Eritrean authorities are reporting that yesterday morning, January 1st 2010, several soldiers under the Woyanne regime in Ethiopia launched attacks on Eritrean forces at Zalambesa.
The Woyanne forces were driven back after 10 of their soldiers were killed and two captured. They left behind six AK-47 automatic rifles, a machine gun and communication equipments, according to Eritrean Ministry of Information’s shabait.com.
Meanwhile, Reuters is reporting that two Eritrean rebel groups said on January 1st they have killed 25 Eritrean government soldiers and wounded at least 38 others in ambushes on two military camps.
Rebel spokesman Yasin Mohamed said the attacks by the Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization (RSADO) and the Eritrean Salvation Front (ESF) rebels were in retaliation for the repression of the Afar minority and others by the government.
“The joint forces earlier today, made a surprise attack at the camp of 13 sub-division of the 2nd brigade at the vicinity of Kokobay, killed 13 and wounded 20 others,” Yasin said.
He said a separate attack killed 12 members of an intelligence unit and wounded 18 others in Kermeti area.
Three years ago around the same time, U.S. Ambassador Jendayi Frazer, against the strong advise other U.S. officials, had encouraged the Woyanne junta to invade Somalia, which resulted in the slaughtering of 20,000, and displacement of 2 million Somali civilians. Now, the new Obama Administration Ambassador, Dr Susan Rice, gave another Christmas gift of more bloodshed to the Horn of Africa by pushing through a sanction against Eritrea in the U.N., emboldening the Woyanne junta to engage in another military adventure.
Jendai Frazer is now a highly paid lobbyist for foreign regimes such as Woyanne that brutalize and terrorize their people.
The people of United States must be aware of the crimes being committed by these corrupt, incompetent ambassadors who are creating havoc around the world.
The two reported clashes yesterday and today at the Ethio-Eritrea border are direct results of the U.N. sanction against Eritrea, which was authored by Susan Rice, and submitted by her puppets in Uganda.
This new year fills us with hope that at longlast we are ready to take matters into our own hands. It is a new year, It is a new day. It is a new begining. It is the time to stand up. We remeber the thousands of our children drowing in the Red Sea, disappearing in the jungles of central Africa and made to wither and die in Ogaden. The days of lametation is over. The time has come to act.”
By Yilma Bekele
There are three things important in real estate: location, location, location. Agents never tire mentioning this important fact. What exactly does it mean? Simply put what matters most is not the structure of the house as much as its physical location. It is smart to buy the ugliest house in a good neighborhood than a beautiful palace in a rough area. It is much easier and cheaper to remodel a bad and decrepit structure rather than moving it to a new location.
The importance of location never played such a pivotal role as in the current situation regarding our country. Our location has become our Achilles heel. It is true there was a time when our location worked in our favor. Our mountainous terrain protected us from foreign invaders while the scorching lowlands surrounding us were our natural defense. Isolated from others we were able to enjoy undisturbed peace and our own way of life.
Those days are gone. Today our location is working against us. Our neighborhood has become the center of the so-called ‘terrorist’ incubating ground. There is Somalia the poster child of a ‘failed state’. There is Yemen competing with Somalia for this coveted prize. There is Sudan teetering into civil war and religious fanaticism all rolled into one. There is Eritrea still trying to define it self while standing on a shaky ground.
How is this madness all around us affecting our country is a good question to ponder. I am afraid the prognosis is not favorable. Well at least for the ‘law and order’ contingent amongst us while it is making the cadres deliriously happy. ግር ግር ለሌባ ይመቻል fits this situation.
Somalia was a Godsend to the minority regime. The Bush administration obsession of fighting terrorism found its bedfellow in Ethiopia. The Meles regime was able to play one clan against the other, Jihadist against warlord and enjoy the fireworks. Poor Ethiopia was a scarifical lamb. Nothing was gained for our nation but the TPLF regime was able to ward off any discussion of democratic reforms by appearing to be a pillar of stability in the midst of chaotic neighborhood. The close alliance with the US military paid two dividends. TPLF army was able to get training and surplus arms for low level warfare and the Pentagon replaced State Department in policy formulations.
Sudan was another trouble spot that brought about more misery for our people. The Sudanese tyrants abhorrent policy in Darfur was a good excuse for the West to fan the flames of inter-ethnic animosity. The discovery of oil was all that was need to for the Chinese to enter the fray. The Ethiopian regime saw an opportunity to cozy up with Sudan. The more rogue Sudan becomes the closer it stuck with the minority regime. The cost to our country was loss of territory. The gain for the TPLF regime was a friendly dictator that will deny base of operation for the opposition.
