We Ethiopians are proud of our rich culture, long history, 3,000-year civilization, and keeping the country free of colonialists. Ethiopia is also known for not violating the territories of other countries. When Somalia had invaded Ethiopia more than twice in the past, both the Atse Haileselassie and Derg governments chased them out, but refrained from following the retreating invaders deep into the Somali territory. One time, a frustrated field commander had ignored Haileselassie’s orders and followed Somali forces into the hinterland. He was severely reprimanded for it.
Under the Meles dictatorship, this long-held principle has changed. An Ethiopian regime for the first time in Ethiopian history has invaded another country–Somalia.
There is no valid reason for the arrogant dictator to pick a fight with the Somali Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The only reason that comes to mind is to divert national and international attention from his regime that is falling apart by the day.
Dictators thrive on conflicts and wars. In fact, they depend on ongoing wars to remain in power. With his military in turmoil, the economy in shambles, and rebel groups springing up through out the country, Meles seems to think that he can divert attention away from him and on to the ICU by accusing them of being Islamic terrorists and having affiliations with Al Qaeda.
Some of the recent actions the ICU took, such as shutting down private radio stations, shooting at protestors, and banning chat (khat) is indeed worrisome. (By the way, Khat is banned in the U.S., too). But is the ICU worse than the TPLF regime in suppressing freedom? What makes Meles more acceptable to the international community than the ICU?
Meles has rounded up ALL independent journalists in the country and threw them in jail. He has gunned down, strangled and beat to death unarmed protestors, as reported by the Inquiry Commission that was created by his own rubber-stump parliament. Every legitimate human rights organization in the world has condemned Meles as a brutal dictator and described his actions as state-sponsored terrorism. The European Parliament and the U.S. Congress have also condemned the brutal repression in Ethiopia.
On the other hand, what did the ICU do to Ethiopia? They didn’t occupy Ethiopia. They didn’t create concentration camps and detained tens of thousands of Ethiopians. They didn’t loot the country’s treasury. They have not done any thing other than trying to bring order back to Somalia’s state of anarchy.
For Ethiopians there is no worse terrorist than Meles. He is certified by the parliament-appointed independent commission as a mass murderer. In the past 15 years, he and his ruling family made Ethiopia a living hell for millions of her people. Now, he is leading the country into an adventurous war, in the process sacrificing the lives of thousands of young Ethiopians and spending millions of dollars that the country desperately needs for social services.
The world, and particularly the people of Somalia, need to know that this war Meles has started is a war between his Tigrean People Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Somali Islamic Courts of Union (ICU). It is a war of convenient intended by the Meles dictatorship to prolong its grip on power. It has nothing to do with protecting Ethiopia’s national security.
It is terribly important for opposition parties, civic groups, religious leaders, and every Ethiopian to communicate this message to the ICU and to the world as soon and as clearly as possible in order to minimize the long-term damage it could cause to our country.
As always I fail to understand the type of language that sinks into the mind of diplomats. Against this suspicion please allow me to be straight forward. Writing course language has not been my inner self. However, appeasing the European Union (EU) is being hypocritical, hence my deliberate choice to write this harsh note. Nevertheless bound by the curtsey of civilization, I apologize in advance.
Fifty years ago and following the Auschwitz massacre, your community made a collective promise to defend democracy, human right and the rule of law in our planet. It is this community that decided to protect humanity from tyranny. It is this community that formulated international conventions and bill of rights. It is this community that colonized Africans, exploited Africa’s resources and tried to introduce western democracy. Cognizant that the community would be bound by its faith and principles, Africans believed that the EU will stand behind their quest for freedom. As good disciples many worked tirelessly to advance the cause of freedom and solicited the community’s multifaceted support. In the process thousand sacrificed their lives and millions were exposed to torture and abuse by antidemocratic forces. Even sinister African Dictators echoed the political jargons of EU and other western powers to make incalculable misery to their people through torture, genocide and ethnic and religious conflicts. In the end neither democracy nor development was achieved. Africa’s effort to bring democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights has been an abysmal failure.
In many ways EU has contributed to the failure and to the shameful state in which Africa is in now. The causes of the failure, among others, emanates from the double standard policies pursued by EU and its member states. For example this community remained a sleeping giant while genocide, miscarriage of justice, abuse of power and torture took place at the doorsteps of its embassies. It is EU in tandem with the like minded leaders from North America that nourished tyrants with the means to ascend and cling to power. Aid and loan money has been channeled to dictators through bogus financial institutions of the IMF, WB, and UN. EU monies ‘be it budgetary or humanitarian support’ is used to buy guns and not butters to suppress democracy and abuse human rights.
