The Voice of America (VOA) has a 2-part interview with Dr. Getachew Begashaw, professor of economics and head of the economics department at William Ray Harper College in Chicago, and Dr. Aklog Birara, a senior economist with the World Bank. The two experts explain the ruling party’s claim that Ethiopia’s economy has been and will continue to grow double-digit is baseless. Click below to listen:
VOA
German Radio has a similar discussion with Professors Seid Hassan and Minga Negash. Click below to listen:
The fake patriarch in Ethiopia is facing the worst crisis since he took over the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church’s (EOTC) leadership at the barrel of the gun 19 years ago. According to reports reaching Ethiopian Review’s office this week, alms collected from churchgoers have declined considerably in the past few days.
The EOTC members have decided to stop giving money to the Church after learning about the statue that Aba Diabilos (Tagay Gebremedhin) erected for himself and that he bought a fleet of cars for his personal use at the cost of millions of birr.
Desperate for money, Tagay Gebremedhin’s Synod has ordered priests around the country to ask members of their congregations for emergency donations of 1000 birr per family.
Church members are refusing saying that they are not willing to give money to be used for erecting statues and buying cars for Tagay Gebremedhin.
If the alms boycott spreads through out the country, it could lead to a revolt by the priests themselves who will be left with no salary.
Tagay Gebremedhin loyalists are accusing Abune Samuel, who was arbitrarily ousted last year, of being behind the alms boycott. Abune Samuel has been under house arrest for several months following his ouster.
Ethiopian Orthodox Church is said to have over 40 million members. Its legitimate leadership is currently in exile following its overthrow by the Woyanne junta in 1991.
Last week, Rwandan President Paul Kagame was reelected with 93% of the vote. Actually it cannot be called election. Following in the foot steps of Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi, what Kagame and gang conducted was a fake election where the winner was determined in advance. The Woyanne cancer is spreading to other African countries.
The following is an interview with Frans Makken, ambassador of the Netherlands in Rwanda.
Do you share the concerns expressed last weekend by the White House? About the lack of democracy in Rwanda?
“The presidential election in Rwanda has been successful in general and the vast majority of registered Rwandan voters could vote without any noticeable incidents. Nevertheless, it is understandable that the U.S. administration has made some critical remarks over the context in which this election took place.”
“A number of violent incidents marred the period preceding the election. Furthermore, it is worrying that many independent media were closed during that same period. Finally, no party outside the current coalition government was been able to present a candidate.”
Will you address these issues with the Rwandan government?
“The Netherlands but also other donor countries do not want to interfere in the procedures of Rwanda concerning the merits of legal and administrative reasons for their exclusion. However, we can see that the Rwandan authorities have not given the impression of having made the slightest effort in favour of the participation of opposition parties within the law.”
“While the election victory of incumbent President Paul Kagame in all likelihood reflects the will of the people of Rwanda, the Netherlands intend, in concert with other donor countries, to ask the Rwandan government for explanations about the irregularities found.”
Just after the election, there was an attack in Kigali. Are you afraid there might be more troubles?
“This attack is of course very disturbing, especially since it means that despite the peaceful conduct of the election the series of incidents has not stopped. The attack has not been claimed, but the government suspects that there is a link with the military who took refuge in South Africa.”
Critics say journalists and opposition members are victims of bullying. Do you agree with them?
“Even before the presidential election, on July 30, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Verhagen expressed in a letter to the Parliament in The Hague, about his concerns over the developments in the field of freedom of expression and about the violent incidents that took place before the election. Although it is unknown who precisely is responsible for each one of these incidents, they have caused confusion and created a climate of violence and intimidation.”
“He also wrote: “It is obvious that the 1994 genocide has heavily marked the political landscape in Rwanda and led the Rwandan government’s determination to restrain by law that groups of people are drawn against each other and extremist ideologies propagated. However, I agree with you that such legislation can serve as a blank cheque to silence the opposition and public debate.”
Is the Dutch aid to Rwanda of 45 million euros per year in danger?
“The Dutch government must decide this fall whether general budget support to Rwanda will be resumed. It goes without saying that the conduct of the presidential election and the human rights situation in Rwanda will be taken into consideration. Other relationships of development cooperation with Rwanda are at present no subject for debate. Obviously, it is possible that a new Dutch government implement changes in their policy on development aid in general and for Rwanda in particular.”
