Nota Bene: While reading this paper, which I prepared for the forum on ‘Ethnicity and National Identity in Ethiopia,’ organized by the Ethiopian Students Association at Harvard, I ask the reader to bear in mind that my critical evaluation of ethnic movements does not signify that ethnicity should be ignored or suppressed. However misguided ethnicized politics is, once it is born, it will not go away for the simple reason that it mobilizes strong emotional forces. Instead of confrontation, I maintain that it should be used to activate democratization and economic progress, the only way by which the emotional component can be neutralized. This use of ethnicity presupposes, on the other hand, a clear understanding of its nature, namely, that it is less about the rights of peoples than about elites vying for the control of state power.
The ethnicization of Ethiopian politics since the fall of Haile Selassie’s regime is both an aspect and a consequence of the radicalization of Ethiopian students and intellectuals in the 60s and early 70s. Only when we connect the ethnic discourse with radicalization do we understand that the structural problems inherited from the imperial regime are not enough to explain the birth of ethnonationalism. The latter requires that we pay attention to the cultural developments that brought about an educated elite too prone to radical and polarizing views. True, the reluctance of the imperial regime to make the necessary reforms had polarized the country and created the conditions of class and ethnic confrontations. No scholar can seriously underestimate the impact of state repression and lack of reforms on the radicalization of students. The impatience generated by the long postponement of necessary reforms could not but favor the adoption of radical positions. Still, the whole question is to know whether structural conditions resulting from the lack of reforms fully account for the radicalization of the educated elite.
This paper firmly maintains that the evil structural legacies of Haile Selassie’s long reign do not fully explain the drift of the country into the path of radicalization and ethnic confrontation, since reformist and less oppositional solutions were available. The venture into a revolutionary path is the direct product of the infatuation of Ethiopian students and intellectuals with Marxism-Leninism. This suggests that the ethnicization of Ethiopian politics is directly connected with the ideological hegemony of Marxism-Leninism among Ethiopian students and intellectuals in the 60s and early 70s.
Ethnicity and Radicalization
Some scholars––especially those originating from dominated ethnic groups––see the Ethiopian ethnic problem as the main driving force behind the radicalization of the Ethiopian student movement. They argue that the movement, which intensified in the early 1960s, took a radical turn in the late 60s by adopting the Marxist-Leninist ideology essentially to accommodate the mounting struggles that oppressed ethnics, notably the Eritreans, the Tigreans, the Somali, and the Oromo, waged against Amhara rule. The student movement could not continue its opposition to the imperial regime without addressing the growing demand for the democratization of the Ethiopian state through the dismantling of its imperial structure. For many scholars of oppressed regions, then, the deep cause of the 1974 Revolution was none other than the need to smash the political and economic structure of Amhara hegemony over other ethnic groups. As one such scholar writes:
The longstanding contradictions between the Ethiopian ruling class, state, and imperialism on one hand, and the colonized nations and the Ethiopian masses on the other hand caused two types of crises in 1974: the revolutionary crisis from below and the crisis of the ruling class and the state at the top.
At first, convinced that liberalism provided the necessary solution, the student movement called for a democratic society in which all Ethiopians will have equal rights regardless of their ethnic origin. The great shift occurred when Struggle, the journal of the University Students’ Union of Addis Ababa, published in 1968 Walleligne Mekonen’s famous article stating that Ethiopian ethnic groups are actually nations dominated by the Amhara ruling class. To quote Walleligne:
Ethiopia is not really one nation. It is made up of a dozen nationalities with their own languages, ways of dressing, history, social organization and territorial entity. . . . I conclude that in Ethiopia there is the Oromo Nation, the Tigrai Nation, the Amhara Nation, the Gurage Nation, the Sidama Nation, the Wellamo Nation, the Adhere Nation, and however much you may not like it the Somali Nation.
In maintaining that Ethiopia is not yet a nation, the article squarely reduced the Ethiopian polity to the imposition of Amhara culture and interests on conquered nations, even as regards the northern part of the country. Moreover, the use of the concept of dominated nations gave dignity to the resistance against the imperial regime by transforming what so far was belittled as tribalism into national liberation movements. The significant contribution of Walleligne’s article lies in the “conceptual change he introduced into the ongoing political and academic discourse by raising the status of non-Amhara peoples in the Ethiopian empire from ‘tribes to nations and nationalities,†says one Oromo scholar. Consequently, provided they were socialist, Walleligne supported all the uprisings of oppressed groups, including their right to self-determination. Such movements weakened the regime, but most of all they were liberation movements that fought for the empowerment of working people. Not to support their struggles amounted to allying with the imperial regime and, worse yet, to opposing socialism in the name of a nationalism that reflected nothing more than the dominance of the Amhara ruling elite.
What drove Walleligne to write an article that simply called for the dismantling of Ethiopian state and unity? The question becomes all the more perplexing when we note that Walleligne was himself an Amhara from Wollo region. Hardly can we understand this extraordinary self-depreciation outside the influence of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. By depicting the Ethiopian society as a backward and obsolete feudal system, the Marxist-Leninist analysis gave a highly demeaning and gruesome picture of Ethiopia. Is it surprising if, as a result of this reading, Ethiopian students and intellectuals became prey to what an Ethiopian scholar, Hagos Gebre Yesus, called “national self-hatred and nihilism?†Behind the endorsement of ethnonationalism, there is nothing but “national self-hatred and nihilism and . . . attachment to ethnicity and separatist politics based on ethnic, religious exclusiveness,†he contends.
The following quotation taken from Struggle dramatically epitomizes the movement from Marxism-Leninism to national nihilism.
In our Ethiopian context, the true revolutionary is one who has shattered all sentimental and ideological ties with feudal Ethiopia. . . . Our rallying points are not a common history, a feudal boundary, the legendary Solomonic fairy tale, religious institutions, regional ethnic, linguistic affiliations, but the cause of the oppressed classes, who are the ultimate makers of history. That is why we are internationalist, because the masses have no nation, no home.
This unbelievable passage exalts uprootedness and self-denial by offering revolutionism as a substitute for Ethiopianness. Instead of common history and culture, both rejected on account of being feudal, the commitment to an internationalist view championing the unity of the oppressed is suggested as a much more worthy goal. The resolution to eradicate sentimentality and any attachment to Ethiopian characteristics clearly indicates that the rejection of tradition is not based on the examination of its negative and positive aspects. It is the product of a boundless, indiscriminate hatred that targets nothing less than a complete shakeup of Ethiopian society.
This ultimate deconstruction sees Ethiopia as yet to be born, redesigned as it should be around the struggle and the cause of the masses. For such a deconstructive project, nothing of Ethiopia is sacred, untouchable, not even national unity. Thus, Challenge, the journal of the Ethiopian Students Union of North America, takes pride of the position of the Ethiopian Students Union in North America because it “reiterated its unconditional support for the right of the Eritrean people to self-determination including independence.†Once common legacy is rejected, no reason remains to condemn secessionist movements. An equally valid way of getting rid of oppression, however, would have been the struggle for democratization. But since Ethiopia must be redesigned, the recognition of the right to secede to resolve what is but a democratic issue is a forced component of the revolutionary project.
The Imperative of Doctrinal Consistency
The connection with radicalization suggests that, in order to understand the birth of ethnonationlism, we must first inquire into the abandonment of liberal or democratic solutions. And this inquiry means nothing less than the acceptance of the prior nature of the Marxist-Leninist commitment. Far from ethnic problems accounting for the radicalization of Ethiopian students, the prior commitment to Marxism-Leninism explains the abandonment of the liberal approach. If the issue of ethnic equality progressively appeared unsolvable with a liberal approach, the reason is not so much the inadequacy of liberalism as the need to be consistent with the commands of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The more loudly one claimed to be Marxist-Leninist, the harder it became to resist the endorsement of the right to self-determination. In other words, the students’ need for doctrinal consistency, which need authenticated their radical commitment, led them to posit the issue of dominated peoples in terms of dominated nations, even though no historical facts of whatever kind supported their new reading. Their overriding concern was the compliance of their approach with Leninism, which required the socialist solution and endorsed the right to self-determination. Anything short of viewing dominated ethnics as nations and nationalities would have validated the liberal approach. The endorsement of the Marxist-Leninist commitment to internationalism and to the right to self-determination was so categorical that, in the words of Randi Rønning Balsvik, “the feeling was rife that ideology had become more important to the students than the survival of Ethiopia as a state.â€Â
Another major distortion caused by the imperative of doctrinal consistency is the interpretation of the southern expansion of Ethiopia as a colonial conquest. The expansion refers to Emperor Menilik’s forced incorporation of what are today the southern and eastern parts of Ethiopia. According to some scholars, the doubling of the size of the empire through the incorporation of neighboring peoples at the exact time European powers were vying for colonial possessions in Africa was nothing short of a colonial conquest. This colonial interpretation of the southern expansion does no more than confirm the extent to which Ethiopian history and culture are depicted through radical concepts. Once the colonial grid is introduced, the requirement to get rid of the alien ruler is added to oppression and domination and the demand for self-determination overtakes the aspiration for equal rights. The issue is no more the termination of Amhara domination and oppression through democratic changes, but the dismantling of the colonial empire and the accession to independence. Rather than calling for a democratic process of national integration, the colonial reading simply targets the dismantling of Ethiopia.
Another forceful impact of the need of doctrinal consistency is the support that the student movements gave to the Eritrean insurgency. Even if I do not fully follow Tekeste Negash when he says, “it would hardly be an exaggeration to state that it was in response to the Eritrean challenge that the Ethiopian student movement began to develop a strategy for resolving the problems of nation-building,†there is no denying that Eritrean students have significantly contributed to the ethnicization of student politics in Ethiopia. The ethnicization spread first to Tigrean and then to Oromo students, thus forcing the student movement to find a solution to the national problem. Moreover, the Eritrean armed resistance provoked both admiration and the tendency to emulate. Some factions in the student movement began to advocate the creation of a guerrilla movement to overthrow the imperial regime.
The influence of the Eritrean resistance grew with the emergence from within the insurgency of a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla faction, the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF). Not only did the Front become “the vanguard of the radical opposition by its doctrine, its organization and its mobilizing power,†but also radical students could now support the insurgency in the name both of doctrinal consistency and partnership with a fighting ally. To recognize the EPLF was none other than to support the struggle of Eritrean working masses. In addition, given the ideological orientation of the Front, the only way to accommodate Eritrea within the unity of Ethiopia was to initiate a socialist revolution and implement the Leninist solution. Since “the formula, disunite to unite, was behind Ethiopian students’ attempts to work out a stand on the Eritrean matter,†no better proof existed to display the loyalty of the student movement to Marxism-Leninism than to support the Eritrean insurgency.
Important ideological arguments were added to the need for doctrinal consistency. Radicals had succeeded in convincing many students that the emphasis of liberalism on individual rights was not the right remedy, unable as it was to structurally undermine the Amhara dominance. In the context of the primacy of individual rights, the promotion of individual equality regardless of ethnic belonging is not enough to dismantle an already established dominance. Oppressed ethnics must organize themselves as autonomous groups to conquer and affirm their rights. While the liberal model underscores the rights of the individual, the Leninist formula recognizes group rights. The recognition creates the political reality necessary to tear down the oppressive structure. Let it be added that Western governments’ support to Haile Selassie’s regime made the repudiation of liberalism as an inadequate solution easier. And since without a genuine equality the unity of Ethiopia could not be safeguarded, the recognition of the right to self-determination appeared as the only correct solution.
