SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND — Sentencing for a Silver Spring man involved in the December kidnapping of a Clinton bank manager and her family has been postponed until Dec. 4.
Yosef Tadele, 23, a native of Ethiopia, who pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact in the kidnapping, was scheduled to face sentencing Friday in Prince George’s County Circuit Judge Sheila R. Tillerson Adams’ courtroom. However, he was in Montgomery County at the time regarding a traffic matter, according to his attorney, Brian K. McDaniel, of Washington, D.C.
Tadele was implicated in the kidnapping of LaChrista Hamilton, a manager with SunTrust Bank, and her husband and their two sons. Two other men, Yohannes T. Surafel, 25, of Washington, D.C., and Beruk Ayalneh, 24, whose last known address is in Arlington, Va., according to court records, are also facing charges for their involvement in the kidnapping.
According to testimony at a January 2009 hearing, Surafel and Ayalneh allegedly held the family at gunpoint in their Briarcliff Drive home the evening of Dec. 26. The men allegedly planned to take the family the next day to the Silver Spring branch where Hamilton worked to assist with an armed robbery.
Surafel drove with the family to the bank Dec. 27, during which time the car was stopped and he was seized by police.
Tadele has been accused of driving Surafel and Ayalneh to Hamilton’s home on Dec. 26 and picking up Ayalneh the following the day with the intention of meeting up with Surafel later.
Surafel is facing charges of kidnapping, assault, false imprisonment, conspiracy to commit a robbery and several other charges associated with his possession of a handgun. His attorney, Richard Finci of Greenbelt, testified at an earlier hearing that Surafel suffered emotional trauma as a Virginia Tech student on campus during the April 2007 massacre in which 32 people died.
Surafel’s trial is scheduled for Oct. 27. Ayalneh’s whereabouts are unknown.
Assistant State’s Attorney Carol Coderre, who is prosecuting the case, declined to comment Friday.
On my flight back from London, UK, I decided to catch up on my reading and began by going through some articles that were compiled for me by a friend. It was amongst the pile that I found the piece on Somalia by J. Peter Pham; it turned out to be yet another lazy analysis… I say lazy because his entire piece was a patching together of “cut and paste” paragraphs collected from various dubious self-serving sources. Pham´s incoherent piece was an elaborate apologia for Meles Zenawi, the only terrorist lurking in the Horn of Africa, who bears full responsibility for the carnage in Somalia. Pham has become one of the most vocal apologists for the minority regime in Ethiopia and his latest “cut and paste” piece is a regurgitation of the regime´s often heard narration (tantrums), as it scrambles to get itself out of yet another self-created quagmire.
Those of us who have been observing development in the Horn region know Meles Zenawi´s modus operandi. This latest piece by Pham is a desperate and transparent attempt to divert attention away from the ill-advised, illegal and immoral US-backed Ethiopian invasion and 2-year occupation of Somalia, and international crimes committed by Meles Zenawi´s regime in Somalia. Sanctioning Eritrea (for not toeing Washington´s line on Somalia) is supposed to give Meles Zenawi a respite from his self created quagmire. For Pham and his cohorts, blaming Eritrea is somehow supposed to absolve Meles and those responsible for the crimes committed in Somalia. It may take time, but sooner or later, Meles Zenawi and his handlers will pay for the destruction of Somalia and the deaths of thousands of innocent Somalis. It is Meles Zenawi´s hands that are drenched with the blood of Somalis, not Eritrea´s. Pham is barking up the wrong tree.
My first instinct was to ignore the dishonest individual and his “cut and paste” propaganda piece, which he attempts to pass of for an intellectual analysis on Somalia. But since there may be some lawmakers who might take his statements for fact and believe his misinformation, once in a while, as we have done in the past, it’s important that Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis, as citizens of the Horn, call him out and expose his hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. This ordained Catholic priest (a credential rarely mentioned in his articles) has traded his priestly collar for a “falfalina” (bow tie), and replaced the morals and teachings of the Catholic Church, with lies and deceptions in his new found (much more lucrative) vocation as a hired gun (or is it hired pen). This embedded priest exposes the ugly side of academia and how much US Foreign Policy is damaged by self serving, morally bankrupt operatives such as Pham who have no qualms about deceiving the US public and lawmakers in order to advance their own illicit (often illegal) agendas.
Horn residents are not surprised by J. Peter Pham’s latest piece in defense of Meles Zenawi and the minority regime in Ethiopia. One of the “intellectuals for hire” that has provided the minority regime political shield in Washington with “testimonies in Congress”, Pham has deliberately lied to, and misled, lawmakers and the American public with is faulty analysis on Somalia, Somaliland, the UIC and more. Pham´s thinking is not just beyond the pale, it´s willfully dangerous and evil. This self appointed “expert” on Africa believes his brief stint as a “Vatican envoy to East Africa” gives him the credentials to write at will, without providing a single shred of evidence to support his far fetched assertions. “Cut and paste” paragraphs fit together to fit Meles Zenawi´s narratives will not cut it. Distorting the facts, omitting the truth and fabricating lies is not a Christian thing to do…as a former priest, he ought to know better.
