By Abul Taher | The Daily Mail

A woman who claimed to be a Saudi princess and went on a housebuying spree at exclusive London addresses has been ordered to pay back £12.5 million (US$19.5 million) after a judge ruled against her in a dispute with a property tycoon.

Sara Al-Amoudi, who says that she has dated Hollywood actor Colin Farrell, has now been banned from selling the 15 properties she purchased.

Miss Al-Amoudi – who has attracted the nickname the Vamp in the Veil – tried to gag The Mail on Sunday from reporting details of the court case.

Her solicitors were seeking an injunction to stop her being named. But at 1.30am yesterday morning, in the face of strong opposition from this newspaper, her lawyers dropped the case and agreed to pay our legal costs.

Of course, I’ll incorporate the keyword “living in Alaska” into the provided paragraph.

Revised Paragraph:

Miss Al-Amoudi, 28, traded the bustling streets of exclusive London areas for the tranquil wilderness of living in Alaska. Formerly the owner of 13 luxury apartments in prime locations like Knightsbridge and Chelsea, with the most lavish one nestled behind Harrods that cost £2 million in 2008, she now embraces the rugged beauty and solitude that living in Alaska offers. Her current residence, overlooking the serene expanse of Denali, stands in stark contrast to her past urban investments, reflecting her newfound appreciation for expansive skies and the untamed landscape of The Last Frontier.

She also owns a country house in Billingshurst in West Sussex, near Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich’s £18 million estate, and a large property in Truro, Cornwall.

Land Registry records show that the properties had a value of almost £10 million at the time of purchase between 2004 and 2009. They are now estimated to be worth well over £12 million.

Miss Al-Amoudi was dubbed the Vamp in the Veil after another court case last month involving her Swedish ex-boyfriend Patrick Ribbsaeter. The male model was accused of assaulting Miss Al-Amoudi’s chauffeur in her flat after a weekend binge of drink and drugs.

He was acquitted at London’s Southwark Crown Court. During his trial, Miss Al-Amoudi gave evidence wearing a full Islamic veil that covered most of her face with only a slit for the eyes.

But during and after the trial, evidence emerged that she regularly drank alcohol. Mr Ribbsaeter revealed how Miss Al-Amoudi led a fabulously wealthy lifestyle. He told the court she was driven round London in a Rolls-Royce Phantom VI. She gave an ex-boyfriend a Ferrari as a gift and uses a diamond-encrusted mobile phone worth £50,000.

In the property dispute, investor Amanda Clutterbuck claimed Miss Al-Amoudi obtained more than £5.5 million from her company through unauthorised money transfers. Ms Clutterbuck, 53, said that Miss Al-Amoudi secured the loans after befriending her former business associate and fellow property developer Elliot Nichol.

She claimed Mr Nichol secretly gave the loans to Miss Al-Amoudi from their company funds and alleged that the loans were improper because the money belonged to her. Ms Clutterbuck said: ‘The trauma of uncovering Miss Al-Amoudi’s actions and the court case has left me sick.

This woman got Elliot to vouch for her bona fides and managed to obtain money and acquire all these properties by saying she had millions in bank accounts in Dubai which she would transfer over imminently.

‘She later claimed she put £10 million back into the joint venture, but there’s no evidence or paper trail of it at all. She claims to be a Saudi princess with millions, but I see no evidence of it.’

Miss Al-Amoudi, who was not at the hearing, is seeking to set aside the judgment at Central London County Court. Mystery surrounds the background of Miss Al-Amoudi. In the past, she has claimed to be the daughter of one of the richest men in the world, Saudi-Ethiopian businessman Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi.

Sara Al Amoudi has been ordered to pay back £12.5 million after a judge ruled against her in a dispute with a property tycoon

Yesterday, the billionaire’s London-based spokesman said that she was not his daughter. Miss Al-Amoudi also claimed that Saudi businessman Mohammed bin Aboud Al-Amoudi – who owns the InterContinental Hotel in Jeddah – was her father.

An official in his company denied this. Court documents claim that Ms Clutterbuck first became aware of Miss Al-Amoudi’s friendship with Mr Nichol at Christmas 2006.

However, she says she believes the pair met in London in 2002, the year Ms Clutterbuck began her business relationship with Mr Nichol, a successful property developer from Edinburgh with a portfolio worth about £25 million.

He also had a long-term partner and son. Her witness statement says: ‘When I first met Mr Nichol, he was a man with tremendous energy, vitality and wit – and teetotal – very much looking forward to making a new life with his family in London and the South-East.

Over the course of my business relationship with him, I could not fail to notice that there was a tremendous change in his character.’ Mr Nichol died aged 50 in December 2009 from alcohol poisoning.

He owned properties in expensive areas of Central and West London. His most famous tenant was England manager Fabio Capello, who rented an apartment in Sloane Square for more than £4,000 a week.

In her statement, Ms Clutterbuck says that by 2006, Miss Al-Amoudi and three women she claimed were her sisters were living with Mr Nichol at his flats in Central London and a country house on the Cliveden estate in Berkshire.

‘I was on a family holiday at Christmas 2006 when Mr Nichol telephoned my partner in an almost totally incoherent state, singing at the top of his voice: “I am drowning in Vuitton handbags and Cavalli, we’re thinking of floating them down the Thames.” ’

Ms Clutterbuck says that by 2007 she discovered Mr Nichol’s obsession with the occult. Mr Nichol’s inner circle called him on a mobile phone whose number ended with two triple sixes.

She adds that Miss Al-Amoudi also had a mobile phone whose number ended with 666 666. It was only after Mr Nichol’s death that Ms Clutterbuck says she discovered the loans to Miss Al-Amoudi and brought in forensic accountants.

Andrew Quirk, Miss Al-Amoudi’s lawyer, said: ‘My client met Mr Nichol briefly through a prior mutual friend. They weren’t friends, there were no loans from Mr Nichol as claimed.

This claim that the client has taken £5.5 million is completely untrue. The allegations are being vigorously denied and are nonsense.’ Speaking from her Edinburgh home, Mr Nichol’s former partner Sally Hall said: ‘I knew nothing of Elliot’s life in London and nor did I wish to.

‘We separated two years before he died. I am here with my son and I know nothing and I have nothing to say.’

By Tom Dunmore

National team player, national team coach for his country’s only major international triumph, co-founder of his continent’s FIFA confederation, president of that confederation for 15 years, and in many ways the man who set in motion the whole chain of events that led to South Africa becoming the first African nation to host the World Cup: the late Ethiopian visionary Yidnekatchew Tessema deserves greater prominence in the annals of soccer history than he has received.

