered it. That’s all. It’s very good land. It’s quite cheap. In fact it is very cheap. We have no land like this in India. There [India] you are lucky to get 1% of organic matter in the soil. Here it is more than 5%. We don’t need fertiliser or herbicides. There is absolutely nothing that will not grow on it. To start with there will be 20,000 hectares of oil palm, 15,000 hectares of sugar cane and 40,000 hectares of rice, edible oils and maize and cotton. We are building reservoirs, dykes, roads, towns of 15,000 people. This is phase one. In three years time we will have 300,000 hectares cultivated and maybe 60,000 workers. We could feed a nation here.
The ruling regime in Ethiopia claims that it “leased” uninhabited wilderness to Karuturi. It denies forcing the local people out of their land and “villagizing” (herding them into official villages) the heck out of them. But the evidence is incontrovertible. The “leased” land is not only the ancestral home of the people of Gambella but also the basis of their entire livelihood and survival as a tiny minority in the Ethiopian family. For Gambellans who live as pastoralist and subsistence farmers, massive dispossession and auctioning off their land for pennies will inevitably destroy the very fabric of their society and way of life and threaten them with extinction.
It is said that in Ethiopia “land is owned by the government.” If the “government” is the largest land owner, Karuturi must be the largest plantation owner and second largest land owner in that impoverished country. Indeed, it would be most appropriate to rename Gambella “Karuturistan” in the interest of full disclosure and accurate description of what is happening on the ground. Karuturi says it has all kinds of plans for its vast land holdings. It will “build taller dikes” to enclose the plantations “with no connection with outside water except through manually operated devices.” Karuturi is “aggressively rolling out an agriculture business venture in Ethiopia” and plans to “outsource 20,000 hectares of farm land in the African nation to Indian farmers on a revenue-sharing basis.” A “senior Kauturi official” told India’s leading business newspaper, the Business Standard, “We have got a decent response. We intend to give land and the necessary infrastructure to farmers who have the expertise in specific crop cultivation and get into a revenue share (65%:35%) with them. We hope to have agreements reached for around 20,000 hectares in the near future as part of the first phase.” Karuturi is actively negotiating with farmers from Punjab, India to launch its outsourcing venture.
Karuturi’s business model is simple: “Ask not what Karuturi can do for Ethiopia, but what Ethiopians can do for Karuturi.” Karuturi is in Ethiopia for only one thing: Profit and more profits. Just as it has built “dikes to enclose its plantations from flood water”, it also maintains a social, psychological and security enclosure to insulate itself from the local Gambella community . Karuturi maintains a virtual agricultural treasure island in Gambella. While foreign farmers are brought in as modern sharecroppers and given partnership interest, Gambella’s farmers are offered or given nothing. Why not offer Gambella farmers (the real owners of the land) a 35 percent share just like the Punjabi farmers?
Karuturi says it intends to give part of its vast landholdings to Indian farmers with “expertise”. The people of Gambella have their own time-tested agricultural expertise, but Karuturi does not want it and will not even make a symbolic gesture to help them acquire expertise by giving them training and education in new agricultural methods and techniques. Karuturi says it will export its corn and other commodities to “South Sudan and other East African markets” using “two tug boats with the capacity to carry 600 tons each”. Yet millions of Ethiopians are starving and dependent on foreign food aid for their daily bread. Some 7.5 million Ethiopians are kept alive daily by international food handouts. Last week USAID chief Raj Shah announced in Ethiopia that the US will provide $110m for famine relief. Karuturi says its commodities exports will “bring foreign exchange to the National Bank of Ethiopia.” What will Karuturi bring to the people of Ethiopia? The people of Gambella? More poverty, exploitation, environmental degradation?
Through Rose-Colored Lenses
Karuturi Ltd., is the world’s largest producer of roses. Its slogan is said to be “Let millions of roses bloom”. Roses are beautiful, but looking through rose-colored lenses one gets a rosy outlook on reality. Karuturi could easily mistake the vast tract of free land that was dropped on its lap, all of the tax breaks it receives, the duty free imports of machines and equipment it enjoys and all of the other preferential treatment it gets as proof of its arrival in Nirvana, not Ethiopia. Take the rosy lenses off and Karuturi shall behold an Ethiopia that ranks at the bottom of every international economic and political index: It is among the countries in the world with the lowest per capita incomes and highest inflation and unemployment rates. The ruling regime has been classified as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world. Karuturi looking through its rosy lenses may be unable to see the grinding poverty of the people of Gambella and the destruction of their way of life when they were forced to give up so much of their ancestral lands.
The most troubling aspect of Karuturi’s “investment” in Ethiopia is not only that it has created an island of wealth and prosperity in a sea of poverty in Gambella, but that its large-scale commercial farming operations and practices are manifestly unsustainable and likely to have a severely negative impact on the land and the way of life of the people. Numerous experts continue to warn that large-scale commercial farming operations and practices by land-grabbing multinational companies that use forest burning to clear the land, channel rivers and introduce exotic crop species cause permanent and irreversible environmental damage and ecological imbalance. The capital-intensive technologies of the multinationals displace local farmers and render them irrelevant necessitating outsourcing and importation of foreign farmers with “expertise”. “When over one-hundred papers were presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing in 2011, not one positive outcome could be found for local communities.”
In Gambella, the people complain that despite millions of dollars in investments by Karuturi, they have seen few jobs, schools, clinics or clean water facilities for their use. At the end of the day, the people of Gambella will be the ones suffering the long-term effects of deforestation (land clearance by burning), reduction of ecological diversity, loss of local species, and environmental contamination caused by herbicides and pesticides used in large-scale commercial farming. When fertile Gambella becomes a virtual desert, the multinationals will move to another oasis in Africa.
Karuturi needs to take off its rosy lenses and ask itself a few questions: How could it create jobs and business opportunities for local Ethiopians when it is outsourcing its landholdings to Indian farmers? How could it improve the agricultural expertise of those Ethiopians in the local area when it is bringing in foreign “experts”? How could Ethiopia ever achieve food security and feed its explosively growing and food aid-dependent population when it is shipping out agricultural commodities on 600-ton tugboats under cover of darkness to feed the people of other nations? What will Karuturi do in the face of Ethiopia’s spreading hunger, famine and uncontrolled population growth? Will it build larger dikes, walls, fences and levees to keep the people out of its corn filelds? Will the regime send its soldiers to protect Karuturi from the hungry and starving hordes of Ethiopians begging for a few ears of corn at Karuturi’s gates?