In February 2008, following the ethnically-driven post-election violence in Kenya, I wrote an editorial commentary entitled “The Ethiopianization of Kenya”:
After a half century of national existence, democratic experimentation and stability, Kenya has degenerated into a tribal/ethnic basket case beset by violence, fear and loathing… Kenya could have easily avoided this calamity. It had all of the tools at its disposal — a functioning and well-oiled electoral process, a civically engaged population, a democratic political culture enriched by prior voting experiences, an active and independent press, and a reasonably professional and independent judiciary, among others. It could have peacefully and amicably resolved the persisting questions of land ownership and redistribution, democratic power sharing, and grievances over issues of ethnic domination… Kibaki understood the implications of the theft of the presidential election for Kenyan national politics. He was fully aware of the potential for ethnic upheavals and widespread violence. He thought he could handle it by replicating the lessons of Kenya’s neighbor to the north, and perpetuate himself in power by introducing the discredited politics of “ethnic federalism.”[1]
The post-election bloodbath in Kenya ended after 1,500 innocent people were killed and 300,000 internally displaced, and Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga agreed to share power and hold a referendum on a new Constitution, which earlier this month was approved by 67 percent of the voters.
Kenya’s new 206-page constitution[2] replaces the original one engineered by the colonial masters in 1963. It includes a comprehensive Bill of Rights (which encompasses economic, social, and cultural rights). It transfers certain powers to local governments consisting of 47 newly-minted counties, each of which will have a governor and are specially represented in a newly-established Senate. Limits on presidential powers are imposed by requiring parliamentary confirmation of appointees and ending the practice of presidential appointment of judges, among others. The powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are more clearly delineated, and citizen participation in the political process is promoted. The Constitution authorizes the establishment of a new Land Commission with the power to re-possess illegally-occupied public lands. It guarantees women the right to inherit land. Muslim family (kadhis’) courts are given jurisdiction over matters “relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance” for Kenya’s Muslim minority.
Supporters of the new Constitution argued that these and other changes will usher in a new era of rights for Kenyans (guaranteeing clean water, decent housing, sanitation, and an adequate supply and quality of food and economic rights of inheritance for women), and ensure official transparency, accountability and clean government. According to one recent poll, 91 percent of Kenyans support the new Constitution. President Mwai Kibaki euphorically declared that the new Constitution will be “our shield and defender as we strive to conquer poverty, disease and ignorance.” President Obama praised it as “a significant step forward for Kenya’s democracy”. Opponents campaigned against the new Constitution because it “allows abortion on demand,” and recognizes a non-secular (khadis’) court system. The stronghold of opposition is said to be in western Kenya. Some have suggested that opposition to the new Constitution is stoked by politicians who are likely to lose their political and economic grip in the western region under the new Constitution.
Kenya’s voluminous new constitution and its ambitious scope of coverage of rights is long on promises not unlike most African constitutions which offer a cornucopia of rights and accountability provisions. The real question is whether Kenya’s new Constitution will continue the long unbroken tradition of dictatorship of Big Men in Africa or become a real instrument for the creation of a government of laws for the Kenyan people.
Government of Laws, Not of Men
Constitutional government is fundamentally about the rule of law. Organic rules are established to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive exercise of government power, and ensure leaders and institutions are held accountable under the “supreme law of the land”. Stated simply, in a government of laws, “no man or woman is above the law.” But much of Africa has suffered under the government of men – autocrats, civilian dictators, military juntas, hybrid civilian-military dictators – who have pillaged the continent to line their pockets and oppress the people for nearly one-half century. For instance, Ethiopia for centuries remained under the rule of monarchs who believed they were “elect of God” and operated under the principle that they “can do no wrong” or be held accountable under the law. The maxim which conceptualized the monarch as the supreme law of the land holds, “it is impossible to sue the king or plough the sky.” (Negus aykeses, semay aytares.) The “divine rule of kings” in Ethiopia gave way to an inhuman military dictatorship, followed by a brutal full-fledged kleptocracy.