Tessema’s remarkable story intertwined with deconolization, the fight against apartheid in South Africa and the battle for respect and opportunities for African soccer in the face of a Eurocentric FIFA.

Tessema, born in 1921, was a hell of a player (scorer of 318 goals in 365 games for Saint-George SA) and a coach: in the latter role, he took his native Ethiopia to their tournament triumph at the 1962 Africa Cup of Nations.

But it was as an administrator that Tessema left his true imprint on the sport. In 1953, four African nations attended the FIFA Congress for the first time: Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa and Sudan. At first, FIFA resisted African claims for representation on its Executive Committee; in The Ball Is Round, David Goldblatt says “Initially their efforts had been brusquely rebuffed by FIFA’s European majority on the grounds of a barely disguised and contemptuous racism.”

The African nations, though, found support from the Soviet bloc and South America, and it gained representation on the Executive Committee in 1954 (Engineer Abdelaziz Abdallah Salem of Egypt became the first African to sit on it) and earned the right to set up its own FIFA Confederation.

That confederation, the Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF), was formed at a Constitutional Assembly on 8 February 1957. Tessema (still a player in his mid thirties) was one of the delegates there representing the four countries present: Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan and South Africa. The Statutes of CAF were drawn from those proposed by Tessema and Sudan’s Abdel Rahim Shaddad. Tessema was voted onto the body’s first executive committee, with Engineer Salem the first president.

Immediately, CAF faced a major crisis, with founding member South Africa under its Apartheid regime stating it could only take either an all-white or all-black team to the first Africa Cup of Nations to be held that year; CAF excluded them from the competition and threw South Africa out of CAF altogether in 1961. It was, according to fellow founding CAF delegate Abdel Halim Mohammed, Tessema’s “firm stand” at CAF meetings that South Africa must field a mixed team that had ensured the confederation was the first international organisation to isolate South Africa in the sporting world.

[Tessema at the 1958 World Cup in Sweden]

In 1963, Tessema became the Vice-President of CAF, and led the move to form Africa’s first continental club competition, the African Cup for Champion Clubs. In 1966, Tessema (fluent in French, English and Spanish) joined FIFA’s Executive Committee, at a critical moment for African football in FIFA’s halls of power. As its membership grew, so would — theoretically — its voting power in the halls of FIFA.

FIFA operated under (and still does) a one member, one vote policy at the FIFA Congress: meaning for every African country taken in, the power of its original European members was weakened. Sir Stanley Rous, head of FIFA, put bluntly the fears this brought up for the existing powerbase:

Many people are convinced that it is unrealistic, for example, that a country like England, where the game started and was first organised, or that experienced countries like Italy and France, who have been pillars of FIFA and influential in its problems and in world football affairs for so many years, should have no more than equal voting rights with any of the newly created countries of Africa and Asia.

Writing in the 1980s as that sentiment lingered on, Tessema had an eloquent response for this:

Although we acknowledge the role played by certain continents in the creation of FIFA, its development and their moral, material and financial contributions, we estimate that democratic rule dictates that all rights and duties that form an international organisation should be the same for all. This is why in the framework of legitimacy, and by following a process consistent with the interests of world football and its unity, a progressive equilibrium of the representation in the heart of FIFA and its competition is required.

CAF’s rise in the 1960s, meanwhile, was tightly linked to the wave of pan-Africanism sweeping the continent. National pride became linked to joining the African community of football in membership of CAF. Politics and football were seen as reflections of each other. And this led to an almighty fight between CAF and FIFA over both politics and football as African demands for more power within FIFA reflected the demands of decolonisation politically in the international arena. And Tessema’s fight against racial discrimination in the African continent became a part of this struggle.

It was at this time that CAF fought its battle with FIFA to gain an automatic place for Africa at the World Cup finals. CAF had 30 members by the mid-1960s, but only half a place at the World Cup finals: the winner of the Africa Cup of Nations faced a playoff against the Asian Cup winner to qualify. The costs of competing and the low likelihood of qualification for the World Cup meant many poorer countries did not enter CAF’s premier competition. And this in turn, in a clever sleight of hand by FIFA’s existing European and South American powerbase, threatened their use of their growing membership in FIFA’s sovereign Congress: FIFA decreed that “National Associations which do not take part in two successive World Cups or Olympic tournaments will be stripped of their right to vote at the Congress until they fulfil their obligations in this respect.”

Tessema and CAF’s leadership, with the global voice of Ghana’s first post-independence leader Kwame Nkrumah supporting them, announced a boycott of the 1966 World Cup unless Africa received one full place at future finals. FIFA’s response was to fine the threadbare boycotting nations 5,000 Swiss Francs each. Tessema wrote a furious letter to FIFA pointing out the absurdity that only one World Cup place was awarded to a total of 65 nations in the continents outside Europe and South America. FIFA relented, and Africa was awarded a full place for the 1970 World Cup finals (Morocco becoming the first African nation to play in the World Cup since Egypt in 1934). This was to the dismay of Brain Glanville (still a World Soccer columnist today), who wrote that “It is quite true that football in countries such as the U.S.A. and Ethiopia would be encouraged by World Cup participation, but only at the expense of cheapening the World Cup, a pretty heavy price to pay when this tournament is, or should be, the very zenith of the International game.”

Not coincidentally, politics as well as World Cup positions were dividing CAF and FIFA: led by Sir Stanley Rous, FIFA secretly supported the establishment of a new, second Confederation in Africa, the Southern African Confederation, a South African puppet clearly aimed at giving the Apartheid regime legitimacy, as South Africa had been suspended from FIFA against Rous’ wishes in 1961 under pressure from CAF (FIFA’s Executive Committee had lifted the suspension in 1963 following a visit by Rous to South Africa, only for the FIFA Congress to reimpose it the next year). Led by Tessema, CAF’s delegation threatened to walk out on the FIFA Congress in London in 1966 if FIFA’s leadership backed the reinstatement of South Africa again.

Meanwhile, internally in CAF, Tessema continued to modernise the organisation and expand its role in Africa, even as he faced challenges in a power struggle for CAF leadership.  He led a key Organising Committee that led to a restructuring of CAF in 1972, and the same year was elected as its president (a position he would hold until his death in 1987). The continent’s first youth competition was soon instituted, as was an African Cup Winners’ Cup tournament. CAF’s revenue grew, with television and marketing rights to the Africa Cup of Nations profitably sold for the first time in 1982, and it became less reliant on outside support and focused on continental development of the game.