It is no secret that Pham is closely associated with the conservative neocolonialist cartel; a dubious alliance of fundamentally different and even ideologically opposed religious and political factions such as the coalition of evangelical Christians (also known as the New Christian Right) and the aggressive political ideologues commonly known as the Neoconservatives who have launched an unprecedented evil campaign against Eritrea for the last 10 years in order to advance their hegemonic agendas in the region. Pham is also closely associated with Joseph Greibosky, the author of several erroneous reports on Eritrea and Iran and whose organization, the Institute for Religion and Public Policy, enjoyed a lucrative arrangement-to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars –with the Bush Administration´s State Department.
As a consultant for U.S. intelligence agencies who has helped place former students in intelligence positions, Pham knows a thing or two about that industry and its connections in Somalia. Pham, more than anybody else, knows that Eritrea has no interest in destabilizing Somalia. Despite what Jendayi E. Frazer and her cohorts purport, neither she, nor her hired guns have been able to provide any evidence to back up their evil allegations against Eritrea. It has been almost three years since Frazer and her accomplices fabricated the outlandish UN reports on Somalia, and to this day, neither Frazer nor her accomplices(Ethiopia, Kenya and the illegitimate TNGs), or any other independent party has been able to substantiate its contents-none. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN Envoy for Somalia for Somalia, has admitted as much.
Pham, who in a recent Washington Post article had the audacity to preach to President Barack Obama about the law, continues to justify Meles Zenawi’s lawlessness and belligerence in Somalia and numerous violations of international law and over two dozen UN Security Council resolutions. Exposing his bias and pro-Ethiopia stance, distorting the facts and deliberately omitting from his latest piece, the Final and Binding decision of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) which was delivered on 13 April 2002, which unequivocally awarded Badme, the casus belli for the 1998-2000 border conflict to Eritrea, Pham attempts to divert the issue by mentioning the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC), a body that chose to address an issue in 2005 that was outside of its Algiers Agreement mandate.
Had Pham done his homework, instead of parroting Meles Zenawi’s tantrums, he would have known that the Algiers Agreement, in addition to the EEBC and EECC, also called for the establishment of a Commission by the African Union and the Secretary General of the United Nations, whose mandate was to investigate the origins of the conflict. The African Union, now an appendage of Menelik Palace has yet to fulfill its obligations under the Algiers Agreements-ditto for the UN. Ethiopia continues to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories, including Badme, in violation of international law.
Eritrea´s principled position on Somalia has been consistent from day one. As far back as 1993, Eritrea has been consistently calling for non-interference in the internal affairs of Somalia and has repeatedly called on the international community to respect Somalia´s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Eritrea does not recognize the Transitional National Government of Somalia, not because of the individuals involved, but because it is an illegitimate regime that has been imposed on the Somali people against their wishes. The previous externally imposed TNGs that have been “propped up” in Mogadishu have been repeatedly rejected by the Somali people, who want to choose their own leaders. Eritrea’s non-recognition of the externally established TNG is not what is destabilizing Somalia; rather it is the Ethiopian invasion and occupation of Somalia and the installing of illegitimate TNGs in Somalia that will be amenable to the West and its allies that has threatened the peace, security and stability in the region.
Like Meles Zenawi, Pham is a flip flopping street smart “intellectual for hire” and knows how to sell his services. The man has no principles. He says one thing today and something different tomorrow, as long as it suits his handlers. There was a time when Pham opposed externally imposed TNGs in Somalia. Here is an excerpt from a piece he wrote before his conversion. On 25 May 2007, in a piece he wrote for the National Review, he said:
“…If anything, the very existence of the TFG – or any central government which in the Somali context is always viewed as an imposition from the outside – is a provocation that invites resistance and gives destabilizing forces an easy entry…”
In another article (“Do Not Resuscitate,” The National Interest Mar.-Apr. 2008) Pham went further to explain why an externally imposed TNG in Somalia would not work. He wrote:
“…It should be clear that the way forward in imported states is not to mindlessly repeat mantras about dialogue aimed at shoring up “transitional governments” that are congenitally incapable of governing. Rather, what is needed is the clarity of vision and the political courage to squarely face the facts on the ground. The interests of the international community, as well as those of great powers (like the United States) most likely to become involved in the conflicted regions like the Horn of Africa, require security and stability. That will not be achieved by propping up inherently illegitimate and destabilizing regimes constructed at some international conference center…”
In a June 2009 article he mocked the TNG led by Sheikh Sharif Ahmed:
“…Even as it was struggling to maintain control of what little bits of its capital it still holds, the TFG continues the charade of being a sovereign government…”
This embedded priest ought to know about charades.
On 02 Jul 09 Pham wrote the following in World Defense Review:
“…What this approach ignores, however, is that if the failure so far of no fewer than fourteen internationally-sponsored attempts at establishing a national government indicates anything, it is the futility—indeed, hubris—of the notion that outsiders can impose a regime on Somalia, even if it is staffed with presumably moderate Somalis duly vetted and anointed by the international community. Instead, in the context of the decentralized reality among the Somali, the concerned international community in general and the United States in particular need to invest the time and resources to seek out local partners who are actually capable of partnering to create a modicum of stability—societal, economic, and, ultimately, governmental—rather than throwing money and arms at a “Transitional Federal Government” which, as a former U.S. ambassador who dealt with Somali issues told me last week, “is neither transitional, nor federal, nor a government.”…”
Is Pham going to accuse this anonymous “former US ambassador”, as he did Eritrea, of being a spoiler, of destabilizing the Horn region? I doubt that.
