Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13 million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 3m hectares of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world’s most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.

By John Vidal | guardian.co.uk

JUBA, SUDAN — We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia’s largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 20 hectares – the size of 20 football pitches.

The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 500m rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimises water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tonnes of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13 million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 3m hectares of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world’s most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.

The 1,000 hectares of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2bn acquiring and developing 500,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.

But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.

An Observer investigation estimates that up to 50m hectares of land – an area more than double the size of the UK – has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.

The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union’s insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.

In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of “land grabbing”.

The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: “All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.

“The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.

“All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry.”

It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.

Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world’s cheapest land.

Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per hectare.

Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East’s largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5bn to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential .

Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1bn buying land and growing 7m tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa’s land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.

Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.

Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 2.8m hectares of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 1.2m hectares deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country’s arable land.

Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. “European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 3.9m hectares in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities,” said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 17.5m hectares, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.

“The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase,” he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.

Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.

Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 700,000 hectares of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 750,000 hectares and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 42,000-hectare deal in Nile province.

The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. “We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on,” said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. “A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile.”

In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 800,000 hectares in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of “grabbing” communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.

Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. “Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap,” he said.

“Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames,” said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50m on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. “Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally,” she said.

But many of the deals are widely condemned by both western non-government groups and nationals as “new colonialism”, driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.

We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 500 hectares of land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (75p) per hectare per year – less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.

“The land and labour is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone – Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians – is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years’ crop yield,” he said.

Oromia is one of the centres of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies’ association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 1m hectares, Djibouti 10,000 hectares, Saudi Arabia 100,000 hectares, and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.

“This is the new, 21st-century colonisation. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak,” he said.

The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesman said: “Ethiopia has 74m hectares of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use – mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage – 3 to 4% – is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water.”

The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. “If land in Africa hasn’t been planted, it’s probably for a reason. Maybe it’s used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users.”

Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.

“We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline,” she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. “I would avoid the blanket term ‘land-grabbing’. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development.”

Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.

Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. “We would like to, but the deal is made by central government,” said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.

FIGHTER FOR DEMOCRACY – a book by Beyene Solomon

This is the story of Beyene Solomon, who started and led a labor movement in Ethiopia encompassing several hundred thousand workers. It was the first democratic institution organized in Ethiopia and became an important part of African labor and social movement in the 1960-70s. However, when Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown in 1974, Mr. Solomon was imprisoned. Surviving seven years of prison, he later worked for the ILO before he
was forced out of Ethiopia in 1998.

Beyene’s memoir is the story of a brave and determined self-made man
fighting and suffering for a democratic cause. And it is the sad story of
the struggles of a proud African nation which is still in the throes of finding
itself. Furthermore, it describes the diaspora of hundreds of thousands of
Ethiopians and Eritreans, many who ended up as political refugees in the
United States. His memoir is of historic significance.

From Eritrea, Beyene Solomon left his farm to work in factories in the
Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. Rebelling against management injustices,
he helped form an Ethiopian labor movement. As President of the
Confederation of Ethiopian Labor Unions (CELU), Beyene organized
Ethiopian and Eritrean industrial workers and effectively fought for workers
rights against government and management. He was instrumental in
obtaining assistance from international labor groups and was active in
African labor organizations. Until 1974 when the military overthrew the
Emperor, CELU was part of an important democratization process in
Ethiopia. While other prominent Ethiopians were murdered, Beyene
Solomon miraculously survived, perhaps because of his local and
international following. Until 1998 he had lived in Ethiopia for 52 years.
Residing in Silver Spring, MD since 1999 with his children, he is now a
US citizen.

By Anyuak Media

The regime in Ethiopia (Woyanne) has unleashed a new wave of brutality and cruelty against indigenous Anyuak people in the Gambella region. Fear of further human rights abuses and systematic genocide against the indigenous people with a bigger humanitarian disaster than in 2003 lingers in the mind of many Anyuak both at home and abroad. The trend of killing innocent civilians, torturing, arbitrary arrest, raping, harassment, and disappearances resemble the pre-2003 campaign of genocide against the Anyuak that led to massacre and displacement of thousands indigenous people from their homes and livelihoods. The new wave of brutality feared to increase tensions and mistrusts among local population and further potential conflicts in the region.