When we thought things were quieting down guess who shows up to increase the stress level. It is none other than Yemen, the new preferred destination of Osama and company. This new situation does not bode well for our country. Surely the West is going to worry more about friendly areas of operation more than the rule of law and human rights. The horn of Africa is the new home of the fight against ‘extremism’. That means our quest for establishing a democratic state is going to be put on the back burner.
It is clear that the minority regime has been able to anticipate the situation correctly and seized the opportunity to endear itself to both the Americans and the Europeans. The opposition on the other hand has abandoned the initiative to the dictatorial regime. The opposition reacts to the shifting agenda set by the TPLF regime. The regime has surpassed its own benchmark due to its ability to create dissent, animosity and lack of trust in the camp of the opposition. Of course one cannot blame the enemy for one’s lack of foresight and resolve. Vacillation is the calling card of the spineless. We are blessed with plenty of spineless wana be leaders.
In spite of the efforts of a few to create confusion a certain notion is entering our everyday discourse. Despite our optimistic outlook the reality on the ground is forcing us to revise our thinking. We are beginning to accept the inevitability of the impending turmoil. The possibility of a violent eruption has become as sure as the sun rising tomorrow. There is no other conclusion. We are watching two trains speeding towards each other traveling on the same track.
Is it due to the worsening economic situation or the elevated paranoia of the police state is a tricky question. It is like who came first the chicken or the egg. Productivity does not match population increase. Unemployment, deflation, famine, and scarcity of goods are making life intolerable. Hopelessness breeds alienation. The only response possible by the police state is more repression. More repression invites more resistance. And vice versa. It is a merry go round of misery.
We are surrounded by the League of Failed states of the Horn of Africa. We are on our way to join them. On one hand, due to our location the international situation is not favorable to the democratic forces. On the other hand, the internal situation in Ethiopia is more than favorable to challenge the police state. Without going into details suffice to point out the over fourteen million on the brink of famine and the tens of thousands abandoning their country at the risk of imminent death is a testimonial to the abhorrent condition in the country. To say the Ethiopian people have reached a breaking point is not an exaggeration.
The late Kinijit was a perfect example of identifying the problem and appealing to the public in popular terms. Kinijit succeed beyond the wildest dreams of its founders. Kinijit was able to show the Ethiopian people the true nature of the dictatorial regime. Kinijit was able to expose the fallacy of ‘peaceful transition’ in a heavily armed police state. Kinijit’s success in winning the election and failure in assuming power was a revelation for the opposition to re-think the nature of the coming struggle. A redefinition of the path to attain victory was called for. The failure of the 2005 general election is a perfect example to the impossibility of rational conversation or dialogue with an armed and belligerent opponent.
It was very refreshing to hear President Obama presenting the problem and a solution to such a conundrum as faced by the Ethiopian people. In his important speech during the Noble Peace prize ceremony following is the way President Obama put the issue:
I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I am glad he said it. Some in Ethiopia have been saying that since 2005. The TPLF are the personification of evil. Their contempt for the Ethiopian people knows no bounds. Their cruelty is legendary. Though they try to mask their true nature by high-sounding sophistry they are nothing but ordinary thieves and street hustlers that have found themselves in a position of power. They will not abandon this gravy train without a fight. No amount of negotiation or dialogue will convince TPLF to ‘lay down their arms’. The last seventeen years is a testimonial to this irrefutable fact.
It is very sad the TPLF tugs are forcing the citizen to resort to violence. Force is not the preferred option. It contains its own shortcomings. It corrodes the soul and damages the human spirit. The brunt of the sacrifice falls on the young. Ultimately all of society pays the price. But there are some things that are not negotiable. Freedom is one such thing. A war that is waged to attain freedom is considered a just and necessary war. The war to remove TPLF and their associates from power will be judged to be a just and necessary action by any international standard. በቃ
It is not easy removing such an entrenched regime from power. It requires tested leadership. The enemy is lethal. They have no qualms about killing. They have showed their ugly side on numerous occassions. On the other hand their whole organization is like a house built on sand. They project an image of fierce warriors to hide their cowadly nature and fear that manifests itself by their empty rhetoric. Their lack of self esteem and doubt leads them to irratinality. It does not take much to un nerve them and make them react without thinking it over. The loyality of their members have no depth. They are prone to abandon them at the first sign of a percieved problem.