The modern idea of legal accountability to check the abuse of political power dates back to the English Magna Carta (1215). The Great Charter was imposed on a reluctant king to safeguard against his arbitrary personal rule and to hold him accountable under the “laws of the land”. By the same token, modern constitutions are intended to be a bulwark against dictatorship and tyranny by requiring of leaders and institutions observance of the principle of the rule of law. But that has not happened in Africa. African dictators have sought to create the illusion of constitutional democracy while practicing constitutional dictatorship. They sneer at the very thought of being held accountable when they exceed, abuse or misuse their powers. Far from imposing limitations on power, constitutions in Africa have served to expand and maximize the powers of dictators who have used them as “trump cards” to suit their needs. Many African dictators have used their constitutions as “meal tickets”. Western donors often refuse to extortion money unless they see the dictators wrapped around a nice liberal-sounding constitution. Domestically, these dictators have used their constitutions to legitimize their dictatorships, provide a “legal” cover for their klepto-oligarchic state, and to protect and preserve their privileges. As offensive weapons, they have use them to sledgehammer the opposition. For instance, in 2005 after Zenawi was defeated in the polls, he wiped out the opposition by charging them with five counts of violations of the Constitution. After he declared victory in the May 2010 election which he “won” by 99.6 percent, he made two public offers to opposition parties and leaders that he would sit and negotiate with them (lol) provided they “respect the will of the people and accept the country’s Constitution and constitutional process.”[3]
Kibaki told a teeming crowd of thousands in Nairobi that the new Constitution will be “our shield and defender as we strive to conquer poverty, disease and ignorance.” We wish the Kenyans the best of luck; but the fact is that in very few places in Africa have constitutions ever been used as shields. They have been used as spears and swords against individuals and as barrages of arrows against dissident groups in society. Kenya’s choices are clear: She can take Ghana’s path and launch a constitutional democracy, or imitate its northern neighbor and be swallowed up in the quicksand of constitutional dictatorship. The Ghanaian path is the more difficult one to take because it requires translating constitutional rules into daily practice. It requires nurturing a democratic culture complete with all the expressive freedoms. This means going beyond babbling rapturous constitutional rhetoric about a “reborn” Kenya, “shields” and “defensive” armor against poverty and so on. To ensure constitutional success, ordinary Kenyans must take full ownership of their Constitution or it will be swiftly hijacked by the wily and corrupt politicians. Kenyans civil society institutions and intellectuals must take the lead in educating the masses about their new Constitution and help develop structures for popular participation. If Kenyans fail to maintain “eternal vigilance” over the corrupt crooks skulking in the halls of power, they will soon find that the constitution they were told was their shield will have been transformed into spears and arrows of dictatorship, garrotes to choke their civil society institutions and cudgels to trash their human rights. If they need proof of that ugly future, let them calmly gaze northward.
From the Misrule of Law to the Rule of Law
Is it not a tragic fact that for most of Africa dictatorship is the only game of politics? The real question to contemplate as Kenya begins political life under its new Constitution is whether it will ultimately become a constitutional democracy or constitutional dictatorship. Kibaki has been in the saddles of power since his days as minister of finance in 1969, and is Kenya’s third president since 1963. The stench of corruption in high government places in Kenya reeks to the high heavens. In August 2006, Senator Barack Obama said, “Here in Kenya, there is a crisis [of corruption] — a crisis that’s robbing an honest people of the opportunities they fought for.”
Having lofty-sounding and well-crafted constitutions will not guarantee the crooked politicians will conform their conduct to the supreme law of the land. If mere words in a constitution were proof of the existence and functioning of constitutional government, Ethiopia’s would be second to none. Kenya now is at the fork in the constitutional road. Whichever road it takes will be fraught with danger. I am hopeful that Kenya will take the road less travelled — Ghana’s Way — in the rest of Africa. But I have deep concerns over the challenges that lie ahead. Do the Kenyan masses understand their new Constitution? Better yet, do their leaders? I am doubtful that the vast majority of Kenyans have actually read and understand the 206-page Constitution (let alone engaged in vigorous debate over its provisions), despite that country’s 80 percent literacy rate. Even a studious and learned constitutional lawyer will have difficulty penetrating the dense recesses of the new Constitution. The corrupt politicians thrive in a whirlpool of mass ignorance; and I have a gnawing suspicion that they will find a way to hijack the Constitution and continue to do business as usual. The silver lining in the cloud is the manifest popular excitement and enthusiasm for the new Constitution by ordinary citizens. Only they can save their country from the serrated teeth of the corrupt and voracious politicians.