What is even surprising is that EU in Brussels watched the madness of dictators with utter indifference and diplomatic jargons of restrain and containment. It is this community that shakes hands and toss diplomatic champagne with African dictators on the virtue of containment. It is this community that permitted African dictators to sit shoulder to shoulder with its diplomats and parliamentarians at EU sponsored conferences to discuss issues of human rights, sustainable development, terrorism, peace and stability. EU diplomacy seemed devoid of a moral benchmark when attending receptions and tossed friendship champagnes with tyrants. Is it not this type of negligence and double standard policy that emboldened the minds of dictators? Yes, it is this community that gave dictators a moral and physical comfort to continue the act of tyranny. For innocent Africans it is inconceivable to see a progressive institution ‘EU’ contributing to the proliferation of new breeds of dictators like Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, Mouseveni of Uganda and Issayas of Eritrea. It is also difficult to see how EU support the creation of banana states that are breeding grounds of terrorism.
No doubt this double standard policy of the international community has given dictators a free ride to castrate democracy, and abuse human rights. Now the ghost of dictators does not only haunt the children of Africa but also has become a scarecrow for your children in Europe. So long as this community follows a diplomacy that appeases dictators, its enemies will continue to proliferate in numbers. A new addition to this is the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Somalia.
Against this background no wonder if millions of Ethiopians continue being baffled by the hypocrisy of this august community. It is no surprise if many find it difficult to count the EU as guardians of democracy and human rights. Ethiopians continue to wonder how and when EU member states who expose the atrocities and human rights abuses of dictators through their annual human rights reports would take concrete steps to standup against tyranny. After the May 2005 election many Ethiopians believed that the leaders of the EU would listen to Anna Gomez. On the contrary the EU shocked millions of Ethiopians by inviting Meles Zenawi to Brussels to lecture this grandiose community on good governance on November 17, 2006. The invitation is testimony to EU’s deliberate negligence to human rights and democracy in Ethiopia. This is an insult to the millions of democracy loving Ethiopians that aught to be condemned and not condoned. There should be no diplomatic and moral generosity of complacence to dictators.
Amidst all these Ethiopian’s hope for change is kept alive by the principled stand of EU parliamentarians including Anna Gomes et el. No doubt this gives the enthusiasm to struggle against tyranny. Sooner or later freedom will come and Anna Gomes will celebrate the triumph of democracy with Ethiopians. Those who joked on democracy with double standard diplomacy will be humiliated like a disgraced dictator. Therefore, it is incumbent on the EU to act in accordance with its charter which is based on the universality and indivisibility of human rights and the responsibility for their protection and promotion, together with the promotion of pluralistic democracy and effective guarantees for the rule of law. It is time to listen to Anna Gomez’s recommendations to do some serious business of disaster prevention in Ethiopia.
In a final note we owe congratulations to the EU for receiving the best lecture of good governance from those who do not govern but rule by the rule of the gun. Ethiopians and the rest of Africans are sure that Meles and other African leaders have succeeded in convincing you with their new paradigm that “Democracy cannot be imposed from the outsideâ€Â. This statement is a copycat slogan from the recently concluded Sino-African summit in Beijing. China has reassured African leaders that she will dance with any African leader as long as they do business with Asia’s rising tiger. Through their lectures, African dictators have made it clear that EU’s unprincipled rhetoric of democracy, human rights and rule of law has no place in Africa. It is also an indication that those dictators whom you tried to appease for over 50 years are having a super power that will help them in their own terms. Africa is gradually slipping out of the influence of your community. They believe that the international power and diplomatic alliance long held with Europe is starting to tilt to the Red East. Before this take root it is time to revisit your policy towards Ethiopia in particular and Africa in general. The time is now to choose either to be on the side of the people or be against the people of Ethiopia and the people of Africa in general.
Finally it is believed that Meles and other African leaders have given the community ‘wonderful’ lectures on governance. EU conference participants must have received baptism of the highest order from the holy water of dictatorship. Nevertheless, Ethiopians pray that your community frees itself from condescending behaviors, hypocrisy and double standard diplomatic whitewash. For God’s sake show your guardianship of democracy, human rights and rule of law today. Tomorrow is too late to everyone.
Oxfam, an international NGO, has launched a massive petition drive demanding Starbucks to allow the government of Ethiopia trademark its famous coffee bean names–Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe. Starbucks then has to pay a huge amount of money in royalty fees to the government of Ethiopia for branding these names.
Oxfam argues that royalty fees from the trademark, estimated to be over $80 million per year, would go to the coffee bean growers–the poor farmers.
This is far from the truth. Most of the money would be going to close family members of Meles Zenawi and Sheik Al Amoudi who control much of the country’s agricultural, mining, transportation and other industries. The rest would go to the Federal Police and the Agazi, Meles Zenawi’s private militia.
Oxfam cannot claim to be ignorant of the fact that the Ethiopian dictatorship of Meles Zenawi is one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Just recently, when the auditor general of Ethiopia reported the misappropriation and disappearance of billions of dollars from the government’s treasury, Meles fired him, even though only the parliament has the authority to hire or fire the federal auditor.
Ethiopian farmers are poor and will stay poor as long as the parasitic dictatorship continues to deny their democratic and civil rights, brutalize them when they protest, and divide them along ethnic and religious lines, instigating communal conflicts, and spend most of the country’s resources on military, and not on education and other social services.