We are emolded with the appearance of Ginbot7, EPPF and other liberation fronts that have taken the nature of the facist regime toheart. Ginbot7 is the rightful heir of Kinijit. In a matter of one year it has shown a superior form of organization. Its utterings are well thought of and timely. Its no nonsense approach towards the minority regime have managed to fill us with hope. Ginbot7 cool demanour while surounded by hysterical nay sayers have won it plenty of quiet friends. The short wave radio broadcast is unprecedented success. It is not the result of some philatrophy by a rich uncle, or donation by ‘friendly’ government. It is the rsult of Ethiopians taking care of Ethiopia.
This new year fills us with hope that at longlast we are ready to take matters into our own hands. It is a new year, It is a new day. It is a new begining. It is the time to stand up. We remeber the thousands of our children drowing in the Red Sea, disappearing in the jungles of central Africa and made to wither and die in Ogaden. The days of lametation is over. The time has come to act.
We are emolded by the courageous act of Judge Bertukan Mideksa. We are greatful to her for showing us what it means to stand up for the truth. We honor her work by continuing her example of steadfatness in the face of overwhelming force. She did not buckle down. We will not back down. Here is the lyrics from Tom Pettys ‘I will not back down.’ Rock on my friends!
Well I won’t back down
No I won’t back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down
No I’ll stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin me down
gonna stand my ground
… and I won’t back down
Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
in a world that keeps on pushin me around
but I’ll stand my ground
…and I won’t back down
CAIRO (apa) — Egypt announced on Tuesday preparations to invest on 20,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia, with a multimillion-dollar investment.
The announcement was made by the visiting Egyptian Prime Minister, Dr.Ahmed Nazif who is on a working visit to Ethiopia starting on Tuesday.
The Egyptian delegation assured the Ethiopian officials that Egypt was keen to be involved in various investment opportunities in the country.
The Egyptian PM said that the National Bank of Egypt will initially develop 20,000 hectares of land of agricultural products as from 2010.
According to state media reports, Egypt will invest the undisclosed amount of agricultural investment in the Afar regional state of Ethiopia, known for its livestock resources.
The two countries prime ministers held talks late on Tuesday on how to boost their trade and investment cooperation, which in the past few years was poor.
The Egyptian delegation also showed interest to invest in other areas such as drug manufacturing.
It was also reported that Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan are expected to reach an agreement on installation of electricity connectivity in the near future to link the three countries with hydroelectric power supply from Ethiopia, which is currently undertaking a multi-billion investment on hydroelectric projects.
Ethiopian Prime Minister tribal dictator Meles Zenawi and his Egyptian counterpart Dr. Ahmed Nazif also expressed their commitment to work together in the efforts to ensure benefits for the peoples of the two countries.
About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen – the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.
So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US.
And why did delegates leave the Danish capital without agreement that something significantly stronger should emerge next year?
Our environment correspondent Richard Black looks at eight reasons that might have played a part.
1. KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL
Until the end of this summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention.
Implicit in the convention, though, is the idea that governments take account of each others’ positions and actually negotiate.
That happened at the Kyoto summit. Developed nations arrived arguing for a wide range of desired outcomes; during negotiations, positions converged, and a negotiated deal was done.
In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened.
The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a last-minute deal in a back room as though the nine months of talks leading up to this summit, and the Bali Action Plan to which they had all committed two years previously, did not exist.
Over the last few years, statements on climate change have been made in other bodies such as the G8, Major Economies Forum (MEF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (APEC), which do not have formal negotiations, and where outcomes are not legally binding.
It appears now that this is the arrangement preferred by the big countries (meaning the US and the BASIC group). Language in the “Copenhagen Accord” could have been taken from – indeed, some passages were reportedly taken from, via the mechanism of copying and pasting – G8 and MEF declarations.
The logical conclusion is that this is the arrangement that the big players now prefer – an informal setting, where each country says what it is prepared to do – where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding.
2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM
Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.
Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.
Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other.
Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position – a nightmare for other countries’ negotiators.
3. BAD TIMING
Although the Bali Action Plan was drawn up two years ago, it is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions.
He is also attempting major healthcare reforms; and both measures are proving highly difficult.
If the Copenhagen summit had come a year later, perhaps Mr Obama would have been able to speak from firmer ground, and perhaps offer some indication of further action down the line – indications that might have induced other countries to step up their own offers.