In the last few months, the Woyanne army has introduced these new waves of arbitrary arrest, killing, torture, imprisonment and harassment of the indigenous people in their own ancestral land without remorse. A civilian, Kwot Agole, remain in critical condition in the Gambella hospital after a member of the Woyanne army, who remain at large, shot him. He remains guarded in the Gambella hospital with his fate unknown. The army hunted Kwot Agole, son of late Dr David Owour Ojwato, for months before he fell into their hands. His three months pregnant wife, his sister and mother-in-law detained in an effort to flash him out of hiding but release latter.

In similar incident, the army shot dead young Nuer man in arbitrary shoot out at Opomoro area of the Gambella town when they attended alleged burglary incident. A non-indigenous businessperson in the area called the army to attend a claim of burglary incident. It has become apparent that the army has over turned the constitutional provisions by involving and interfering in a law and order issues entrusted to local and federal police forces.

The current Ethiopian constitution clearly stipulates that the army is responsible for national security issues rather than law and order in which they are currently in charge in the Gambella region. The indigenous people are very worried of the army involvement in discriminatory practice against them. It is observed that members of the army arbitrarily searches, strips, and beats the indigenous peoples at night and during day light to terrorize them.

In another development, two Anyuak, Mr. Kwot Agid and Omot Obang, who went to Addis Ababa to witness against their fellow Anyuak — Obang Kut, Obang Thamiru and Omot Obang (Omot Wara-Achan) — were thrown to jail accused of not telling the truth in court of law. Mr. Kwot Agid and Omot Obang are government officials from Gambella region and they remain in prison without legal remedy.

The Ethiopian government also have arrested Ibrahim Abulla in Gambella perhaps in connection to arrest of two Gambella government officials in Addis Ababa. A member of the government militia, Ibrahim was detained in his home village where he visited his relatives. Ibrahim was awarded 21, 00 Eth Birr and granted employment in October 2007 for his role in eliminating two individuals alleged terrorist claimed to have been disturbing peace in the area.

According to our source from Ethiopia, Mr. Kwot Agid and Omot Obang were unable to confess the detainees’ involvement in an ambush of UN vehicle on the way to Odier in 2003, a pretext that lead to indiscriminate killings of innocent Anyuak and destruction of their properties. Unknown group ambushed the UN vehicle on the way to a new site for Sudanese refugee camp in 2003.

Mr. Kwot Agid and Omot Obang could neither witness three detainees’ possessions of arms, a cause for their detention by Pochalla County authorities in 2009. They were among those sent to bring the detainees from across the international borders where they were first detained for about a month. The Gambella regional authorities in collaboration with federal government authorities instructed the two Gambella government officials to witness against the accused individuals on the ground of arms possessions and their alleged involvement in the ambush of UN vehicle in 2003.

Pochalla County authorities of south Sudan arrested Obang Kut, Obang Thamiru and Omot Obang (Omot Wara-Achan) in 2009 and handed them over to Gambella authorities. They remain in Kaleti prison, one of the notorious prisons in the country without proper legal redress. There is shocking report that the detainees are subjects to brutal and cruel human rights abuses by the Woyanne regime while in prison. They are subject to cruel inhumane degrading and torture including thrown into refrigerators, electric shocks and constant beating to confess the crime they have not committed. They are made to sign a document they do not know of its content at night under duress.

Obang Kut, Obang Thamiru and Omot Obang (Omot Wara-Achan) survived from genocide of the Ethiopian government in 2003. They, like many others escaped to safety and they were recognized refugees in Kenya. They were arrested in Pochalla County when they went to visit their relatives who also survived from the Woyanne regime’s campaign of genocide against indigenous people in Gambella.

New York (Human Rights Watch) — The Ethiopian regime should urgently initiate an independent investigation into the murder of an opposition candidate for parliament and bring those responsible to justice, Human Rights Watch said today.

Aregawi Gebreyohannes, the victim, was a candidate for the Arena-Tigray opposition party for the May 23, 2010, elections. He was stabbed to death by five men at his home in Shire, in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region, on the evening of March 1, press reports and witnesses said.

“This attack demands an urgent, credible, and independent investigation given Ethiopia’s highly charged pre-election environment,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Getting to the truth of this incident will help build confidence in the electoral process.”