Long-term political stability in Africa will be impossible without citizens and leaders believing that legitimate governance rests first and foremost on observance of an agreed upon set of ground rules that limit the power of leaders and institutions and guarantee the rights of citizens. The words of most African constitutions are dead letters. They mean nothing, except what the dictators want them to mean. They neither shield citizens from the slings and arrows of ruthless dictators nor guide the people out of the wilderness of failed “statedoms” and thiefdoms (kleptocracies). These so-called constitutions are “legal” documents but they are rarely legitimate instruments of governance. They disempower the ordinary people from becoming active participatory citizens and rarely serve as tools for greater official accountability, transparency, or protection of human rights. Africa’s dilemma today is whether it will be democratized or continue to be “dictatorized”.
If the recent polls are any indication, there seems to be a significant attitudinal shift among average Kenyan citizens and the elites that the new Constitution represents a change of power from a group of ethnically-entrenched demagogues to a set of supreme rules. That is a hopeful sign. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Ultimately, the proof of Kenya’s new Constitution will be in its application and dutiful observance by its leaders and citizens. If ordinary Kenyans resolve to defend their new Constitution against the hordes of thieving politicians and kleptocrats, the words written on that paper will be worth more than all the precious jewels in the world. In the meantime, Kenya’s neighbors to the north will be scratching their heads wondering if their Constitution is worth the paper it is written on! North of the Kenyan border the motto is: “For our friends, everything; for strangers, nothing; and for our enemies, the law (constitution)!”
FREE BIRTUKAN AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.
One of the biggest mistake Ethiopians could make in the fight against one of the most brutish of leaders the world has ever seen is to believe that Meles is their problem and theirs only. Meles Zenawi is a problem for all peace loving people in the Horn of Africa, East Africa, parts of the Middle East and the African continent. Meles remains a major obstacle for peace, cooperation, development, partnerships, stability, culture and a host of other issues that enable regional-neighborhoods to bolster their standards of living. Meles also stands on the way of regional security; key to any development stability and cross border connection amongst nations that help-develop regional-stability and growth.
Clearly, Meles Zenawi remains the primarily problem of Ethiopia; and naturally, Ethiopians have to take leadership. However, it is imperative to put the case of Meles Zenawi in a broader African context for the fight to be effective.
Ethiopia has remained ground zero as it relates to African issues whether one likes it or not, rightly or wrongly for decades. This started during the reign of Emperor Haile Sellassie, which took a lead-role in formulating the Organization of African Union, OAU. It continued during Mengistu Hailemariam’s regime even when Ethiopia was undergoing major challenges as a nation. However, at that time, the role of the OAU was limited and it was ineffective because of the cold war. It did not play a destructive role as it has over the last decade under Meles Zenawi. Meles used the AU, a successor to OAU, in the same manner that he used Inter Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD) affecting the lives of the entire Horn of Africa region terribly. Millions are suffering and dying on his account.
Before going to the heart of the reasons why Meles Zenawi is the number one enemy of the people of Africa, let us look at some of his basic inhuman characteristics and leadership measuring sticks:
Humanitarian: Meles Zenawi epitomizes cruelty. The Human Rights Watch, an organization that promotes US agendas globally showed detailed graphic pictures of torched villages by Meles’s soldiers in the Ogaden and accused his regime of crimes on humanity. Meles torched villages and killed thousands in Gambela. Meles Zenawi brutally uprooted the lives of 80,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians with Eritrean heritage. He threw the sick, kids and the elderly in the middle of the Afar desert while bragging, “We can expel any one even if we don’t like the color of their eyes.” The list of his inhumane behavior is endless.
Morality: There is no moral fabric that governs Meles Zenawi and his gang. On March of 2010, The BBC reported Millions of dollars in Western aid for victims of the Ethiopian famine of 1984-85 was siphoned off by Meles led rebel group to buy weapons. Moreover, in his watch, Ethiopian kids are, sold openly.
Principle: What US foreign policy makers need to look at when they evaluate Meles Zenawi led Ethiopia-policy is to weigh-in what principles govern the regime. The fact is however remains, there is none. This is a small minority regime that has no core ideology, religious-beliefs or political philosophy that connects it to the people of Ethiopia. His driving force is greed, power and the opportunity of the day. He is a master at mastering the lingo of the day for his gains. For example, if the war on terror is the ongoing mantra, he will master the verbiage and echo it well… As a result, Meles is the least principled pitchman the West loves to call-on when they need to sell their programs with an African face. During the campaign for Millennium Development Goals, MDG, he stood alongside Bob Geldoff and Bono; and conversely when they wanted to use him during the global conference on climate change, he sold Africa exactly as he is selling Ethiopian land, down the tube.