Oxfam’s stated goal is “to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice.” We would like to remind Oxfam that the main source of poverty, suffering and injustice in Ethiopia is not Starbucks. It is the brutal dictatorship of Meles Zenawi. Oxfam has yet to say any thing about the brutal treatment of poor farmers, and the people of Ethiopia, in general, by the ruling Marxist junta.
Starbucks deserves credit for giving Ethiopia’s coffee the prominence it deserves in the world market. Ethiopians around the world are proud to see the names Sidamo, Harar, and Yirgacheffe in Starbucks coffee shops around the world.
Oxfam, and others who are campaigning against Starbucks, need to explain what if the coffee giant removes these names from its shops, instead of paying the $80 million, which goes to Meles Zenawi’s pocket? How would the poor farmers benefit from that?
Ethiopian Review encourages Oxfam to stand up for the poor farmers in Ethiopia who are forced to buy environmentally unsafe fertilizers from companies that are owned by families and friends of Meles Zenawi; poor farmers who have been denied their voting rights; poor farmers who are denied access to education, health, and other services.
November 2006. One year later. One year since the breakdown of summit talks between GOE and CUD leaders. One year since the call for another round of nonviolent protests, which triggered rounds of indiscriminate killings. One year since the Government arrested more than a hundred Ethiopian critics and charged them with crimes punishable by death in a trial marred by unfair procedures and inexcusable delays. One year since the Government called for an investigation into the killings that has resulted in defections of two high-ranking judges and a report that identifies no particular wrongdoers.
One year, in which 50% of Ethiopia’s children continue to live in diagnostic levels of serious malnutrition; tens of thousands died of AIDS; more than one thousand Ethiopians perished from floods due in part to environmental degradation, floods which left another 280,000 homeless. And the misery grinds on.
It was a year in which Ethiopian Americans organized effectively to launch a controversial bill designed to promote democratization efforts, thereby provoking the Government of Ethiopia to fight back by spending a huge amount on lobbyists. What all those resources diverted to American legislative processes might have done for Ethiopian relief and, yes, Ethiopia’s own democratic processes! (Indeed, what good might have been done if all Diaspora Ethiopians had also made a serious contribution to improve life at home in an area like medicine, engineering, education, IT, or water resources?)
The public processes needed for Ethiopia’s democratization are what I sought to advance during the past year when I attempted, through a series of short statements posted at www.eineps.org/forum and elsewhere, to enhance communication among Ethiopians. To be sure, at times this meant I became no more than a ferinji target for both sides to vent against. Each time I credited the Government with something, certain opposition elements accused me of having been bought out by an unscrupulous regime; each time I credited the opposition with something, some Government apologists accused me of having been brainwashed by revanchist Diaspora extremists.
One critical reader in Sweden, after following my suggestion to re-read what I had written, changed his mind: Selam lersiwo Yihon, Professor!
I have read the material you sent to me and I understand more what this is about. Your view is very balanced and may not be accepted by those who own the only “truth”.
Some respondents who were disappointed with certain of my points encouraged this effort nonetheless, as did Marta Tesfaye:
I beg you to forgive those who have not given you the benefit of the doubt and continue to stand up for Ethiopia/ As you yourself said we have a long way to go before we start learning how to treat each other with respect even when we disagree. But try to do your best and I know I am asking for a lot, their discouragement and the misunderstanding get in the way. As you know the situation is getting worse and even more polarized and we need your help.
And once in a while, my efforts elicited comments such as this from Yohannes Abebe:
Thank you for your courageous efforts to start an honest intellectual debate about the current Ethiopian political crisis. You have no idea the level of impact you are having with my generation.
Whether or not that is so–of course I hope it is–I attempted in each Getz to present “both sides” (as though there are only two; sadly, that’s how the game is being played as of now). It was an effort to let each side see that its position could be understood while at the same time inviting it to consider the perspective of the other.
Getz #1 encouraged the Government to become less repressive toward the media and encouraged journalists to develop more professionalism and integrity in their reporting. A visit to Kaliti Prison occasioned a portrayal of contrasting viewpoints in Getz #2, with a call for “room for dissent, protected by just laws and civil institutions, as well as a willingness to fight nonviolently for divergent views even when in a disadvantaged minority.”
“Two Tales of One City,” Getz #3, sketched seemingly incompatible narratives about Ethiopia’s history that underlie surface resentments in the present. Getz #5 essayed an overview of political developments in Ethiopia since the May 2005 election, listing both achievements and mistakes made by the EPRDF regime, the opposition parties, and the EU observers.
The other Getzotch moved beyond this monopolization of public discourse by the non-stop antagonism between EPRDF and CUD advocates. “What Happened in the Past 12 Months?” simply drew attention to a number of other, neglected happenings. Getz #6, “More People More Hunger” focused on the looming catastrophe posed by Ethiopia’s unchecked demographic explosion. Drawing on the pioneering work of Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam, Daniel Assefa, and Sahlu Haile, I showed that spiraling population growth figures in a vicious cycle including smaller farming plots, deforestation, soil despoliation, chronic hunger, and widespread malnutrition. In Getzotch 7, 8, and 9, which concerned Tigrayawinet, Oromo options, and Beta Israelis, respectively, I dealt with issues of ethnic separatism, arguing that although different groups may have distinct interests and agendas, the historic reality of a successfully multiethnic nation needs to be respected.
