Short biographies of Ethiopian Writers (compiled 2005 -2006) in Amharic with photos. Click here – pdf

By Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi
Hargeisa, Somaliland

Many people in Somaliland and especially the leadership have always thought they had a good friend in Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s helmsman for life, and that he would assist Somaliland’s quest for recognition when the moment was right.

In public, Meles and his advisors have always maintained that the only thing that was keeping them from extending a formal recognition to Somaliland was the fear that doing so would exacerbate the situation in Somalia proper, as such an act would ostensibly may hurt the feelings of the people of Somalia. Indeed an Ethiopian foreign policy paper heralds that stance.

But by now, it should be plain to all that Meles is a clever Janus [two-faced]. If avoiding angering the people of Somalia was a principle of foreign policy for his regime, that stance has been already rendered pointless by the invasion of Somalia; as we speak Meles’ hordes are roughing, raping, and killing the people of Somalia. This is much more serious than upsetting the nationalist sensitivities of a people. It is subjugating them, and robbing them of the right to determine their future.

So what are Meles’ true intentions on, first, Somalia? By sending his army to Somalia, with the blessing and support of his old paymasters in his guerrilla campaigns against that the other former dictator, Mengistu Haile Marian, Meles has shown that he has no intention of helping to establish a viable and democratic government for Somalia. His real intentions are:

(a) to establish a puppet regime, headed by the reptilian colonel, Abdullahi Yusuf, a man who like Meles has no understanding of what democracy means. Such a regime serves him better than anything else, as it would be weak and at war all the time with Somali resistors;

(b) to send a clear signal to Ethiopian rebel and/or opposition movements (and there is a plethora of them, armed or unarmed) that Meles is still the king of beasts in the jungle that is the Horn of Africa; the message here is: abandon all hope, ye resistors; let the fate of the Islamic Courts of Somalia serve you as an example of what will be happen to movements that
dare try Meles’s hand.

So, what are his intentions on Somaliland?

Somaliland has a record of good governance and trail-blazing democratization that the benefits the whole region. Would Meles at least not recognize the merits of a peaceful and democratic Somaliland in the Horn of Africa? Of course, a sane person would immediately recognize the merits of a peaceful and democratic Somaliland in a war-plagued region. But is Meles actually sane? Likewise, a democrat would at least concede the right of the people of Somaliland to determine their future within the confines of the colonial boundaries of British Somaliland. But Meles is no democrat.

Meles knows the naivety of Somaliland’s leadership, and has no respect for them—not that they do have enough material and human resources to insist on a respectful relationship with him, but because they have neither the experience nor the talents to transform such resources into a powerful projection of sovereignty.

Therefore, for Meles, Somaliland is a minor chip and it is mostly likely that he has already used it as a deal sweetener with the reptilian colonel. Already, it appears that the said reptilian colonel, and his running jackal, Mr. Gedi, have set their eyes on the booby-trapped prize that seceded Somaliland is — the pair is already seeing dollar signs all over Somaliland’s revenue generation resources such as the Port of Berbera. You aint seen nothing yet: this is the beginning of another round of vicious inter-Somali wars, and sly Meles would probably be smiling for decades to come, for has with one stone (the invasion of Somalia) killed two birds (the
Islamic Courts of Mogadishu and his enemies in Ethiopia).

To save tranquil Somaliland from the impending calamity, it is high time that the government of Somaliland, and its ministers, instead of spending their energies on silencing the guardians of our liberty, independent journalists, stood up to the real problems that will make or break Somaliland. This is a turning point in history and instead of sleeping at the helm they should charter a new course for the republic, one that relies on one else but ourselves. Above all, they should send a strong signal to all that that Somaliland’s friendship cannot be taken for granted and that its peaceful existence is not a sign of weakness. As the cliché says, “a country has no permanent friends, but only permanent interests.”

This is the day to say and do that and tomorrow would be too late. If they do not stand up to the task, those who covet this tranquil unrecognized republic would take it by force, and without doubt if that happens it will back to the guerrilla war of the SNM, the very war that led to the collapse of the Siad Barre regime of Somalia, as there is no way that the people of Somaliland will accept to be coerced back into the fateful union with Somalia.