Because it recognizes the right to self-determination, the doctrinal position advocating unity via disunity stands out as the only way to preserve the Ethiopian unity. Who can deny that equality emanating from the exercise of self-determination alone removes the main motive why people want to secede in the first place? Explaining that revolutionaries do not defend the right to self-determination to promote balkanization, a study published by the Ethiopian Students Union in North America writes:
Revolutionaries strive to create as large a state as possible, for this is to the advantage of the laboring masses; they strive to bring about a rapprochement between nationalities and their further fusion, but they desire to achieve this aim not by violence, but exclusively through free, fraternal union of workers and the toiling masses of all nationalities.
Lastly, the preservation of the unity of students was another cause for the prevalence of the Leninist approach. It was felt that the movement could not maintain its unity unless it took a clear stand against Amhara domination and advocated the promotion of oppressed peoples. No other way existed to preserve the participation of Oromo, Eritrean, Gurage, and Tigrean students in the movement than to concede, in the spirit of genuine equality, the rank of nations and nationalities to dominated ethnic groups. The recognition was all the more crucial because of all ethnic groups Tigrean students were “the most politically active on campus.â€Â
The Lack of Renovated National Ideology
Granted the compelling nature of doctrinal consistency, still the history of the Ethiopian student movement shows that a great number of students dragged their feet in endorsing the Leninist solution to ethnic inequality. Aware of the danger of the Leninist idea of self-determination, some students proposed Ethiopianism as a renovated nationalism. Ethiopianism transcended both Imperial Ethiopia and ethnic loyalty through the assertion of equal rights and the promotion of national integration; it defined Ethiopia as the integrated unity of free and equal citizens. Moving on the offensive, groups of students, including some activist students, denounced the Leninist approach as a promotion of tribalism and national divisions. The offensive proved successful:
The 1967 annual meeting of NUEUS [National Union of Ethiopian University Students] debated the national issue and passed strongly worded resolutions condemning ‘sectarian movements in Ethiopia,’ labeling supporters of the movements petty bourgeois opportunists and reactionary elements that were encouraged by reactionary Arab forces. . . . The meeting declared Eritrea an indivisible part of Ethiopia.
If there was one issue against which the majority of students resisted the pressure of radical students, it was the commitment to the national unity. Many students were willing to follow the radicals all the way except on the question of Ethiopian national unity. So strong was the national sentiment that in the 1968 election the candidate of the radicals, Tilahun Gizaw, lost the presidency to Mekonnen Bishaw, who represented the moderate view. The radicals explained their defeat by the fact that “students were deceived by professional agitators,†who spread rumors suggesting that they were in league with secessionist movements.
The rise of a rival movement, expressly defining itself as “Ethiopianism,†confirms that the safeguarding of Ethiopian nationalism was an important concern, especially among many Amhara and Tigrean students. Moderate students initiated the movement to counter the Marxist-Leninist ideology, all the more so as radical students’ support to the Eritrean secessionist movement had particularly antagonized the nationalist feeling. Observing that the support had weakened the influence of the radicals, moderate students saw the nationalist issue as an opportunity to rally the majority of students. An article published in Struggle under the title “Ethiopia and Ethiopianism†gives the following definition:
Ethiopianism is the concept that transcends personal, tribal, and regional loyalties. It is the belief held by the Ethiopian who thinks in terms of the people as a whole . . . . To him what matters is not his loyalty to one person, religious or tribal groups, but to the development of the people, as a whole. To him, the leader or the government is but the agent for carrying out the development and reforms needed to lessen the misery of the population.
Written by an Ethiopian Muslim, the article visibly avoids Marxist-Leninist jargon, such as class struggle, revolution, self-determination, etc.; instead, it advocates reformism, as it considers “the accumulation of wealth by a few individuals as undesirable, when there are millions struggling for a decent place in the sun.†Reforms pave the way for genuine national integration. They result in the creation of a nation of equal and free individuals through the transcending of linguistic, regional, and religious disparities. That Ethiopianism is proposed as a rival ideology, another article in the same issue makes it quite clear:
Existence of regionalism and tribalism (primitive sentiments) in Ethiopia are realities that we should accept; but what we should not accept is their perpetuation. But they do not die out by evasion and avoidance. They die out only when they are replaced by a higher and progressive ideology, (such as Ethiopianism or Ethiopian Nationalism).
The moderate students who thought of using the ideology of Ethiopianism to counter the growing influence of Marxism-Leninism did not fully realize the extent to which Marxism-Leninism was an even more powerful seducer of nationalism. For one thing, the promotion of the interests of the oppressed and the exploited as a means of creating a truly united nation appeared too remote, given the reluctance of the imperial regime to undertake any serious reform. For another, the Leninist proposal alone was liable to enlist the enthusiastic support of oppressed ethnic groups themselves. Above all, Ethiopianism was unlikely to contradict the influence of Marxism-Leninism because its proposals were not enough to undermine the imperial regime and inspire a movement of opposition. In a word, it was not a renovated nationalism: it neither comprised a clear strategy of economic development, nor reinterpreted the traditional culture so as to make it conformable with modernization.
This is to say that Marxism-Leninism stood for an unrenovated nationalism. Under the imperial regime nationalism was crippled both by the uprooting effect of a Westernized educational system and the lack of reforms necessary to remove the numerous hurdles to socioeconomic growth. It is therefore not contradictory to assume that the frustration of nationalism is one of the reasons why so many young educated Ethiopians turned to Marxism-Leninism in the ’60s and early ’70s. This approach corrects Hagos’s statement: what inspired the student movement was not so much national nihilism as the frustration of nationalism. While in becoming Marxist-Leninists students were going against important features of their legacy, the enchanting promises of socialism made these rejections worthwhile, and so metamorphosed them into an expression of higher fidelity. To the extent that Marxism-Leninism had become the ideology of those driven by “radical nationalism,†it naturally reached an increasing number of students as disillusionments over the imperial regime grew.
Nationalism via Internationalism
An objection comes to mind: How does the assumption that Marxism-Leninism cajoles nationalism agree with the equally important commitment of the theory to internationalism? Enshrined in Marx’s celebrated declaration, “the workingmen have no country,†internationalism is certainly not the kind of thought that encourages nationalist fervor. What is more, Lenin’s recognition of the right to self-determination of oppressed nationalities was a direct challenge to the very unity of Ethiopia. Student publications largely confirm the blindness of radical students to the danger of the Leninist formula. Thus, one editorial of Struggle writes:
A true revolutionary is an internationalist, who has understood the dialectical developments of nature and society and who is above all deeply moved by the injustice humanity is subjected to. Thus, for a revolutionary, there are no regional, linguistic, national or even continental boundaries. The most significant factor is the economic exploitation and subsequent dehumanization of the oppressed classes.
Carefully read, however, student publications reflected a nationalist manifesto rather than national nihilism. The recognition of the right to self-determination was an attempt to preserve the unity of the student movement. In particular, it was supposed to be appealing to those students who were going over to ethnonationalism. The latter had become increasingly attractive to students coming from highly aggrieved ethnic groups, such as Eritrean, Tigrean, Oromo, and Gurage students. By revealing in ethnic oppression the dimension of class exploitation, Marxism-Leninism seemed to give a correct analysis of the existing reality, but even more so to offer a solution that fell short of advocating secession. As such, it proposed a pact between revolutionaries coming from oppressed and oppressing ethnic groups. Activating the sacrificial ethos on both sides, it demanded of Amhara students to give up the traditional hegemony of their ethnic group in exchange of students of marginalized groups abandoning their separatist goal. The mutual sacrifice sealed a new “nationalist†deal based on the common interests of the working masses.
Herein lies the considerable influence of Leninism on nationalist sentiment: it “offered a narrative of how to weld together . . . disparate ethnic groups into a unitary state defined by the boundaries of a previous conquestâ€â€by Russians in the Soviet Union and by Amhara and Tigreans in Ethiopia.†Inversely, it was felt that liberalism cannot achieve ethnic equality: the maintenance of the class structure will simply preserve the hegemony of the dominant ethnic group. Only the destruction of the class system can pave the way for the autonomy and equal rights of ethnic groups. Once working people from oppressed groups have exercised their right to self-determination, they will unite freely with their class brothers and sisters of conquering ethnics.
This is exactly what Walleligne had in mind: his diatribes against Amhara domination turn into a calling to “build a genuine national state,†which he defines as “a state where Amharas, Tigres, Oromos, Aderes, Somalis, Wollamos, Gurages, etc. are treated equally . . . where no nation dominates another nation be it economically or culturally.†But what about the support that Walleligne gives to secessionist movements? Here again, his support is conditional on the genuine socialist orientation of the secessionist movements, his argument being that, with an internationalist outlook, “a socialist movement will never remain secessionist for good.†Clearly, the attempt was to strengthen the Ethiopian nation by transcending ethnic attachments through the internationalism of socialist ideology.
Be it noted that these adverse structural conditions only established the possibility of political revolution in Ethiopia. The political overthrow of the landed aristocracy was enough to open up the system: neither the complete transformation of the class system nor the adoption of Marxism-Leninism was necessary to give a political representation to the modernizing elite. How then is one to explain the drift toward a radical revolution? For many students of Ethiopia, the question amounts to asking why the excluded educated elite felt the need to speak in the name of the interests of peasants and workers. The overwhelming answer to this question underscores the inability of the educated elite to effectively overthrow the old elite and its imperial state without the support of the masses. It is therefore the need to gain the support of the masses that talked the educated elite into espousing the Marxist-Leninist ideology.
According to Gebru Mersha, for instance, radicalization has to do with the fact that “liberalism as an alternative ideology did not have a strong material base and even as an incipient tendency was already discredited.†The extremely slow economic development and the suppression of political freedom under the imperial regime together with the dominance of foreign capital did not allow the creation of conditions favoring bourgeois forces. The educated elite had no other option than to mobilize the oppressed against the imperial regime by championing their interests. The incapacities induced by the closed society explain the drift toward a radical course.
John Markakis has developed a similar idea. For him, too, the root of the radicalization of the petty bourgeoisie is to be found in the blockage of social mobility, which offered no way out expect through an alliance with the working class and peasants. In default of any possible alliance with upper classes, the petty bourgeoisie had to make common cause with the oppressed. The perceived solidarity of interests between the masses and the petty-bourgeoisie inclined students, teachers, young officers, middle-strata state employees to become responsive to the radical ideology of Marxism-Leninism and to advocate a program of radical social change. This very radicalization propelled them to the leadership of the social protests. What is more, the alliance was not simply circumstantial: beyond the purpose of overthrowing the ancien regime, it included a project of social development beneficial to the petty-bourgeoisie and the masses alike, notably by the prospect of nationalization, which “would bring assets under its [petty-bourgeoisie] control in a greatly expanded state sector.â€Â
This analysis would have been correct if an alliance between the petty bourgeois, the workers, and the peasants had effectively occurred. Unfortunately, students and intellectuals did not see themselves as allies of the working masses; they viewed themselves as their representatives. Alliance maintains the differences so that the representatives of one class do not speak in the name of another class. Instead, the recognition of crucial common interests brings them together against a common enemy, without thereby dissolving their particular interests.