In the wake of all these purportedly even-handed interpretations, one of my readers wrote:
You have done an excellent job representing the different sides empathetically. But you have not told us what can be done to move beyond the current impasse.
Perhaps not explicitly enough. But a number of Ethiopians have done so, eloquently.
Consider Professor Alemayehu Mariam’s astute analysis of the principles and dynamics of nonviolent political action.
Consider Ambassador Samuel Assefa, who urges Ethiopians of all persuasions to meet together in small groups to begin to talk to one another openly, honestly, and respectfully.
Consider Ato Michael Aman Andom’s remark regarding my efforts to bring such groups of Ethiopians of diverse perspectives together: “It’s good to hear anytime fellow Ethiopians can gather and communicate effectively. . . . It’s positive whenever we can make such progress because it’s a precedent nonetheless and his conviction, despite all, that “there are open-minded folks who are tempered with pragmatism, understand the modern economic world and how it functions, have respect for the opinions of others, are not quick to judgment, not hot-tempered, know how to lose battles and win wars, respect rule of law, and have a fundamental and profound respect for human life and empathy and desire to cure the Ethiopian people’s plight.”
Or listen to Dr. BT Costantinos, longtime advocate of Ethiopian Think Tanks to provide nonpartisan, professional investigations into the problems of Ethiopia’s development, who commends “innovative political partnerships . . . to marshal our knowledge to play a constructive role in the renaissance of our politico-cultural make-up, values and institutions.”
Listen to the appeals of Ato Abate Kassa, Dr. Berhanu Abegaz, and other signatories of the Citizens’ Charter for a Democratic Ethiopia, who “call on political parties (including the TPLF/EPRDF) and civic organizations to hold back on their sectarian concerns and instead focus on a common agenda” — one that “embraces the diverse Ethiopian family and aims at expanding the political space for exercising those human, civic, and political freedoms that are enshrined in international conventions.”
Consider the spirit behind the proposal of Ambassador Imru Zeleke to convene an all-inclusive Conference to which all civic organization and political parties will be invited to discuss all issues regarding Ethiopia: “our diversity is our heritage and our wealth, and the emblem of our civilization, of which we are all proud.”
What impedes adherence to such evidently constructive visions?
Forty years ago, in Wax and Gold and related statements, when I hoped for a concerted effort by modernizers to form groups devoted to professional development, political democracy, and cultural inclusiveness, I identified a few factors from the traditional culture that impeded such an advance: narrow individualism, verbal sadism, chronic suspiciousness, and circumlocuitous communication (wax and gold). Many Ethiopians agreed with this diagnosis, most recently Dessalegn Shiferaw who, in a round-up of a dozen related traits such as sem matfat (character assassination), teretaray (chronic mistrust), getterenet (stubbornness and lack of compromise), meqeyem (holding grudges) and the like declared it “time to declare war on dysfunctional behaviors” .
At the same time I encouraged Ethiopians to respect and draw on factors from traditional culture that could energize the quest for democracy and national development. These include a time-honored passion for fairness and justice, and a deep pride in their nation and its independence that transcends narrow local interests. They also include an exceptional capacity for compassion and forgiveness, manifest in such customs as those concerning illness and death of close ones, stories like those of Mariam forgiving the cannibal of Khmer, and traditions of political forgiveness following the defeat of enemies. They include the remarkable ways in which Oromo gumi gayo assemblies are organized to promote respectful deliberation and achieve their constant goal of peace, nagaa. Indeed, all of the cultures of traditional Ethiopia have admirable mechanisms of conflict resolution. Ethiopia’s positive factors include the distinctive way in which followers of different religions, despite obvious tensions, got along remarkably well together, sharing holiday celebrations, going on pilgrimages together, and intermarrying. Ethiopians’ realism about the limits of human nature can serve to curb the excessive ambitions of modernization ideologies, their ability to show humor in adversity can cushion the inevitable bumps on the roads to modernity.
Indeed, all Ethiopians deep down have more that links them together than what pushes them apart. I suggested this in Greater Ethiopia in 1974; I sense it more strongly than ever now. I wish all my readers could have shared the experience of talking to the prisoners at Kaliti in the same week that I talked to those responsible for detaining them. I have never heard such similarly eloquent professions of faith in the destiny of Ethiopia and in the vision of a multiethnic country whose citizens were guided by the rule of a common set of laws. This deep commonality of sentiment should be sufficient to prod partisans to step back briefly from their emotionally-driven mindsets, even if the country were not facing troubles from unstable and hostile neighbors.