The odds are that there will be much more misery and many more deaths than has so far happened in the warlord wars of Somalia. The reptilian colonel and his running jackal, Mr. Gedi, doubtless do not care whether they unleash another calamity on the fractured Somali communities; as for the naive leadership of Somaliland, instead of sending out unequivocal messages to all, standing firm on sovereignty and preparing the defensives, are sleepwalking us to a disaster foretold; and well, Meles, why the heck should he care if Somalis themselves have not the brains to stop the bloodletting among themselves, especially when it serves him so well.

By Kidane Alemayehu

The Meles regime invasion of Somalia and the ongoing stabilization process presents an opportunity to make a sober assessment of the prospects for future developments in the Horn of Africa. Essentially, current circumstances clearly indicate that the sub-region is, again, at the crossroads of history: either a move towards a positive outcome of a strong collaboration between at least Ethiopia and Somalia will be facilitated or a negative impact will result from a possible mishandling of the situation by the two regimes. While a positive outcome would be a historic and a major turning point in the sorry relationship between the two countries, a negative one would constitute yet another disaster that would only enhance the twin enemies of the two nations: poverty and instability.

With Ethiopia’s population of around 77 million and those of Somalia’s and Eritrea’s 10 and 5 million respectively, perpetrating and winning wars against its neighbours is not something to be particularly proud of or brag about especially taking into account the affinity among the people in the region in terms of culture and history. The term: “neighbourhood bully” would, therefore, be quite apt under these circumstances despite alleged involvements of Ethiopia’s external enemies. A bully, by definition, is a coward who takes a special joy in tormenting someone weaker than him/her. There is no doubt that the conflicts that took place in the Horn of Africa in recent years were a result of poor leadership and not, as some suggest, the prevalence of mutual animosity among the people of the region who, after all, share a common history and destiny.

This is the second occasion that the current regime in Ethiopia has engaged in a conflagration against one of its relatively small neighbours. The first one that took place against Eritrea in 1994 was tragic as well as ironic: tragic because about 100,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians perished in that needless war; and ironic because it was the Ethiopian regime itself that mistakenly facilitated Eritrea’s cessation for the ostensible purpose of fostering peace and development between the two countries. They have, however, achieved neither peace nor development as a result of that unfortunate miscalculation. In fact, they continue to be engaged in a state of tension that could result in another mindless and tragic conflict which, in the opinion of this writer, can only be avoided by redressing the historic mistake of disunity and ethnicism.

As regards Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia, there are differing perspectives on its justification. On the one hand, it can be stated that it did not comply with the UN Security Council Resolution No: 8887 which had provided for a military force that should have been deployed through IGAD from among countries excluding Ethiopia and Somalia’s other neighbours.

There are also those who emphasize that the main reason for the sudden military action by the Ethiopian regime was to divert attention from the heavy pressures it has been reeling under as a result of its rigging of the 2005 national elections, the subsequent killing of peaceful demonstrators, and its consequent increasing rejection by the Ethiopian people.

On the other hand, it is claimed that Ethiopia was forced to act because the Union of Islamic Courts (akin to a mouse that roared at the sight of a lion) declared a jihad against it. UIC was also on the verge of taking military action against Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government which was supported, at its request, by the Ethiopian government. Ethiopia’s speedy success in routing UIC has created an aura of “real politic” which has virtually quieted any meaningful criticism of its military intervention. However, the presumption is that Ethiopia, if the regime’s words are to be believed, will withdraw once the IGAD peace-keeping force will be deployed in Somalia. The question is whether the African Union and IGAD will have the wherewithal to deploy the force in an expeditious manner and whether Ethiopia will comply with its declared commitment. This will further depend on the extent to which the international community would provide the required resources to facilitate the deployment of the force thereby bringing peace to the region, a pre-requisite to the avoidance of conditions that would otherwise promote international terrorism.