There is a Better Way
Karuturi has the option of doing the right thing: Dump the current land acquisition and ownership deal and replace it with contract farming and deal directly with the farmers of Gambella (not Punjabi farmers). Karuturi (and other foreign investors) could provide the technology and capital, and the Ethiopians will be obligated to provide the land and labor. Karuturi could provide training to farmers in Gambella and enhance their “expertise” to make them more productive. Karuturi could supply grains and other agricultural commodities for the Ethiopian market profitably and over the long term maintain a sustainable and ecologically balanced agricultural venture. Is this too radical an idea or is it too old fashioned?
Rainbow Sign After the Flood?
It has been argued that regimes that seek out or fall prey to the big multinational land grabbers are dictatorships that exist on international charity and handouts and are thoroughly mired in corruption and debt. There is much talk these days about a “second generation colonialism” spearheaded by profit-hungry land grabbing multinationals. Some even talk about a “green gold rush” for fertile African land sold at fire sale prices by African dictators eager to line their pockets. These shameless moneygrubbing dictators will even agree to a deal that will export grain out of their countries as their population starves and they are panhandling the world for food handouts.
Truth be told, no one except a few of the top leaders of the ruling regime know the real deal in the land giveaway to Karuturi. Very little useful information is evident in the “agreement” made public with Karuturi. That “agreement” offers nothing more than the usual boilerplate full of meaningless legal mumbo jumbo routinely used for such “leases” by multinational land grabbers everywhere. For instance, the “agreement” alludes to environmental safety but provides no specific environmental standards to be followed. It talks about jobs, infrastructures and the rest but provides no specifics or details on the timetable for implementation or the scope of Karuturi’s obligations.
Over a century and a half ago, far, far away from Karuturistan, a prophesy was told in the lyrics of a song of African slaves toiling on vast cotton and tobacco plantations in America. “God gave Noah the rainbow sign: No more water. The fire next time!” God has given the people of Ethiopia the rainbow sign: Unite and come together as one rainbow nation. For those who divide and misrule and sell and buy pieces of Ethiopia, the sign says: No more water!
Putting the rights of land holders — and in this country these are almost all small and impoverished farmers and herders — at the center of the discussion enables us to bring in the state and the question of governance since embedded in the concept of land rights are relations of power between the state on the one hand and individuals and communities on the other. The land transfers that have taken place on an unprecedented scale in the last ten to twelve years has brought to the surface several issues of public concern. First, it is the first time in this country that so much land — perhaps as much as a million hectares at present and expected to increase substantially in the coming years — has been put in the hands of foreign investors. Total transfers from the late 1990s to the end of 2008 to both domestic and foreign capital reaches almost 3.5 million hectares according to the database compiled by MOARD (2009a). The significance of this is that the state is now redefining the {www:agrarian} structure of the country as well as the future course of agricultural production in a manner that will increasingly marginalize the rural population. Secondly, since, by law, the state has juridical ownership of the land and in contrast peasant farmers and pastoralists have the right of use only, it is the state which in effect has been responsible for land grabbing: it has used its statutory right of ownership to alienate land from those who have customary rights and rights of longstanding usage, and transferring it, without consultation or consent, to investors from outside the communities concerned as well as from outside the country itself. The {www:commercialization} of land has served as a political advantage to the state since it enhances its power vis-à-vis rural communities, and leads to the greater concentration of authority in the hands of public agents and local administrators. The presence of large farm operations with their modern technologies in rural communities will be a constant reminder of the danger hanging over small farmers and pastoralists and their way of life… [read more]
Book Review By Ayal-Sew Dessye
Author: Dr. Aklog Birara
Title: Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway
486 pp
Dr. Aklog Birara’s recent book titled “Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት (Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit)” is a {www:voluminous} (486 pages), very well researched and clearly articulated magnificent piece of work that Ethiopians and anyone interested to know and understand the reasons behind the Land Grab {www:phenomenon}, the major players behind it and the impending consequences, why so many Ethiopians, as people in other countries where the issue is in evidence, are not only alarmed but also adamantly opposed to, and why it should be challenged more effectively.
By using his educational and professional background, his progressive convictions and his decades-long expertise as an economist with the World Bank, Dr. Aklog in this book critically examines and objectively analyses the burning issue commonly referred to as ‘Land Grab’ that he calls ‘የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት’. His careful and comprehensive analysis of the subject matter is so {www:replete} with a wealth of concrete data and detailed information that anyone interested to have full knowledge of or study the issue much better could greatly benefit from.
Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit is a comprehensive analysis of how and why the current government in Ethiopia headed by Meles Zenawi connived with foreign investors the author calls “New Landlords” to giveaway Ethiopian fertile farmlands for the express purpose of exporting the products at a time when Ethiopians are faced with recurring famine and starvation. Although the phenomenon is widespread in other countries (mainly in Africa) where people have no say and are under dictatorial rules, his focus is, as the title indicates and understandably, on Ethiopia. By so doing, he presents to his readers a full account of the travesty being perpetrated by and the on-going deceptive practices of none other than those entrusted with the welfare and well being of the people.
In the first and second of the ten chapters of the book, the reader finds the author’s general political outlook and his overall {www:assessment} of the social, economic and political realities of Ethiopia under TPLF/EPRDF tyrannical rule, with particular emphasis on the vices of ethnic politics, the serious challenges Ethiopians as a diverse people face and the fallacies and the destructive nature of the current regime’s policies. In Chapters Three through Eight, Dr. Aklog thoroughly discusses Meret Neteka and its ramifications. In Chapter Nine, under “Ethiopia’s Aid and Remittance mystery”, he examines the confounding issue of foreign aid in general with particular focus on the amount of foreign aid the regime of Meles Zenawi received, the misconceptions surrounding its effectiveness to alleviate poverty, its misuse by dictators and its role in supporting and perpetuating dictatorships, and its ineffectiveness to improve the lives of the people and why. In Chapter Ten, under the heading “The Ethiopia I Envisage: Options and Recommendations”, Dr. Aklog, who sees opportunities beyond the prevailing dire situations, presents his vision for his country of birth and proposes 20 possible areas that he recommends should be looked into in order to reverse course.