If there were one single commitment that could sweep the archaic dysfunctional habits away, it might be to enact an Ethiopian variant of the Japanese example depicted in Eiko Ikegami’s book The Taming of the Samurai (1995): to effect a change in the warrior ethic, thereby uniting the courage, hardiness, and social commitments of the old-style gwebez warrior with the values of compassion and justice. The New Warrior employs the tools of nonviolence to destroy the enemy completely–by turning him into a friend. All concerned must practice ways to embody constructive disagreement. Many Ethiopians have taken steps to promote civility in public discourse and nonviolence as a way of life, including the Ethiopian Institute for Nonviolent Education and Peace Studies, research on civility such as Yodit Zenebe Mekuria’s study on civic education in the Somali province, Makeda Tsegaye’s studies with the University for Peace Network, the nonviolence education programs of the Awassa Youth Campus, Mercy Corps’s work in conflict resolution, the UN-supported Ethiopian Peace and Development Institute, and many others.
Troubles internal and external require Ethiopia to rise to new levels of societal health, yet the political crisis of the past year grows like a cancer on the Ethiopian body politic. The crisis can be resolved even if only one of the two parties musters the courage to do the right thing.
The challenge is clear. For the Government, it means to acknowledge its Election-related mistakes: to apologize and make amends for its over-reactions that resulted in excessive killings and imprisonments, for starters; to commit itself more publicly and aggressively to actions that implement reforms of the judicial system, the press legislation, and the human rights record; and to bring the trial to a prompt conclusion. This would show the world how far they have come since harboring the hardcore revolutionary doctrines with which they took power in 1991. For the CUD leadership, it means to acknowledge the mistake they made in not taking over the task they were elected by the people to perform–to administer the capital city and to represent all their constituents in Parliament–thereby provoking protests that led to so many unnecessary deaths. This would show a willingness to acknowledge those changes and manifest a loosening of the hardened images of the other side, which undergird their antipathy to the “system.” It will probably require at least as much courage to take such stands as Ethiopian warriors showed in fighting the Italian armies at Adwa and as underground arbeññotch during the talat gize.
Text of Presentation by Judge Wolde-Michael Meshesha, Vice-Chairman of the Inquiry Commission on Post-Electoral Violence
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to come and make my presentation in person. I regret that I could not have made it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you the work of the Inquiry Commission, which was set up to investigate the 2005 post-electoral violence in Ethiopia. I am particularly grateful for Congressman Donald Payne who initiated this briefing which I believe would help Members of Congress and friends of Ethiopian to understand the process which the Inquiry Commission followed to reach to its conclusions. It is also important what happened once the Commission completed its work. The Government of Ethiopia first attempted to suppress and then to revise the conclusions of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to tell you about my background so that you understand that members of the Commission came from different profession. I am a judge and Vice President of the Federal First Instant Court. The political crisis, which Ethiopia faced after the May 2005 parliamentary and regional elections, was marred by violence. There were protests, which resulted in violence in Addis Ababa and other parts of the country in June and November 2005.
As a result of the post-electoral crisis, many lives were lost, property was damaged and thousands of people were rounded up and detained in several remote places (military camps) without proper legal procedures. The manner in which the government handled the post election crisis was criticized. There was indeed intense international pressure on the government to set up an independent inquiry commission to look into the reaction of the security forces and the police. In response to internal and external pressures, the government enacted a law (Proclamation 478/2005), which established an independent inquiry commission. According to the proclamation, the Inquiry Commission was mandated to identify:
Whether the force used by the security forces was excessive or not;
Whether human rights in matters related to the problem was conducted in accordance with the constitution and the rule of law; and
Damage caused to life and property.
Moreover, in accordance with the proclamation, eleven members, including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, were appointed by Parliament as members of the commission. I joined initially the Commission as an ordinary member but after the resignation of the Deputy Chairman, I was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, The Commission, which was given this important task, faced serious problems before it even started its functions. Four out of the eleven members of the Commission tendered their resignation on the ground of health problems. This indeed shows the tense condition in which the Commission started its function. The remaining seven members of the Commission began their investigation at the end of January 2006. As the Commission found it difficult to pursue its task, it requested parliament to appoint new individuals in order to replace those who resigned. The newly appointed five members joined the Commission in March 2006.
The Commission, which earnestly began its activities after overcoming these hurdles, adopted code of conduct for members of the commission; voting procedure and a work plan. These were meant to help the Commission execute its tasks in an effective, transparent, and an impartial manner. The Commission also hired its own six investigators and twenty support staff, despite the suggestion of the Speaker of the House to use investigators who will be assigned to the Commission by the executive.