Pham’s latest hypocritical piece is a perfect example of the dangers inherent in using “intellectuals for hire”. In pursuit of myopic political agendas such greedy, fame seeking individuals like Pham who have no qualms manipulating and distorting the fact lack scholarly integrity and credibility. Seldom held to account for the ramifications of their writings which are always shaped to advance a particular agenda-in this case, absolution of Meles Zenawi’s regime for its numerous international crimes, these “intellectuals for hire” have damaged US credibility and integrity in the world. US Policy for Africa is incoherent and racist because of self serving “advisors” and “analysts” like Pham.
This Islam phobic, incoherent US policy for Somalia is precisely what is threatening to destabilize the entire region. Pham and the other “intellectuals for hire” should be held accountable for the fire they helped fuel in Somalia with their faulty “analysis” and incessant lobbying on behalf of the regime in Ethiopia. With Meles Zenawi, Jendayi E. Frazer instigated and planned the invasion and occupation of Somalia. The pulverization of Somali villages and farms, the deaths of over 12000 innocent civilians, the displacement of over 2 million Somalis, the extra judicial massacres of individuals labeled by Pham and others as being “fundamentalists” and “extremists”, the indiscriminate bombings of Somali markets etc. etc. that followed is the cause behind the greatest humanitarian disaster in the history of Somalia.
The Obama Administration can do itself a favor by investigating Pham´s role in this sordid and destructive affair and ask him why he is hell bent on fueling the carnage in Somalia and campaigning for the dismemberment of Somalia. Whose interests/agenda is he promoting? Certainly, his agenda is not in the best interest of the United States or Somalia…
The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle.
The problem with Jawar’s latest response, “Misunderstanding Nationalism: Rejoinder to Professor Messay Kebede’s Responses,” is that it moves further away from the main reason for our online debate, namely, the piece he wrote about the OLF in which he declares the organization “damaged beyond repair” and repeatedly speaks of its “demise.” His thesis is that inefficient leadership is responsible for this demise. My point was to ask him to look further or deeper, as ideological inappropriateness could also cause inefficiency. It is not clear to me why Jawar absolutely refuses to acknowledge that the ideology of an organization can impact on its efficiency.
My suspicious is that Jawar is now under enormous pressure from other Oromo nationalists. As a result, he effects a reversal: I become an enemy of the OLF while he himself rediscovers terms highly appreciative of the achievements of the organization. This does not come as a surprise since the absolute primacy of group solidarity characteristic of ethnic politics always ends up by silencing critical stands, even if they are legitimate.
That said, I agree with the last paragraph of Jawar’s reply in which he asks us to deal properly with Oromo identity and interest, provided that he tells us how the one-sided affirmation of a particular identity can agree with the need to promote pan-Ethiopian characteristics, without which there is no national unity. My quarrel is never against the affirmation of a particular identity; it is against those who at the same time do not see the need to develop pan-Ethiopian characteristics, not to mention those that are openly secessionists. I invite Jawar to read some of the many articles I wrote in which I promote the notion of a rainbow-nation, that is, a political and cultural solution crowing ethnic claims with a transcendent identity.
As to a detailed assessment of his reply, I make the following remarks:
I. Jawar writes: Messay “refuses to accept that organizational efficiency is primarily a result of strategy and committed leadership.” My reply: how is one to assess the efficiency, strategy, and the level of commitment of an organization without involving its ideology? No need here to come up with a sophisticated definition of ideology: one online dictionary defines ideology as “a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions.” Is it logical to argue that what defines goals, expectations, and actions has nothing to do with efficiency, all the more so as Jawar tells us that “an organization should be evaluated based on stated objectives?” Clearly, wrong objectives can make an organization inefficient.
2. Jawar complains about my “lack of objectivity”; that is why I (and people like me) “underestimate, misunderstand and mishandle nationalist movements.” This appeal to objectivity is baffling when we all know that politics is the clash of different interests. The ideal way of dealing with political conflicts is not by asking the one party to be objective. Not only does this approach forget that politics is the art of concession, but it also creates an imbalance. While the one opponent has the right to be subjective by speaking of the nation he wants to bring to existence, I am asked to silence my feelings about the nation that I want to defend. Rather than objectivity, the right attitude here is the effort to reach mutual accommodation.
3. According to Jawar, “had the OLF ideology failed, there would not exist a land known as Oromia in [the] country.” Maybe I am referring to an imaginary history, but recent events ascertain that Oromia was a gift of the TPLF, which represents another nation. Credit should be given where credit is due, even if it is for a sinister project. At any rate, Oromia was not established by indigenous victorious forces. And if Oromo are invited to be grateful to Tigrean conquerors for the creation of Oromia, I wonder why recognition is not extended to the primary benefactor, who is none other than Emperor Menilik. The latter should be praised for uniting the Oromo under the Ethiopian state, thereby saving them from utter dispersion under different colonial rulers, all the more so as this time Oromo were full participants in the conquest, as witnessed by Ras Gobena’s epic.