Through documentation of various sources (over 147 references) and well established data, Dr. Aklog has presented a compelling argument against this tragic but {www:brazen} underhanded deal between the government of Meles Zenawi and foreign interests represented by more than 36 countries.
The book portrays in great detail the economic, political and environmental impacts and the toll on local populations, describes the consequences on the very {www:sovereignty} of Ethiopians as a people, the role of foreign aid, etc. He systematically refutes the fallacies of TPLF/EPRDF policies and debunks the hallow arguments of its leaders and their henchmen that the land giveaway is meant to benefit the country and would help to alleviate poverty. The book disproves the notion of development through {www:expropriation} of fertile lands by foreigners for dirt cheap prices that would inevitably lead to the {www:subjugation} of our citizens to dehumanizing and demeaning servitude in the name of employment opportunity.
The Meles regime is reported to have concluded an estimated 8,400 to 9,000 land give away transactions. Dr. Aklog unveils staggering facts about this “deal of the century” including the total known farmland giveaway to date to being equivalent to Singapore, Bahrain, Luxemburg, Puerto Rico, Cyprus, Qatar, Tonga combined, and it is reported that a planned giveaway the size of Lebanon is in the works.
Following food shortages that triggered riots in many parts of the world, concerned governments, wary of similar fate in their own countries had to look elsewhere to guarantee food security. So too were entrepreneurs and businesses who saw an irresistible {www:lucrative} opportunity in the food market. Both governments and businesses wasted no time in rushing to get farmlands elsewhere.
In this rush for farmland, Africa once again became the target for a modern era scramble. And to that end, they had no problem finding perfect company in corrupt and unaccountable regimes there that have no {www:qualms} with giving away as much land as those “investors” wished for insignificant amounts. Naturally, and given the nature of government currently in power, Ethiopia became a perfect candidate for the new scramble. This new phenomenon came to being known as Land Grab.
Ever since the practice that Dr. Aklog calls ‘Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit‘ became evident, a lot has been written and said about it. Although the issue has been consistently raised, discussed, debated and extensively written about by individuals, both Ethiopians and non-Ethiopians and organizations like, for example, The Oakland Institute that was and continues to be in the forefront of the campaign against this injustice against impoverished populations around the globe, to date, Dr. Aklog’s book, ‘Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት’, is the only comprehensive study on the subject as it pertains to Ethiopia.
Whereas colonialists in the past used the Bible, under the preposterous pretext of “civilizing backward societies” or in many instances had no qualms with using military power to occupy sovereign countries in Africa and elsewhere, subjugate their people and plunder the natural resources, today’s intrusion by foreigners that similarly relegates local populations to a dehumanizing second class status is done in the name of “investment” and is done by invitation.
And this, what Dr. Aklog refers to as “colonialism by invitation”, is perpetrated by reckless dictators who care more about staying in power by all means and amass wealth every which way they could than the welfare of the people they rule over. These greedy dictators and their henchmen, along with their colluding partners, the foreign “investors” in question, are the sole beneficiaries of such shadowy deals.
The scope and {www:magnitude} of the ongoing land grab phenomenon can be daunting. Although this shadowy deal by all accounts favors the new foreign landlords greatly, it cannot simply be measured by the apparent lopsided economic benefits those foreign interests or their agents or their partners in TPLF/EPRDF ruling clique get. The resultant disadvantages to local populations and society at large is incalculable and the impending environmental impact {www:staggering}. Because it directly affects local populations where acquisitions are taking place in particular and the people of the country in general in many, many ways, this “deal of the century” is more than an economic issue. In short, this scramble for farmlands expropriates the natural assets of the people that the author refers to as “… potentially the most substantial source of comparative advantage…”, displaces and uproots families and communities, relegates the very owners of the land to serfdom, and because the practice is unregulated and these foreign landlords are free to do whatever they want with their new acquisitions, the environmental hazards and the ecological impacts would be incalculable. Moreover, in addition to the obvious financial benefits dictators like Meles Zenawi & Co. get as a result of the Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit deal, the new landlords would prove to be a source of vital diplomatic and political support to sustain their tyrannical rule. Those foreign land lords are equally aware of the fact that most, if not all, of their 9-page “contracts” they entered into with the regime that gave them this exploitative and unfair deal would depend on the {www:longevity} of those currently in political power. Therefore, doing all they can to keep them in power would prove to be an {www:irresistible} enterprise. It is safe to assume that this aspect is part of the calculation of Meles Zenawi’s and his regime’s decision to giveaway Ethiopian fertile farmlands to foreign investors so easily and at will.
Thence, to add insult to injury, in addition to all the hardships and impacts herein above mentioned that result from this pernicious “deal of the century”, the new landlords would be another {www:flank} that Ethiopian patriots and democrat will have to resist in their fight to end tyranny in their country.
What makes this land giveaway that one may call “Land to the Higher Bidder” more insane and {www:incomprehensible} is the irony that it is being done by the same generation that struggled to end serfdom and for equality and justice for all Ethiopians under the progressive slogan of “Land to the Tiller”.
Of course, the bogus claim by the regime that by colluding with these foreign investors and giving away fertile farmlands, Ethiopia can reduce poverty and their {www:audacity} to aver that this would help to end the perennial problem of famine and food shortages in the country is ludicrous. How on earth and in what way would landless Ethiopians who cannot afford to cop-up with the ever increasing local food prices benefit from this deal knowing too well that the foreign landlords’ express desire and whole purpose of having the farmlands in the first place is to export the farm products primarily to their respective countries and secondarily to world markets for profit?
Dr. Aklog reminds TPLF/EPRDF leaders and their supporters that “development is all about people” after all. And by stating that, “The regime expropriates and gives farmlands away to the highest bidder without any open competition. The reason is simple. It is to ensure single party dominance over the national economy…”, ” that these permanent transfers of one of the pillars of the economy to a privileged few domestic investors and to governments, firms and individuals from 36 countries contradict the governing party’s commitment to the Ethiopian people that land is a common property that is bound by specific norms, values and constitutional parameters..”, further exposes their deceitful practices and hallow arguments. He reminds the regime and its supporters that, as has been proven in the late Sixties and early Seventies, Ethiopian domestic investors are capable of transforming fertile farmlands into mechanized and large scale commercial farms if they are given the opportunity and have the freedom.