At the start of its work, the Commission gave a press conference and called upon the members of the general public, civil society institutions, the press and other institutions to provide any information relating to the violence. More importantly, the Commission called upon victims and families who lost their loved ones to come forward and give their testimonies. The Commission also approached different local communal institutions, which organize funeral services for urban dwellers to testify what they know about the post election violence. Moreover, the Commission interviewed those government officials who had direct and indirect connection with the incidents. Moreover, Commission members visited different prisons/military camps, which were used as detention centers during the crisis, and government hospitals. After a laborious effort, the Commission successfully concluded its investigation in June 2006.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, The next important task of the Commission was compiling and categorizing the data, which it collected as provided in the proclamation. At this stage of the work of the Commission there were some signs of uneasiness of some government officials. There was pressure on members of the Commission who were government employees. In order to minimize government intervention and pressure, the Commission decided to hold its final deliberations and decisions out of Addis Ababa. The Commission was thus moved to Awassa, which is the capital of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region (SNNPR). In Awassa, the Commission used the office premises of the Supreme Court of the SNNRP. This was facilitated through the Chairman of the Commission, Frehiwot Samuel, who was also then the President of the SNNPR Supreme Court. In Awassa the Commission prepared the list of people who lost their lives (196) and those who were injured (763). It also confirmed from the data gathered the violation of the human rights of thousands of people who were rounded up from different regions.
After establishing the facts, i.e. death and injuries; and damages to property, the next task of the Commission was to decide on the crucial question of whether the government used excessive force. On the basis of the procedure of voting which we adopted initially when the commission started functioning, abstention was precluded. Before voting on the issue of excessive force every member of the Commission was required to comment on the findings of the Commission. Finally a vote was taken on the question of excessive force. The members of the Commission decide d eight to two (8-2) that the government used excessive force to control the protests. Because of the national and international significance of the investigation and also the demonstrated uneasiness of government officials about the findings of the Commission, members of the Commission agreed to document their findings on video and audio. Retrospectively speaking, putting on record the deliberations of the Commission and the voting was one of the wise decisions of the Commission. The video record clearly shows the decision of each member on the question of excessive force. In my humble opinion, this is a clear testimony of every thing that went wrong with the promises of rule of law; independence of the judiciary, and democracy in
Ethiopia. One can imagine the pressure in which members of the Commission were subjected to so that they would suppress the true findings of the Commission and present an illegal report to the Ethiopian people at the end of October 2006.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
After the Commission gave its final verdict on the question of excessive force on Monday July 3, 2006, the Commission proceeded to transcribe its deliberation on paper and write its final report. The Commission had in fact decided to present its findings to the last session of parliament on July 7, 2006 before the beginning of summer recess. This was communicated to the Speaker of the House and the presentation of the findings of the Commission was tabled as an agenda item for the last session of the Parliament.
The next day, July 4, 2006 , members of the Commission began to write the final report on a computer on the premises of the SNNPR Supreme Court. The writing of the report, however, only proceeded till midday. After a lunch break the same day, electricity was shut off in the entire town of Awassa so that we would not continue to process the report on a computer and the compound of the SNNPR Supreme Court was swarmed by plain clothed security personnel. The effort of the Chairman of the Commission to use the standby generator in the compound of the court was not successful obviously because of the intervention of the security personnel. While we were stranded on the premises of the court, the Chairman of the Commission, Ato Frehiwot Samuel was summoned to the office of the President of the Southern Region to meet some ministers who were sent from the office of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The rest of us had to go to our hotel. Upon our return to the hotel in which we stayed for few days we learnt that it was also swarmed by plain clothed security personnel like the premises of the Supreme Court of the Southern Region.
The next day members of the Commission were told by the Chairman of the Commission that he was told by the representatives of the Prime Minister that we should not publish the report and if we proceed to publicize our findings we would face serious consequences. He also informed us that we were told to see Prime Minister Meles Zenawi at his office in Addis Ababa on July 06, 2006. Members of the Commission aware of the danger they were in, returned to Addis Ababa on July 05, 2006. On July 6, 2006 members of the Commission met the Prime Minister in his office. Mr. Zenawi who was obviously enraged by the conclusion of the Commission report sternly instructed members of the Commission to reverse their decision. He lectured us about our failure to consider the context in which force was used and ˜advised us to use the report of the Gambella Inquiry Commission as a template.
The Prime Minister also told us that if the Commission publishes its findings without revision, it would have serious implications for the country. As we were going to the meeting with the Prime Minister, we learned that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Teshome Toga had adjourned Parliament before the official date for the beginning of parliamentary recess, i.e. July 7, 2006 though the agenda for the presentation of the findings of the commission had already been published. The closing of the Parliament without receiving any report from the Commission was a deliberate contravention of the law as all the deadlines, which were given to the Commission by the Parliament, would have expired after July 2006. The action of the Prime Minister who ordered the members of the Commission to revise their report and the Speaker of the Parliament who prevented the submission of the report to Parliament not only violated the sanctity and legality of the Commission but also show the mismatch between the practices and the promises of Mr. Zenawi’s government about rule of law, transparency, and accountability.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The mandate of the Commission, which ended at the beginning of July 2006, could only be renewed by another parliamentary decision. The members of the Commission who were faced with these great difficulties contacted the Speaker of Parliament about their mandate. The Speaker told us to continue our work, revise the original decision on the basis of the instruction of the Prime Minister.
The members of the Commission who initially believed that the government was committed to the investigation process were left with two difficult choices, i.e. to revise the findings of the commission or flee the country and bring the genuine findings of the Commission, which the government was seeking to suppress to the world. Moreover, any activity of the Commission after July 7, 2006 was illegal as the Commission’s mandate has expired.