4. When Jawar accuses me of underestimating the force of Oromo nationalism, I respond that he has misread my previous article in which I state the following: “if the Oromo had really wanted to separate from the rest of the country, no force on earth could have stopped them.” Obviously, the problem is elsewhere. Jawar reminds me of the sacrifices that Oromo are paying for Oromia. He forgets one important thing, to wit, that more Oromo have died for the integrity of Ethiopia than for Oromia. A superficial look at the ethnic composition of the Derg’s army is enough to evince the enormity of Oromo sacrifices. Instead of one-sided affirmation, let us talk of dual commitment, that is, of ethnic self-assertion but also of common aspiration with other ethnic groups toward a nation based on citizenship or territory.
5. Speaking of Medrek, Jawar says: those who created the organization “have made a U-turn by embracing the reality as it is shown with their swift acceptance of Afaan Oromo as a national language.” Jawar fails to mention that this acceptance was made possible by the unconditional commitment to Ethiopia’s integrity, forcefully expressed through the rejection of secession. In my previous article, I have argued that the ground for mutual concessions is commitment to unity, which I portrayed as the building of a common house. What secessionists refuse to understand is that the so-called right to self-determination up to secession creates a dissimilarity that hinders democratic decisions, as it allows one group to practice political blackmail through the threat of secession unless it obtains all what it wants.
6. For Jawar, the nationalist awakening of the Oromo is a major transformational force, for “without the awakening of the giant, oppressed minorities of the South would still be called “bariya,” “Shanqilla,” “Walamo.” I do not deny that the pressure of Oromo identity constitutes a major force in the Ethiopian politics. However, I ask one more time that credit be given where credit is due. The terms “galla”, “wollamo,” etc., were banned, not by an ethnic political party, but by the Ethiopian student movement and the Derg, which both had multiethnic views. You do not have to be a member of an ethnic party to fight for the equal treatment of peoples’ culture and beliefs. There are no ethnic parties in the US, and yet people are protected in their diversity. As to the main inspiration behind ethnic politics, it is not justice and the equal treatment of peoples; rather, it is the control of state power by elites vying to monopolize scarce resources.
7. I agree with Jawar when he says that “Ethiopia is an unfinished project.” I will even go further by stating that it is a failed project. The reasons for the failure need not preoccupy us here. Even so, I find it hard to believe that ethnonationalist discourse of the kind I am hearing is liable to resume the project. When the whole issue is to marry a native attachment with a transcendent identity, the affirmation of an exclusive form of nationalism is not to finish the project; it is to sabotage it.
8. To underscore the force of nationalism, Jawar asks: “Why did “ethnic” movements outlive class struggle?” In other words, why in Ethiopia did the ethnic movements of the TPLF and EPLF defeat the defenders of socialist revolution? The notion that blood is thicker than interest is precisely the manipulative argumentation that elites use to mobilize the people. I say “manipulative” because it taps natural sentiments associated with relatedness but for the purpose of empowering elites. Both the failures of Leninist socialism and fascist regimes teach us that giving more power to states and elites, whatever their declared aims are—class interest or kinship––is not the road to liberation; the latter occurs through the containment of power. Political liberation is not a family affair. People become free when they limit and divide state power, not when they let it become boundless under the pretext of achieving a cherished goal. What is true of ethics is also true of politics: the end never justifies the means.
9. That is why we should establish political systems in which the primacy of individual and universal rights overtops the criteria of blood, class interest, religion, etc. Unlike the other criteria, individual and universal rights work toward the containment of state power by protecting the individual against unfriendly and seemingly friendly forces. Despite talks of liberation, neither the TPLF nor the EPLF has provided their respective ethnic groups with anything resembling democratic governance. Most disconcerting here is Jawar’s inconsistencies: he speaks of the TPLF and EPLF as models of liberation movements while perfectly knowing their failure, which has only exacerbated Oromo frustration. I conjure Jawar to read Dr. Negasso Gidada’s article portraying the functioning of a Stalinist political system in Wallaga. The spectacle of Oromo elites suppressing the Oromo people in the name of liberation forcefully shows the danger of ethnic politics and the need to place individual rights at the center of the struggle. What the people of Wallega needs is a federal protection of their individual rights. The height of the paradox is that, no less than the Oromo and other ethnic groups, the Tigrean people too need to be rescued by a trans-ethnic state. This is to say that Ethiopian nationalism is none other than the preeminence of individual rights over ethnic states effected through the erection of a trans-ethnic or national federal power.
10. To the question why ethnic movements outlived class struggle, the ultimate answer is that Ethiopian nationalism has been seriously undermined by the failures of socialist ideology. What explains the defeat is not the strength of the ethnic movements, but, as the great Ethiopian historian, Gebru Tareke, puts it in his recently published momentous book, “the revolutionary government ultimately lost because it failed to deliver on its big promises: freedom, equality, and prosperity” (The Ethiopian Revolution: War in the Horn of Africa, p. 2). Indeed the dictatorial method, the divisive goals, and the economic failures of the Derg combined to shatter the efficiency of the armed forces. Contrary to Jawar’s claims, here is a pertinent case of nationalist defeat that was caused by a dissolving ideology. Jawar should have seen the pertinence of the case since he maintains that the Eritrean issue could have been solved if the Derg had “negotiated for ‘Federation.’” Precisely, the inability to negotiate was how Ethiopian nationalism was made inefficient by a totalitarian ideology.