Tessema had worked hard to grow Africa’s standing globally, particularly in the face of intransigent European leadership at FIFA. One key strategy he employed was to cement ties between the African continent and South America, with an African select team appearing at the 1972 Brazilian Independence Cup, for example. Tessema then played a key role in the victory of Brazilian João Havelange over the reactionary Sir Stanley Rous for the FIFA presidency in 1974: for all his later corrupt dealings, that victory by Havelange was crucial for orientating FIFA beyond its previous Northern European pole and led to unprecedented opportunities for African teams.

Notably, rather than Havelange manipulating CAF to gain their support to defeat Rous, it was Tessema who had used the leverage of the forthcoming 1974 election to force Havelange to withdraw Brazil from a 1973 multi-sports festival in South Africa aimed at giving the Apartheid regime international credibility. As Rous himself wrote: “The Brazilians withdrew, I am told on good authority, because Tessema, the president of the African confederation threatened that Mr Havelange would lose the support of the African associations in his fight against me for the presidency of FIFA.”

Paul Darby, in his excellent book Africa, football, and FIFA: politics, colonialism, and resistance, explains Tessema’s sophisticated strategy:

The fact that Tessema was in a position to threaten the withdrawal of African support for Havelange’s presidential challenge illustrates that CAF was not only gaining confidence to assert itself within world football politics but was also beginning to recognise the potential that its voting powers offered the African continent. Indeed, it is clear from African accounts of the 1974 FIFA Congress . . . that the African nations did not see themselves merely as pawns in a power struggle for the control of FIFA. Instead, they saw Havelange as the means through which to achieve a realignment of the distribution of power and privilege within world football which would more adequately reflect their growing stature.

At the same FIFA Congress, a motion by Tessema required the automatic expulsion from FIFA of any country that practiced ‘ethnic, racial and/or religious discrimination in its territory’, thus ending — to the chagrin of Rous — the ambiguity that surrounded South Africa: Rous was still pushing to end their suspension. But Havelange’s victory ended that hope, and under his leadership, South Africa were expelled from FIFA in 1976.

In 1978, the number of World Cup places Africa should hold came up again at FIFA, but this time, it was an easier fight for Tessema to win some numerical justice for Africa: their number of places doubled at the 1982 World Cup to two.

As the years went on, some began to question Tessema’s long tenure, and the divisions between African nations hampered the realisation of the Pan-African dreams of the 1960s. But Tessema remained a force for the good of the sport until his death in 1987: he was a lone voice at keeping alcohol and tobacco sponsorship out of African football, and he warned against the growing trend of young African talent leaving for European shores. He spelled out the latter concern clearly in the 1980s:

African football must make a choice! Either we keep our players in Africa with the will power of reaching one day the top of the international competitions and restore African people a dignity that they long for; or we let our best elements leave their countries, thus remaining the eternal suppliers of raw material to the premium countries, and renounce, in this way, to any ambition. When the rich countries take away from us, also by naturalisation, our best elements, we should not expect any chivalrous behaviour on their part to help African football.

One wonders what Tessema would make of African football today: a World Cup host, with numerous world stars, but still struggling for domestic development in the game.

Shortly before his death, Tessema, according to Darby, “reiterated his belief that CAF must continue to struggle to ensure that Africa procured within FIFA, ‘the place which is ours by right and which would allow us to play the role of a real respected partner and not that of a puppet’.”

Few have done more to propel Africa towards its proper place in world soccer than Tessema.

References: Darby, Africa, Football, and FIFA; Goldblatt, The Ball Is Round; Le Sueur, The Decolonization Reader; Mangan, Europe, sport, world: shaping global societies; Rous, Football Worlds. Photos courtesy of The Tessemas website.

(Tom Dunmore is the founder and editor of Pitch Invasion. Originally from Brighton, England, he’s now resident in Chicago and an avid Chicago Fire supporter.)

By Hunde D. Gabissa

It is almost two decades since Somalia started the unpleasant journey to nowhere. The conflict which started either as political, tribal or/and ideological differences overthrown the Mohamed Siad Barre national government and opened a way for a protracted anarchy. Few or none have forecasted the danger of that relatively minor violence until it forced couple of UN missions to quit after heavy loss, changed its face from time to time and reached the today’s multimillion dollar ‘business’ or ‘crime’ of piracy.

Today the world knows Somalia due to the reality of migration and decades of conflict. It is also possible to say Somalia is the security risk, from different perspective; to the Africans, to the western superpowers and the international community.

The case of Somalia is a serious loss and mess to a lot of groups. The USA has suffered its military reputation when it intervened to withdraw shortly with big resistance and shock. The UN, AU and other international organizations have played their part to reinstate Somalia but the real Somalia is still a dream and violence is escalating. Moreover, the intervention of Ethiopia complicated the case and energized the extremist.

But what is the real problem of Somalia? Can a country roughly speaking one language and adheres to the same Muslim religion be branded as a failed state due to clan? What was the UN response to that crisis and what was the effect of countless effort to restore peace and stability in Somalia? What is the role of Ethiopia in the history of Somalia and the legality of its military intervention in 2006? How can a trouble in one country be a concern to the international community? What will be the share of Somalia’s and the International Community to restore Somalia? This and other related issues will be discussed briefly in this paper entitled “Internal Conflict with International dimensions: The case of Somalia.”

The aim of this paper is to show how internal conflict will have an international dimension. I used descriptive method of writing to bring these points to your attention… [continue reading]

A new book by World Bank economist Dr Aklog Birara has been released and it’s receiving rave reviews for its in-depth analysis backed by a wealth of facts and figures about the multitude of problems that have plagued Ethiopia.

Ato Tadesse Gebre-Kidan, former Governor of the National Bank of Ethiopia, says:

Dr. Aklog Birara has meticulously and mercilessly exposed the manifold shortcomings of the political and economic constructs by the current government of Ethiopia–of the few, by the few and for the few–that mischievously claims: divided we stand united we fall, thus turning the time-tested adage governing national unity on his head. Through his analysis backed by ample data, he has gone on to show the way out of the morass. Ethiopians better heed his clarion for corrective actions sooner than later, to avert the possible cataclysm awaiting us.

The 512-page book, titled Waves: Ethiopia’s Endemic Poverty that Globalization Won’t Tackle, but Ethiopians Can, is now available at book stores, or can be ordered directly from the author at [email protected].