It is important to note here the crucial role played by USA in the unfolding situation in Somalia. It is well known that it supported Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia and, furthermore, conducted an air attack in the south. Ethiopia should bear in mind that whatever support it receives from anywhere, Somalia is its permanent neighbour and that any action it takes should be on the basis of the long-term mutual interests of the two nations. USA should also be well advised that in order to wage an effective war against international terrorism in the Horn of Africa, it should address the issues of poverty afflicting the sub-region and also influence the TPLF led regime in Ethiopia to respect human rights and democracy in the country. Whatever partnership may exist between USA and the regime would be meaningless if it is based on a relationship that sustains power by negating the people’s choices including the rigging of elections and the incarceration of the elected members of parliament and the media on phony grounds. Basically, USA ought to recognize that its arch enemies in the Horn of Africa and those of the people in the region are: absence of democracy, abuse of human rights, poverty, and pandemic diseases such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, TB, etc. all essential elements for breeding international terrorism. A region that is rich in natural resources including its agriculture, and water that supplies 86% of Egypt’s water needs, is subjected to frequent famine mainly due to poor leadership and the international community’s inadequate and misplaced response.

Ethiopia’s prompt withdrawal from Somalia immediately after the IGAD force settles in could have a great potential for bringing peace and development in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia would not be seen as an invading force. On the contrary, it is hoped, it would be perceived as a friendly neighbour which contributed to Somalia’s sovereignty, stability and peace. For the first time in the checkered history of the two nations, genuine prospects for a socio-economic and political collaboration could ensue if only the leaders of the two countries would subdue their myopic interests and adopt a far sighted approach of regional integration and harmony for the Horn of Africa including Somalia’s other regions (Somaliland and Punt), Eritrea, and Djibouti.

With the achievement of peace and stability in the area, the available substantial resources including agricultural, water, energy, extensive port facilities, as well as the abundant population could be put to good use for the alleviation of the region’s grinding poverty and diseases. The governments and people of the region as well as the international community could, therefore, be beneficiaries from the extensive economic development activities.

Whether Ethiopia would be seen as a neighbourhood bully or a harbinger of peace would depend on the actions it takes during the coming few months. Based on its actions within Ethiopia and Eritrea so far, the prospects for a judicious use of power for the long-term interests of the poor people in the region appear to be dim. However, it is hoped that in the least, the international community including USA, EU, the UN, the African Union, and IGAD would prevail on the two nations to take advantage of this unique opportunity to move effectively towards peace and development instead of their perennial wasteful conflicts.

By Ali Osman Samater

Soon after the collapse of the dictatorial military regime of Siad Barre in January 1991 the Somali people went through a long, anarchic and painful agony, caused by clan-based warlords mainly in the south of Somalia. This historical phase came to an end in June 2006 when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) managed the miracle of re-establishing personal security for the people living in Mogadishu after expelling its warlords. However, a few weeks later the Islamists started a holy war against peaceful towns and villages in the surrounding regions. This Islamist jihad was akin to the disastrous crusade led by Gen. Aideed more than a decade to establish his clan’s hegemony over most of the south of Somalia. While totally ineffective at uniting the country and establishing even a regional administration, that crusade was the main cause of the 1993 famine and mass starvation in the region around Baidoa, the city of death. In a similar fashion, the recent-day Islamists, while bringing security to Mogadishu, brought back only war and instability outside. They only opened the capital’s airport and seaport in order to cover the financial needs for their jihad against the rest of Somalia , but couldn’t even manage to establish a functioning administration in the city, let alone in the surrounding regions.

The major subjects of the Islamists’ propaganda were Ethiopia and its support for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) rather than our national problems whose solution required sincere dialogue and true internal political reconciliation. The overrated but primitive Islamist groups around Hassan Dahir Aweis (a self declared sheikh) and Indha’ade (another leader common known by his nickname) sought backing from outside radical Islamic ideologists and financiers, thus becoming active part of their international network and project. Their contribution was going to establish a radical and imported brand of Islam over the whole of Somalia. Within a short time, they attacked relatively peaceful regions in Somalia like Lower Juba, Middle Shebelle, Bay, Bakool, Hiiraan, Mudug, and Gelgudud.

While conducting their military campaign and revitalizing the dirty and bloody civil war driven by the horrifying political clan games among warlords and Somali clans like the Darood, Hawieye, and Rahanweyn, the Islamists also introduced draconian rules in the towns and areas under their control. They barred women from the streets, although they are the bread winners for hundreds of thousands of children and unemployed male relatives. They not only prohibited western music and movies but also our beloved Somali music. Socially and culturally, the Islamists put our nation on the fast track to the prehistory of mankind.