11. Jawar makes me say that “leftist ideology is responsible for growth of ‘ethnic’ nationalism, secessionist demand, and armed struggle” and then contests my alleged statement by citing liberation movements that are not leftist. Yet, my reference to leftist ideology was only echoing his own analysis of the legacy hampering the OLF. To quote him, “OLF is a foster child of the student movement that brought the revolution; as such it shares some common organizational behaviors and characteristics with all other organizations that came out that era, such as the EPRP, TPLF and EPLF”; “the political forces that emerged from the student movement were led by individuals who worshiped Mao Zedong and Stalin, so they embraced such undemocratic, rigid and control freak organizational model.” True, there are non-leftist nationalist movements, but in the particular case of Ethiopia, ethnonationalist movements have originated from a split of the student movement with which they share extremism and a vision of political struggle modeled on a zero-sum game. All the events and tragedies that occurred since 1974 are various manifestations of the rise of elites with ideologies advocating the exclusive control of state power as a means of appropriation of scarce resources. Secessionism or ethnonationalism is one of such manifestations, since it is how elites take up the cause of cultural particularism (language, religion, common descent, etc.) and argue for the natural correspondence between state and culture. In this way, they exclude their rivals as aliens and establish an exclusive entitlement to power.
World Bank continues to finance the tribal junta in Ethiopia that is terrorizing the people in the name of development. The following is a press release by the World Bank.
WASHINGTON – The Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank today approved a $350 million grant and a $130 million credit from the International Development Association to the Government of Ethiopia to support an innovative program that is keeping millions of families out of extreme poverty and helping them to achieve food security.
This financing is for the third phase of the Government of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) which provides transfers to 7.6 million rural citizens in 292 woredas in Afar, Amhara, Dire Dawa, Harare, Oromiya, Somali, Southern Nations and Nationalities (SNNP) and Tigray Regions.
Families participating in the Safety Net Program are the poorest and most food insecure in their communities. They earn a monthly transfer by working on public works projects for six months each year. For those participants who are physically unable to work, the Program provides direct grants. Transfers are predictable and timely, thereby enabling families to plan ahead to meet their food needs and preventing the sale of productive assets.
The PSNP goes beyond providing safety nets; it aims to address the underlying causes of food insecurity. Planned within an integrated watershed management framework, the public works under PSNP are designed to reverse a long history of environmental degradation and increased vulnerability to adverse weather. Since 2008, the Program became more flexible, able to scale-up the coverage, level, and duration of support to households in response to shocks in PSNP areas.
Recent reviews demonstrate that the Safety Net Program has registered some impressive results since its launch in 2005. Household food security has improved, especially when transfers are predictable and delivered on time. PSNP households reported a smaller food gap and consumed more calories (19.2%) in 2008 as compared with 2006.
Households participating in the PSNP have also invested in assets and have increased their use of education and health services. Growth in livestock holdings was 28.1% faster among PSNP households than non-participants. An estimated 73% of PSNP participants reported increased use of health facilities compared to the previous year, and the majority attributed this to the Safety Net Program.
There is strong evidence that the combination of the PSNP and investments in productive assets can improve agricultural productivity. Maize yields increased by 38% among households receiving both PSNP transfers and investments through the Government’s Food Security Program (FSP). Households that received FSP investments alone enjoyed only marginal increases in productivity.
But more needs to be done. The third phase of the PSNP will strengthen implementation to maximize the impact of the Program and will institutionalize the risk financing component of the PSNP, which allows the Program to scale up in response to shocks.
The World Bank will also provide financing to support the Government’s Household Asset Building Program (HABP), which is designed to assist food insecure households in PSNP woredas to transform their productive systems by diversifying income sources, improving productivity and increasing productive assets. The support to the HABP aims to make the program more efficient and effective, thereby maximizing the combined impact of the HABP and PSNP so that together they can support sustained graduation from food insecurity for the poorest households.
“Food aid to Ethiopia in the past was often too little, too late, which meant families were often forced to sell livestock, tools or other productive assets to meet their daily needs,” said William Wiseman, the projects’ task team leader. “These programs are different because they provide support that families can count on – and the infrastructure, credit, and training that they need for long-term food security.”
The Safety Net Program is supported by a consortium of donors, namely, the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States, as well as by the European Union and the World Food Program.
If one asks what the contributions of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England, Britain or The UK is in Africa, the answer will be a long list of crimes against humanity! That is an undeniable historical fact.