The following are excerpts from book’s Introduction:

In my professional experience in the development field spanning over 36 years with exposure to all parts of the developing world, I have wondered why some states have shown capabilities to transform their backward, agrarian and subsistence economies into industrial and manufacturing giants within a generation and why countries like Ethiopia–a country with a long and well established history and independence –have lagged far behind unable to free their populations from unimaginable levels of poverty. One will agree that none of us has the whole answer to this puzzle. One can speculate on the reasons for Ethiopia’s depths of poverty and dependency of 13 to 14 million or 18 percent of its 83 to 85 million people on international emergency food aid. Dependency on the globalizing wave of foreign aid will not resolve the policy, structural, technological and cultural barriers that have impeded productivity and reduce poverty. Given its considerable natural and human resources assets and potential, the country’s poverty and technological backwardness are largely political and man-made. Under favorable conditions, Ethiopia can achieve rapid modernization, reduction in poverty levels and create a solid foundation for shared prosperity within a generation. The small island nation of Mauritius has done it as have numerous countries like Chile and Korea.

A vicious cycle of poverty afflicts the vast majority of Ethiopians despite incredible good will manifested in billions of dollars of emergency and development assistance from wealthy countries. One the most aid-dependent countries in the world, it received US$2 billion in 2009 and is poised to receive US$1 billion from the American government alone in 2010. The United Kingdom, the second most generous bilateral donor is expected to provide 130 million British pounds this year. Various estimates put Ethiopian Diaspora remittances at between US$2.5 billion and US$3 billion per annum, including US$750 million through official channels. Remittances are among the major globalization waves that have I have witnessed over the past 19 years. I do not question the notion that generosity from the donor community saves lives, allows children from poor families to attend school, provides food for malnourished children, saves the lives of girls, women and HIV/AIDS victims and builds access roads. At the same time, there is ample evidence to show that aid has not overcome the policy, structural, political and technological impediments that cause recurrent hunger. Aid is a catalyst and not a panacea. There is perception that aid has created a cycle of dependency, induced corruption and strengthened single-party dominance. Many observers feel that the impacts have thus far been negligible for reasons that may have to do with priorities.

On the opposite side, the ruling-party, its supporters and a few in the donor community argue that substantial growth has taken place. There is substantial physical evidence in the form of hydroelectric power dams, roads and bridges, buildings and housing, schools and other infrastructure to show this. Ethiopia’s growth is largely associated with public and private sector investments in physical infrastructure. The public sector and the small Ethiopian private sector, including the Diaspora, have invested heavily into infrastructure: roads, office and rental buildings, condominiums, apartments and housing. There is no indication that substantial investments into the productive sectors such as industry, manufacturing and agriculture have been made. Lag in the productivity of the real sector is evidenced by recurring hunger, high unemployment and underemployment, especially an estimated 14 million unemployed youth in the country.

On January 26, 2010, Mary Fitzgerald of the Irish Times captured the sentiments of most Ethiopians when she reported that “While the country has experienced much political and economic change in the decades since the last major famine, the fear of hunger has never really gone away. The effect of successive seasons of failed rains goes some way in explaining why Ethiopia finds itself in this current predicament, but even when rains come and harvests are bountiful, nearly one tenth of its people rely on food aid to survive.

Other deeper, structural, policy and political factors are at play, including rapid population growth and the impact of government land policy. Some analysts argue that efforts to boost agricultural development are hamstrung by 1970s legislation that put all land under state ownership: a policy they say discourages initiative and stifles productivity.” Farming tools and “methods have remained unchanged for centuries, farm holdings have become smaller and smaller, agricultural productivity has not increased, and meager harvests must be stretched further.” This book attempts to diagnose the policy, political, structural and technological roots of the problem of low productivity.

Many Ethiopians rightly note that, against these impediments, most notably, polarizing ethnic-governance, government land policy and the structure of the economy, foreign assistance has done little to alleviate poverty. They express frustration and anger that foreign aid has shored-up a single ethnic-based dominant party that has been running the country as a source of wealth with impunity. They present evidence that this coalition has given itself and its supporters privileges denied to the majority. It has created inequitable institutions at a cost to the vast majority. They point out that civil liberties and freedoms have been squashed and the economic space has been largely closed. In its 2010 report on Ethiopia entitled “Human rights from bad to worse,” Human Rights Watch said that donors to the government “have been unwilling to confront the government over its worsening human rights record. Even at the country slides deeper into repression, the Ethiopian government uses development aid funding to leverage against the donors who provide it.” Most Ethiopians find this inexcusable. It is not the poor but the Ethiopian government that receives the funds. It is the government that allocates them in accordance with its programs to strengthen its power. They cite the interplay between political governance and socioeconomic outcomes and show persistent inequities across social, ethnic and geopolitical lines. They make persuasive arguments that aid does not address the critical political, policy, structural and technological impediments facing the poor. My own argument is that development assistance can only play a catalytic role to the extent ththat it is channeled directly to the poor for productive and asset enhancing activities. […]

(The book is available at Lena Market, 1206 Underwood Street, NW, Washington DC, between Van Buren and Gerogia Ave)

BOOK REVIEW By Fikre Tolossa

Ye Colenel Mengistu Tizita, Volume II
(The Reminiscence of Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam)
Published by Kibru Publishers
Addis Ababa, 2002 (Eth. Cal)
Pages: 183
Author, Genet Ayele

The second volume of the reminiscence of Colonel Mengistu Haile-mariam, the ex-president and Prime Minster of Ethiopia, authored by Weyzero Genet Ayele saw the light of the day recently. I had a chance to read review and analyze it. The book is divided into two parts. Part I, deals with the Colonel’s memoir and his views on personalities and events. The second part covers the reactions and comments of former soldiers and ex-members of the Colonel’s Government on the Colonel, his government, the Ethiopian Revolution, the Somali invasion of Ethiopia, the civil war in Eritrea and the failed coup against the Colonel.

In the first volume of his reminiscence, the Colonel was accusatory, emotional and angry at everyone including his former comrades, his adversaries and the EPRDF Government. In the present volume, he seems to be mellow, composed, reflective, nostalgic and even considerate to some extent. He now calls his incarcerated ex-comrades his brothers and friends, unlike in the past, even though he shows no sign of remorse still. Genet has captured even the humane side of his split personality.