At this stage, I had known that I had to make a difficult choice. At the personal level the choice was between betraying my own conscience and fleeing out of the country with the genuine report by endangering my family and myself. After several nights of soul searching, I decided not to betray my own conscience and also the trust of several hundreds of people (victims and families of victims) who despite intense scepticism in the general public about the independence of the Commission gave their testimonies and shared their agonies sometimes by endangering themselves. That is why, despite all the risks it involved, I decided to flee, leaving my family behind in order to bring the findings of the Commission to the Ethiopian people and the international community.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Commission has overwhelmingly decided in its July 3, 2006 meeting that the security forces of the government used excessive force. The so-called report, which was released at the end of October, 2006 accused the victims for their own suffering is not only illegal but also shows the true nature of the regime in Addis Ababa. I am a judge by profession. There is one good legal principle which applies to the report which was officially released in Addis Ababa any evidence which solicited by force is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law and as such the report produced in Addis Ababa cannot be taken seriously, as the members of the Commission even those who voted on the July 3, 2006 deliberations were forced to sign on the report and appear before Parliament. The official report is indeed a clear testimony about the problem of rule of law and independence of the judiciary in my country.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before the formation of the Commission, I was working as Vice-President of the Federal First Instant Court in Addis Ababa. I worked as a judge for 14 years believing that things would improve and the supremacy of the rule of law would gradually take root in my country whose people have suffered for many decades from lack of rule of law and state violence. But my experience as a member of the Commission starkly showed me not only the brutality in which the security forces of the government deal with any opposition but also utter lack of respect to the rule of law by officials of the government beginning from the very apex of the system.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
For Ethiopia to move forward from the present standoff and to pave the way for rule of law and respect for human rights, those who were responsible for the unnecessary death of more than 196 people and the wounding of 763 people, should be held accountable. The members of the Commission, despite all the difficulties and believing that the work of the commission make important contribution to national reconciliation among the many political actors in Ethiopia. I also hope that the commission’s findings could lead to a serious reconsideration by the government about its methods of dealing with protestors and its political opponents. I still do hope that friends of Ethiopia who would like to see stability, peace, and reconciliation, and democratization would put the necessary pressure on the government in Addis Ababa for the official publication of the suppressed report and also seek ways in which those who were responsible for the death, injury and detention of innocent civilians would be held responsible.
The recent “Scientific research finding†on the low IQs of Africans in general and Ethiopians in particular by a man called Satoshi Kanazawa associated with the London School Of Economics (LSE) is not less than a wild insult to humanity. I wonder if there is a universal measurement or method, which determines the IQ or intelligence of a
person. I wish to know if there is one. There are numerous organizations, schools of thoughts and centers of research institutions in our planet, which have developed their own doctrines in view of realizing their hidden interests.
In my lifetime, I have heard so many rubbish things what you may call “scientific researches†heralded by “reputable†media, which took the monopoly of news in our planet, such as the BBC, VOA and the like talking about various aspects of life including the consequences of drinking coffee. I mentioned coffee because it explains the credibility of the so-called scientific researches by reputable institutions. In
the past 25 years alone, I heard four scientific findings on coffee, each in different periods, probably in a span of three to five years, on the consequences of drinking coffee. The first report of the “scientific findings†revealed that drinking more than one cup of coffee per day causes high blood pressure and heart attack, and the second finding repeals the first one and goes on saying that drinking coffee is useful for those people suffering with high blood pressure and with heart problems. The same has happened with the third and fourth findings. What I can understand from such inconsistent “scientific researches†is interest groups or lack of knowledge influences the so-called scientists to talk about two realities where there is only one. The worst thing is reports of such institutions are widely heard, since they have access to the giant monopolies in the media.
In late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s when I was working on my doctoral (PHD) dissertation thesis in one of the European countries, I knew that it will take me three years to get my PHD degree. A humble and an intelligent professor was assigned as an advisor to help me prepare my thesis. From time to time, I had to present a progress report on my findings to a group of professors. Fortunately, all the comments I got from the group of professors were encouraging and positive. At the end of the third year, when I was planning to finalize my research and go back home, my professor told me that I have to stay there and go on working on my research for one more year. Disappointed with his proposal, I asked the professor why he is proposing
one more year, since the evaluating professors, including himself, have positive comments on my research works. He then asked me to come to his residence and told me the following, which I will never forget in my life. He reminded me about my early
lessons on calculus. He mentioned about the Limit (∆) and the Infinity (∞) explaining that any scientific research is carried out within a limited period, otherwise there would be no limit for any research. He further explained that if one cannot make
a limit, he could go on researching and finding new results infinitively, but no results could be applicable in time. He concluded by telling me that everyone in the advisory board knows that there is additional cost for the university to cover my expenses. Had I not been a prospective researcher, this chance would have not been given to me. Instead, I would have been stopped within the limited period (three years) and get my grading accordingly.