Credibility: Meles Zenawi has no credibility as a human being. He lies to Ethiopians, the region and the world unashamedly. He lied to Ethiopians when he told them he won 99.6% of their vote after they repeatedly rejected him. He lied to the region when he proclaimed he won the Badme decision at The Hague and lied to the world with fake growth figures while according to UN Ethiopia is the second poorest nation in the world.
To prove how belligerent of a liar Meles and his Ethiopian News Agency, ENA, are one has to look at the 19 of August news release. The headline read, “Five Million Children to join Primary School in Afar.” And it further noted “The bureau said preparation is well underway to enable the stated number of children join elementary school”. This is an outright lie because based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), the Afar Region has a total population of 1,411,092, consisting of 786,338 men and 624,754 women; urban inhabitants number 188,723.
Loyalty: Meles Zenawi is loyal to no one. After he came to power in 1991, he gathered the people of Tigray in an open field and told the mothers, fathers and the families of the martyred, “If they are not here and you have not seen them by now, it means they are dead.” He also betrayed thousands of Ethiopian soldiers that died during the wars with Eritrea in the same manner. That is how Meles officially honored those, who fought for the people of Tigray as well as Ethiopia.
Judiciousness: There is no justice with Meles Zenawi. It is a matter of record that he uses Ethiopia the home of African Union, for Bush’s prisoner rendition program. Moreover, Meles Zenawi uses justice for his own political gains not to serve the country or justice.
Ethiopia a Nation in the Center
One of the most colorful moments in the history of Africa was a period in which the OAU was new, Ethiopia considered a symbol of African unity and Emperor Haile Sellassie stood as a figure that symbolized Africa. The OAU was not an effective organization. In fact, it was a failed organization by all measures. However, it served Ethiopia well first, because it was a diplomatic capital of Africa and secondly Africans developed a unique connection. All that is gone now, because Meles Zenawi and a handful group of African leaders have hijacked the organization and turned it into a tool of their own and Western interests. They manipulated the AU to pursue their agendas to the point of killing any good will from African nations. Instead of serving African interests, the AU became a tool of the US State Department. He turned the AU into a troop disbursement center for US missions in the Darfur, Somalia, South Sudan and many areas in the region in the name of peacekeeping, fighting terrorism and other operations. He turned Ethiopia into a center for Bush’s prisoner rendition program. In other words Ethiopia became a chaos dispersion center first affecting Ethiopians and after that the surrounding nations be it Somalia, Sudan or Eritrea.
Therefore, Meles Zenawi has denied the people of Africa a symbol of unity. As a result, nations are scurrying to find alternative organization that represents their interests. That is why 28 African nations have joined the Community of Sahel-Saharan States CEN-SAD en mass. CEN-SAD works with a stated objective to “The establishment of a global Economic Union based on the implementation of a community development plan that complements the local development plans of member States and which comprises the various fields of a sustainable socio-economic development: agriculture, industry, energy, social, culture, health…” With the aim: A) to free movement of persons, capitals and interests of nationals of member States B) Right of establishment, ownership and exercise of economic activity C) Free trade and movement of goods, commodities and services from member States. Now the majority of countries in the African continent belong to CEN-SAD.
Ill Willed Meles Zenawi
Meles Zenawi is the most inhumane being alive. Imagine how Meles managed to destroy any semblance of a regular life in Somalia. Imagine a kid born 2006-2010 and ask what hospital can the mother use after this criminal bombarded it? Imagine this kid growing up in Somalia not having a chance for any schooling or a regular life. Imagine how a family could celebrate a wedding ceremony amidst the havoc Meles raised, deliberately. Imagine people trying to observe Ramadan in peace fasting, celebrating Eid and going about their regular life. It is all impossible because of the murderous interventions by Meles. Imagine what happened to culture, music and sport developments in Somalia. This has been a matter of serious urgency to all peace loving and concerned individuals, religious leaders, regional and international organizations for some time.