Opposition officials contend that the attack was politically motivated and followed months of intimidation and harassment of Aregawi and other opposition candidates. The government told international journalists that the killing was a personal dispute, not political, and that Aregawi had tried to break up a fight in his restaurant. The government also said that one of the men who attacked Aregawi has been taken into custody. Credible sources told Human Rights Watch that the others have been released.

The Arena-Tigray party is a member of the largest opposition coalition, known as the Forum for Democratic Dialogue (FDD, or Medrek). The leader of Arena-Tigray, Gebru Asrat, told Voice of America radio that the killing of Aregawi and the beating of another Arena-Tigray candidate, Ayelew Beyene, by armed men on March 1 were part of a campaign of intimidation by the ruling party.

The May 23 elections will be the first parliamentary elections in Ethiopia since 2005, when post-election protests resulted in bloodshed. Up to 200 people were killed by government security forces responding to street protests in June and November 2005. Tens of thousands of people were arrested in the course of the political crisis over disputed election results, including dozens of opposition leaders, journalists, and several civil society activists.

Since 2005, Ethiopia’s human rights situation has worsened, marked by a harsh intolerance for independent civil society activity, criticism of government actions, or opposition political activity. Government critics continue to be subjected to harassment, arrest, and even torture. Repressive new legislation passed in 2009 makes most forms of independent human rights activity impossible and provides an overbroad definition of terrorism that could be applied to acts of peaceful protest or to media reporting on security-related topics.

Opposition parties contend that government officials regularly harass, intimidate, and assault opposition supporters to repress political dissent. The government routinely denies the allegations. A prominent opposition leader, Birtukan Midekssa, is serving a life sentence after the government revoked a pardon it issued for alleged acts of treason connected to post-election protests in 2005. UN experts said in 2009 that her detention was arbitrary.

Setting few of the Records Straight

By Neamin Zeleke

I read a successive of recent articles by Mr. Tibebe Samuel Ferenji on Ethiomedia raising objections to Ethiopian opposition parties’ relationship with Eritrea. I have found the latest article, his third on this subject, to be particularly misleading and laden with fabricated and recycled assertions. Aside from the writer’s sudden appearance and zealous effort to enlighten us as to the “real” nature of EPLF and its past deeds, I find the writer’s persistent focus on this particular topic very curious.

Several points raised by the writer beg for a response lest we allow historical facts to be nothing more than products of a fertile imagination of any one who chooses to post an article online. First, let me focus on the main and glaring misstatement of fact. It should be obvious to anyone familiar with the book written by Major Seleshi that any reference to the factual assertions in the book cannot go beyond a limited scope due to limitations of his sources and his admitted lack of access to major players inside Ethiopia. Additionally, even the author of the book himself would not share the sentiment of the Mr. Tibebe relative to the alleged relationship between the EPLF and the Ethiopian Army leadership involved in the attempted coup of 1989. I assert this because I happen to know and have talked to Maj. Seleshi on several occasions on this and related matters.

The most glaring of all fabrications is the assertion that EPLF somehow orchestrated the aborted coup against the former President Mengistu HaileMariam. This is utterly false. Even Mengistu himself had never made such a bogus claim. If there was any indication of evidence to support this claim, the former president would have been the first to make it. I say that not to give credibility to Mengistu, but it would be so obvious to anyone that he would have been the first to tarnish his enemies with such a claim. Contrary to Mr. Tibebe’s corrosive description, the leaders of the coup were Ethiopians who spent 30-38 years defending their country and struggling to maintain its unity. Many of its leaders such as Gen. Merid Negussie and Gen. Kumilachew Dejene, carried battlefield scars from bullet and explosive wounds they received in battles in Eritrea. Gen. Demissie and the other generals and officers stood their ground to the end to liberate their country from Mengistu’s stranglehold.

To sully these heroes and reduce them to nothing more than agents of the EPLF does violence to the proud legacy of Ethiopian patriotism, courage and sacrifice that they left behind for posterity. Our national character and the fabric of the future generation depend on the preservation of our history. This chapter of our history is full of heroic sacrifices as much as it is a tragic one. That is why it becomes vital to set the record straight.