These are some of the many points ‘The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬትነጠቃናቅርሚት’ raises and discusses in depth.
Although this farcical deal definitely enriches those foreign “investors” and their greedy and spineless domestic agents in governmental power, it comes at heavy cost to Ethiopia and Ethiopians. The book demonstrates not only the uselessness of the Meret Neteka enterprise to the Ethiopian masses, but clearly shows the multi-faceted dangers it entails and presents compelling reasons as to why Ethiopians of all walks of life ought to stand up together and oppose it in every possible way.
It is clear that this shadowy enterprise deprives Ethiopians not only of their rightful ownership of their ancestral land, but more fundamentally rob them of their very honor and dignity as human beings and their sovereignty as Ethiopian citizens. By all accounts, this sinister collusion and underhanded deal between Meles Zenawi’s regime and foreign investors is nothing short of a fundamental sovereignty issue. It, in fact, is a basic human rights issue that every well meaning Ethiopian should clearly understand and fight against.
The author does not reserve his criticism to TPLF/EPRDF leaders. He expresses his understandable dismay at the democratic opposition’s apparent dismal failure to mount a systematic and sustainable campaign to stop this deplorable and treasonous act of the regime. As such, he states that “…The duality in poor governance–single party hegemony on the one hand and fractured opposition on the other–is that the regime is able to squander natural resources such as fertile farmlands. It gives away the country’s major source of current and future comparative advantage to foreign investors free. This is because there is no one to challenge it. The regime is free
to promote yemeret neteka ena kirimit (land grab and giveaway) without substantial challenge from opposition parties and civic organizations”.
The very corrupt system of government under Meles Zenawi is the kernel of the narrative that is repeatedly discussed by the author in ‘Ethiopia: The Great Land Giveaway – የመሬት ነጠቃና ቅርሚት’. As in the case of other similar sinister and irresponsible policies and actions of the regime of Meles Zenawi, Dr. Aklog rightfully ties this malicious deal to give away Ethiopian fertile farmlands to foreigners to the very bankrupt system of the TPLF/EPRDF; a system that is evidently dictatorial but also one that is devoid of any sense of accountability and decency, and led by people lacking in Ethiopian values and patriotism. As such, and because of that, no amount of condemnation short of total reversal of such policies could alter the situation on the ground. And that, in my humble opinion, can only be realized with the removal from power of the regime.
Dr. Aklog does not only amply show the travesty surrounding the issue and reminds us about the impending dangers to Ethiopia and its people, but also puts forward concrete suggestions to successfully challenge this land giveaway enterprise and build an equitable and non-discriminatory, pluralistic and democratic society.
As passionate as he has been on this land grab issue as early as it became evident, Dr. Aklog, by writing Yemeret Neteka Ena Kirimit, has given Ethiopians a comprehensive document to base their argument against this farcical deal and related criminal behavior of the Meles Zenawi regime. I am only hoping that Ethiopians on both sides of the political spectrum – both opposed to or supportive of this politically charged issue of national import – would take time to read it and discuss the very issue soberly.
My only suggestion to the author would be that when the time comes fora reprint of the book, please consider issuing it in a smaller size to make it easier to carry and handle.
I would just conclude this review by quoting a paragraph on page 129 of the book.
The massive transfer of fertile farmlands from Ethiopian families, communities and the entire society to foreign investors is the last ominous indicator of a regime that is determined to rob the country and its people of their most critical natural resource assets, their honor, dignity and sovereignty – all done in the name of development and transformation”. Emphasis is mine.
Lately, Meles Zenawi, the dictator in Ethiopia, has been rounding up dissidents, journalists, opposition party political leaders and members under a diktat known as “Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009”. This diktat approved on a 286-91 vote of the rubberstamp parliament is so arbitrary and capricious that Human Rights Watch concluded “the law could provide a new and potent tool for suppressing political opposition and independent criticism of government policy.”
The “anti-terrorism law” is a masterpiece of ambiguity, unintelligibility, obscurity, superficiality, unclarity, uncertainty, inanity and vacuity. It defines “terrorism” with such vagueness and overbreadth that any act, speech, statement, and even thought, could be punished under its sweeping provisions. Anyone who commits a “terrorist act” with the aim of “advancing a political, religious or ideological cause” and intending to “influence the government”, “intimidate the public”, “destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social institutions of the country” could be condemned to long imprisonment or suffer the death penalty. Making or publishing statements “likely to be understood as encouraging terrorist acts” is a punishable offense under the “law”.
Anyone who provides “moral support or advice” or has any contact with an individual accused of a terrorist act is presumed to be a terrorist supporter. Anyone who “writes, edits, prints, publishes, publicizes, disseminates, shows, makes to be heard any promotional statements encouraging, supporting or advancing terrorist acts” is deemed a “terrorist”. Peaceful protesters who carry banners critical of the regime could be charged for “promotional statements encouraging” terrorist acts. Anyone who “disrupts any public service” is considered a “terrorist”; and workers who may legitimately grieve working conditions by work stoppages could be charged with “terrorism” for disruption. Young demonstrators who break windows in a public building by throwing rocks could be jailed as “terrorists” for “causuing serious damage to property.” A person who “fails to immediately inform or give information or evidence to the police” on a neighbor, co-worker or others s/he may suspect of “terrorism” could face upto 10 years for failure to report. Two or more persons who have contact with a “terror” suspect could be charged with conspiracy to commit “terrorism”.
The procedural due process rights (fair trial) of suspects and the accused guaranteed under the Ethiopian Constitution and international human rights conventions are ignored, evaded, overlooked and disregarded by the “law”. “The police may arrest without court warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects to have committed or is committing a terrorism” and hold that person in incommunicado detention. The police can engage in random and “sudden search and seizure” of the person, place or personal effects of anyone suspected of “terrorism”. The police can “intercept, install or conduct surveillance on the telephone, fax, radio, internet, electronic, postal, and similar communications” of a person suspected of terrorism. The police can order “any government institution, official, bank, or a private organization or an individual” to turn over documents, evidence and information on a “terror” suspect.