Meles is Anti Development
In this global village, it is impossible for any nation to develop and prosper without peace and trust particularly with one’s neighbors. Yet, Meles has made it his primary job to seed instability. All one has to do is just observe the recent campaign that Meles waged regarding the Nile. Meles deliberately made Egypt the whipping boy of his campaign while Sudan has taken the same position as Egypt regarding The Nile. Moreover, mercenary Meles sends “peacekeeping” forces and helicopters (US provided) to Darfur. It is also clear to the government in Sudan that Meles will do what the US wants in South Sudan. That means Sudan will not trust Ethiopia to open up the borders at the level that two neighboring countries do like US and Canada. In addition, Djibouti and Ethiopia are not necessarily trade darlings. Meles has adopted the idea of unstable, weak or weakly governed Somalia is better for his reign and made it impossible for the Somalis to develop their nation in peace. He is also sitting on Eritrean land in defiance of international laws denying Ethiopia a traditional trading partner. These countries border Ethiopia and instead of placing the focus on trade and development through partnerships, Meles opted to represent the interest of the West and denied Ethiopians opportunities to trade via the various outlets into the international market and to countries in the region as well as Egypt. This means, Meles is hindering development in a large portion of Africa.
Meles Hindering Culture, Sports, Music and Social Exchanges
The implication of a sustained lack of peace amongst neighboring countries has far-reaching long-term implications that can set back societal developments, cross cultural exchanges and the development of arts, music and humanities in general. Meles Zenawi’s regime literally stands on the way of all that. As a kid, I grew up in the Horn of Africa exposed to various cultures and nations musically, linguistically and culturally. All we needed was a shortwave radio to tune from one station to another to listen to radio programs from various countries in the area. We grew up listening to Somali, Sudanese, Ethiopian, Monte Carlo and other stations from the Middle East. Of course, I never understood the lyrics but I loved the melodies and vocals that persistently whisper in my ears to this day.
The premeditated zero sum game Meles and his gang play with African cultural exchanges amongst peace loving people in the region is crimes against humanity. Ethiopia is a birthplace and a home of the African Union, and as such, should have been a center from which the essence of African cultural diversity should flow. The Ethiopian people are hospitable and the country is well suited to accommodate it. Instead, Meles Zenawi is ignorant and determined to scuttle opportunities for African people by ignoring his responsibilities.
Concluding Remarks
Historically leaders that place their people first have not blessed Africa. Conversely, Africans in the Diaspora have done little to help their people. In fact, Africans have played bystanders to their issues while at the same time allowing Westerners to take lead on African related matters. This, unfortunately, went on for decades unimpeded without any hope for change due to many factors. The biggest problem for Africans is that they fail to see the problem of Africa in its totality. African countries are mired in a routine predictable cycles of instability and that keeps Africans engaged in their own realities. One can look at the events that unfolded after the violent Kenyan election of 2007. We also remember how the May of 2005 Ethiopian election changed the political dynamics of the nation for good. These events have taken place all over Africa over the years.
Naturally, these events always keep Africans focused on their own issues only. While that is a natural and a legitimate reaction, it need not and should not be that way always. African issues are interrelated and intertwined and require a holistic approach sometimes. In other words, if the US looks, as it does Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Tanzania and the neighborhood with a single lens, it could be fruitless to campaign in the US independently. In addition, these countries are interdependent economically. For example, during the violence in Kenya; Uganda’s economy was severely hurt because most goods to Uganda come through Mombassa Kenya. Because of this co-dependence throughout the region, it is futile to isolate one problem and believe that it will not affect others as the border issue between Eritrea and Ethiopia shows.
In totality therefore, Meles Zenawi is the match, the wood, the fuel and the man responsible to keep the fire going after he ignited it. He has become a quarterback of instability in Ethiopia and outward to the neighborhood and the rest of Africa by proxy. Hence, it is imperative to place the focus where it needs to be, on the million-pound guerilla Meles Zenawi, for peace to rein in the region. This is where the choice for Africans and people from the region becomes apparent. If you believe that Meles Zenawi is and has been a good steward of the African Union and African interests then you have no qualms. However if you believe he is Hitler’s grandson; then it is time to explore for opportunities to stop this genocidal despot.
Meles Zenawi is not as smart as he likes to appear because his greed and insatiable appetite for power has lead him into making stupid strategic moves that make his regime vulnerable. Ever since, he came to power in 1991, he became a darling-hegemonic partner of the US. During this period, the US used the minority regime to pursue its agenda and started ill-advised war against the people of Eritrea. At the time, convinced that his minority regime will come out victorious, Meles bet on the US to carry him all the way to Asmara. In addition, confident on his alliance with the US he failed to create partnership with the various ethnic groups of Ethiopia and in reverse went on the offensive in Gambella, Oromo, and Ogaden and everywhere in Ethiopia. This means, in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti, and Eritrea and in the region Meles has no partner.