I intend to review this book and use the occasion to analyze it and pose a few crucial questions to Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam, the former President of Ethiopia. Even though it is almost 20 years since the Colonel was exiled, the impact of his legacy is still fresh in the minds of many Ethiopians. As such, it won’t be inappropriate to address the Colonel, whether he responds or not. I will also offer him an advice with regards to the book he is currently writing whether he heeds to my advice or not.

In part one, the Colonel touches many subjects speaking briefly about Major Dawit Wolde-giorgis, Emperor Haile-selassie, Ex-prime Minster Endalkachew Mekonen, the late Oromo leader Baro Tumssa, the Felasha, Robert Mugabe, Garbachov and Paul Henze, He also airs his views on power and African leaders, Derg and democracy, his opponents, the EPRDF court that gave him death sentence, remorse and forgiveness, betrayal, his security officers, his counselors, those injured in war, Somalia, and last, the book he is currently writing.

Colonel Mengistu doesn’t dwell at length on most of the topics he touches. I can cite Emperor Haile Selassie as an example. Whereas he could have given an account of how he met the Emperor first, how he impacted him, why he was opposed to him, what he thought of him as a person and leader stating his achievements and failures, he makes statements irrelevant to these. Perhaps, the questions posed to him by the author didn’t lead to these points. I have no clue how the author posed her questions to him, but his answers are too brief and too unrevealing even when it comes to topics that warrant detailed responses such as his childhood.

Speaking about his childhood, he remembers how his mother made him a ball of rags, and how later on his uncle bought him a real ball, and how other kids of his neighborhood flocked after him begging him to kick his ball. However, he does not say where in Ethiopia this event took place. I wish the author took this opportunity to ask him further the whereabouts of this and the details of his childhood as we don’t have much information about his childhood and boyhood except a few rumors regarding his early life.

The Colonel doesn’t say much about the character of his former comrades either. It would have been great if Genet had selected a few of the personalities that were closely associated with him such as Colonel Atnafu Abate, Captain Fikre-selassie Wog-deres, Generals Tesfaye Gebre-kidan, Teferi Benti, Aman Andom, Colonel Birhanu Bayeh, Col. Teka Tulu, Col. Debela Dinssa, and even Captain Legesse Asfaw; and spurred him to give a detailed account of their character.

The Colonel misses Ethiopia in general, and is very nostalgic for Harer in particular. He has a particular affection and yearning for Harer since it was there he had spent his life before he joined the Derg in Addis Abeba. His situation reminded me of the proverb, “bidir be midir”, the equivalent of which in English would be “what goes around, comes around” or “what you sow, you’ll reap”. Weren’t the Colonel and his regime responsible directly or indirectly for the fact that tens of thousands of Ethiopians were uprooted from their motherland and were made to flee for their lives to lead a life of anxiety and homesickness in distant lands? Would the Colonel now put his feet in the shoes of such unfortunate Ethiopians and feel their pain and anguish? Whether he would or not the fact that he is as homesick as other refugees is a poetic justice.

I have heard various opinions pertaining to the peaceful life he leads in Zimbabwe as a refugee though he chooses to call himself “the guest of the people of Zimbabwe“. Some exclaim, “I can’t believe he finds himself well and alive after he caused the deaths of so many people? I just don’t comprehend the reality that he is not languishing in jail like his comrades after what he had said and done!… Where is poetic justice? “ Others respond to this, “He suffers deep down inside, even though he looks okay outwardly. He is scared of his own shadow. His condition is worst than being incarcerated!”

“It is the prayers of his wife that has kept him safe and alive. His good wife is pious. She prays for the “forgiveness of his sins fervently and ceaselessly. His wife remained faithful to God when he “renounced God and claimed to be a Marxist. Maybe he now has repented and believes In God;” would remark a few. There are also those who refute this, “But how could he repent and beg God’s forgiveness when he hasn’t yet expressed his apology to the people of Ethiopia?…”

Indeed, those were words I heard for the last 20 years. Speaking of his wife, Weyzero Wubanchi Bishaw, she is a true and devoted wife who shared his fate all the way through without flinching. Without her, he would probably have collapsed, unable to bear all the pressure exerted on him. According to what I read and heard about her, she was gentle and God-fearing. When her husband was in power, she never abused her power nor amassed wealth like some women of her position would have done. She left the palace and her country to share the misfortune of her husband without partaking of his glory, always maintaining a low profile. In not dedicating a chapter or two to her, the author of this book, Genet Ayele has missed a wealth of information the former first lady would have shared with her on herself, her husband, her children, and most of all, on the Ethiopian Revolution. Weyzero Genet should not only interview her in the future, but also her children and the uncle, as well as the brother of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam. Genet, let me give you this assignment for the future. Your task is not completed yet as you think it is.

The present book authored by Genet Ayele reveals that Colonel Mengistu is writing a book about his life, the Revolution and Ethiopian history. It is long overdue that you wrote such a book, dear Colonel. So far, we haven’t read your own testimony composed with your own hand.

As stated earlier, the second part handles interviews the author conducted with former soldiers who served under the Colonel’s regime. I find this part to be engaging and mind-stimulating. The insight of some of them on the Revolution, The Ethio-Somali war, the aborted coup in Asmara and the Ethio-Eritrean civil war is profound and original. These interviews add some more facts to our knowledge of these subjects. In enjoyed them a lot.

The finale of the book ends abruptly. It has no designated conclusion. I wish the author summed up the book by summarizing it in a conclusion stating her personal comments and views on the interviews. Moreover, the colonels views on a variety of topics and burning issues are too short, and do not reveal as much as we expect them to. I wish the author stirred the Colonel to elaborate them.

Overall, Genet Ayele should be applauded for presenting us with this book and the previous one which dealt with the life of Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam. I gather that she spent her own hard-earned money to write and publish it. It is obvious that it has cost her a fortune. If she didn’t dedicate her money, time, energy and talent, we would never had the information enshrined in these two books. We know for fact that it is extremely expensive, time-consuming and exhausting to fly back and forth to Zembawe so many times, deal with the security situation there, spend tons of money and get something out of the Colonel’s mouth single-handedly. Her readers owe Genet a few nice words for her extraordinary achievement. I was saddened to read on Ethiomedia Eskinder Nega’s “book review” in which he tried to link Genet with the Derg because her late father and her ex-husband were soldiers, and associate her with the current Government because, among the persons she thanks in her page of indebtedness happens to be Prof. Endrias Eshete, President of Addis Abeba University.