But then, the most consistent alliance would have been the striving for a liberal society through a political rather than a social revolution. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie did not need to adopt the radical ideology of socialism to obtain the support of the working masses. Liberal proposals, such as freedom of expression and organization, free election, government responsible to the parliament, etc., would have mobilized the working masses, all the more so as socialism was not initially a popular demand. The revolutionary ideology of the radical section of the petty bourgeoisie, and not the pressure of working classes, introduced the idea of socialism. Once radicalism is adopted, reformism becomes the expression of opportunism: it opens the system to new elites but gives nothing substantial to the masses. Rejecting categorically reformism Challenge writes: “let us all realize that to bog down oneself in reformism, today, is indeed an exercise in futility. Every good intentioned endeavor to help the people which is not linked to the revolution of the masses will not simply work!â€Â
One important assumption emerges: elites become radicalized, not because they need to represent the masses, but because their rise to power requires the complete overthrow of the old system. Accordingly, social revolution is the ultimate form of political competition, the very one opposing elites whose conflicts over issues have become so critical that they cannot be resolved within the existing political system. It is clear that an exclusive type of elite competition cannot appear in democratic states. Imperial or autocratic regimes alone are liable to systematically marginalize aspiring elite groups, thereby intensifying elite polarization to the point of breakup. Nothing could arouse more elite dissatisfaction than the protracted monopoly of power by Haile Selassie’s autocratic regime. The resentment against the monopoly of power by an old, outdated oligarchy accounts for the generalized disaffection of the educated elite, including the young officers in the army and police.
To the question why the Ethiopian educated elite opted for the radical ideology of socialism when it could have used liberal notions to unseat the regime, the answer is thus obvious: elite polarization created the need for radical, extremist ideologies. To be sure, democratic demands, such as freedom of expression, the right to organize, the rule of law, etc., would have been enough to ideologically undermine Haile Selassie’s autocracy. However, the political overthrow of Haile Selassie would not have been enough to empower the educated elite: the forceful presence of a landed nobility predominantly composed of one ethnic group required a change both in the class structure and the ideology of the imperial regime. Clearly, the association of radical ideology with the conquest of power rather than with class struggle better explains why elites produce or adhere to ideologies that defend the interests of the masses, such as Marxism-Leninism, instead of supporting liberal values and institutions, which are more in line with their elite status. They prefer radical ideologies less to uphold the interests of the masses than to radically undermine the regime that excludes them by putting it under the pressure of massive and far-reaching demands.
The rejection of liberal and traditional values explains, therefore, the ethnicization of the political conflict. For one thing, to the extent that the discourse of the revolutionary elite demeaned national traditions and values, even challenged Ethiopian nationhood, which it identified with imperial oppression, it was bound to revive local identities. The construction of Ethiopia as an empire in which one ethnic group, the Amhara, dominated other conquered and subdued ethnic groups clearly responded to the requirement of marginalized elites competing for power. Marginalized elites could not hope to wage a successful struggle unless they ethnicized their cause. Because liberalism was not enough to question the Amhara political and cultural hegemony, the first weapon to be used against the system was to get rid of the nobility and the imperial state by advocating a socialist society. Once liberal reform was out of the picture, ethnicization stepped in with its unique ability to give local elites the exclusive right to represent their ethnic groups and speak in their name. Indeed, what is characteristic of ethnicity is that it excludes elites belonging to other ethnic groups as strangers, outsiders, thereby giving a monopoly of representation to the elite group that is native of the ethnic group, that claims to have a natural, blood bond with the represented people.
Only the theory of elite conflict explains why the Ethiopian educated elite first identified with Marxism-Leninism and then gave birth to splinter groups advocating ethnicity. In addition to accounting for the ethnic dimension of the conflict, the concept of elite competition explains the active role that individuals from marginalized ethnic groups, such as Tigreans and Eritreans, played in the Revolution. Only by propagating an ethnicized polity could these marginalized elites successfully vie for power. Only as representatives of oppressed ethnic groups rather than of oppressed classes could marginalized elites pursue the political ambition of enthroning regional elites at the expense of the cosmopolitan or Ethiopianized elite. The positioning for elite competition explains why ethnicized groups were satisfied neither by the overthrow of the monarchy nor by the Derg’s radical attempt to end class exploitation. For them, the end of class oppression did not entail the end of the supremacy of Amhara elite.
Ethnicity is thus a construct of disgruntled and marginalized elites whose ambition for political prominence could not be achieved by means of liberal institutions. As a result, they first appealed to Marxism-Leninism to block out liberalism and then asserted their natural and exclusive right to represent oppressed groups by excluding other competing elites. It follows that ethnicity, allegedly rooted in peasant aspiration, is actually a product of elite competition. Alluding to Tigray’s fierce ethnicization, Gebru Tareke rightly writes: “contrary to the TPLF’s claims, the current ‘nationalist’ sentiment has been thrust upon the peasantry by the intelligentsia.†It is also clear that the promise to uphold the interests of ethnic groups is a disguised way of pursuing elite hegemony in the name of oppressed ethnics. As a remnant of the Marxist-Leninist discourse, ethnicization has the proper function of giving a redemptive and disinterested connotation to the drive to power of elitist groups. Our experience both of the Eritrean and the TPLF regimes fully confirms that the liberation from Amhara rule only gave way to elitist political systems whose main function is to exclude other competing elites. And as the totalitarian control of the state is necessary to suppress contending groups, an ethnicized political system does not easily lend itself to democratization.
With the world focused on an imminent all-out civil war looming in Iraq and the Middle East at large, the warlords in the horn of Africa are gearing up to show the world the mother of all civil wars. Totally consumed by the Middle East crisis, the world has turned away from the Somalia crisis, an unfortunate development taken by Ethiopian government as a green signal to begin its adventure in Somalia. The U.S. is half-attentively pushing for a U.N draft resolution to allow foreign troops including Ethiopia’s in Somali, a recipe that may provide the full momentum for a grandiose disaster in the region.
The Union of Islamic Court (UIC) that has now controlled most of Somalia has brought unprecedented peace and stability to the Somali people after 15 years of mayhem. Despite its apparent success, the UIC has neither been supported nor has the weak interim government been encouraged to work with UIC to bring permanent stability in Somalia. The reason is simply that the West’s policy in Somalia is predominated by their Islam-paranoia. Meles regime is effectively exploiting this paranoia and has been distorting the reality to make the West believe that the UIC poses threat of terrorism. What Meles desires to get out of creating fear is to be elevated to the status of policing/caretaker of the horn region, for which he anticipates support from the West that gives him the capacity to extend the horizon of its tyranny beyond the borders of Ethiopia.
The tyranny under which the peoples of Ethiopia and the Oromo people in particular, are living defies the imagination. The brutal dictator of Ethiopia has gained notoriety for his violent suppression of dissenting voices, and the regime has been directly responsible to the genocide of the Anuaks, the Oromos, and other nations and nationalities of Ethiopia. This genocide is still ongoing. The minority regime of Meles Zenawi has managed to pull the wool over the West’s eyes while he was busy committing these atrocities. Genocide Watch and other widely-respected international NGOs have documented the genocide committed against the Anuak people of Ethiopia in 2003 by uniformed soldiers of the Ethiopian Defense Force1. On the 2001’s World Conference against Racism, the genocide of Oromos and other people was also brought to the world’s attention by the Oromia Support Group23. Other NGOs have also produced similar alerts4,5.
The menace of the regime on the Oromo people has also been committed on the Sovereign territories of neighboring countries. The regime of Meles Zenawi is accustomed to violating the sovereignty of Ethiopia’s neighbors and uses its military power to intimidate neighboring governments into no reaction. It has been reported by various media that Ethiopian defense force has made frequent incursions since 1992 into Somalia and Kenya in pursuit of Oromo refugees that the regime alleges to be members and sympathizers of the Oromo Liberation Front (O.L.F) – a politico-military movment that enjoys support from the vast majority of Oromos. The Meles’ regime has cowed the Kenyan government to be complacent to the Ethiopian troop’s abuse of Kenyan citizens and in many instances, the Kenyan government has indeed cooperated in the rounding up and mistreatment of Oromo refugees in Kenya as well as Kenyans of Oromo descent. The Meles’ regime has gone as far as running the Kenyan court that was hearing the cases of Oromos. This testifies to the extremely aggressive nature of the Ethiopian regime in dealing with real or perceived dissidents that has clearly taken a form of ethnic cleansing. The regimes’ tyranny knows no national boundaries!
The Ethiopia’s interference in the Somali’s affair may come as news to those who have never known the existence of a terrorizing regime in Ethiopia. After denying for so long the eyewitness accounts on the presence of Ethiopian troops inside Somalia, Meles Zenawi has recently acknowledged the presence of his troops in Somalia. His own sham parliament members were as oblivious as the rest of the world to this activity of Ethiopian troops. In his usual and blatant way, Meles zenawi, without consulting the parliament, has single handedly declared that his regime has finished preparation for official war with Somalia’s UIC.
The war-cry of Meles Zenawi is nothing but a gimmick to divert the attention of the Ethiopian public and international community from the real internal political tensions to an outside deliberately created problem. After falling from grace, the Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is facing immense resistance both at home and internationally for its continual atrocities against the peoples of Ethiopia. With an increasing unpopularity in the West, the Meles is desperately seeking a cause that makes him the West’s lap-dog in order to receive the support he needs to thrive as a tyrant.
The fact of the matter is there is no tangible evidence that implicate the UIC as a threat to Ethiopia and the rest of the world. The UIC has given ample time for the world to realize their sincerity to bring peace and stability to Somalia. In a bid to show off their achievement, the UIC has recently invited U.S. authorities to visit the capital Moqadishu. Such a genuine gesture has been ignored and the U.S. backed U.N resolution is being drafted as we speak to lend ‘legitimacy’ to Meles’ regime invasion of Somalia to prop up the weak interim government. This news came few days after the Ethiopian regime declared its readiness to engage the UIC militarily. It seems that Meles Zenawi has once again succeeded in duping the West! Meles is not your average dictator- he also knows how to sucker the West.
The U.S., the U.N. and all concerned parties should be awakened to the fact the Meles Zenawi is deliberately trying to create chaos in the region hoping to emerge as a stabilizing force. When his undemocratic nature is unveiled, Meles is frantically trying to jump on the “war on terror†bandwagon by fabricating fear. This appears to be his last token to draw off cash from the West to finance further massacre of the peoples of Ethiopia, and his main targets-the Oromos. This will undoubtedly prolong the anguish of Ethiopians, the Somalis, and all the people in the region. At a time when the policies of the West is being resented by people in the Middle East, the last thing the West should be doing now is creating more regions that are desperate and resentful. After failing gravely in the Middle East, the West should finally wisen up on how they deal with troubled regions where tyrannical regimes have taken hold of peoples’ lives.
Abdi Galgalo is a graduate student in life sciences and can be reached at [email protected].
Here we go again! Trot out the Somali jihadist bogeyman (aya jibo). Get out the smoke machine and mirrors. Show time! Act I: Narrator Zenawi: “Somalia is becoming a haven for terrorist. The sheiks of terror have declared an unholy war on Ethiopia, and the U.S. of A. They are on the outskirts. This is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country. Patriots and countrymen, defend the homeland!†Blah, blah, blah…
When the going gets tough, the Zenawi Road Show gets going. And these are indeed very tough times for Zenawi. The floodlight of truth has been trained on him over the past couple of weeks, and he has had no place to hide. He desperately wants to divert the attention of Ethiopians and the international community. Enter: Somali jihadist bogeyman. Let’s get the show on the road! Not just yet, buddy…
No doubt, the last two weeks have not been kind to Zenawi. He has been stuck on the international stage with the spotlight on him, and the world saw him for what he is: An emperor with no clothes. No more talk about the “new breed of African leader,†first among equals in a “new generation of African leaders†committed to human rights, democracy and economic development.