As it is, he was in a position to offer nothing – and other countries responded in kind.
4. THE HOST GOVERNMENT
In many ways, Denmark was an excellent summit host. Copenhagen was a friendly and capable city, transport links worked, Bella Center food outlets remained open through the long negotiating nights.
But the government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong.
Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of “important countries” – thereby annoying every country not on the list, including most of the ones that feel seriously threatened by climate impacts.
The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Becker was sacked just weeks before the summit amid tales of a huge rift between Mr Rasmussen’s office and the climate department of minister Connie Hedegaard. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker.
Procedurally, the summit was a farce, with the Danes trying to hurry things along so that a conclusion could be reached, bringing protest after protest from some of the developing countries that had presumed everything on the table would be properly negotiated. Suspensions of sessions became routine.
Despite the roasting they had received over the first “Danish text”, repeatedly the hosts said they were preparing new documents – which should have been the job of the independent chairs of the various negotiating strands.
China’s chief negotiator was barred by security for the first three days of the meeting – a serious issue that should have been sorted out after day one. This was said to have left the Chinese delegation in high dudgeon.
When Mr Rasmussen took over for the high-level talks, it became quickly evident that he understood neither the climate convention itself nor the politics of the issue. Experienced observers said they had rarely seen a UN summit more ineptly chaired.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prime minister’s office envisaged the summit as an opportunity to cover Denmark and Mr Rasmussen in glory – a “made in Denmark” pact that would solve climate change.
Most of us, I suspect, will remember the city and people of Copenhagen with some affection. But it is likely that history will judge that the government’s political handling of the summit covered the prime minister in something markedly less fragrant than glory.
5. THE WEATHER
Although “climate sceptical” issues made hardly a stir in the plenary sessions, any delegate wavering as to the scientific credibility of the “climate threat” would hardly have been convinced by the freezing weather and – on the last few days – the snow that blanketed routes from city centre to Bella Center.
Reporting that the “noughties” had been the warmest decade since instrumental records began, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) noted “except in parts of North America”.
If the US public had experienced the searing heat and prolonged droughts and seriously perturbed rainfall patterns seen in other corners of the globe, would they have pressed their senators harder on climate action over the past few years?
6. 24-HOUR NEWS CULTURE
The way this deal was concocted and announced was perhaps the logical conclusion of a news culture wherein it is more important to beam a speaking president live into peoples’ homes from the other side of the world than it is to evaluate what has happened and give a balanced account.
The Obama White House mounted a surgical strike of astounding effectiveness (and astounding cynicism) that saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone – even most of the governments involved in the talks – knew a deal had been done.
The news went first to the White House lobby journalists travelling with the president. With due respect, they are not as well equipped to ask critical questions as the environment specialists who had spent the previous two weeks at the Bella Center.
After the event, of course, journalists pored over the details. But the agenda had already been set; by the time those articles emerged, anyone who was not particularly interested in the issue would have come to believe that a deal on climate change had been done, with the US providing leadership to the global community.
The 24-hour live news culture did not make the Copenhagen Accord. But its existence offered the White House a way to keep the accord’s chief architect away from all meaningful scrutiny while telling the world of his triumph.
7. EU POLITICS
For about two hours on Friday night, the EU held the fate of the Obama-BASIC “accord” in its hands, as leaders who had been sideswiped by the afternoon’s diplomatic coup d’etat struggled to make sense of what had happened and decide the appropriate response.
If the EU had declined to endorse the deal at that point, a substantial number of developing countries would have followed suit, and the accord would now be simply an informal agreement between a handful of countries – symbolising the failure of the summit to agree anything close to the EU’s minimum requirements, and putting some beef behind Europe’s insistence that something significant must be achieved next time around.
So why did the EU endorse such an emasculated document, given that several leaders beforehand had declared that no deal would be better than a weak deal?
The answer probably lies in a mixture – in proportions that can only be guessed at – of three factors:
• Politics as usual – ie never go against the US, particularly the Obama US, and always emerge with something to claim as a success
• EU expansion, which has increased the proportion of governments in the bloc that are unconvinced of the arguments for constraining emissions
• The fact that important EU nations, in particular France and the UK, had invested significant political capital in preparing the ground for a deal – tying up a pact on finance with Ethiopia’s President Meles Zenawi, and mounting a major diplomatic push on Thursday when it appeared things might unravel.