I have no data on Mr. Kanazawa’s autobiography, his level of education, qualification or his method of research and motivation. Nonetheless, I question the IQ of the researcher Mr. Kanazawa. May be the time limit given to Mr. Kanazawa was too short to analyze his assignment. However, if he still wants to stay as a researcher and the LSE agrees with it, he should keep on working on his research infinitively and the
result will be nil (0+0=0). His attitude, however, looks like the dogs in the animal farm story, in a book written by George Orwell. The dogs were not equal with the pigs, but they always bark for the pigs. I write this with due respect to all nations and nationalities, including the Japanese people, since I believe the great majority of people on our planet are good, humane and not dogs barking for pigs.
I think it was ten years ago that I was invited to listen lectures on good governance and economic performances by two prominent personalities from Japan and South Korea in Addis Ababa. These lecturers were sharing their views with us about good governance and the economic performance of different countries. They were comparing the present and the past economic performances of Ethiopia and both North and South Korea. By presenting some statistical data, they told us that the GDP of Ethiopia in the beginning of the 1950s was more than three folds as compared with the GDP of both Koreans, and explained the present status by giving reasons. What I want to say is that the new formula found by Mr. Kanazawa, which determines
intelligence in association with poverty applies only to the present era of globalization by ignoring evolutionary processes and historical facts. What a wonderful revolutionary formula in the era of globalization! In my country, people say “too many axes on a fallen treeâ€Â
I do not intend to argue, by presenting scientific evidences, to show the IQs of black peoples, in general, and Ethiopians, in particular, are not less than the other races. I would rather like to ask Mr. Kanazawa to go to libraries and read about the history of
Ethiopians, compare their achievements with other nations, and rewrite his findings like the coffee researchers did. If he does that, I am sure he will surprise the world community by his ingenuity.
However, if Mr. Kanazawa can understand the very fact that civilization emanates out of intelligence, let us see some of the circumstances affecting the lives and contributions of the Ethiopians to the world’s civilization:
 Historical records and archaeological findings show that Ethiopia is a very old country with rich culture and civilization.
 Recent scientific researches show that Ethiopia is the origin of mankind with the excavations of fossils of early human ancestors (Ramides Afarensesis, Selam,
Lucy and many other fossils).
 It has a recorded history of more than three thousand years. If Mr. Kanazawa is not a frequent library visitor and he has no chance to read tones of facts written about Ethiopia, I recommend him, at least, to watch the Opera Aida, written by Jossepe Verdi, to have a simple observation about the intelligence of the Ethiopians.
 Ethiopia has its own alphabets and own numbers (different than the Arabic numbers) recognized as one of the thirteen old alphabets of the world.
 It also has its own calendar (different than the Gregorian) and its own time calculation and counting.
 When many of the nations in our planet, including the white people, lived on trees and in caves in uncivilized manner, the Ethiopians have built their temples, stales, churches, monasteries, mosques and palaces, since more than two thousand years ago, which evidently exist to date.
 When most of the people in Europe, America and in Asia lived in savagery, worshiping temples, trees, rivers and mountains, Ethiopians have accepted
Christianity, which was then a sign of civilization, in 330AD at a national level and have translated religious and other books from Hebrew, Arabic, Latin and Greek languages to their own language Geez.
 The peoples of Ethiopia have good records in religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence amongst the more than 80 different nation and nationalities, even though there is continuous interference by external forces to disrupt their ways of life. We
Ethiopians consider this is a higher level of civilization and intelligence, which differs us from selfishness and savagery.
 The peoples of Ethiopia are not a “give and take†society as one may think this is a sign of civilization. Ethiopians are primarily believers, they are also people with high level of integrity and with a strong sense of independence. Hence, for us the
measurement of intelligence is not the material possession alone, since there are other tangible and intangible values, which for some reasons or another, the give and take society can never understand.
 As opposed to the past millennia, it is true that we are at present one of the poorest nations in the world. Behind this scene, however, many reasons can be cited. Once, it was the Ethiopians, the Egyptians in the times of the Pharoses, the Mayas, the Babylonians and other non-white races ruled the world and introduced civilizations to the world. Hence, the recent scientific findings, which concentrate to show that the white race is the most intelligent race, do not have any scientific base other than superimposing doctrines of white supremacy and promoting neocolonialism.
 I wonder whether the author of IQ and human intelligence, Mr. Kanazawa, who is sponsored by LSE knows that Ethiopia is an independent country, which has never been colonized. I also wonder whether he understands what it means to be independent. It takes hundreds of pages to explain these questions for a nonprofessional, but a “scientist†like Mr. Kanazawa, would have visited his library before reaching at such a mistaken conclusion.
In conclusion, I kindly advise Mr. Kanazawa to apply proper research methodologies and adhere to the basic principles of research. If he wants to make his research on intelligence associated with poverty, he should first analyze the causes and effects of
poverty, and not to conclude his findings based on effects only. With proper analysis of causes of poverty, the black people, in general, and the Ethiopians, in particular, cannot be totally blamed for it, and most of all, their intelligence cannot be associated with it.