A “terror” suspect can be held in custody without charge for up to “four months”. Any “evidence” presented by the regime’s prosecutor against a “terror” suspect in “court” is admissible, including “confessions” (extracted by torture), “hearsay”, “indirect, digital and electronic evidences” and “intelligence reports even if the report does not disclose the source or the method it was gathered (including evidence obtained by torture). The “law” presumes the “terror” suspect to be guilty and puts the burden of proof on the suspect/defendant in violation of the universal principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Such is the “anti-terrorism law” that was used to arrest and jail Eskinder Nega, Debebe Eshetu, Andualem Aragie, Woubshet Taye, Zemenu Molla, Nathnael Makonnen, Asaminaw Birhanu, and Swedish journalists Johan Persson and Martin Schibbye and thousands of others over the past few months and years. In any country where the rule of law prevails and an independent judiciary thrives, such a “law” would not pass the smell test let alone a constitutional one. But in a world of kangaroo courts, rubberstamp parliaments and halls of vengance and injustice, the diktat of one man is the law of the land. So, 2011 Ethiopia has become George Orwell’s 1984: Thinking is terrorism. Dissent is terrorism. Speaking truth to power is terrorism. Having a conscience is terrorism. Peaceful protest is terrorism. Refusing to sell out one’s soul is terrorism. Standing up for democracy and human rights is terrorism. Defending the rule of law is terrorism. Peaceful resistance of state terrorism is terrorism.
Dictatorship is State Terrorism
Zenawi’s “anti-terrorism” diktat is intended to muzzle journalists from criticizing, youths from peaceably demonstrating, opposition parties from political organizing, ordinary citizens from speaking, civic leaders from mobilizing, teachers from imparting knowledge, lawyers from advocating scholars from analyzing and the entire nation from questioning his dictatorial rule. It is a “law” singularly intended to criminalize speech, police thought, outlaw critical publications, intimidate hearts, crush spirits, terrorize minds and shred constitutional and internationally-guaranteed human rights. When the State uses the “law” to silence and violently stamp out dissent, jail and keep in solitary confinement dissenters, opposition leaders and members, suppress the press and arbitrarily arrest journalists, trash human rights with impunity, trample upon the rule of law and scoff at constitutional accountability, does it not become a terrorist state?
“Softness to traitors will destroy us all,” said Maximilien Robespierre, the mastermind and architect of the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. Robespierre justified the use of terror by the state to crush all opposition and those he considered enemies of the state: “Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?” asked Robespierre rhetorically as he rounded up tens of thousands of innocent French citizens for the guillotine.
Zenawi once provided a definitive answer to his “enemies within and without”: “If opposition groups resort to violence in an attempt to discredit the election, we will crush them with our full force; they will all vegetate like Birtukan (Midekssa) in jail forever.” He is always ready to crush, smash and thrash his opposition. He described the leaders of opposition political coalition that won the 2005 elections as a bunch of “insurrectionists” (euphemism for “terrorists”): “The CUD (Coalition for Unity and Democracy) leaders are engaged in insurrection — that is an act of treason under Ethiopian law.” When 193 unarmed demonstrators were massacred and 763 grievously wounded by security officers, Zenawi shed crocodile tears but said they were all terrorists lobbing grenades: “I regret the deaths but these were not normal demonstrations. You don’t see hand grenades thrown at normal demonstrations.” His own handpicked Inquiry Commission contradicted him after a meticulous investigation: “There was no property destroyed. There was not a single protester who was armed with a gun or a hand grenade (as reported by the government-controlled media that some of the protesters were armed with guns and bombs). The shots fired by government forces were not to disperse the crowd of protesters but to kill by targeting the head and chest of the protester.”
Zenawi has demonized opposition groups as “terrorists” bent on “creating a rift between the government and the people.” He has put on “trial” and sentenced to death various alleged “members” of the Ginbot 7 Movement, and contemptuously described that Movement as an organization of “amateur part-time terrorists”. He has undertaken a systematic campaign of intimidation against his critics describing them in his speeches as “muckrakers,” “mud dwellers”, “sooty,” “sleazy,” “pompous egotists” and good-for-nothing “chaff” and “husk.” He even claimed the opposition was filthy and trying to “dirty up the people like themselves.”
In the police state Ethiopia has become, opposition political and civic leaders and dissidents are kept under 24/7 surveillance, and the ordinary people they meet in the street are intimidated, harassed and persecuted. The climate of fear that permeates every aspect of urban and rural society is reinforced and maintained by a structure of repression that is vertically integrated from the very top to the local (kebele) level making impossible dissent or peaceful opposition political activity. As former president and presently opposition leader Dr. Negasso Gidada has documented, the structure of state terrorism in Ethiopia is so horrific one can only find parallels for it in Stalin-era Soviet Union:
The police and security offices and personnel collect information on each household through other means. One of these methods involves the use of organizations or structures called “shane”, which in Oromo means “the five”. Five households are grouped together under a leader who has the job of collecting information on the five households… The security chief passes the information he collected to his chief in the higher administrative organs in the Qabale, who in turn informs the Woreda police and security office. Each household is required to report on guests and visitors, the reasons for their visits, their length of stay, what they said and did and activities they engaged in. … The OPDO/EPRDF runs mass associations (women, youth and micro-credit groups) and party cells (“fathers”, “mothers” and “youth”). The party cells in the schools, health institutions and religious institutions also serve the same purpose….
State terrorism is the systematic use and threat of use of violence and coercion, intimidation, imprisonment and persecution to create a prevailing climate of fear in a population with a specific political message and outcome: “Resistance is futile! Resistance will be crushed! There will be no resistance! ” State terrorism paralyzes the whole society and incapacitates individuals by entrenching fear as a paramount feature of social inaction and immobilization through the exercise of arbitrary power and extreme brutality. In Ethiopia today, it is not just that the climate of fear and loathing permeates every aspect of social and economic life, indeed the climate of fear has transformed the “Land of Thirteen Months of Sunshine” in to the “Land of Thirteen Months of Fear, Loathing, Despair and Darkness”.