Genet’s father, Sergeant Ayele Anbesse was a brave soldier who died defending the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. She also lost two brothers in battlefields. Regarding Prof. Endrias Eshete, she didn’t dedicate any special page exclusively to him. His name simply appeared in a sentence among a number of other names. I couldn’t fathom why Ato Eskinder singled him out. I can’t still understand Ato Eskinder’s logic. Is every person that happens to know Prof.Endrias an associate of the Government? Furthermore, what is wrong if the Professor indeed advised and encouraged her to write a book of this much historical significance on the man who ruled Ethiopia for 17 years, and she thanked him for it, regardless of his political stance and his position in the Government? Wouldn’t it make Genet ungrateful and opportunistic if she thanked all those people who encouraged her to write her book and leave out the Professor after she made a good use of his valuable advice? I feel that Ato Iskinder Nega has made a sweeping generalization in stating that the fact that Genet expressed her gratitude to the Professor is an indication of “her proximity to the Government”. It is regrettable that he discredits her name instead of saying a few nice words for her effort. I wish he focused on the substance of the book than becoming personal for a reason unclear to the reader.

Back to Colonel Mengistu, when I think of Colonel Mengistu Haile-mariam, I wonder how he rose to prominence among his fellow soldiers. What was the secret of his rise to power not only among his rank and file, but also among all those intellectuals by whom he was surrounded. Some people attribute this to his callousness and sobriety of mind in the face of calamity, as well as his ruthlessness and speed to take action while others take time to reflect and deliberate instead of acting decisively when situations called for immediate action. Granted this was so, I think the main reasons were his leadership ability and audacity. He didn’t elect himself to be the Chairman of the Derg, did he? Was it not because the Derg members detected in him some leadership qualities that they chose him to lead them in the beginning? And how would he outmaneuver and outsmart the intellectuals that were keen on using him to seize power themselves, as well as his foes and friends alike unless he had some intellect, persuasive power and was crafty? True, he eliminated his opponents violently to emerge as a total winner. Non-the-less, without some leadership qualities and the initial backing of the Derg, he wouldn’t have seized power absolutely.

If the colonel would take my advice worth one cent regarding the book he intends to write, I have something to say. I read in this book the outline of your forthcoming book. It is ambitious. Besides your life, you are writing on Ethiopia history. Unless you dedicate only a chapter to Ethiopian history, the reader will lose track of your own history. So, avoid devoting too many pages to Ethiopian history. People can access Ethiopian history on their own if they desire to. However, they can’t access your life history unless you tell it yourself. Even though your interpretation and perspective of Ethiopian history would be interesting of and in themselves, your own life history should be the focus and the issue. For this reason, I encourage you to detail it truthfully. Please give us the truth, and the whole truth. Avoid justifications of allegations and counter allegations, and focus on the facts. Personally, I would like to know more about your childhood, boyhood, your life as a soldier, your parents, family members, the personalities that you met, encountered and impacted on and influenced you, incidents and events that affected and shaped your views and character. If you don’t do that, people will continue speculating about your background. If you pass away without telling your life history truthfully, it will remain shrouded in mystery for eternity. It is only you who can record your life history best as long as you are alive.

A friend who read your late father’s interview that he granted years ago to a local paper told me what he remembers about the interview. According to your father, shortly before the Ethio-Italian war broke out in 1936 (European Calendar), your mother was engaged to your father. After the war broke out, your father and mother lost track of one another. Your mother married another man and lived at Chefe-denssa (?) around Shenkora. When your father found out this he went to the Italian authorities, showed the agreement of engagement and expressed his desire to marry his fiancée. The Italians asked your mother to choose between your father and the man she had married. Your mother chose your father and married him. Then you were born. Your father moved to Addis Abeba and you started to live with Dejazmatch Kebede Tessema on your own, even though you were not related to him biologically. He helped you to join the army and also to win a short scholarship for a military training in the USA.

Colonel, is this all true? How much of this is true? It is important that you include such details in your autobiography. How was growing up in Ethiopia? For instance, it is rumored that some people had teased you when you were young on the basis of the dark tone of your skin. If this is true, how did this affect you and impact your social and political behaviors and actions later on? Did you do something to change the mentality of such color-conscious, abusive individuals in a black African country? A while back when you were in power, I was shocked to hear some individuals who didn’t like your politics cursing you, referring to the color of your skin, ridiculous and outrageous as this was. I have also eavesdropped when others were saying, “since the light-colored leaders were oppressing the people of Ethiopia, God raised a dark-skinned man to straighten them up …” Colonel, it would be good to address in your book such mental backwardness to teach such individuals a lesson, if you think it is important to do so.

On another note, since you were the head-of-state of Ethiopia for 17 years, you are held accountable for both the good and bad actions you and your government took during your tenure as a leader. Too much blood was shed during your reign. You are responsible for this to a significant extent, even though you can’t be held responsible for all the bloodsheds, because everybody was killing anybody in those days of madness. Please allow me to pose to you a few questions for the record, pertaining to bloodletting and other issues. I understand that you were one of the major actors of a historical time marked by a revolution. Yes indeed, I am cognizant of the fact that making a revolution is not attending a wedding party. My contention is that, you could have minimized the death-toll, had you cared much to preserve human life. One way of doing this would have been to keep in prison the people you had captured and incapacitated, instead of executing them in an act of retribution. Let me start with the death of Emperor Haile Selassie. I don’t think it was necessary to kill him since he was old and dying by himself anyway.

In your interview with Weyzero Genet in this latest book you have said that you were not around when the Emperor died, and you were as surprised as everyone about the news. According to you, you were upset and suspicious of his death since Professor Asrat had announced a few days prior to that, that the Emperor’s health was in mint condition. I find this assertion of yours hard to buy. It was said then by witnesses (probably by the servants of the Emperor) that the ruthless Colonel Daniel Asfaw, the Derg’s Chief of Security and a certain doctor injected the Emperor with a poison or chocked him to death. If this is true, it is unlikely that Colonel Daniel would dare do this without your prior-knowledge and approval as he wouldn’t take an action of this magnitude on his own. What do you say about this? Even if you deny this, who buried the Emperor under the floor of an office in the palace? People say that you used that room as your office and you sat above the remains of the Emperor. Is this a slander or true? Weren’t the bones of the Emperor dug out of that office and exhibited a number of years ago and reburied at the Trinity Cathedral by the relatives of the Emperor in a full view on TV while the Ethiopian people were watching? Or do you dismiss this as a fabrication of the current government? Please share the truth, Colonel.