Among the most offensive and flatly wrong assertions the writer made is the following: “Mr. Issaias orchestrated the Ethiopian elite Military force that was stationed in Asmara led by the late General Kumlachew Dejene to leave Asmara and to go to Addis Ababa in order to secure the palace should the coup succeed. Issaias’ motive was to leave a vacuum and eliminate this elite military presence in Asmara in order for the EPLF to march in and control the city of Asmara. The plan was “when hell breaks loose” in Addis Ababa, he thought, EPLF would have full control of Eritrea…”

Let me start by pointing out that Gen. Kumilachew was not the leader the of the Army in Eritrea. It was Gen. Demissie Bulto who was in charge. He was the commander of what was then known as the 2nd Revolutionary Army and led the coup in Asmara until its tragic conclusion. He was the one who sent Gen. Kumilachew to Addis Ababa as reinforcement force to help the coup leaders in Addis Ababa. Gen. Kumilachew’s absence from Asmara with some 400 troops could hardly create a vacuum given the fact that the leader of the army, his two other deputies–General Worku Cherinet, and Gen Hussien Ahmed–all of the corps commanders, and over 250 thousand troops remained in Eritrea. Only a person without a cursory knowledge of military affairs would believe the absence of 400 troops would create a vacuum under such circumstances.

Moreover, at the time of the attempted coup, EPLF forces were never near Keren let alone Asmara and even the port of Massawa was under the control of the Ethiopian Army. The bold assertion that Mr. Issayas Afeworki planned to march to Asmara because 400 soldiers were sent to Addis Ababa flies in the face of the attendant facts and defies logic. This careless revision of history is indicative of the quality of the information with which Mr. Tibebe arrives at his dramatic conclusions. Our country’s history has been much abused by Westerners and some of our own citizens who treat historical facts as no more than spices prone to improvisation to cook the meal they choose to serve us. We cannot allow this to continue.

Before one ventures to rob many of Ethiopia’s true patriots of the dignity and honor they earned with their blood and sacrifice of life, one should dig a little deeper into history. The tacit assertion that EPLF was the mastermind of the attempted coup of 1989, that Gen Kumlachew was sent by the EPLF to Addis Ababa, etc. are preposterous claims that do not hold water for any person who has done the most rudimentary reading of the available literature on the subject.

Recently, Derege Demissie has published a book full of row historical facts about the coup attempt of May 1989. I have written a review of the book, Abate Yachin Seat. The book has been widely read and received accolades for its thorough and fair presentation. One of the individuals Derege interviewed was Col. Girma Tesema, who was the highest ranking prisoner of war at Nakfa at the time. The 15-day ceasefire Gen. Demissie Bulto negotiated during the coup attempt was negotiated through Col. Girma. The ceasefire was negotiated only after the coup began and EPLF did not even have information that there was going to be a coup attempt let alone orchestrate it.

This is corroborated by the account of one of those who participated in defeating the coup. In his article published in Tobia and cited by Derege in his book, the captain described sitting in a meeting in Gen. Demissie’s office along with other officers. He wrote that during a meeting a tall officer from the operations department came in to the office and reported that EPLF has accepted the 15-day ceasefire offer. This was on the second day of the coup; obviously, if EPLF orchestrated the coup, there would not have been the need to make the ceasefire offer.

Other sources predate the genesis of the coup to early 1980s. The report of the officer who conducted the interrogation of coup participants cited a document ceased from Gen. Abera Abebe’s hideout. According to this source, the plot began in early 1980s while the general was a deputy commander of the 1st Revolutionary Army in Harar and worked with the then commanding officer Gen. Demissie Bulto.

Moreover, if the writer had met Gen. Kumilachew and spent some time with him, like I did even during his last few weeks suffering from a terminal illness, he would have met a person with utter disgust for what the EPLF stood for and its deeds. Gen. Kumilachew and others who participated in the Coup served in the Ethiopian army for over 30 years. They lost friends and countless troops fighting heroically against the EPLF. To suggest that they risked their lives to give the EPLF the victory they fought for so long to prevent is ludicrous.