Having prepared the bed for US and Chinese leaders and having hoped to share it with them as equal partners, acquiescing to an outcome that it did not want announced in a manner that gave it no respect arguably leaves the EU cast in a role rather less dignified that it might have imagined.
8. CAMPAIGNERS GOT THEIR STRATEGIES WRONG
An incredible amount of messaging and consultation went on behind the scenes in the run-up to this meeting, as vast numbers of campaign groups from all over the planet strived to co-ordinate their “messaging” in order to maximise the chances of achieving their desired outcome.
The messaging had been – in its broadest terms – to praise China, India, Brazil and the other major developing countries that pledged to constrain the growth in their emissions; to go easy on Barack Obama; and to lambast the countries (Canada, Russia, the EU) that campaigners felt could and should do more.
Now, post-mortems are being held, and all those positions are up for review. US groups are still giving Mr Obama more brickbats than bouquets, for fear of wrecking Congressional legislation – but a change of stance is possible.
Having seen the deal emerge that the real leaders of China, India and the other large developing countries evidently wanted, how will those countries now be treated?
How do you campaign in China – or in Saudi Arabia, another influential country that emerged with a favourable outcome?
The situation is especially demanding for those organisations that have traditionally supported the developing world on a range of issues against what they see as the west’s damaging dominance.
After Copenhagen, there is no “developing world” – there are several. Responding to this new world order is a challenge for campaign groups, as it will be for politicians in the old centres of world power.
The United Nations Security Council on Tuesday voted to impose sanctions on Eritrea for supporting the Somali Islamist group Al-Shabab. First of all, the U.S. State Department, which pushed the resolution on behalf of Woyanne — its puppet regime in Ethiopia — is unable to produce any evidence that Eritrea provides support to Al-Shabab. Secondly, even if it does, what is the big deal? Doesn’t the U.S. Government support the Woyanne regime, which is terrorizing the people of Ethiopia, committing war crimes in eastern Ethiopia, blocking food from reaching the people in Ogaden (according to the Red Cross), and has committed genocide in the western Ethiopian region of Gambella? The U.S.-financed Woyanne regime’s crimes against the people of Ethiopia are too many to list here. These crimes against humanity are not mere allegations. They are charges made by all credible international human rights organizations. And yet the U.N. Security Council is totally silent. Let’s also not forget that the U.N. has not uttered one word of concern when Meles Zenawi’s death squads gunned down hundreds of pro-democracy protesters in Ethiopia’s capital following the 2005 elections. Through such nonsensical and hypocritical action, the U.N. once again proved itself to be a joke. For peace to prevail in Somalia, the U.S. and its puppet Woyanne must stop meddling in Somalia’s internal affairs. Let the people of Somalia sort things out for themselves without outside intervention. If there is any sanction needed in the U.N., it should be against the U.S. Government that is creating havoc in Somalia by backing one clan against another. – Elias Kifle
In the following audio Eritrea’s Minister of Information Ato Ali Abdo comments on the U.N. sanction.
[podcast]http://www.ethiopianreview.info/audio/23dec2009amha1800a.mp3[/podcast]
(Forward to 13:15:00)
African diplomats, most of whom had brashly stood by Ethiopia’s tyrant Meles Zenawi when he violently crushed a pro-democracy movement in 2005, naively expressed shock and incredulity at his betrayal of their trust at the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference [1,2].
As heralded by this[3] and numerous other authors [see, e.g., 4,5] before the ill-fated conference, Zenawi had a sinister agenda when he successfully lobbied corrupt African diplomats in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa to get the nomination as a spokesperson for Africa.
The dictator has been in serious desperation to get the attention of the West after he lost the cover of “War on Terror” that he had successfully exploited to enjoy the full support of the Bush Administration and other Western powers. Despite his atrocious records of crimes against humanity, corruption and suppression of basic human rights, these powers looked the other way when the dictator massacred peaceful demonstrators in the aftermath of his humiliating defeat in the elections of 2005, and propped up his tyrannical rule with billions of dollars in aid that he plundered with no accountability and squandered on expensive lobbying campaigns to thwart congressional measures intended to promote democracy and good governance in Ethiopia[6].
To the furtively resourceful tyrant, a visible position at the Climate Conference was hence the only hope of getting the attention the West, and especially that of the Obama administration, whose rhetoric of democracy and social justice had sent terrifying signals to the despot.