Inspirational Thought from Nelson Mandela
Africa’s greatest leader, Nelson Mandela, was jailed for 27 years as a “terrorist” by the apartheid regime in South Africa. In 1993, three years after he left the notorious Robben Island prison, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Those jailed as “terrorists” in Ethiopia should draw great comfort and inspiration from the words of the greatest African leader alive:
I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one.
We should all express our admiration, gratitude and appreciation for today’s “terrorists” and tomorrow’s peacemakers, conciliators, hopegivers and nation-builders.
Free Eskinder Nega, Debebe Eshetu, Andualem Aragie, Woubshet Taye, Zemenu Molla, Nathnael Makonnen, Asaminaw Birhanu, Johan Persson, Martin Schibbye and thousands of other unknown and unnamed Ethiopian political prisoners.
In November 2006, in her farewell cable to her replacement Donald Yamamoto and the Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Fraser, former Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia Vicky Huddleston warned: “It is time to stop hating Ethiopia.”
In November 2007, in a N.Y. Times op-ed piece, Huddleston sternly admonished the U.S. Congress: “Do not turn on Ethiopia.” She lectured Congress that “by singling out Ethiopia for public embarrassment, the bill puts Congress unwittingly on the side of Islamic jihadists and insurgents.” She sought to alarm Congress by raising the specter of “enemies that have besieged Ethiopia from within and without.” She advised Congress to discard H.R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act) “and instead use creative diplomacy to deal with the combined threat of insurgency and war.” She said if the U.S. does not support the ruling regime in Ethiopia, the U.S. could “lose Ethiopia” and “cede our influence” to China and Russia.
In October 2007, Samuel Assefa, the former ambassador of the ruling regime in Ethiopia to the U.S. complained: “The U.S. House of Representatives today approved irresponsible legislation that, if it becomes law, would create fresh obstacles to Ethiopia’s bold efforts towards comprehensive democratic reforms. The legislation also would undermine regional stability in the Horn of Africa by jeopardizing vital security cooperation between the United States and Ethiopia.” Assefa later told the Washington Post, “We are very disappointed because the House did not pursue an agenda that is recognizably that of the U.S., Ethiopia or friends of democracy.”
If the names of the two ambassadors had been withheld, even the most sophisticated reader would have difficulty recognizing which one of the two ambassadors is the actual representative of the ruling regime in Ethiopia. But Huddleston’s rhetorical pyrotechnics on behalf of a host country is rare for the guileful world of diplomacy, and certainly disproves the old saying is that “An ambassador is an honest man (woman) sent to lie abroad for the good of his (her) country (not the other country).”
Gone Native?
But Huddleston’s defense of Zenawi’s regime would put many a silver-tonged American trial lawyer to shame. Reading Huddleston’s farewell cable, one is confused about which country she represents. Her zeal and passion in defending Zenawi’s regime is so bizzare, one has to wonder if she had indeed “gone native” (a phrase sometimes used to describe U.S. diplomats who work so fully inside a foreign culture that their policy recommendations become those of the host country). In her cable, she pleads with her bosses that Zenawi is “the ideal partner” and America’s buffer “from terrorism and radical Islam” in the Horn. She argues that Zenawi is the only one who can keep together the “old and fragile Ethiopian empire”. She paints Zenawi as a man of reason and as evidence of that she claims he has listened to her and dropped “charges against VOA reporters and 14 others.” She says by having “conversations with Meles and the EPRDF”, she has “effectively encouraged Meles and the GOE to deepen their commitment to Ethiopia’s democracy and development.” She believes H.R. 2003 is a “hubristic” manifestation of American arrogance, imperiousness, condescension and disrespect for Zenawi. For all the things temporal Zenawi can do, Huddleston forgot to mention that he can also walk on water.
But Huddleston has no respect or use for Zenawi’s opposition. She advises that the “goal” of the “nay-sayers” who oppose Zenawi “is neither democracy nor development, but regime change.” To help the naysayers is to “unwittingly contribute to the break-up of the nation.” She reserves her special antipathy for the jingoistic and chauvinistic “hard-line supporters [of the CUD] in the Diaspora [who] are unwilling to engage in the democratic process.” She warns that if the U.S. acts “aggressively to appease the Diaspora, some members of Congress and some civil society groups, we will lose Ethiopia.”
In Defense of Zenawi
In her defense of Zenawi, Huddleston pulls out all the stops and uses every trick in the diplomatic pouch to steer the new ambassador to fully support Zenawi. She pleads and coaxes, warns and charges, vilifies and condemns just to sustain unflagging American support for Zenawi.
“We must strengthen our partnership”
“As I prepare to turn over my responsibilities to my good friend and respected colleague, Ambassador Don Yamamoto, I urge the USG to maintain and strengthen our partnership with Ethiopia. Ethiopia is moving in the right direction — despite the nay-sayers — on democracy, development, and protecting the region from terrorism and radical Islam. If we fail to consolidate and support Ethiopia, we could unwittingly contribute to the break-up of the nation, and fuel a Christian – Muslim conflict in the Horn…
CUD leaders could cause Ethiopia’s national disintegration
Ethiopia is an old empire but a fragile one. Political and religious divisions could potentially tear away parts of Oromiya, Gambella, and the Somali region from the uneasy federation. Even Tigray, where the Abyssinian empire began, is at risk because the jailed CUD leaders want a unitary state that includes Eritrea, and Tigrean and Eritreans alike will resist Amahara domination.
The CUD defendants and Diaspora supporters are extremist hardliners
The prosecution has recently argued somewhat more persuasively through ongoing witness testimony that some of the defendants called for armed uprising and protest to overthrow the government. Some of the CUD detained leaders as well as their vocal, hard-line supporters in the Diaspora are unwilling to engage in the democratic process, whether by joining Parliament or by agreeing to disavow street action.
Ethiopia as the “only democratic nation” and “bulwark against radical Islam”
Ethiopia, with its 77 million Christian and Muslims — the second most populus country in Africa — would seem to be the ideal partner… It is the only democratic nation that can project power throughout the Horn. It is also the remaining bulwark against the expansion of radical Islam throughout Somalia and beyond.