Against this background it is easy to understand how the current joint TFG and Ethiopian military operation in the south of Somalia is a logical response to the declaration of a jihad against them by the Islamists. And militarily, one of the main reasons for the swift reversal of fortune is that the Islamists sent almost exclusively teenage boys to the frontline in Baidoa and Buurhakabo against a small but experienced TFG security force backed by the formidable regular Ethiopian armed forces.

Now some Somalis, including some frustrated and opportunistic ones in the Diaspora, argue in postings on the internet, writings, and media interviews that Ethiopia is our historical enemy. Some even more irresponsibly argue that Ethiopia is our “natural” enemy, just like the Mogadishu Islamists used to do during their good old days. Such “natural” enmity, however, is a figment of their imagination. It is mostly a reflection of childhood psychological trauma and undigested and manipulated political and historical half truths, which have their deep roots in the colonial era and in the dictatorial regimes of both Somalia and Ethiopia.

The critical Diaspora Somalis especially do not appreciate the brutality of the civil war experienced by those who stayed behind, who no longer believe and will never again believe that Ethiopia is their natural enemy. Moreover, the Somalis living today in Hargeisa and Bosasso have had relatively good relationships with the Ethiopians for years. A few stories will illustrate my case. Somalis in the Awdal region commonly use the Ethiopian money (Bir) in their business transactions or for savings purposes, like it were a major foreign currency. The Somalis living along the road between Burao and Lassanod routinely provide water and food to the many Ethiopians on their way to attempting the often deadly crossing of the Gulf of Aden to reach Yemen and would not dream of considering them as enemies. And similar stories of close trading and personal ties with Ethiopia could be told for the peoples living in many other Somali regions like Hiiraan, Bay, Bakool, and Gedo.

The strong and successful Ethiopian military intervention requested and guided by the TFG has opened the opportunity to unite the country, rebuild the state, reinvigorate our economy, and give us a new voice in the international community. However, this intervention will only lead to the rebirth of our nation if the clan and Islamic extremists in our midst, especially in Mogadishu, do not mess up again, as they did in the past through the mobilization of women, armed teenagers, hooligans, and occupiers of public and private buildings. Ethiopians cannot and will not occupy Somalia, simply because they know well that such a task is far beyond their capacity.

If we Somalis seize instead the opportunities stemming from their declared and predictably short-term intervention, we have a chance to get out of our home-made tragedy. Ethiopians are our natural neighbor, not our natural enemy. This is the truer and the more realistic vision. This is also the only vision which offers our two nations a better future.

Ali Osman Samater can be reached at [email protected]

Who Needs the United Nations More?

Everyone in the developing world and even a good number of Europeans are convinced that the United States today poses a great, incalculable danger to world peace. The peace of developing nations is more in danger than at any time since the end of the Second World War, and their future has become more and more uncertain and gloomy.

Yes, while you and I are calmly and quietly engaged in our day-to-day existence and family responsibilities, the world is changing dramatically, to a degree unknown in recent history. Indeed, many unexpected, daunting trends and processes are in the making. A good number of experts on current US foreign policy on Africa and the Middle East have convincingly argued that in less than half a decade, selected potentially wealthy countries in Africa and the Middle East, with enormous natural resources but technologically backward and militarily underdeveloped and defenseless, will be under the direct or indirect rule of the United States, with or without the cooperation of some proxy individuals and allies.

Under the new Republican doctrine, the United States appears to be enthusiastic, determined and ready to spend billions of dollars to continue waging its violent, cruel and inhumane war that it believes will help to establish and expand its presence so to solidify and safeguard its long-term political and economic interest throughout the globe. Although in the nineteenth century the expansionist behaviour of the United States – the incorporation of others’ territories by means of annexation and conquest, or sometimes through treaties – was limited to the continent of North America, the policy of the current Republican leadership seems an obvious attempt to revive its past imperialist, expansionist, violent culture and rules. Also – as emphasized by the wholehearted cooperation of the motherland, Britain, in almost all areas, including invading and occupying the land of others – one is pushed to argue vigorously that the contemporary engagement of the United States demonstrates a profound nostalgia and desire to replace and reshape the past imperial power structures, domination and rules of the Old Britain. What is more terrifying is that the huge threat of contemporary US domestic and foreign policy, which is seen by a considerable number of people as anti Black and anti Arab/Muslim countries and peoples, comes from the most powerful nation on earth. The rest of the international community is weak and militarily incapable of preventing either the further expansion into the territories of other wealthy countries or the continuing destruction of countries and peoples. It has also been said that by employing the September 11 attack as a timely opportunity, the Bush administration strategy has been fully directed at uprooting those countries or individuals with opposing, critical views or cultures that it dislikes, and bringing targeted African Arab/Muslim countries under the new American order.