Britain divided Africa into pieces along ethnic, religious lines to divide and rule. They stole African resources reaping the benefits and giving nothing back to Africans. They enslaved Africa and used the human resources to develop England. For centuries they plundered, pillaged and raped Africa ruthlessly without any accountability. The British hunted African animals for financial benefits and games leaving a terrible legacy that impacts Africa to this day. They belittled Africans with arrogance and pomposity that reverberates into the psyche of present day Africa like tsunami-waves. They redrew African boundaries in ways that are unfit and unnatural for the people of Africa leaving a negative legacy with consequences that linger to date.
All in all, the impact of Great Britain in Africa has been one horrendous experience for Africans without any consequences for England. The legacies still plague Africa but what is incredible is the relentless audacity of the British to continue on the path of the dead empire. They are unapologetic and straight faced as they pursue their ill-conceived hegemonic agendas using the bully pulpit at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). One such example is what is happening in the Horn of Africa, particularly in Somalia.
Great Britain and Italy partitioned and colonized Somalia for extended duration. Following World War II and after independence, Somalia remained united until 1991. At the end of the Cold War, its president, Siad Barre, was ousted and Somalia became a failed state. Since then peace has eluded the Somalis and they are going through one horrific period at this moment in their history. This is a result of divisions Great Britain and other colonialists sewed as well as the legacies of the Cold War that littered Somalia with armaments.
The West has always been interested in the Horn of Africa region for different reasons. But, over the last ten years the focus has sharpened and the tact has been getting extremely aggressive. The West uses terrorism, regional stability, conflict resolution, democracy, peace, piracy and a host of humanitarian – related issues that arise from inner-conflicts as pretexts to get involved.
Historically and in reality no outside actor can solve problems between two brothers. Conflicts that take place within a country are best left to be resolved by the people. The Europeans as well as the US went through their own struggles and came up with their own solutions. But when it comes to Africa must the Europeans and the US get involved? Are they the best guardians for the interest of African people? Are Africans not capable to solve their own problems? Europeans, England and the US care better about the Somalis than the Somalis and Africans who are directly impacted? Is it crocodile tears?
On Thursday October 08, 2009 Britain’s U.N. Ambassador John Sawers called for sanctions against Eritrea for allegedly supplying weapons to the opponents of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Somalia in violation of a U.N. arms embargo. He cited the African Union, IGAD and a UN monitoring group (a group formed by the former failed Bush Administration diplomat Dr. Jendayie Frazer, avowed enemy of Eritrea) who provided the supporting evidence and the call to action. Previously, in an effort to link Eritrea to terrorism, the same group made-up stories about Eritrean arms shipment to Somalia as well as the claim of 2,000 Eritrean troops fighting alongside the Somali Islamic Court Union (ICU), which turned out to be a fabrication.
The fact is the TFG that is being promoted as a legitimate representative of the Somali people was formed in Djibouti by Dr. Frazer in the wee hours of the Bush Administration by pressuring IGAD and other African leaders. Dr. Frazer excluded the major stake holders and Eritrea from the so called Djibouti-Process and used a weak UN and AU to legitimize it. Dr. Frazer also established a parliament in exile without the participation of the main stake holders, Somali people. Eritrea was vocal in her opposition because the process failed to include the key stake holders and did not allow the Somalis to come with solutions to their own problems.
Eritrea is not the arms supplier of Somalia. The country is awash with arms supplied by Ethiopia. In violation of UN resolutions, Ethiopia sells arms to various Somali factions to fan the flames because the conflict serves its interest. In fact, Ethiopia invaded a sovereign Somali nation occupying it for over two years and committed major crimes against humanities. In addition, The Obama Administration is openly sending arms to Somalia. The US is also openly involved in the Somalia conflict under the pretext of fighting terrorism and piracy. In fact, citing the Grand Rapids Press, Press TV reports US is to make Blackwater-style entry into Somalia.
Eritrea is not a problem, is not the cause of the instability in Somali and not in a position to influence the situation in Somalia in the way they are claiming Eritrea could. Somalia is entirely surrounded by US and her allies making it nearly impossible for any other nation or entity to infiltrate Somalia.
So, why is the British calling for sanctions against Eritrea? Why do the British want to punish the people of Eritrea who are struggling to come out from years of exploitation by the West and from natural calamity?
The Purpose behind the Sanction Call
One of the most useful and important tool the West uses against the people of Iran or countries that don’t tow the line is sanctions or the threat of it. The threat of sanctions is equally as potent as the actual sanction because it discourages investment by scaring investors. If and when investors’ sense uncertainty, they may hesitate to invest. That is how they apply pressure to bring change by frustrating the leadership and people. It also puts pressure on countries like Russia and China for supporting countries the West labels rogue giving the West a PR upper-hand. It is a multi faceted approach that has proven effective and has been working for decades, flawlessly. For that purpose there is no a single day that passes-by without the US or UK talking about Sanctioning Iran.
Conversely, for the first time since her independence Eritrea is openly inviting and attracting foreign investment in various areas. Eritrea is going through some visible and inevitable economic transformation as a result of rich resources the country possesses. Eritrea is undeniably full of resources ready to exploit. Eritrea is also one of the most important strategic locations and very important because she sits in the middle between Sudan and Ethiopia. How Eritrea tilts will impact the geo-political games being played by the US and China. Eritrea is the foundation because if Eritrea falls in the hands of the West the Sudan will fall in a short time because Port Sudan is located very close to Karora in the border of Eritrea and Sudan on the Red Sea.