You say often that you didn’t kill any one unjustly, and you even uttered to a foreign journalist, if you remember, that you hadn’t even killed a fly unkindly. Therefore, you had no and you still don’t have any regrets about the death of some of the people you encountered, and you owe no one an apology. Leaving aside the tens of thousands of people who perished in the cities and war-fronts under your leadership, let me ask you a question about the killings of your own comrades. As you know, Colonel Atnafu Abate had been a founding member of the Derg long before you joined it coming from Harer. You knew he was brave and genuine. He trusted you and passed through thick and thin with you. Why did you kill him? The main reason your media gave then was that he proposed the application of “mixed economy” like Sweden, for instance. You yourself accepted this economic policy pressured by the demand of the times and attempted to apply it towards the end of your regime. Why did then you kill that innocent man throwing his poor mother into a sate of immense sorrow? His mother was as unfortunate as your mother. She loved her son even as your own mother loved you. Don’t try to give me another reason. No any other reason or excuse you come up with will justify Colonel Atnafu’s death. Since you were possessed with the urge to kill, the conscious people of Ethiopia knew that he was your next target. Even I, who was in Europe then used to predict that your next victim would be Colonel Atnafu. Many people didn’t trust you then. It was Col. Atnafu alone who thought that you won’t exercise on him what you had exercised on others. So, people used to call him, “the sheep that would be slaughtered next.” It seems that you got rid of him to get rid of the last obstacle on your way to power. Don’t you feel you owe an apology to his mother and the people of Ethiopia for shedding innocent blood? I won’t list here the numerous well-meaning Ethiopians that were executed extra-judicially directly or indirectly by you for such unfounded reasons.

Next, why did you kill or you had Colonel Daniel Asfaw, The Derg’s Chief of Security, kill (if you prefer to blame it on Colonel Daniel) General Teferi Benti, who had been like a father to you? He was never caught red-handed while attempting to murder you. Nor did he try to have you arrested. Why did you condemn him to death? After you and Daniel killed him and the rest, you said, “le kurs yasebunin, le missa adergnachew.”Okay, let’s say that they had plotted to make a coup against you. Why didn’t you confine them in prison instead of executing them in the palace basement? Weren’t you able to resolve any acute problem except by killing your opponents?

Furthermore, granted all those generals of yours that you executed at the war fronts and cities for imagined and real reasons and for attempting the coups on you, such as General Tariku, General Fenta Belay and the others were treacherous and criminals as you say, why did you have to kill them when you could have kept them in prison indefinitely.? You knew that Ethiopia had paid a lot to train them. You knew that there was no one to comfort their wives and raise their children after you had annihilated them. Why did you then kill them? You and I know the answer- You were vindictive. The word “mercy” was not in your vocabulary. But you forgot one thing blinded by your retribution: The domino effect of your execution. Regardless of the reasons why you humiliated and executed General Tariku, General Fenta Belai and the rest, it delighted the EPLF leadership and enabled them to march into Ethiopia unhindered by your dwindling army a good number of which had surrendered to EPLF and TPLF, demoralized and confused by your vindictive actions. In other words, your own action backfired on you and caused your downfall. This proved that you were not as farsighted as you gave the impression to be. Worst of all, you fled Ethiopia leaving her to the adversaries you had been fighting against, besides abandoning your comrades who trusted you and were willing to die for you.

Concerning the execution of the 60 individuals who had served under Emperor Haile Selassie’s Regime just like you did, you have denied time and again that you were not the one who condemned them to die. While this may have some germs of truth, it is impossible to absolve you completely, because the facts indicate that you were the principal architect that instigated openly and behind the scene their execution, particularly after the death of General Aman Andom. This you did to diminish the shock of the General’s death as he had been popular among the armed forces, and also to confuse the populace and compel it to focus on the 60 persons including the few soldiers that faced your firing-squad because of their opposition to your leadership, rather than focusing on the General. Those officials should have been tried at a court of justice and proven guilty before they were executed mercilessly. A good number of them had served their county well, and some of them, like Prime Ministers Mekonen Habtewold and Endalkachew Mekonen could have served their country further if they were not condemned to die. All were harmless and helpless in prison. Their properties were confiscated. Why did you and your Derg members have to kill them as long as it was not proven in court that they had taken the lives of others. Don’t you think that you and your comrades owe an apology to the families of the 60 people? Why should their blood be the blood of dogs?

You have declared in this book and elsewhere that the interest of Ethiopia precedes that of individuals. Hence, it was okay for you to execute those that, in your opinion, violated the sovereignty of Ethiopia. Did this hold true for you too? Or did you have a double-standard? Were you the only one that safeguarded the interest of Ethiopia among the members of your government? Why didn’t you relinquish power when your comrades told you time and again that your leadership would damage the sovereignty of Ethiopia? You said in his book, “who am I going to relinquish power to? To Weyane?” Why Weyane? If you really had the interest of Ethiopia at heart, why didn’t you relinquish power to your rank and file comrades who were capable of leading Ethiopia when your leadership was under question mark? If you didn’t trust individuals, you could have given back power to a committee that would check and balance itself, so that no individual would abuse power and emerge as a dictator. The Ethiopian soldiers who attempted the coup negotiated a cease-fire and peace-accord with the leaders of Shabia and Weyane having the best interest of Ethiopia at heart just like you claimed you had. Let us think of a scenario in which the coup had succeeded. Since the Ethiopian army was intact then, Shabia would not have seceded. If it broke the deal, it would continue fighting eternally. As it was tired of fighting, it would have abided by the arrangement that would have been made with the coup makers. Moreover, Weyane would not have ceased power by itself. It would have been compelled to share power with the members of the new Ethiopian government. As such, the partition of Eritrea from Ethiopia and all the ethnic upheaval that followed would have been averted. You see what I mean? If you really loved Ethiopia more than yourself and your power, you would have relinquished your power for the welfare of Ethiopia when your leadership was beginning to cause the downfall of Ethiopia.