The September 11 Attack as a Key, Opening the “Door of Opportunity to Extend America’s Hegemony Across the Globe”: The Uncertain Future of Wealthy Countries

One can recall the fears and anxieties expressed by Professor Samuel Huntington about possible “clashes of civilizations;” just a few years after the end of the Cold War, he alerted us to possible future confrontations and conflicts between Islamic values and cultures and those of western countries. But no one thought or predicted at that time that a country in Asia, the Middle East or Africa would be attacked, invaded and occupied by a western country, and certainly not by the United States. As far as we can recall, not a single conscious person had the slightest idea that the United State would be a threat to world peace, stability and the day-to-day survival and security of non-whites and non-Christians around the world. It is certainly difficult if not impossible to believe that such ideologies, strategies and policies were in the making in a country whose previous leaders said repeatedly that the United States is a protector of the weak and helpless all over the world, or that it would be so determined and insist on forcefully imposing what it calls its “democratic values” and consumption habits, including its greedy life styles and cultures throughout the world.

The entire strategy of the US administration, especially the philosophy of the Project for the New American Century, whose founders include the current US Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Defense Policy Board member and former chairman, Richard Perle, was crafted to accelerate the process of globalization of power. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a radical anti Muslim, along with former and current Pentagon officials and other important figures in the Bush administration, is said to be the ideological father of the New American Century. The Project for the New American Century, a Washington based think-tank founded in 1997, openly demands intervention by US forces anywhere in world and the immediate “establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of nations” and argues that the 21st century belongs only to the United States, its people, its consumption habits, life style and culture, but not to the international community. It is currently the most influential organization for US foreign policy makers, and, together with the Heritage Foundation, is the cornerstone of the administration, and of the Bush doctrine in particular. Most Republican conservatives and hard liners believe strongly that it was the Americans themselves, more specifically the administration of President Roland Reagan in the 1980s, that brought down the oaks of the Cold War and did away with its yokes, managing to silence the voice of everyone with socialist and communist views throughout the globe. In other words, after almost a half century of wrangling and a number of frightening prospects for a third world war with the former Soviet Union and its allies, it was the United States that was tirelessly engaged, with all its mighty efforts and money, in digging the graves of socialist and communist leaders, along with their social, cultural, political, economic and military philosophies, and finally succeeded in eradicating the competing political and military power, along with its ideology. Others that the US considered potential enemies were also eliminated. The hard liners insist proudly and arrogantly that the United States, because of the multiple efforts it made to eradicate its long time enemy, the former Soviet Union and its allies, through secretive, enormously organized undercover diplomatic wars and by creating and training hostile movements and political organizations within the former East Block countries – eventually enabling the US to emerge as the only power on earth – deserves to be the new empire, and that the new century belongs “only to us;” this ideology or philosophy is not negotiable. Such ideologies and developments in a country with such abundant military powers and other resources are, to most of us, certainly unanticipated and shocking.

The New American Century think tank proudly and enthusiastically states that the September 11 attack can be seen as a key, opening the “door of opportunity to extend America’s hegemony by force of arms across the globe…..” Indeed, the September 11 attack on America by a group of young Middle Easterners was welcomed wholeheartedly by the Bush administration team, influential organizations such as the New American Century and the Heritage Foundation, expansionist American corporations, and by lobbyists for Israel as an opportunity and a critically important tool to limit the role and power of the United Nations and to freely invade and control wealthy countries.