Furthermore, contrary to the writer’s claims, Maj. Dawit did not play a direct role in the May 1989 coup. Maj. Dawit was the one who initiated contact with EPLF. Not the other way around. His was an attempt to explore the possibility of arriving at a peaceful settlement. He did not have a direct contact or access to the generals in Ethiopia. It is true that he had communication with General Fanta Belay, Minister of Industry at the time of the coup and previously commander of the air force, through a third party. The statements given by General Fanta to interrogators while in prison corroborate this fact. As opposed to being coordinated events, the movement to get rid of Col. Mengistu inside Ethiopia and efforts of Maj. Dawit were separate and parallel actions. None of the literature, interviews of participants, or books published on the subject makes the direct link the writer so carelessly makes in his article.

At several instances, not only Maj. Dawit, but also other former top officials handling Ethiopia’s foreign affairs during the Derg/PDRE regime, had meetings with the EPLF leadership in Italy and other places. These Ethiopians have either told the story to others or documented the fact that the EPLF was willing to accept a federal arrangement and was even considering participation in an all inclusive transitional government. Col. Mengistu was the one who categorically refused to accept a federal solution for Eritrea.

At later stages, it was also the treasonous TPLF leadership that refused to accept a proposal made by Maj. Dawit and others for the formation of an all inclusive transitional government that included the EPLF. While the EPLF was willing to accept even when things were starting to fall apart for Derg regime at the 11th hour, it was the same TPLF which refused. It was also the same TPLF that refused a ceasefire during the coup of 1989 while the EPLF agreed. After some 19 years it is now clear to all that TPLF did not want its senior and most powerful partner that supported it to ascend to power to be an impediment to its dream of creating a minority domination of Ethiopia in all spheres of national life. Even junior partners like the OLF were kicked out within mere two years. It did not want any rival or impediment to TPLF’s agenda of monopoly over state power, domination and an all pervasive hegemony of Ethiopia. This was the fact yesterday as it is today.

We have also heard it from the horse’s mouth, from Sibehat Nega, the godfather of the mercenary and treasonous TPLF. Barely two years ago, Sibehat Nega, in an interview, told the Ethiopian people that his organization, TPLF, was the one that did not accept any compromise and that the TPLF fought more for “Eritrea’s independence” than the EPLF and that “EPLF was willing to negotiate with the Derg to settle for federation where it not for the push and steadfast position of the TPLF to the contrary…” Although the statement was made as a self serving aggrandizement from a person who has no qualms to declare even after 18 years the treasonous and anti-Ethiopia acts of his organization, there is a grain of truth in his statement. I suggest the writer do his homework by reading such works including Maj. Dawit’s book and that of many others recently published both in Ethiopia and abroad.

To clear up any residual misconception on this topic, I want to pose some rhetorical questions. What political and military conditions of the war in the north in particular the policies of the Derg/PDRE regime served to force the generals to plot a coup? Who started the idea and where? And how it came about? What were its stated goals? How and in what manner the communication with the EPLF was made? And most importantly why it also failed? These are some of the pertinent questions that need further reading and research before making reckless assertions. It would not serve both the current regime and posterity to twist facts and rewrite history in order to fit one’s political caprice in a futile pursuit of trying to convince Ethiopian liberation groups not to engage with the government of Eritrea.

In order to hasten attaining our freedom and dignity from the bondage of the fascistic mafia murderers and tugs in power, one will explore any and all options including dealing with any and all forces to advance the objective. Even those who ceaselessly preach about freedom and democracy will deal with anyone as long as its serves to promote their interest. The minority regime in Addis Ababa has far worst records of human rights abuse, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and accused of genocide in Gambela and the Ogaden, not to mention the plethora of crimes it has perpetrated against the people of Ethiopia. But they support and prop it so long as it is “their dog.”

Let me wrap up with the following. Serious debates are welcome with all those who recognize that in politics there are no permanent friends and permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Several Ethiopian groups have made the liberation of Ethiopia from the ethnocentric minority mafia group in power their paramount objective. Indeed the liberation of Ethiopia from the apartheid-like anti-Ethiopia minority dictatorship that has imposed a quasi-internal colonialism with its political, economic, and military domination over the rest of the Ethiopian people has become the prime and overriding task of our times. Those groups will do that by any means necessary within the bounds of international law and democratic principles including respect for each other’s views. Freedom and democracy are our rights. If we need to struggle for it, we will. If we need to find allies who will help us gain our freedom, we will form alliances. Throughout history all alliances were formed to promote mutual interests. Alliances were formed out of pragmatic necessity as opposed to based on moral Puritanism.