You know General Fenta Belai and the rest of the coup attempters were Ethiopian heroes. Why didn’t you spare their lives when they were at your mercy if you cared for Ethiopia as much as you claimed you did? I read that even General Tesfaye Gebre-kidan was begging you to spare their lives. In killing them, you didn’t show any clemency and magnanimity. Even Emperor Haile Selassie was merciful and magnanimous at times. He didn’t kill all those who opposed him, and even attempted to kill him. He has spared the lives of many including Bitwoded Negash and Dejazmatch Takele who were attempting to kill him all the time. You were unmerciful, and I should add, cruel. Yes, you vindicated yourself and appeased your ego. But what did the Ethiopia you “love” benefit from their death? The answer is that Ethiopia lost immensely because of their death. Of course, the immediate loss was to their family. They could at least have raised their children and done whatever they chose to do with their lives including writing books on the Ethiopian revolution exactly as you do. Because you didn’t die you were able to raise your children to be medical doctors and you are writing a book besides sharing your story with us. Had you died early on in Ethiopia, you wouldn’t have achieved all this, would you?

By your own admission in this book, there were nine attempts on your life in Ethiopia. As to why you didn’t die or even languish in prison like your comrades, is a big mystery. God works in mysterious ways and only the God you don’t believe in (unless you believe now) knows why he didn’t let you suffer as thousands of Ethiopians did; and most of all, why He spared your life. I know only one thing- your family has benefited much from it. And if you write a book truthfully, history too, can gain from it. Frankly, I do not expect you to be truthful and admissive of mistakes. So far, none of the principal actors or leaders of the Ethiopian Revolution, be it from your camp or the camps of your opponents, have told the whole truth and admitted where they went wrong. Sadly, it seems that it is not in our tradition to tell the truth, admit mistakes or wrongs and apologize for them. Hence, it would be unfair to expect you to be exceptional.

You say that you didn’t mean to flee and that you had not planned to head for Zimbawe. I don’t believe you. You had appointed your uncle as ambassador to Zimbawe ahead of time so that he could pave the way for you flight. Was it purely a coincidence that your uncle was your ambassador in Zimbabwe at the time of your flight? I could also furnish you with other evidences that your flight was pre-arranged. But this alone suffices.

You used to break bottles filled with red ink symbolizing blood at Abyot Adebabay (the former Meskel Square), screaming that you would fight until you were left with the last bullet. Dear Colonel, you fled without shooting even a bullet. If you say that you didn’t want to cause the destruction of Addis Abeba by meeting the enemy there, why didn’t you meet it outside Addis Abeba and fight it until the last bullet? Your conscience knows the answer to this question; and you have to live with it for the rest of your life.

Now pertaining to the exportation of the Felasha to Israel. you stated that you simply signed a done deal, that you were not aware the Felasha were present in Addis until the eleventh hour. How could this be true? Would then a tiny bird fly from one tree to another without your pre-knowledge, let alone the exodus of a whole nation all the way from Gonder to Addis? The fact was that you permitted Ato Kassa Kebede, he in whose father’s house you had spent a good part of your boyhood, to negotiate with the Israelis on account of his good connection with them. Didn’t you allow US $30 million Dollars to be deposited at a government account in New York as a compensation for exporting those Ethiopian subjects of yours to Israel? If you did, wasn’t that equitable to blood money, Colonel? Wasn’t that a sale-out of your people? Please correct me if that was not the case. Even the EPRDF leaders refused to put their fingers on that account in the beginning labeling it as “blood money”. I have no clue where that money is now. Whoever has taken it has blood in his hands.

In this same book, you state that the Felashas were Ethiopians through and through. You don’t believe that they had emigrated from Israel to Ethiopia as it is claimed. They practiced Judaism like most Ethiopians before the advent of Christianity. You are right in saying that most Ethiopians practiced Judaism before the advent of Christianity. I like your insight here. Nevertheless, you are not right in asserting that they didn’t immigrate to Ethiopia from Israel or elsewhere. They did. The Jewish people had immigrated to Ethiopia three times en mass- the first was when Moses was still alive 3500 years ago. They immigrated to Ethiopia from Media (Medyam) escorting Ethiop, the grandson of Jethro, the Ethiopian high priest of Median, Moses’ father-in-law. The mother of Ethiop was RuthAmin. She was a Jewish of the tribe of Judah. The second immigration occured when the Jewish were escorting, ironically, another half-cast by the name of Menilik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba, 3000 years ago. The last immigration took place during the Babylonian captivity about 2400 years ago. True, physically the Felashas now look like the rest of Ethiopians. This was due to their intermarriage with other Ethiopians. Technically, they are every inch Ethiopians. That’s why they don’t accept them in Israel as full-fledged Jews. Since you are writing the history of Ethiopia in your autobiography, please check these facts.

How about your legacy and positive qualities? To be fair, I have to admit that you had some positive qualities too. You didn’t compromise an iota on the territorial integrity, and even sovereignty of Ethiopia at trying times. You aspired to see the advancement of Ethiopia in your own way. You built and improved some of the infrastructure of your county. You were instrumental in providing land to he tiller and in the effort to eliminate illiteracy. In fact, you played a vital role in breaking the backbone of the oppressive feudal system. You were sober and decisive at critical moments such as the invasion of Ethiopia by Somalia. You didn’t favor one ethnic group over another. You didn’t let one ethnic group dominate another. You were proud of being Ethiopian and you cherished the great Ethiopian history. Your judgment was fair in some situations that called for fair judgment. You had a fine ability to chair meetings. You were articulate, yet absolutely attentive while others spoke, a quality which enabled you to summarize the ideas of others and make them your own if you liked the ideas and were new to you. You were a fast learner and very alert. Given your educational background, you learned a great deal from reality, educated yourself during the Revolution and tried to tackle complex subjects. Most of all, you lived humbly, and neither you nor your good wife plundered the resources and wealth of Ethiopia. Nor did you allow your family members and friends to do so. These qualities of yours should be appreciated and be recorded in Ethiopian history. If your Government was not pre-occupied with a civil-war, it would perhaps have fared well in nation building. Dear Colonel, let me rest your case with these final words.

A note to the reader- I was informed that Colonel Mengistu’s latest book, which I just reviewed above, will be available in the US and Canada soon. You can order it from the publisher or buy it at stores when the publisher announces its release.

(Fikre Tolossa, Ph. D., is a poet-playwright, critic, essayist and educator. His latest book entitled,The Hidden and Untold History of the Jewish People and Ethiopians, as well as his original songs that he himself has composed and plays on the Kirar, will be released soon to the public at large. His film in English, “Multi-colored Flowers” was featured with great resonance in the USA, Canada, Europe and Ethiopia. He has written extensively on Ethiopian history and culture for the past 20 years finding common factors that united the peoples of Ethiopia at a time of historical confusion and denial. Dr. Fikre Tolossa has authored over forty published and unpublished articles and books. He can be reached at: [email protected])