Africans, Arabs/Muslims and other non-white peoples across the globe with painful, unforgettable experiences of past oppressions, centuries of slavery, endless humiliations and the extortion and total control of their lands and properties by previous imperial powers are presently in a state of shock and confusion, frightened and in complete disbelief regarding the arrogance, destructive and controlling behaviour of the newly emerging empire – the United States. The speed with which the army and government of the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq were defeated also came as a shock and surprise to a huge section of people in the Arab/Muslim world, Asia and Africa.

Thousands of Arab/Muslim children have been killed and others who managed to survive will spend the rest of their entire lifetime without hands, legs, or eyes. Such terrifying and atrocious crimes have been committed, not by an African, Arab/Muslim, or Asian power-thirsty dictator, or by a greedy national monarchy, but by the powerful bombs of the newly emerging empire – the United States – whose leadership is determined to control and exploit the natural resources of their countries by force; to exploit the cheap human capital of the potentially wealthy and resourceful countries in Africa and the Middle East; to build new houses, create new jobs and new lives for American citizens and the citizens of its proxy allies; to impose the will of the United States, its capitalist economic system, American consumption culture and habits and life styles upon those selected countries, which are technologically backward and militarily underdeveloped and defenseless; and to rule them for unspecified decades or centuries.

Although the killing of so many innocent African and Arab/Muslim children, women and the elderly, and the destruction of historical assets and property including houses and other means of survival, are inflaming anger and hostility towards the United States and have become a contributing force in tarnishing the image of the new empire throughout the international community, not a single country or human rights organization, or even the United Nations of which the new empire is a founding member, dares to make a verbal or written protest against the violent and atrociously committed crimes of the US. Everyone, even Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, are so frightened that they have not even stood up to make their opposition public and send an official letter of protest to the State Department and the international media.

It is interesting but sad to note that the sort of opposition and complaint that can expressed by western human rights organizations does not go beyond expressions against measures undertaken by some socialist/communist and developing countries. Imagine now if Amnesty International, or Africa Watch and other American and British mouthpiece human rights organizations, were to be asked or told to protest about human rights violations in China, or Cuban, or even against a country with a weak, fragile economy and destabilized political structure or non-existent government such as in Somalia or Afghanistan: then the leaders of those organizations could have produced a huge number of reports and could have appeared on internationally known TV channels and in newspapers and local media. It seems that the Western human rights organizations are interested in issues and enjoy articulating and hammering them primarily for the sake of maintaining the existence of their organizations and their relations with political parties and political leaders.

Although the politics and mighty military powers of the United States are exclusively focused on wealthy nations with undesired religions and cultures, and primarily on these accused of providing assistance and working in hand in glove with, for example, Al Qaeda or Palestinian freedom fighters, everyone, including leaders and peoples in African, Asian, and even certain sections of Latin American countries remained uncertain, terrified by the accelerated course and processes of the new, expansionist American empire around the globe, which is making all possible efforts to get a foothold everywhere, to become established and see that everything is in line with US interests.

All leaders of non-white countries, especially those who are not “with the United States and its long term ally and mouthpiece, Britain” are asking themselves and their advisors when it will be their turn to be attacked, crushed to the ground and ruled by the new empire. Some Arab/Muslim and African leaders who, unfortunately missed the boat of the past five years, which had carried a golden opportunity to some countries to cultivate a patron – client relationship with the United States in general, and the Bush administration and the Israeli government in particular, are indeed frightened, and are also counting the days and hours until the United States election of November 2008, which might possibly provide solace and comfort by sending the anti-Black and anti-Arab/Muslim President George W. Bush back to his Texas fortification forever.

The End of the Cold War and the Emergence of Differing US-European Visions and Perceptions Towards the Problems and Solutions for African and Middle Eastern Countries

The end of the Cold War has become a source of confusion and division among European countries and a creator of political crisis not just between Europe and other long time allies, but more especially and nostalgically, with the land of Europe’s “grandchildren,” the United States. Given the family ties, history and linkage of cultures, cooperation, long standing political and economic bonds and many other essential relationships between Europe and the United States, it is somehow difficult to consider the current tensions and the misunderstandings that emerged during the period of preparation before the war against Iraq as serious problems or a substantial obstacle to future alignments, political and economic relations, or military cooperation between Europe and the United States.