The truth about the post-election massacres came out in the most unexpected forum. Zenawi had planned to have his Inquiry Commission put on a show for his parliament. But he couldn’t stage manage it. Instead, the truth was hand delivered to the United States Congress in a briefing, by none other than Inquiry Commission chairman and senior judge Frehiwot and vice chair and senior judge Woldemichael.
The facts ascertained by the Commission are shocking and incontrovertible: at least 193 men, women and children protesting the election results were murdered by Zenawi’s security forces. Over a thousand demonstrators shot and wounded. 65 prisoners of conscience executed in cold blood in a hail of machine gun fire in Qaliti prison. (Compare all this to the Sharpeville Massacre on March 21, 1960 when apartheid South African police opened fire and killed 69 African demonstrators protesting pass laws and injured as many as 300.)
But that was not all: The commission determined that no property was destroyed by protesters. Not a single protester was armed. Shots fired by government forces were intended not to disperse the crowd, but to kill protesters by directing fire to their heads and chest areas.
The report was not sensationalized. It was a dispassionate factual account of the Commission’s investigation, and the forensically meticulous methodology used in documenting the killings and the gross abuses of human rights. In the final analysis, Judges Frehiwot and Woldemichael presented a devastating indictment of Zenawi and his regime for crimes against humanity.
Zenawi desperately tried to keep a lid on the truth. But truth always has a way of getting out, even though Zenawi tried to keep it from seeing the light of day by turning off the power that lighted the offices of the Inquiry Commission.
Zenawi knew the jig was up, but he pleaded with the Inquiry Commission for hours: “Please, pretty please, change your conclusions. Just don’t say it is the government’s fault.†He tried to seduce them: “I will give you riches, whatever your heart desires. Just do it the way we did the Anuak report. Blame the victims.†Frehiwot and Woldemichael sat in stony silence, listening to Zenawi ranting and raving.
Then he gave the commissioners a stiff lecture on the jurisprudence of “excessive use of force.†(Such legal buffoonery must have amused the judges, but I suspect they must have reserved a measure of pity for Zenawi.) He cajoled them: “Your report is very important to Ethiopia’s international image. Your conclusions about government responsibility in the massacres will harm the country. I appeal to your sense of patriotism. Destroy this report and issue and new one favorable to the government.â€Â
When he sensed his words were falling on deaf ears, he reminded them of his standard operating procedure: “You change your analysis and conclusions, or.…†That was it! Time to get the hell out of Dodge. And the two judges were out of there before sundown, with the evidence bagged and in tow — reports, documents, videos, audios, the whole kit and caboodle.
What a great disappointment — and a shocking surprise — it must have been to Zenawi when Frehiwot and Woldemichael looked him straight in the face and said with steely resolve: “No deal, Zenawi. We don’t sell the truth. We expose it!†How proud we are of these men of courage and valor!
“What now?†Zenawi must have asked himself in stunned disbelief. “Are there really Ethiopians who will not sell their souls in exchange for a house, a car or luxurious lifestyle? These guys would rather live with nothing in a strange land than live a life of luxury and comfort at the cost of a little white lie? What the hell is happening in
Ethiopia!?â€Â
Well, I can imagine why Zenawi would be flabbergasted. No offense to anyone, but these are the “new breed†of African leaders, “vanguards of change†that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were really talking about. Woldemichael Meshesha, Frehiwot Samuel, Mitiku Teshome, Alemayheu Zemedkun, Getachew Jigi, Teshale Aberra, just to name a few among thousands of other young Ethiopian leaders who would rather live in exile than continue to serve a tyrant, and be tools of terror and oppression against their own people.
Zenawi says, “but they worked for my government all these years. Now, they are saying these lies just to get political asylum in the West. They can’t be trusted.†Sure, they desperately tried to be instruments of good in an evil system, but in the end these young people learned that in an evil system one has very limited set of choices: be part of it and try to change it, and in the process risk being changed by it, destroy it or in the process be destroyed by it, or escape from it. In the end, they chose to escape, and did so by the skin of their teeth. Now, Ethiopians the world over salute these heroes, champions of human rights who used the truth not only to bring light on the darkness of Zenawi’s regime, but also to defend their people and set them free. Hallelujah!
But Zenawi does not want to talk about the truth. No, he wants to talk about the jihadist bogeyman from Somalia. (By the way, when did the warlords grow up to be jihadists, anyway?) He wants to tell the world that the Somali jihadists are on the warpath; and watch out Ethiopians, and Americans too for supporting Christians and Jews. Pleeease, give me a break!
Classic Zenawi: When the going gets tough, distract the public’s attention. These are hard times for Zenawi. Recently, he went to the European Union to deliver a speech on development and good governance. (It reminded me of a speech once given by Idi Amin on human rights.) Someone remarked that Zenawi’s speech at the EU was not unlike the devil preaching the gospel. But he did not get to preach. The crowd in the gallery booed and jeered him. He had to stop after a few minutes, visibly shaken. But there wasn’t a damn thing he could do about it. He could not arrest or jail his hecklers. Impolite and rowdy hecklers, but free people nonetheless who have the right to say whatever they wanted, including the epithets “murderer,†“killer†and “dictator.†If the shoe fits, wear it, I say.
But I wondered how Zenawi must felt at that moment, to have a rowdy bunch shut him up cold; and prevent him from speaking, expressing his thoughts and ideas about things he feels are important to Ethiopia and Africa. It couldn’t have been a good feeling. But that moment, Zenawi must understand, is “groundhog day†for ordinary Ethiopians who are trapped in a time loop where everyday is like the day before: Not allowed to speak their mind, not allowed to read their favorite newspapers, magazines or books. Not allowed to visit their favorite websites. Not allowed to listen to their leaders. Not allowed to be themselves. Not allowed… (Zenawi ought to share his feelings about his experience at the EU with the journalists enduring in his jails. I bet they would have something common to talk about.)
But that day at the EU, Zenawi learned a real lesson in democracy and human rights: The right to free expression means not only the right to expound on sublime and lofty ideas, or profess the party line or regurgitate the official ideology. Freedom of speech also embraces the right to heckle, pester and tease politicians! Heckling, even if it is rude, is a protected form of expression in the West, particularly when a politician is on the stand.
So, the hecklers won the day, and Zenawi did not finish his speech. In a way, I wish he had completed his speech. Perhaps he might have been able to share with the world his special expertise and insights in the use of indiscriminate killing of rambunctious but harmless demonstrators to establish good governance, or the special use of mass arrests and imprisonments to accelerate the economic development of Ethiopia. We’ll never find out now.
But, in all sincerity, Zenawi could have stolen the show at the EU and earned the respect of the world, and enjoyed watching his hecklers and critics dumbfounded and confused. He could have started his speech with something like: “The foundation of good governance is admission of mistakes by leaders; and God knows I have made my share of mistakes, as has my regime and party. It was a tragic mistake that 193 men, women and children were shot and killed and hundreds more wounded by my security forces. It was a terrible mistake to imprison the opposition leaders. It was wrong to have allowed the massacre of the Anuaks…. But, it is never a mistake to acknowledge a mistake and make amends…I am deeply sorry…â€Â
Zenawi would have set a new standard, a historic milestone, of transparency and accountability in the practice of good governance. That was his golden opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of his people and in the court of world public opinion. But in his usual style, he will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity; and so he let the hecklers win the day.
Back to the jihadists. The Somalis say they want to drive out the Ethiopian invaders from their country and reclaim their territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ethiopia admits having a contingency of expeditionary forces in and around Baidoa. The Somlais say Ethiopia is preparing to make war against Somalia and break up their country into permanent clandoms. They have no choice but to fight, they say.
In all fairness, their argument is not unlike the arguments Zenawi made when Badme was occupied by Eritrean forces. Back in 1998, Zenawi’s Foreign Ministry declared: “Eritrea has committed aggression against Ethiopia in violation of international law. Eritrea’s unprovoked and naked aggression is a crime which cannot be justified by any pretext of border dispute.†See any parallels there?
But Zenawi spins a nice yarn about the threat of radical Islam in the Horn, and the insufficient response from the international community to deal with the threat. “The international community could have done more, and should have done more,†he said. The drumbeat for war on the Somali jihadists is deafening. “Somalia is going to be another Iraq or Afghanistan. The Horn is teetering on the brink of war. Al-Quieda is spreading its tentacles throughout East Africa. All the Westerns experts agree. CNN says it’s real, so does the BBC. We need to get the international community to support Ethiopia in its fight against terrorism and Somali jihadists. Ethiopians, quick, circle the wagons! The Somali jihadists are coming!†(I wonder if the jihadists are telling their people: “The infidels are already here! The infidels are in Baidoa! Let’s drive them out!â€Â)
But wait just a cotton pickin’ minute! Amnesty International, Human rights Watch and the U.S. State Department all say, Zenawi’s regime is among the worst violators of human rights in the world. Western experts say Zenawi’s regime commits gross violations of human rights, and he keeps thousands of political prisoners in the country, and conducts mass arrests and extrajudicial killings. The U.S. House of Representatives has made legislative findings on gross violations of human rights in Ethiopia in H.R. 5680. CNN has reported on it, as has the BBC. To echo Zenawi: “The international community could have done more, and should have done more.†About human rights in Ethiopia, that is. But it hasn’t.
So, we got a problem. Mr. Zenawi says the Somali jihadists are lurking behind every desert rock and boulder. He wants Ethiopians to come out and fight them in every hamlet, town and city. We say, the gross violations of human rights continue unabated. We want Ethiopians to come out of the jails and prisons and rejoin their families. We want them to come out into the streets and peacefully express themselves, show their opposition to government policies and actions, engage in constructive dialogue with their fellow citizens and enjoy basic human rights, which according to Zenawi’s constitution is the natural right of every Ethiopian citizen. So, what do we do? Which way do we go?
Surely, Zenawi must know that it is pointless to ask Ethiopians to come out and circle the wagons when they feel they are themselves victims of a political war he has declared on them. They seem infinitely more afraid of his regime and security forces than any wildeyed Somali jihadist they had never seen. Pray tell: What would the Somali jihadist do to them that Zenawi’s regime has not already done to them anyway? Ummm!
Common sense would suggest that it is hard to convince Ethiopians to come out and fight a jihadist bogeyman when they are themselves fighting for survival, everyday, against a regime that terrorizes them and keeps them in a state of perpetual fear and misery. It is hard to excite them to rise up in a fit of patriotism and rummage the featureless Ogaden desert in pursuit of an invisible jihadist when they are themselves hunted down like rabid dogs in their city and town streets, jailed, tortured and murdered.
It seems futile to sound the bugle of nationalism and jingoism when thousands of Ethiopians languish in jails for no other reason but for supporting democracy and exercising their human rights. The problem is the Ethiopian people can not fight two wars at once: defend themselves in a political war declared on them by Zenawi and his regime, and mount an attack on a distant and invisible enemy rattling sabers somewhere in the “failed state†of Somalia; an enemy, by the way, that seems incapable of bringing the whole of Somalia under its control let alone expect to win a war against a vastly superior Ethiopian military (so say the experts).
But the whole jihadist business smacks of political fantasy. It’s surreal. Mr. Zenawi says the Somali jihadists and their Al Qaeda partners should be opposed and defeated because they are undemocratic, anti-democratic, oppressive and authoritarian. The jihadists don’t believe in human rights and do not allow political or social dissent. They are fanatics who want to impose one-party rule, and do not believe in a democracy where the people elect their representatives. Duh!!! Has Mr. Zenawi looked at the mirror lately?