Therefore Eritrea is a natural buffer for Sudan. The Sudanese understand this and are working closely with Eritrea. This is also taking place in the back drop of the issues in Southern Sudan, Somalia and other fluid dynamic political situations in the region. The stakes are high because it can influence Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and South-Sudan countries that are client states for the US. It possesses far reaching implications than is publicly admitted by the US and the West who are totally focused in the area.
The reality is that there is a renewed scramble for African resources. As the need for these resources grows the desperation of some countries is growing larger. That is precisely what is happening in this case. The strategy they applied in Iraq, though erroneous, was nonetheless effective and they are trying the same strategy in Africa, in this case Eritrea.
Therefore, the British calling for sanctions against Eritrea is a desperate cry that is bound to get louder. All the client regimes in the region spearheaded by the alms-dependent Ethiopia are parroting the sanction song like a new song ad-nauseam. There are new names for Eritrea in think-tank circles names like Eritrea the”Spoiler”. These are the facts.
The Sun Never Sets for the British Empire
Are the British forgetful of the fact that it is their evil design that led to thirty year war for independence costing thousands of Eritrean lives? Do the British truly care about the Somali people?
First of, Britain has no moral authority to call for sanctions against any nation in Africa. If any one should be sanctioned it is Great Britain for all the crimes of humanities it committed, for crimes they have not atoned for, for stealing from Africans for centuries, and most importantly, for the exploiting Africans as slaves.
Secondly, Great Britain needs to return back the goods it looted from Eritrea. The Italian colonizers in Eritrea had built a functional railroad and ropeway (Teleferica) that was an engineering marvel of its time as well as an operational Marine Overhaul Station (Dry Dock) in Massawa. After defeating Italy in World War II, the British Military Administration (BMA) was solely responsible for destroying and looting major part of that system. The BMA also tried to partition Eritrea along religious and ethnic lines unsuccessfully.
Furthermore, The British have no credibility. The Blair Administration openly and blatantly misled the international community with a hoax claim of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) leading up to the Iraq WAR. The whole charade was designed to serve as a pretext to get access to the huge oil reserves in Iraq. It had nothing to do with justice, democracy or concern for the Iraqis.
In addition, The British does not support the Eritrean economy in any way. They don’t import any goods from Eritrea or provide any assistance to the people of Eritrea to make calls like that. Their main contribution is and has been to create problems for the people of Eritrea.
Throwing Stones from a Glasshouse
The mistake the British could make in Africa is to remind Black people of the terrible deed the British committed in Africa. It is also a mistake to call for sanctions to a country one has no economic connection with because that exposes British products worldwide as targets for boycott and rejection unnecessarily.
For example: Eritreans, Ethiopians and Africans in general are major consumers of British products. Smoothly, and for decades the British have sold many products around the globe. In Africa, Johnny Walker is one of the best selling high-end status-drinks that has turned into liquid Gold for the British. The same with cigarettes like Rothman, Dunhill and other cigarette brands. In addition The British do not grow tea but they have sold tea grown in poor countries like Kenya as English tea for decades. These are popular tea products like Twinings of London and many the like.
The government of Eritrea and others could simply prohibit the entry of Johnny Walker into their countries and set a precedent and effectively apply unspoken sanction against these products. It also empowers Africans because they now know they have leverage because they have the power to say NO to British products.
Conclusion
The people of Eritrea have never committed any crimes against the British people. It is arrogant, belittling, racist and stupid to instigate hostility simply because they think Eritrea should be subservient to their whims. The British do not hold the moral authority and they are not better than their Eritrean counterpart in any way.
The Eritrean people are humble, brilliant, hard working, independent, fierce and ready to make history by creating their own path. Eritrea is a nation born in defiance from the hurdles placed by the US and British for decades. Eritreans have no illusion to believe a just view can emerge from Great Britain, United Kingdom, England or Britain because history attests otherwise.
The British need to look at their history and make amends with the past by compensating Africans of lost resources both human and natural that was unlawfully attained. They don’t need to recycle hate and thuggish behavior that is unproductive and inhuman. Hence, it is incumbent upon the British people to engage better by treating Africans equally and live with Africans in peace because they stand to lose a lot if they keep pressing on the wrong path just as they have lost their imperial prowess.
Although this debate began because Professor Messay claimed the ideology of self determination is to be blamed for OLF’s lack of success in the past two decades, he has not shown any evidence to back up his assertion. He has not provided us with a single case where the “right” ideology resulted in success and “bad” ideology led to the failure of insurgency, nor does he explain how exactly advocating for the right to self determination weakened the OLF. Even though I have shown cases where organizations advocating similar ideology produced different results, he refuses to accept that organizational efficiency is primarily a result of strategy and committed leadership. Instead his two articles focused on pointing out the deficiency of self determination as an ideology and he seems to be attempting to drag me into this ideological debate. I refused to engage in such a debate because my article which he reacted to took no side on the ongoing ideological debate. I concluded that ideology was not among the major factors that hindered the organization’s performance.