It is however true that despite having the European Union as a potential collective face and voice for all member European countries, and NATO as a political and military power that joins Europe (and the United States), the challenge of developing a united, strong European political voice remains difficult to embrace the views and desires of all member countries and to reshape either the union or the individual countries of Europe to match the newly envisioned needs and frameworks.

It is also true that the current crisis and challenges are more obvious than any practical immediate solutions. The differences in views and ideologies in today’s world, including the question of either short or long term solutions to the multiple problems between Europe and the United States, are something new, and cannot be bridged simply. These differences can be quite frustrating, especially given family ties and the many other attachments. The US, for instance, strongly believes, as always, in its military muscle as the main solution to the complex problems of the world, including even environmental issues, while Europeans tend to rely primarily upon rationality and diplomacy. Further, human rights and peace movements in Europe are more abundant and effective, and are more influential in the formulation and outcome of government policy than their counterparts in the United States.

It is nevertheless now obvious that the US attack – outside international law – on Iraq has shown not only the weakness, but in fact the powerlessness of Europe, not only in terms of unity among member countries but rather in real military power. Consequently, European countries were so weak and helpless that they could not even consider either collectively or individually the possibility of providing any political or diplomatic protection to the victim countries, which are still badly in need of such protection.

There are urgent needs to reassess and reexamine the current political crisis, economic recession, military and power structures, including the obstacles that stand in the way of creating a united voice and establishing a European Rapid Response Force. It is nevertheless extremely necessary to hasten the collective efforts to craft a new direction conducive to creating a united voice and economic and military power within a united Europe. This will be helpful not only for Europeans, but also will help in envisioning new structures, new and strong rules and systems for the United Nations, and in creating and strengthening cooperative political and economic relations with the developing world, especially Africa and the Middle East.

Existing Problems, Newly Emerging Challenges and Doubts about the Future Effectiveness and Credibility of the United Nations: Who Needs the United Nations More?

It has recently been argued that enormous dark clouds are hanging above the United Nations. Although their voice is often silenced by the power of the western media, African and Arab/Muslim intellectuals are debating the future relevance of the United Nations to the vital interests of their countries, and to the developing world at large. It has been angrily discussed in some astonishment that the United States often appropriates and employs the many rules, norms and patterns of the United Nations only when it comes to its own vital interests and those of its so called allies, of the “willing,” while neglecting or ignoring the loud collective interest, voices, legal codes and social arrangements of the organization whenever objections are presented to oppose its aggressive, expansionist measures and behaviours.

Consequently, the political and economic power of the United Nations continues to weaken day by day. The huge respect the international community had for this international body is vanishing from the minds and hearts of blacks and Arabs/Muslims. The multiple projects and responsibilities the organization once proudly and respectfully carried out in villages throughout the developing world, mainly in countries facing internal and external armed conflicts and economic hardships, have been made ineffective and even in some cases non-operational by the violent, anti world community forces of the Bush team and its foreign and war policy makers. The Bush administration has not left any stone unturned to weaken the United Nations, marginalize and make it meaningless, a paralyzed talking shop, not just by withdrawing long-standing power elements and structures from the organization, but also by forcing many of its employees to disengage from their jobs and leave their workplace at UN Headquarters after being charged with creatively invented statements about being a danger or trying to cause direct and substantial damage to the multiple, complex interests and security of the United States. According to Republican ideologies and current Bush doctrine, the United Nations is irrelevant because it has little or no political and economic capacity or power to accommodate and manage the complex, expanded and growing concerns, interests and needs of the United States. For these reasons, and despite the desire and respect that the rest of the international community has for the United Nations, the organization must be incapacitated and kept inactive with respect to its much desired roles in issues of development, refugees, peace keeping and human rights. Additionally, the United States has been cleverly successful in discrediting the United Nations by rejecting the resolutions passed by its collective voice and then going to war to destroy an entire country with it huge cultural and historical goods and properties; and by constant, aggressive and disparaging false charges and remarks towards the organization, intended to incapacitate it. Time and again the Bush administration has accused the United Nations of being a platform for third world dictators and a tool for expression by communist black Africans and Arab/Muslim terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The leaders of the developing world now argue that they see no need to respect the rules of the United Nations or the organization itself, since it has already been made irrelevant by the direct threats and repeated deceptions of the most powerful nation in the world and its motherland, Great Britain.

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]