Now, we have a choice to make. We can follow along the Zenawi Road Show and entertain ourselves with stories of Somali jihadist bogeymen, Mickey Mouse and the Easter Bunny. Or we can stay focused on the real issues of human rights, civil liberties, the rule of law and democracy in Ethiopia.
I shall keep my eyes fixed on the 800 pound gorilla in the living room that Zenawi does not want to talk about or acknowledge: How about freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia, Mr. Zenawi?
Well, if you are not inclined to answer my question, good luck on your road show: “The Jihadists are coming, the Jihadists are coming… â€Â
_______________________________
Please visit my blogsite and share your comments:
http://almariamforthedefense.blogspot.com/
I read Dr. Maru Gubena’s article with a lot of interest. This interest came because we both belong to the same generation he called ‘Golden Period Generation’ and share more or less the same experiences. It would have been wise and scientific to wait until Part II come out and read what is in it to conclude and learn what Dr. Maru Gubena wants us to. I chose not to wait.
I agree to most of the analysis given by Dr. Maru Gubena and do agree on the historical part of the analysis. Two foundations he based his analysis on put their weight on the other side of the scale. Let me explain.
First: Is there a clash of generations?
My answer is NO there is not.
When we make such generalized statements, we have to be careful to cover our bases. We have to ascertain what we mean by generations. We have to establish the two generations that we are describing. Then we have to define what we mean by clashing. Here Dr. Maru Gubena, except throw in a generalized statement, did not establish what he made us think that he is going to do.
Second: What is the purpose of writing the article?
Currently we in the Diaspora, who claim to be on the people’s side in its fight against the illegal group in power, are without a leadership, vision, and means of supporting the people. What is this article intending to do? Are its intentions to foment more divisions and promote my way or the high way?
First let me recap what I agree with Dr. Maru Gubena.
Dr. Maru Gubena is correct when he described the early 70s as the time when there was growing need for new socio-economic and political change. I also agree that Dergue was the uncontested and most ruthless ruler of Ethiopia until now. TPLF is fast passing any threshold Dergue has established in crimes, killings and disestablishing the country. I do agree when Dr. Maru Gubena wrote that the 1974 Ethiopian revolution was began as a people’s revolution until it was forcefully snatched by Dergue. In addition to that I agree in the mess the Kinijit Diaspora Leadership, whatever the division is, created and wasted the good will of the Diaspora Ethiopians.
Here I would like to correct a general misconception. It is with pride that one writes, ‘My generation is excellent. We did this and did that. ‘Of course some take it further and compare theirs with others. This becomes a problem when this comparison belittles others and magnifies itself. I am pretty sure one way or another we heard: “Yezare gize ligotch.” and “The good old days” and the like. In a casual conversation it has its place but when one analyzes a historical perspective of a country it is dangerous. I am transitioning to the first of the foundations in my view Dr. Maru Gubena violated. Every generation has its own historical mission given not by choice but by being born at that time. No one goes to her or his choice of generation one is born into it. In the late 60s and early 70s the historical call was to champion “land to the tiller” “education for all” and “a representative working parliament/government”. In that struggle progressives and saboteurs were created. This is what I think Dr. Maru Gubena called “Golden Period Generation” Unless Dr. Maru Gubena chooses his members selectively, it is this generation that gave Ethiopia the Mengistu Hailemariam and the officers that butchered thousands, it is this generation that gave Isayas Afewrki, Meles Zenawi, and their groups and political followers. Is this the generation that is lumped together and glorified? Of course I belong to it. For me there are bad and good in it as there are in every generation. In the generation Dr. Maru described, “War Born Generation” I found the students in the university in 2001 that fought hard and sacrificed their dreams for the Ethiopian people. I see many that swarmed the rank and file of opposition camps. Are these to be lumped with the few that served Dergue and few that are serving TPLF? THERE IS NO GENERATION CLASH. I am definitely sure you have around you individuals that were born within 1974 ± 5 years you admire for their commitment to the Ethiopian people and their struggle against TPLF/EPRDF. Again, THERE IS NO GENERATION CLASH. The current demarcation is between those who side with the people of Ethiopia and TPLF.
Let me go to the second point.
What is the purpose of writing this article?
In general terms I can correctly say that what we in the Diaspora talk about is the struggle of the Ethiopian people against the illegal and ruthless TPLF/EPRDF group. This struggle is in Ethiopia where young children are telling the illegal group you do not represent me. The form of the struggle is many and the place is everywhere in Ethiopia. Where do we fit in then? Well we support. That is all to it. We could, if we were organized enough do the diplomatic part and help them financially. Thai is the big “if we were”. The problem is we think we are the people. We are the center of the struggle. We are the leaders. We own the struggle. Here is the biggest mistake. Now the shift has taken place. The struggle is inside the Diaspora, between those organized by EPRP and those organized by Kinijit Diaspora. Hallelujah! Let the fight be glorified! I totally disagree with Dr. Maru Gubena when he stated:
“a good number of my compatriots argue that the 1974 Ethiopian revolution should be seen as an extension of the failed December 1960 attempted coup d’etat.”
First of all, Dr. Maru does not say which side of the fence he is standing on. Does he mean he accepts his compatriots view or not. If not why did he bring it up? For me it is comparing apples to oranges. The 1974 revolution was a grassroots movement be it on the side of the people or the army. Just because the end result was not what it started out to be does not make it an extension of the 1960 military coup d’etat. Could it different instead of the military other kind of government was established. No. The result does not define the nature of the revolution. It has nothing to do with the military coup of the 1960.
The following quote vents your frustration but does not weigh anything at all.
“Apart from being directly responsible for making our country a battlefield among various rebel groups and for the disintegration of Ethiopia’s territorial integrity, this is the worst remnant that the Dergue regime left behind: this generation “the War Born Generation”
Just because you do not like a few members of that generation you do not have to say this about all the members of that generation. Are you lumping the Shibre Desalegns in this category? Remember you are talking about a generation!
What the Ethiopian people want is fight TPLF/EPRDF now. Can we be on their side?
I admit there is a lot of mess created by Kinijit Diaspora. There are also some good efforts done by them. Each one of us should not be looking to find faults on others but do our part.
You see there is a simpler way of looking at things at this point.
1. Given the opportunity, the people elected their own leaders.
2. TPLF/EPRDF has been rejected at its own pools.
3. TPLF/EPRDF group has illegally occupied the government power.
4. The Ethiopian people are struggling against TPLF/EPRDF by any means they can.
Here comes the Diaspora; the part it plays is dictated by its wishes.
1. Accept that the people are the owners of this struggle.
2. Acknowledge that the Diaspora is a helper.
3. Do the diplomatic struggle.
4. Help financially.
What political organizations do inside their political organization is the business of its members. Outsiders do not determine the organization’s political path. What they are following is going to determine their place in tomorrow’s Ethiopia. The problem is when one individual or organization says the action of the others is to do this and thus I have to block that now. The center of the struggle is forgotten. The only thing others must do is to evaluate the said organization is then to plan to cooperate with it or go their own way. The final judge is the Ethiopian People. Do not have doubts in the people. They are not afraid of any one with guns or without. The people know.
Before you “my readers” commence reading this article, let me just say a few things about it, its objectives and the complex issues that are assessed.
The writing of the paper was completed in early October 2006, when the political temperature within the Ethiopian Diaspora community was dangerously heated, even explosive; and when a good number of politically active Ethiopians were — as they are still–being intimidated by plans of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and AFD militants and supporters to hunt them down.
For various reasons, including the long-anticipated split of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership into two factions, but mainly due to the Commemoration Day–one year after the jailing of Kinijit leaders –the posting of this paper has been delayed for some weeks.
Because of the length of this article, the paper has been divided into two parts to make for smooth reading. However, to clearly comprehend the complex sources, processes, problems and issues articulated in the article, it is advisable to read parts one and two together.
Apart from examining the on-going destructive roles of the self-installed Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD, and their militant supporters in the politics of Ethiopia, along with their intimidating behaviour, this important paper analyses the many interlinked historical factors and actors that are the immovable sources of our unhealed wounds, divisions and obstacles–obstacles not just to a search for possible solutions to our longstanding and persistent socio-economic and political problems, but even to our living side by side and working together. However, because of the date it was written, this article does not assess either the sources of the most embarrassing of the recent crisis or the division that emerged within the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, which became public after the second week of October, 2006.
The overall purpose of the paper is twofold. Firstly, to attempt to examine the role of the complex mechanisms used by the Dergue regime to encourage the image formation they wanted in the War Born Generation (defined in more detail in part two; see the section on “Distinguishing the Two Generations and their Socio-economic and Political Conditions” which I see as an important source of the clash of generations. The second purpose is just to share my observations, views and experiences with you–my Ethiopian compatriots and friends of Ethiopia–regarding the increasing and worsening divisions among individuals involved with the many issues of our country, including Ethiopian opposition parties and in the Ethiopian Diaspora community in general. It is, however, not my intention to suggest that the targeted victims, the individual artists, political activists, or other individuals like myself and other Ethiopians, are in need or require your immediate physical, legal, or professional action or assistance.
It is also appropriate to use this opportunity to thank friends and colleagues who have been helpful to me, including those who recorded and sent discussion messages, or passed on statements and written texts from the various paltalk rooms. Thanks also to those who notified me when discussions related to my work were underway in one or more paltalk rooms.
Finally, this paper has been written in memory of my generation–the youth of the Ethiopia of the 1970s, particularly those who were inhumanly exterminated, to their families and to those who managed to survive the ruthless death squads of Ethiopia’s historic enemy, the Dergue, which left irremovable scars on the body of my generation, our country and its people.
Maru Gubena
Nov 24, 2006
One Year After: An Overview of the Rise and Fall of the Ethiopian Resistance
One thing all politically conscious Ethiopians can agree on now is that last year around this time a disproportionately high number of us thought Ethiopians had somehow been united by the processes of the May 2005 Ethiopian parliamentary election, by the election events and indeed by the turmoil that followed the election. It is also true that most Ethiopians at home, as well as those forced by the forces of power, greed and evil to leave their country and go in search of relative freedom, including freedom of self expression, thought “oh, at last, we have managed to come back to our senses” and were ready to collectively engage–not only to directly and indirectly resist, fight and attack as aggressively and progressively as we could against the historical and current enemies of our country and its people, which are directly responsible for the territorial disintegration of our country, for the prolonged internal tensions, armed conflicts – but also to work together in an attempt to assess and reassess the multiple and complex sources of our differences and conflicts, and to go forward with one voice, in a focused and harmonious fashion, with concern, deep involvement and consistency. Many of us thought that we all wanted and had agreed to rise up against our common enemies and do everything in our capacity to build an unbreakable bridge that would be most conducive to enabling our country and its people to test and face the fruits of our resistance and its overall outcome–freedom in a democratic system–a system which means simply, above everything else, living together side by side, peacefully, in a community or society with tolerance and respect for the values and views of one another. These were the desires and wishes we had in mind and the agreements we reached last year, even though unwritten and not officially ratified.
A good number Ethiopians, including myself, have strongly and convincingly been arguing throughout the past eleven or more months that without first engaging in a confidence and trust building process among ourselves; without cultivating convincing and immovable common grounds–as a cardinal foundation for our resistance and unity; without revitalizing the feelings of patriotism, respect and love our ancestors had for each other; and without nurturing a relatively tolerant and harmonious Diaspora community, the perceptions, convictions and wishes outlined above, which most of us had last year around this time could not take root. Much to our dismay and regret, this has come true. Although we are the children of a single mother, we have failed to travel on the same track and the same road, because a few among our compatriots have chosen to advance their socio-political and economic position within the Ethiopian Diaspora community undemocratically and forcefully, based upon the feudalistic ways of thinking and the cultural logic traditional in our country, before our unity and resistance (see also Sharing the Sources of my Anxiety.)