With the specter of the 2005 massacre still haunting him, Zenawi saw the position endowed upon him by African diplomats as a valuable tool to earn legitimacy among Western powers and to ensure their tacit assent as he prepares to violently thwart again the aspirations of the Ethiopian people for democracy in the upcoming May 2010 elections.
In view of the mounting evidence pointing at his atrocities[7], he has also been frantically seeking means of garnering the sympathy of the West in the likely eventuality of charges for his crimes against humanity. Betrayal of members of the African Union, an institution that has proven a loyal subservient to him, was therefore an effective measure toward that end without any adverse consequence.
With the dwindling financial aid, thanks in part to the irrelevance of his ploy as an ally in the War on Terror, and, more generally, to the impact of the global economic downturn on the capacity of donor nations to squander money on the dictator, a quick source of hard-currency, however meager, was also a matter of great urgency for the dictator. The lofty goals of the nations of Africa, in whose names he earned visibility, were therefore expendable in the eyes of a dictator, whose track records as a leader are characterized by myopic self-interest, ethnocentrism, poor governance, corruption and environmental degradation.
It was thus a foregone conclusion that Zenawi would forgo any viable long-term international accord for a short-term gain, and that he would easily agree, as he has reprehensibly and egoistically done so, to the reduction of the billions of dollars from what African leaders had agreed or to the 2°C commitment that many campaigners claim would threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people in Africa[8].
If the Obama administration engages in the discredited Bush-era diplomacy, sacrificing its hallmarks of social justice and democracy for short-term diplomatic expediency, then it has not learned the bitter lessons of its predecessors. To the chagrin of many Ethiopian supporters, the White House confirmed, as reported in the Los Angeles Times[9]:
… He [President Obama] expressed his appreciation for the leadership role the Prime Minister [Zenawi] was playing in work with African countries on climate change, and urged him to help reach agreement at the Leaders summit later this week in Copenhagen. For his part, Prime Minister Meles stressed the importance of success in Copenhagen, and the need to find ways to make suitable progress on the mitigation, adaptation, and the provision of finance for the developing countries.
The people of Africa in general, and of Ethiopia in particular, hailed President Obama, when he declared[10]:
America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation – the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance – on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hotlines, and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.”
If good governance, transparency and accountability are the guiding principles of American foreign aid under Obama, then it is hard to envisage that the President has not digressed from the path of justice when he initiated a dialogue with a dictator who has some of the worst records of any leader in each of the stated parameters.
We do agree with the President’s affirmation[11]: “We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning…” Accordingly, it is high time for the Obama administration to live up to its professed ideals and to make a new beginning in dealing with dictators. We trust the Obama administration would have the courage and wisdom to depart from the discredited policies of yesteryear when long-term stability took backseat to short-term diplomatic pragmatism.
As widely reported, no sooner had Zeanwi received the nod of the West, at the expense of the trust of Africa, than he ordered his kangaroo court to sentence to death potential opponents on trumped up charges [12]. He has intensified his attacks on the free press, as evidenced by the recent flights of respected journalists out of the country [see, e.g.,13,14], and has effectively silenced all political dissent. He has kept credible political opponents, like Birtukan Mideksa, in prison[15], and is using mafia-like tactics to intimidate and frustrate opposition groups[16]. To avoid another humiliating defeat in the capital and other cities and towns in the May 2010 elections, every eligible voter employed by the government or runs a major private enterprise is under duress to sign up as a card-holding member of Zenawi’s party. In the rural areas, where farmers are at the absolute mercy of the dictator to till the land or get access to fertilizers, opposition groups are completely shut out to rule out any credible threats to the despot.
Ethiopians in the Diaspora have a historic responsibility to ensure that Zenawi does not use his newly-earned notoriety to garner Western support and tacit acquiescence as he embarks on his vicious campaign to violently thwart once again the aspiration of the Ethiopian people for democracy in the upcoming elections. They should continue to mobilize their resources and influence the Obama administration and other Western powers from becoming accomplices in the evil gambits of the tyrant.
Opposition leaders should come to the realization that there is no more pressing matter, or nobler cause, or greater party agenda than the need to stand in unison and salvage Ethiopia from the cancerous tyranny of Meles Zenawi and his repressive machinery. The deliverance of the people can become a reality only when the leaders are prepared to forfeit egotism, party loyalty and petty bickering, and are determined to fight to the end, paying the ultimate consequences, with an enemy that may project vacuous invincibility and power, but has in essence no longevity or resilience.