We are part of Zenawi’s “inner circle”
Because we built a relationship of trust with the Prime Minister and his inner circle as well as with the opposition… Our conversations with Meles and the EPRDF hierarchy have effectively encouraged Meles and the GOE to deepen their commitment to Ethiopia’s democracy and development. Dialogue between the ruling EPRDF party and all the opposition parties resulted in the overwhelming adoption of modified Parliamentary rules that reflect international standards and permit the opposition to question Minister and propose laws. The on-going dialogue among the ruling party and opposition has already addressed rule of law issues in the Oromia and Amhara regions and will now publicly review a new media law and capacity building at the National Electoral Board.
Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act HR 2003) is Bad
The democratic trend is positive. But the partnership will not be strengthened if we bend to demands to pass legislation that puts Ethiopia in the same category as countries on our terrorist list, or make public our private concerns about human rights and governance. Ethiopia — as I have learned — will not act from weakness or because of public threats or even loss of aid. If we stay the course — continue the partnership, and build the trust — not only do we stand a good chance of getting the prisoners pardons, but we will reinforce good governance, economic reform and defense against terrorism in the Horn.
“The right and wrong way to persuade” Zenawi
If we aggressively and publicly press Meles in order to appease the Diaspora, some members of Congress and some civil society groups, we will lose Ethiopia. We will cede our influence, leaving the field to China, Russia and others who have little interest in helping to create a multi-party democracy.
Putting pressure on Zenawi is helping the enemies of “democracy and development”
Ethiopia is neither — as its critics like to claim — a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, nor is it a multi-party democracy that strictly adheres to open market principles. But if hubris demands that partnership be based on our standards, then we will find ourselves helping those whose principal goal is neither democracy nor development, but regime change.
“Meles will turn to China as a more reliable partner”
Meles has already turned to China as a more reliable partner than Europe, even though EU assistance levels have been restored. Today we have a strong relationship with Meles and the inner circle, but it is a wary one. It is not yet a full partnership because Washington remains hesitant over Ethiopia’s human rights record, despite significant improvements over last year. As Ethiopia faces – almost alone — a radical Islamist challenge to its existence and the region’s stability, it is time to put aside our hesitations and make Ethiopia a full partner of the US.
The Enemies of Ethiopia
At the same time, insurgents from Oromiya (the OLF) and the Ogaden (the ONLF), backed by Eritrea, will move east into Ethiopia. The ONLF intends to break off Ethiopia’s Somali region, uniting it with a Greater Somali state. The OLF will either ensure that there is regime change in Addis Ababa or separate Oromiya from Ethiopia. In the end, Ethiopia’s enemies — most notably Eritrea — would be successful in breaking up Ethiopia and ousting Meles.
“A Plan of action for Ethiopia”
I have met with Meles biweekly on average and I have never had a meeting with him in which I did not raise the issues of governance and human rights. As a result, I have been able to visit the prisoners three times and am working with concerned Ethiopians and Ethiopian-Americans on a process that may lead to pardons. The point here is that Meles — and the inner circle — listen to our advice if it is given in private and as a partner. Therefore I would suggest that we lay out a series of bench marks which can be used by Washington to gauge Ethiopia’s progress…
Huddleston’s “series of bench marks to gauge Ethiopia’s progress”
Parliament passes a media law and anti-terrorism laws that meet international standards;
The opposition is consulted on the appointment of a new, neutral National Electoral Board;
Parliament approves public financing for political parties;
GOE engages successfully with donors on the governance matrix;
The Government pursues the investigations recommended by the Independent Inquiry Commission;
Offices of legal opposition parties that have not been reopened are opened;
All legal parties are permitted to participate in the Spring elections;
The judicial process is completed and a verdict determined for all CUD detainees [and pardon given to those] who agree not to engage in illegal activities or civil disobedience are pardoned;
Preparations for local elections are done in consultation with the opposition; and local elections are successfully held.
The Evidence of Huddleston’s “Benchmarks”
The so-called anti-terrorism proclamation, with its vague and broad definition of terrorist acts, is now the principal tool of crushing all dissent in the country. It has been condemned by international rights groups as one of the most repressive laws of its kind in the world. There is no neutral “National Electoral Board”. In 2010, the largest coalition of opposition parties received the equivalent of USD$176 (3,000 birr) according to one major opposition leader. Human Rights Watch reported in 2010 that “donor-supported programs” have been used to “control the population, punish dissent, and undermine political opponents.” Zenawi’s handpicked Inquiry Commission determined after a meticulous investigation that 193 unarmed demonstrators were massacred in 2005 and 763 wounded. 237 of the killers still roam the streets free. In the past few weeks, leaders and members of opposition political parties, journalists and others have been jailed and many others continue to face intimidation, harassment and persecution. The first female leader of a political party in the history of Ethiopia, Birtukan Midekssa, was jailed for nearly two years on bogus charges of denying a pardon. The 2010 U.S. Human Rights report stated, “criminal courts remained weak, overburdened, and subject to significant political intervention and influence.” In the 2008 local elections, Zenawi’s party “won all but a handful of 3.6 million seats.” In May 2010, Zenawi’s party won the election by 99.6 percent.
It is regrettable that Huddleston did not read or ignored the findings and evidence in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Ethiopia for the years 2005 and 2006.
It is time to love Ethiopia!
FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA!
***Vicki Huddleston is currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
The old saying is that there is no honor among thieves. Is it also true that there is no honor among dictators? Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference. But Meles Zenawi, the dictator in Ethiopia and Omar Bashir, the dictator of Sudan seemed to be good longtime friends. At least Bashir thought so. When Zenawi went to see him on August 21, 2011, “to resolve South Kordofan’s problem and defuse tension in the Blue Nile,” Bashir told reporters: “Meles is a friend and [he is] keen on peace and stability in Sudan and a strong advocate of Sudan in regional and international occasions.”
Some friend! Back in February 2009, Zenawi was not “advocating peace and stability” in the Sudan. Rather, he was sweet-talking the Americans to “remove the Bashir regime”. According to a Wikileaks cablegram:
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles told Acting AF Assistant Secretary Phil Carter and AF/SPG Director Tim Shortley that with the expected ICC indictment of Sudanese President Bashir either 1) someone within Khartoum would take advantage of the move to attempt to remove Bashir, or 2) such an attempt will either fail or be aborted. While Meles gave the chances of success for option 1 as nearly zero due to the close knit ties among senior National Congress Party (NCP) officials, he argued that the result would leave the Bashir government a ‘wounded animal’ that is more desperate….