Yes, indeed, quite contrary to the perceptions and convictions Ethiopians had last year around this time, something more, something unthinkable, undesired and very disturbing, at least under the international standards, norms and values and contrary to the wishes and desires of the general public of Ethiopia, is in the making within the politics of the Ethiopian Diaspora community. It is also undeniably true that most Ethiopians, especially those of my generation who are residing in the Western world after experiencing the unforgettable, painful periods of Mengistu’s era, have never in our wildest dreams thought that the nightmarish terror of Mengistu Hailemariam’s era would follow our footsteps as far as to our countries of asylum and immigration, coming to haunt us–to terrorize us once again–after the long period of three decades. But however unbelievable, shocking and terrifying we may find it, the nightmarish events of the 1970s, which forced my generation to be the first victims of other Ethiopians in the long history of our country, are again coming to the fore within the Ethiopian Diaspora community.
Indeed, instead of engaging those individuals with views critical of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and its big brother – the OLF dominated Alliance for Democracy and Freedom (AFD)–in discussions in the spirit of our jailed leaders, of the original political path, ideological thinking and political programme of Kinijit itself, and in a democratic and civilized fashion, the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, in collaboration with OLF and its militant media outlets and paltalk rooms, have chosen to openly and publicly intimidate, scare, terrorize, and aggressively attack those democratically-minded, peace-loving and highly concerned Ethiopians who reside throughout the international community, simply because of their differing views and because they decline to agree and accept the recently founded Kinijit Diaspora leadership and the AFD, who have wanted to impose their ideas upon us by force. Those individuals who have sacrificed their entire lifetime, energy, financial resources, resisting repressive regimes whenever and wherever they could, using all available means at their disposal, who have lived with little or no attention to themselves, and have been forced by the conditions of the struggle–combined with a feeling of guilt and responsibility–to lead a solitary life, without even creating the sort of family they deserve and without having a single child of their own, have not only been denied the right to express their democratic rights: we have been denied access to the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and the AFD controlled media outlets, so we have been unable to add our voices to the heated discussions and debates around the issues and problems that have faced our people for decades, including the future geopolitical face of our country, and have been told to be silent–not to write articles and not to give interviews even to other media outlets interested in our work, or to those who have views that differ from the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD and their militant supporters. Serious suggestions to the Ethiopian “pro-democracy” media outlets and websites to impose a permanent gag upon those individuals with views critical to the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and AFD have been submitted and, in fact, some of them have already been published. An article authored by “Gemechu Megersa,” which I take to be the pseudonym of an AFD and OLF activist, posted on the Ethiomedia website on the 12th of September, 2006, is a case in point.
What is shocking, appalling above everything else, is the engagement, involvement and cooperation of former Ethiopian journalists who left their country of origin in search of individual freedom, freedom of self-expression, and to maintain respect and independence for their voices, who with the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, AFD and their militant supporters are actively participating in the process of silencing–making voiceless–those actively involved, innocent and concerned Ethiopian artists, political activists and political leaders. It is particularly disturbing, even embarrassing to observe the limited or non-existent self-respect and sense of independence of journalists among Ethiopian Diaspora websites, such as Ethiomedia, Ethiopian Media Forum (EMF) and Addis Voice, who have openly and publicly shown their intoxication and affiliation with the OLF and the Kinijit Diaspora’s futureless and fruitless partnership under the name of the recently founded AFD. The submission of those with backgrounds in journalism to the wishes and destructive strategies and policies of the OLF/AFD–including the decision not to include the highly respected and loved voices, views and writings of a good number of highly devoted and hardworking Ethiopians, just because our views differ from those of the anti-Ethiopian OLF and the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, and because our work includes terms and paragraphs that stress and signify “Ethiopian Unity” and “Ethiopia’s territorial integrity”–is most astonishing and indeed depressing. Such behaviour from Ethiomedia, EMF and Addis Voice directly contradicts not only the principles of “fair journalism,” but also the motives those involved had for leaving their country of origin.
The saddest and possibly most damaging of all that we have been forced to observe is the recent creation of red or green dividing lines between the Ethiopian pro-democracy outlets, simply on the basis of their association and affiliation with the Ethiopian political parties and with those engaged in armed confrontation against the unelected regime of Meles Zenawi. The ugliest aspect of these dividing lines is that one gets the impression (especially since the OLF has managed to convince and control Kinijit Diaspora leadership members, supporters and media outlets) that the division suggests an increase in tensions between the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and OLF/AFD – who are making every effort to avoid the phrase “Ethiopian unity” – and those who would like to see our country, Ethiopia, as intact as it was before May 1991, who would like to stress the terms “Ethiopian unity” and “Ethiopia’s territorial integrity” as often as possible.
For example, in formulating and producing texts for an announcement, fliers or folders to be distributed to the Ethiopian Diaspora community, calling them to come in mass to demonstrate and collectively challenge the tyrannical TPLF leader, Meles Zenawi, during his appearance at United Nations Assembly in New York on the 22nd of September 2006, representatives of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership were worried and uncertain about the reactions of OLF; this made them reluctant to work cooperatively with other political and civic organizations who wanted to produce flier texts in the spirit of Ethiopianess, or “Ethiopiawinet.” Consequently and most embarrassingly, for a single objective–to demonstrate–two different fliers were produced. The one from the representatives of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership was written in the spirit, political ideology and strategies of OLF and AFD, and does not include any sense of Ethiopianess. The text produced by Kinijit representatives was posted on AFD controlled websites, such as Ethiomedia and EMF.
In contrast, the other fliers, written in the spirit of Ethiopiawinet and including the phrase “Ethiopia’s territorial integrity” couldn’t be posted on Ethiomedia and EMF. These fliers were posted only on the Debteraw and Ethiolion websites. Isn’t this extremely depressing? Was this really necessary? Does this reflect the spirit of Kinijit and its jailed leaders? Why do we need such divisions? Why and again why? We have also been receiving information about serious and unpleasant confrontations in New York between the predominantly OLF/AFD and EPPF supporters on one side and those representing other political parties on the other, along with those who just came to support the Ethiopian people in the fight against the unelected regime of Meles Zenawi.”
The Revitalization of Ethiopia’s Tragic, Painful Memories of the Dergue Era
As part of the fruitless, ineffectual attempts of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD and their blindly militant supporters to silence highly concerned and involved Ethiopians and make them voiceless by boycotting their work, direct warnings and threats have also been reaching our e-mail boxes. Some frustrated and irresponsible individuals have even been doing their best to intimidate us, with the single objective of keeping those with views different from their own silent and isolating us both from the issues that we find most important and from Ethiopians, whether the mass of the Ethiopian Diaspora community or elsewhere. Sometimes this is done directly, by making phone calls, sometimes with the pretext of “journalism”–saying they would like to interview their victims, just to induce us to start talking with them on the telephone. Within a few seconds, however, the real purpose of these “interviewers” who are inspired by the Kinijit Diaspora leadership or who are AFD militants becomes more than obvious. The Kinijit Diaspora leadership and AFD radical militants who are currently so sleeplessly engaged in the process of revitalizing our most tragic, nightmarish and painful memories of the appalling years of the 1970s and the early 1980s move immediately from their original stated purpose of fixing a date and a precise time for an interview to a direct confrontation with their victims, questioning the integrity of the very person they initially said they wanted to interview, giving repeated warnings and threats, asking us to stay away from any political activities and issues related to our country, or join hands with their militant surrounded camps–the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and AFD–immediately, before something undesired, unpleasant and ugly occurs to their victims. A few of the victims of such intimidation by the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and AFD radical militants have already reported their experiences to law enforcement authorities in their respective locations, with evidence in their hands. The publicly made complaint of artist Solomon Tekalign during the interview he gave to the “Ethiopians in the Diaspora Discussion Forum” on Monday, the 18th of September and Saturday the 7th of October 2006 and his report to law enforcement authorities in the area where he resides is a case in point.
Much to the dismay and disappointment of both the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and a few AFD founders, and more particularly their actively militant paltalk rooms known as the “Ethiopian Current Affairs Discussion Forum” and the “Ethiopians in Switzerland Discussion Forum,” together with “Negat radio” and “Radio Kaliti,” however, the individual Ethiopian victims have continued to resist, arguing and even striking back as boldly and aggressively as they can by employing every media opportunity they can find to publish or post their articles and giving powerful interviews to media outlets of a democratic mind, saying that they cannot so simply be intimidated, silenced and prevented from exercising their democratic rights by threats and warnings from the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD and their radical supporters. In the articles they have posted and their interviews with various Ethiopian Diaspora outlets, these victims have insisted, arguing eloquently, that they would prefer to die rather than end the role they are playing and their engagement with the issues due to threats and the cold war being waged against them by some individuals seeking revenge, who were directly or indirectly affected by the changes of power either in May 1991 or thereafter, following the removal of the dictator Mengistu Hailemariam’s regime from power and the complete disintegration of the Ethiopian armed forces due to the rebel forces of Ethiopia’s enemies–the EPLF and TPLF.
The victims of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD and their media outlets and militant supporters have included well-known artists, intellectual politicians, academics and others who have been working hard with the aim of witnessing relative freedom and democracy taking root in our country of origin–Ethiopia–in our lifetime. Going beyond defending themselves and taking some urgently required measures conducive to protecting themselves and their family members, both at home and within the Ethiopian Diaspora community, the victims of the self-installed Kinijit Diaspora leadership and the AFD militants have accused the two organizations and their supporters not only of being undemocratic and feudalistic in their thinking and self-centred in their behaviour, but also potentially dangerous to the future image and peace of Ethiopia and to its territorial integrity. In responding to the many attempts of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD and their militant media outlets to inflict untold damage on their political and personal reputations, some of the well known victims have further accused the two self-installed organizations, the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and its other rebel partners–who are said to be the creation of, and supported morally and assisted financially and militarily by Ethiopia’s historical and current enemies, OLF and Shabia–of lacking a legal basis for their existence, and being not only uninterested in helping Ethiopians cultivate the habit and culture of democracy in their country and enabling them to test the fruits of freedom and democracy and face its challenges, but instead concerned only with the immediate removal of the unelected tyrannical regime of the TPLF leadership and its replacement by themselves–by another unelected Dergue-type regime. Their critics, on the other hand, find it essential to begin now to create tools and mechanisms that will be conducive to changing and democratizing our attitudes and habits.
According to inside sources, recorded discussions and interviews given to the militant paltalk rooms of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the entire intention and most fervent desire of this leadership–whose members and supporters have personally and directly been affected by the unelected leadership of TPLF, both during the armed struggle and after the defeat of the Dergue regime in May 1991–is to mobilize and redirect every resource they can find to provide money and manpower for the warfront in a war that is in preparation, which is to be waged under the leadership of OLF, with the supervision and cooperation of the regime of Eritrea. This will have a single objective: not to free Ethiopians, but to use every available means to revenge the members of the entire leadership of TPLF before they die by immediately removing the TPLF regime from power. It does not matter what follows, or what happens to the people of Ethiopia. They simply want to instantly–today rather than tomorrow–remove the unelected regime of Meles Zenawi. That is why they are not doing the sort of planning and political programme that takes into consideration the future face of Ethiopia and the safety and security of its people.