The US has insulated Meles by becoming the firewall and protected him from all threats until now. However, Meles has admitted that his relations with the US “has been” strained. Moreover, the US can pull the rug from under his feet by making a single statement. This means, if the US disowns Meles, as it should since Meles cannot safeguard US interest in the region, it will be feeding frenzy for all Ethiopian opposition groups because of the boost provides them. At that point, there is nothing China or anyone else can do.
For that to happen, all concerned individuals and groups need to come together and apply pressure on US leaders and lawmakers and other Westerns nations. Because it is high time for them to stand by the side of the people of Africa in an effort to help Africans achieve peace, stability and growth. This is also a moment of great opportunity for the people of the region to come together and stand for each other as a unit. A moment to start a new beginning of caring and a moment to stop distancing from issues by saying this is a Somali or that is Ogaden issue and embrace it as their own. It is a decisive moment, therefore unconscionable to allow Meles Zenawi and his cronies to sleep for one night in comfort at the expense of the region. It is time to put these criminals in check. It is our obligation to our people. It is about time!
WASHINGTON — Singapore, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia would see their populations triple if everyone who wants to move there were allowed to, a poll released Friday by Gallup shows.
At the opposite end of the scale, the populations of Sierra Leone, Haiti and Zimbabwe would fall by more than half if migrants were allowed to leave at will, the poll found.
Zimbabwe, where life expectancy is around 47 years and 15 percent of the population need food aid, would lose 47 percent; Nigeria — Africa’s most populous nation with a population of 152 million — and Ethiopia would each lose 46 percent, and Liberia’s population would fall by 45 percent.
For Nigeria alone, the poll findings mean that 75 million people want to leave the west African state.
Gallup researchers interviewed nearly 350,000 adults in 148 countries between 2007 and 2010 to calculate each country’s potential net migration score — the number of adults who would like to leave a country minus the number who would like to move in — seen as a proportion of the total adult population.
They found that Singapore’s population of 4.8 million would increase by 219 percent, New Zealand’s population of four million would rise by 184 percent and Saudi Arabia’s population of 26 million would soar by 176 percent if everyone who wants to come in and wants to leave, could.
Switzerland made it onto the list, which was first compiled in 2009, for the first time this year.
Some 800,000 of Switzerland’s six million citizens said they would like to permanently leave the country, while some 10 million foreigners said they would move there, given the chance.
The hefty influx of migrants to Switzerland versus the scant outflow from the Alpine country would mean its population would more than double, according to the Gallup poll.
The preferred destination of most would-be migrants is still the United States, although the already large US population — 300 million inhabitants — means that the impact is less acutely felt, Gallup said.
The United States is number 14 on the net migration list. If everyone could come into the United States that wanted to, and all those who wished to leave did, the US population would rise by around 60 percent.
At the other end of the list, many countries in Africa and Latin America showed net outflows of population — although four African countries would gain residents, the poll showed.
They are Botswana, which would see its population increase by 39 percent; South Africa, Zambia and Namibia, which would see rises of 13 percent, five percent and two percent, respectively.
Botswana, which ranked just after the United States and just above Norway on the list, is the world’s top producer of diamonds and a leading destination for high-end tourism. It prides itself on being a model of successful democracy in Africa.
At rock-bottom on the Gallup list is Sierra Leone, the west African country that is still struggling to recover from a 10-year civil war that officially ended in early 2002.
If everyone who wanted to leave Sierra Leone could, and anyone who wanted to move there did, the country’s population would plunge by 56 percent.
Haiti, the poorest country in the Americas, would lose 51 percent of its population.
“While Gallup’s findings reflect people’s wishes rather than their intentions, the implications of what could happen if these desires become reality are serious considerations for leaders as they plan for the future,” Gallup said.
Two Latin American countries besides Haiti figure in the bottom 10 of the list: El Salvador would lose 45 percent of its population and the Dominican Republic would lose 43 percent.
The lowest ranked European Union member state on the list is Latvia, which would lose around a quarter of its population of 2.3 million if migrants were allowed to come in and go out as they wished.
“High unemployment, low wages and a rising cost of living have driven many Latvians out of the country,” University of Latvia migration specialist Aija Lulle told AFP.
Latvia ranked equally with Iran, and was only marginally better than the Philippines.