Meles suggested that if he were the U.S., he would either 1) remove the NCP regime or, if that weren’t an option, 2) make clear to the GoS that the U.S. is not out to get it and explicitly lay out what is expected of the GoS on Darfur and the South to avoid continued challenges…[Meles] clearly conveyed the preferred choice would be to ‘remove the Bashir regime.’ … Meles concluded the discussion by highlighting that ‘they don’t trust the Obama Administration’…
In a moment of extraordinary candor, Zenawi also characterized Bashir and the National Congress Party as money-grubbing, power-hungry thugs: “While the ‘Islamic agenda’ may have motivated the regime ten years ago, today they are interested only in money and power.”
Defending the “Wounded Animal”
In July 2008, Zenawi went gung-ho shielding the “wounded animal” from the spear of the International Criminal Court. Zenawi waxed poetic as he warned the West against the folly of the “single-minded pursuit of justice” by indicting Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. Zenawi pleaded that “concern for justice should not trump concern for peace.” He joined the African Union in urging the UN Security Council to suspend Bashir’s indictment. Zenawi’s right hand man Seyoum Mesfin declared: “The government of Ethiopia believes that ICC’s prosecution process is unbalanced, lacks justice and violates the sovereignty of Sudan.” He lectured, “It is not the duty of ICC to present the image of a legal nation as if illegal.”
In December 2007, Zenawi was defiantly defending Ethiopian sovereignty against a bill in the U.S. Congress that he considered “insulting”. Zenawi told a member of the U.S. Senate that “H.R. 2003 – The Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act – was an insult and risks jeopardizing the excellent U.S.-Ethiopia relationship if enacted into law.” He protested that the bill “is unfair and unduly singles out Ethiopia.” He “argued that H.R. 2003 effectively represented the United States “kicking its friend” when others have far more egregious records. He demanded respect from the U.S. and warned the U.S. to not “legislate about the minutia of internal politics in Ethiopia.” It is OK for the Americans to “remove the Bashir regime” for human rights violations in Darfur, but not OK to pass a simple bill requiring human rights accountability in Ethiopia!?!
Regime Change in the Sudan and ?
Zenawi’s “preferred choice” was removal of the Bashir regime. In other words, he wanted regime change in the Sudan. But the mechanics of ridding Bashir’s regime remained unclear. Would the U.S. instigate a military coup? Undertake a covert CIA operation to eliminate Bashir and his top lieutenants? Coordinate NATO air strikes on critical military infrastructures? Launch a full-scale military invasion? Sponsor, arm and support rebels and dissidents in the Sudan? Support a neighboring nation (with experience in invading neighboring countries) launch a preemptive attack? Perhaps the U.S. Congress can pass a bill asking Bashir to remove himself?
On the other hand, what happens after the Bashir regime has been removed? Allow for free democratic elections? Leave the Sudanese to their own devices? Install puppets?
In a press release last week, Zenawi’s regime denied counseling Washington to remove the Bashir regime. It is not an uncommon practice to seek plausible deniability when one is caught red-handed. But one must consider Zenawi’s denial in the removal of Bashir in a broader context of his interventionary regional foreign policy pattern and practice. In December 2006, Zenawi invaded Somalia to effect regime change and save Somalia from“Talibanization.” In March 2011, Zenawi “announced a change in its foreign policy to actively advocate the overthrow of the government in neighboring Eritrea.” Is it reasonable to believe that someone who has a proven record of attempting regime change in two neighboring countries in the last few years would seek regime change in a third neighboring country?
But there is an irony in all of the regime change business that Zenawi does not seem to appreciate very well. One cannot condemn others for doing the same thing one is doing. Zenawi should not be surprised when others in neighboring countries allegedly plot to seek his removal. Nor should he be shocked at the alleged efforts of “part time amateur terrorists” who seek to remove him from the throne. The old saying goes that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or is it?
People Who Live in Glass House Should Not Throw Stones
In soliciting the Americans to “remove the Bashir regime”, Zenawi makes the compelling moral argument that Bashir & Crew have no legitimacy whatsoever because they are “interested only in money and power.” How ironic! That is exactly what they say about him and his crew too. “According to the World Bank, roughly half of the rest of the national economy is accounted for by companies held by an EPRDF-affiliated business group called the Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT). EFFORT’s freight transport, construction, pharmaceutical, and cement firms receive lucrative foreign aid contracts and highly favorable terms on loans from government banks.”
By a strange stroke of coincidence, Zenawi and I finally agree at the most fundamental level: All African dictators are in the business of politics “only for the money and power”. In one of my most widely-read commentaries over the past four years, Thugtatorship: The Highest Stage of African Dictatorship, I merely fleshed out Zenawi’s fundamental argument that the politics of dictatorship in Africa is only about money, power and privilege:
If democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people, a thugocracy is a government of thieves, for thieves, by thieves. Simply stated, a thugtatorship is rule by a gang of thieves and robbers (thugs) in designer suits. It is becoming crystal clear that much of Africa today is a thugocracy privately managed and operated for the exclusive benefit of bloodthirsty thugtators.
There is a great lesson to be learned here. This is not about one African dictator plotting behind the scences with the “imperialist West” to remove another African dictator. It is certainly not about getting justice for the oppressed people of Darfur. It is not even about sovereignty, independence, respect and the rest of it. It is “only about money and power.”
Africans who have suffered the trials and tribulations of colonialism, faced the persecution and repression of military dictatorships and withstand gross abuses of their human rights daily deserve leaders who are in politics to help the poor, defend the rights of the weak and powerless, uphold the rule of law, practice accountability and transparency and respect the voices of the people. Africa needs leaders who honor and serve the people.
FREE DEBEBE ESHETU, OLBANA LELISA, BEKELE GERBA, ESKINDER NEGA, ANDUALEM ARAGIE, WOUBSHET TAYE, REEYOT ALEMU, ZEMENU MOLLA, NATHNAEL MEKONNEN, ASAMINAW BERHANU AND ALL OTHER POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