A further remark, which should be stressed and articulated as effectively and often as possible, is in regard to the overall outcome of the short-lived–and, to any conscious and concerned Ethiopian, tragic, saddening and extremely hurtful–marriage committed between the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and its boss, the OLF. This marriage was celebrated from 19 to 22 May, 2006, in the city of Utrecht, the Netherlands–but with no invited witnesses and guests. As has already been stated in my previous article, Holding Back Sobbing Children at their Mother’s Untimely Death and Not Explaining what Happened is both Wrong and Unfair, posted in the first two days of September 2006, the marriage between these two organizations –which are totally unequal and have no common ground or common vision at all, and whose overall objectives towards the future geopolitical face of Ethiopia are entirely remote from one another and irreconcilable in all respects, except in their efforts and campaigns to force their undemocratic desires and strategies upon the Ethiopian Diaspora community–the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and AFD, together with their radical militant supporters and paltalk rooms, have managed not only to destroy the motivation, energy, morale and relative unity that existed among the Kinijit Diaspora community last year around this time, and with this the many vitally important activities and projects that were expected to be carried out in support and on behalf of our jailed leaders, the political programmes and generally the broadening and strengthening of the forces of the Ethiopian resistance, but also they have revitalized the complex mechanisms that were previously employed by the most hated and cruel regime of Mengistu Hailemariam as indispensable tools to hunt down and annihilate the youth of Ethiopia–a good portion of my generation, which the Dergue saw as its potential enemy.
Due to their increasing frustration and inability to either convince the Ethiopian Diaspora community to accept and support them, or to silence and isolate their most outspoken and well-known critics, these two self-installed organizations, the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and the AFD, have embarked on a horrifying plan: they are organizing and assigning a large number of individuals among their militant members and supporters as undercover agents, who are to engage in the heavy task of following in the daily footsteps of those with critical views of the Kinijit Diaspora leadership and the AFD or unwilling to give moral and financial support to their objectives and activities. This is taking place not in Ethiopia, but, shockingly, in our countries of asylum and immigration–on European and American soil, in the cities, towns and villages where we work and live. Some of the main tasks of the undercover agents are to be physically present in the areas where we live and work, to observe our physical appearance, movements, family members, our educational background, and the kind of job we engage in. Moreover, they are to make a complete list of our names. According to statements of some individual members of the two political organizations in meetings and discussions held around the end of August and in early September, 2006 on the two extremely vocal and militant paltalk rooms mentioned above, the overall purpose of the undercover agents in collecting names of actively involved individual members of the Ethiopian Diaspora community is to charge those listed of treason and see them convicted, with charges as harsh as possible, by new judges who are yet to be appointed and by new courts that are to be established when the Kinijit Diaspora leadership (Ato Andargachew Tsigie) and the OLF, together with other small rebel groups such as EPPF, ONLF and SLF, succeed in intensifying the war under the leadership of AFD, defeats the unelected regime of Meles Zenawi, and establishes a new government in Adds Ababa and throughout the rest of Ethiopia. When that would take place, no one knows.
Ideas and measures like those broadly discussed above have been undertaken by the Kinijit Diaspora leadership, the AFD and certain Ethiopian Diaspora media outlets, including their militant paltalk rooms, with the aim of intimidating and silencing a good number of innocent hard working Ethiopians who are themselves an indispensable part and parcel of the Ethiopian Diaspora community, and who could be an important contributing force to activities beneficial to the well-being of our community. These actions are not only divisive and dangerous to Ethiopians–who are generally peaceful and peace loving–and to the activities of the Ethiopian resistance against our common enemy, but are also horrifying. Such ideas and measures should immediately be denounced and condemned by all Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia.
It is probably healthy and even wise to convey to you–to my readers–a positive reverse side of the coin that could be very comforting to those targeted victims: the two political organizations and their militant paltalk rooms will not be able to hurt any of us, since their power bases have continuously been and continue to become weaker and weaker, and all of the individuals involved have empty hands–no guns and no bombs, nor any other tools to harm any of us directly. And, even though the radical militants may not like to hear it and will possibly not accept it, it is also true that the leaders of the two organizations, their members and supporters will soon be disappointed, because these organizations will soon cease even holding their usual empty, arrogant talks with one another. This is especially likely given the limited or non-existent common ground and common agenda, to say nothing of the lack of political power and capacity within the two organizations. They lack not only military power but also organizational structures, including leadership, feasible policies and viable strategies.
It is on the other hand true, that despite their limitations with respect to political and organizational structures, the socio-political and psychological damage the two organizations and their militant supporters have inflicted, including the divisions, fears and anxieties they have caused among the Ethiopian Diaspora, in particular for politically active Ethiopians, cannot and should not be underestimated; it will have an enormous impact on the community for at least some years, and will not be easy to reconcile and redress. The damages and divisions inflicted by these two organizations is already having an effect. For example, the enormous difficulties being experienced today by the community and the Ethiopian opposition parties in attempting to successfully move H.R. 5680 (the Ethiopian Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Advancement Act) from the hands of certain powerful individual(s) to the floor of the U.S. Congress for a final vote is a clear sign of the problem; it is a direct repercussion from the antagonisms and animosities that permanently smolder in our minds and hearts, increased by the tensions, anxieties divisions among us that have recently emerged and are growing day by day.
As has often been observed, millions of Ethiopians–those who torment themselves with the heaviest questions, such as why do we Ethiopians seem to be incapable of working and living in relative peace with each other? Why is it that we behave so disrespectfully, so destructively–as we have been doing and still do–towards one another, as if we have been born to be detrimental, not just to others but to ourselves as well? Remember that if one conspires to eliminate others, they will definitely do everything possible to conspire in turn and strike back. Further, what might be the sources of our deep-rooted animosities and hostilities?
Also, as we have often been told, a good number of Ethiopians appear to be well aware of the historical reasons behind our most tragic enemy: divisions and lack of confidence between and among ourselves. Unfortunately, however, many of us persist in arguing that the causes–especially the sources of our resentments and animosities, which have been created and expanded by the propaganda machines and the well crafted traditional mechanisms such the institution of the family, the media and, since the 1974 Ethiopian revolution, our educational system–are too sensitive and difficult to discuss. The big, unavoidable question then becomes: when the effects of such enemies are comparable to a huge foreign force coming towards us, armed with complex and highly advanced weapons, how long can we simply keep them inside our hearts and minds, without attacking them as aggressively and progressively as we can, without debating them or going in search of possible solutions? How long can we do this? Further, apart from asking about the causes, whether historical or recent, of our current sickness and deep-seated animosities, we need to think about whether there may be the logical reasons behind what has happened to some of my compatriots, who have become disinterested, unwilling and even allergic to the idea of joining in intellectual discussion on ways to tackle the most damaging repercussions of the Ethiopian revolution, the effects it has inflicted upon Ethiopians and inculcated deep in the minds and hearts of the ” Dergue Generation”–a generation born some five years before and after the ousting of the aging Emperor Haile Selassie on 12 September 1974. What can these reasons be? And what were the roles and contributions of the then military regime and its propaganda machine in moulding its “newly born” generation, which I will call the “War Born Generation,” so that it became so resentful and hateful – a persistent enemy of the previous generation, to which I will refer as the “Golden Period Generation?” More explanation regarding these two generations will be provided in the subsequent pages.
Finally, why is it that we Ethiopians continue to be, and even seem addicted to, establishing associations, organizations and political parties, while knowing how good we are in making them ineffective; while knowing perfectly well that we are people who live side by side, but without a sense of confidence or trust in each other; and while we clearly know that the organizations we quite often want to establish never become functional and operational, due also to our confrontational and suspicious behaviour towards one another, as well as our habits and cultural orientations–orientations that are predominantly centred on ourselves, our families and our groups?
While I will make every possible effort to examine and assess the questions raised above, I may not be able to cover the extremely complex and indeed sensitive factors involved in the clash between the two generations, including the historical sources, as effectively as many of my readers would like and expect. Therefore I sincerely hope some of you will help me in responding to them, since in recent times these questions have become a source of persistent concern and anxiety not only to me and a few of my generation, but to a large number of other Ethiopians as well.
Reviewing historical causes behind Ethiopia’s Painful Memories: The clash of generations
Even though it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak with confidence, and even though the 1950s, 1960s and the first few years of the 1970s could be characterized as “golden periods”–relatively stable and peaceful, compared to the periods Ethiopians were later forced to experience–I would boldly argue, and I believe that Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia of my generation, including a good portion of the generation of my parents, will not hesitate to agree, that in the early years of the 1970s there were growing needs and fervent desires among the majority of Ethiopians for new socio economic and political changes, including a change of leadership. Again, this was despite the fact that the territorial integrity of Ethiopia was intact and respected by all of Ethiopia’s neighbours and the international community at large. It is also true that the international community and world leaders respected and loved Ethiopia and Ethiopians. Entry or travel visas were not required for Ethiopians to Israel and to certain European countries. The periods were also marked with a sense of Ethiopianess and Ethiopian nationalism among Ethiopians and indeed, with relative respect and love among Ethiopians.
Further, it would not be wrong to insist that as in many African countries the need for political and leadership changes in Ethiopia were concentrated in Ethiopia’s major cities, particularly in Addis Ababa. As far as my recollections go, from the stories and jokes told in family get-togethers and around coffee tables, from educational institutions and from the Ethiopian media outlets of the period, the needs and demands of the Ethiopian urban population for a change of leadership began in the 1950s. The December 1960 military coup d’etat launched by the Officers of the Imperial Guard, led by their Commander, Lt. General Mengistu Newaye, and his brother, Girmame Newaye, was a result. Regrettably, however, due to three or more critically important mistakes in the planning of the coup, which is nostalgically remembered and referred to as the “December 1960 coup d’etat,” was soon put down by the forces loyal to Emperor Haile Selassie.
Although there is little or no recorded, verifiable evidence in our hands or on our bookshelves, a good number of my compatriots argue that the 1974 Ethiopian revolution should be seen as an extension of the failed December 1960 attempted coup d’etat. Even though the resignation of Aklilu Habte-Wold’s cabinet was sudden and unexpected, the ousting of Emperor Haile Selassie was a relatively gradual process. The 1974 Ethiopian revolution was began as a people’s revolution, despite that it was forcefully snatched by the Ethiopian armed forces. There were increasingly intense and growing opposition from the Ethiopian left, especially students and youth in general, who were in the forefront in challenging the uninvited, unexpected emergence of the fascistic enemy of the military regime known as the Dergue or Committee, which came to be known as the Provisional Military Administrative Council and became the uncontested and most ruthless ruler of my country and the oppressor of my people. Therefore there was soon not only, for the first time in the history of Ethiopia, the most appalling urban bloodshed, with indiscriminate executions of hundreds of thousands, mostly of my generation, in their own houses, in offices and in the streets, day and night, without any charge or trial; accompanied by a forced mass exodus of Ethiopians into neighbouring countries in all directions, using all available means of transportation, whether cars, horses, donkeys or of course, on foot; but also the regime was fully engaged in fashioning a new propaganda machine, with mechanisms intended to create and expand hostilities and animosities among Ethiopians. This propaganda machine included the “Zemecha” programme, a programme purposefully constructed to disperse all politically conscious Ethiopians, including the entire body of Ethiopian students, throughout the rural Ethiopia, to avoid the continuous direct challenges faced by the Dergue from the politically conscious urban student population. The Zemecha programme was intended to teach the Dergue philosophy, inculcating it into the minds and hearts of the rural people of Ethiopia as well as those forced into the countryside or remaining in urban areas. The Dergue’s cruel propaganda mechanisms rapidly and forcefully imposed its programme on every household, family, school, college, university and on the Dergue controlled media, to help remodel the minds and thinking of the “Golden Period Generation”–those who resented and hated the rule of the Dergue, who were challenging it and demanding immediate resignation. Extremely hostile political propaganda and all available channels were used to carry out the process of implementing the political ideologies of the Dergue in an accelerated fashion. These who appeared to be reluctant or unwilling to be oriented, reoriented and remolded to accommodate the fascistic ideas and ideologies of the Dergue regime were automatically and mercilessly executed by the cadres of the Dergue–cadres who are living with us today as members of the Ethiopian Diaspora community and who are active leaders and members of Kinijit Diaspora leadership and the AFD. Others among the Golden Period Generation were forced to leave their country and go into exile, leaving their loved ones behind.
Then came the “War Born Generation,” born from families who either were an inseparable part of the Dergue regime, worked with or were indoctrinated by it. They are the main victims of the dramatic campaign, the imposition of the ideologies and hateful propaganda of the cruel and hated Ethiopian enemy–the Dergue. Apart from being directly responsible for making our country a battlefield among various rebel groups and for the disintegration of Ethiopia’s territorial integrity, this is the worst remnant that the Dergue regime left behind: this generation–the War Born Generation–which was molded to think and envision the world in exactly the same way as the former members of the Dergue regime and its cadres, and who are therefore convinced that the regime of Mengistu Hailemariam did nothing wrong to Ethiopia and Ethiopians. Consequently, the ever-growing clashes and tensions between the two generations–the Golden Period Generation and the War Born Generation–continue to be not only a source of daily conflict, but more worryingly are a potential obstacle to the resistance against the tyrannical regime of Meles Zenewi. As will be clear in part two of this article, it is the War Born Generation, together with those who served the regime of Mengistu Hailemarim, who have skillfully and successfully managed to paralyze all of the engagement planned by the Kinijit Diaspora and Kinijit itself.
Dr. Maru Gubena, from Ethiopia, is a political economist, writer and publisher. Readers who wish to contact the author can reach me at [email protected]
War in the Horn of Africa appears imminent. If large-scale violence breaks out, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and the Bush administration will bear major responsibility for the ensuing chaos and human suffering.
Zenawi, who already has at least 8,000 troops in Somalia, just declared his readiness to widen the war.
There is a marriage of convenience between Ethiopia’s Prime Minister and the Bush Administration. Zenawi is desperate to divert attention from his internal troubles and human rights abuses. An over-extended Bush administration finds it cost-effective and expedient to outsource the Somali war to an eager, yet repugnant local tyrant.
Zenawi is a polished Tigrian warlord in an Armani suit. He is an Albanian-style Marxist turned Christian crusader, a ruthless megalomaniac perfectly willing to burn down the neighborhood to stay in power.
Ethiopia’s ruling Tigrai Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) has devised a grand internal and external strategy to stay in power. Creating Christian-Moslem conflict is the weapon to be used on the domestic front. This is designed to create a wedge between regime opponents who have united without regard to religion or ethnicity.
The recent religious violence that took the lives of some 19 people in the South West of the country appears to be the work of regime agents.
There is an active domestic propaganda campaign about the danger of jihadists and Islamic extremists. The campaign aims to confuse the issues, to hoodwink the country’s Christian population and to garner its support. Such a situation will create a Christian-Moslem rift, virtually assuring the continuing rule of the ruling minority group. Sadly, such poison is being introduced to a population that has had unprecedented religious tolerance.
The bond between Christians and Moslems goes back to the beginnings of Islam. The prophet Mohammed sent his followers to Ethiopia when they fled persecution in Arabia. Ethiopia’s Christian king received Mohammed’s followers as honored guests and treated them with civility.
Although there were periods of contention, the early history of tolerance created a precedent for mutual respect and coexistence. It will therefore be an unforgivable crime to introduce religious conflict to an otherwise harmonious society.
Zenawi’s external survival strategy depends on currying favor with the United States. Towards that end, he continues to fabricate intelligence reports about the danger Somali Islamists pose to Ethiopia and the United States.
Ethiopia’s Prime Minister says the Somali Islamic Courts Union (ICU) is a terrorist organization that has to be stopped in its tracks. He provides no proof beyond accusations and name calling.
“I think the U.S. government panicked. They saw Islamic group; they said, ‘Taliban is coming,” said Herman Cohen, former Under Secretary of State for African Affairs, in a recent interview with Margaret Warner of PBS.
Cohen continued, “also, there are friends in the region, like the Ethiopians, who probably are feeding false intelligence about terrorists being hidden and that sort of thing…. So they want to keep the Islamists out of power, and they will bring the U.S. into it, if they can.”
Ironically, this same grandstanding Zenawi and his organization were classified as terrorists by the United States not long ago. (See, for example, US Homeland Security’s database of terrorist organizations. See also.)
Somalia’s Islamic Courts Union poses a “clear and present danger,” Ethiopia’s strong man said during a recent, carefully-orchestrated speech to his rubber-stamp parliament. Again, he provided no proof.
Many Ethiopians would beg to disagree. What poses a “clear and present danger” is a homegrown rogue minority regime that refuses to respect election results, shoots opponents at will, throws tens of thousands in jail without respect for due process of law. The “clear and present danger” comes from the ruling Tigray People’s Liberation Front that runs away from solving domestic post-election problems, pimps the country for political gain, and starts an unprovoked war with a neighboring country.
No matter how much one disagrees with the religious bent of the Islamic Courts Union, they have brought a modicum of stability to Mogadishu and other areas they control.
This is in contrast to the incompetence of the so-called Transitional Government of Somalia which has failed to show any popular support. President Abdullahi Yusuf has little credibility with his own people, spending most of his time in Ethiopia. It is reported that he has been in the service of Ethiopian security forces going at least as far back as a decade. Even his kidney operation a few years ago was paid for by Ethiopia.
A Bush administration preoccupied with Iraq appears to have decided to let Ethiopians do the fighting. US policy in Ethiopia and Somalia has been relegated to low-level, inexperienced officials.
It’s the same folks who lent American support to unsavory Somali warlords, leading to an embarrassing foreign policy debacle in June. The public face of this rookie team is Jendayi Frazer, US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs. Frazer is reportedly close to the Zenawi regime and relies heavily on the EPRDF’s self-serving intelligence feed.
Incidentally, some of the pro-US warlords may be among those responsible for the killing of US rangers during the “Blackhawk” incident.
According to a Washington Post dispatch of May 17, 2006, some of the warlords “reportedly fought against the United States in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead.”
These warlords continue to spend a great deal of time in Addis Ababa, chewing the narcotic Khat, driving expensive cars, guzzling top-shelf whiskey and frequenting whorehouses — all courtesy of the American tax-payer.
Zenawi is eager to keep the focus away from his domestic troubles at all costs. In the past, he had no qualms sacrificing at least 50,000 Ethiopian troops during the Ethio-Ertrean war of 1998 -2000. The war was allegedly fought over a barren border area called Badme. Incomprehensibly, he was quick to give up Badme–land over which so much blood was shed. When ceding territory became domestically unpopular, he began backtracking and flip flopping, making border demarcation a permanent thorny issue that continues to this day.
Zenawi also had no problem giving orders for the shooting of civilians protesting the stealing of the 2005 elections. Over 193 civilians were murdered in broad daylight and upwards of 30,000 jailed in a post-election reign of terror, according to a commission established by the regime. Among those arrested are almost all elected leaders of the opposition party, including the mayor of Addis Ababa, human rights advocates, journalists and civic society leaders.
There is no rule of law or an independent judiciary to dispense justice. Prisoners are guilty until proven innocent. Even when the court releases prisoners the security forces rearrest them. Long imprisonment without any evidence–sometime lasting as long as 10 or 15 years-–is common.
Beyond imprisonment, the autocrat’s 15-year rule has been marred by a systemic pattern of human rights abuses and extra-judicial killings.
A few additional examples of the regime’s violent rule include the following:
At least 30 helpless prisoners in Kaliti were shot dead last year;
424 ethnic Anuaks war massacred by the Ethiopian army in 2003 to make way for oil exploration by a Malaysian company;
66 protesters were gunned down in Awassa and Addis Ababa in 2002;
40 students were murdered in 2001;
and another group of 19 students were killed in Addis Ababa in 1993.
Widespread killings and mass arrests have been common in regions inhabitted by the majority Oromos. Some 15,000 to 20,000 people have been killed in the Oromia region alone, according to a former judge who recently defected to the West. This disturbing information was revealed in a recent interview the judge, Teshale Abera, gave to the Mail and Guardian newspaper. According to the judge, Ethiopia’s current regime is as bad as the Mengistu regime it replaced.
Ethiopia is also gripped by an economic crisis, contrary to the government’s Orwellian propaganda. Regime cadres are increasingly squeezing peasants. Urban unemployment is still upwards of 50 percent. The cost of living has skyrocketed, making life unbearable for the ordinary person.
Upwards of four million Ethiopians need ongoing international food handouts. Over three million are infected with HIV/AIDS. (The only sector doing well is party-owned businesses and the few parasites that benefit from ethnic patronage.) Add to that mass arrests and the continuing intimidation of all opponents. A state of fear pervades the country. All is not well behind the façade of a few high rises that have cropped up on Bole Road.
The Bush administration has made a Faustian bargain with the Zenawi regime. It has downplayed widespread killings and egregious human rights violations in exchange for Zenawi’s services in the war against terror.
The same administration that has refused to speak up against the massacre of Ethiopians wants Ethiopia to sacrifice its sons and daughters fighting Somalis in pursuit of a big power’s muddled, questionable strategic goal.
U.S. troops stationed in Djibout and Camp Hurso in Ethiopia appear to be directly involved in the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. The US has also been actively spreading disinformation that demonizes the Islamic Council while creating sympathy for the Ethiopian invasion. For example, the dubious document recently leaked to the media and purportedly prepared by UN experts has all the markings of a US disinformation campaign to justify a war against the Islamic Courts.
Ethiopia and Somalia are among the poorest countries in the world. Both people have experienced tremendous suffering in the last thirty years.
Where’s the morality in pitting one poor African country against another? Where is justice? Where is the morality in coddling a tyrant once labeled terrorist by the United States? Why is it acceptable for the United States to ally with a murderous regime that has massacred at least 193 civilians and arrested over 30,000 in secret concentration camps? Why is such immorality being perpetrated in the name of the war against terror?
Congressman Donald Payne said the following during a recent briefing on the situation in Ethiopia: “…During the Cold War, United States supported dictators like Mobutu and never really condemned South Africa’s apartheid government because they were anti-communists, and we were fighting the communists in the U.S. And so we’re not going to repeat those mistakes,” Payne said.
Thousands will die, tens of thousands will be maimed and millions will be made refugees. Just as in Iraq, when the mess gets to be too much to handle, the US will walk away under one pretext or another, leaving the local people holding the bag. There will be so much suffering that no amount of international handout will make a dent.
The ICU has invited the US to come to Mogadishu to engage in dialogue and observe first hand the situation on the ground. This is a good gesture that the United States and Ethiopia should take advantage of. The parties need to resolve all issues through dialogue. The misery and mayhem a new war brings, nor matter what the pretext, is not worth the cost to the people on the receiving end.