Reading through Professor Messay’s two essays I have come to realize that the various points he discussed arise from his distaste for “ethnic politics” in general and for the OLF in particular. I believe it is unhelpful to assess organizational performance based on our ideological preferences as doing so would take away our objectivity. Failure or success of an organization should be evaluated based on stated objectives not using what the analyst thinks is a right objective. In my views it is this lack of objectivity that leads many individuals and groups to underestimate, misunderstand and mishandle nationalist movements. In this essay I would like to briefly discuss this issue.
Underestimating Nationalism: OLF’s Ideology, Success beyond Expectation or Bankruptcy?
I challenge Professor Messay’s repeated declaration that OLF’s ideology is bankrupt. I think such an assumption is quite far from reality. Assuming that the ideology he is referring to is the “nationalist agenda”, neither me nor the professor would have been interested in debating this issue had Oromo nationalism not been the most powerful political mobilizing force that is likely to determine the future of the Ethiopian state. Had the OLF ideology failed, there would not exist a land known as Oromia in country where once it was shameful to identify yourself as an Oromo. Had this ideology bankrupted, some 20 million children would not be studying in Afan Oromo, in a place where it was taboo and a sign of backwardness to speak this language.
It’s my understanding that a political ideology is said to be bankrupted when it fails to attract supporters. Yet when we look at OLF’s “nationalist agenda”, it enjoys an incredible level of support across all sectors of the Oromo people despite the very poor performance of the organization. In fact, one can rightly argue that OLF’s biggest accomplishment(“s”) since its inception is artfully articulating and developing Oromo nationalism. The evidence for this is the fact that, although they differ on ways and means of achieving the goal, all Oromo political forces share a unanimous rejection and determination to fight cultural domination, political repression, social alienation and economic exploitation. That is why Oromo nationalists remain the number one threat to the current regime for the last two decades and as a result they make up over 95% of political prisoners as testified by several Ethiopians. This fact will continue to be the case as long as identity based injustice remains the rule of the game.
Hence, unless one kid himself/herself for the sake of the argument, OLF’s ideology has been a success beyond expectation. What led to success of this ideology is clear, it is incredible level of cultural, economic and social repressions by successive tyrants that backfired and broadened alienation of the Oromo and strengthened the spreading of nationalism.
Anyone interested in making practical influence on Ethiopian politics knows that it has long become impossible either to maintain or change the status quo without taking this force into consideration. That is why forces who oppose the demands of Oromo nationalism, both the ruling party and opposition groups, continue to make gradual concession to soften the nationalist position and win their alliances. Cornered with ever increasing uprising, the regime has been instituting reforms such as increasing local autonomy in Oromia and allowing expansion of Afaan Oromo both in academia and in the media. It is to be remembered that hundreds of students were killed in the last decade for these demands to be met. On the other side, opposition groups who in 2005 used the excuse of “no ethnic politics” either to ignore the issue or rally against the gains of the Oromo movement, now have made a U-turn by embracing the reality as it is shown with their swift acceptance of Afaan Oromo as a national language.Remembering that a few years back, some of those individuals organized a rally in Washington DC opposing the extension of time for Afaan Oromo on the VOA, their current move is an encouraging step that should be embraced by Oromo nationalists.
I encourage people to take off their vale of fear for the rising tide of Oromo and acknowledge the many positive contribution this movement had brought for Ethiopians as a whole. Its the awakening of the giant that forced successive regimes to remove state sponsored cultural and linguistic genocidal policy against the South. Without the awakening of the giant, oppressed minorities of the South would still be called “bariya” , “Shanqilla”, “Walamo” and so on by the state media who degrades them while relying on their wealth for financing.
When we speak of Oromo nationalism and its demands, the ‘self-mutilation’ the Professor wants to discuss also has to be analyzed historically. The Oromo are only a demographic majority but has always been a political and social minority. Just 35 years ago a majority of “Ethiopians” never acknowledged that a people called the “Oromo” lived in the greater part of Ethiopia, and that it constitutes of humans with certain dignities and inalienable rights. Thanks to the Oromo nationalists and the Ethiopian student movement, and as well as the sacrifices made by the Left, now the “Gimatam Galla” is accepted as a dignified “Oromo”. There are still remnants of the old, including the Woyane security, who push for an anti-Oromo stand-up comedy in Finfine, but their days are closing. Now, in the third millennia, after notable achievements by the struggle, if Ethiopians demand that Oromo nationalists move to the center and take leadership of democratizing and strengthening unity of the country, that is an understandable quest. But this demand for ‘taking the leadership’ will not echo as genuine, if one purports to demean and destroy Oromo nationalism which brought the movement to the respected position it finds itself now. Oromo nationalist will heed the call for “move to the center” if and only if that ‘call’ is supported by empathy and understanding the sacrifices they made up to this point. Otherwise it sounds like an “Arada”call that lacks genuinety.
That is also why Professor Messays’ call for unity while accusing me of an Amhara hater, without any evidence whatsoever, is a wrong approach. In the typical paternalistic fashion of elites of the dominant culture, he advises me saying “what keeps you in chains is the diatribe against Amhara, Abyssinians and the correlated discourse on the Ethiopian colonization of the Oromo.” Since the Professor is willing to sacrifice facts and along the way his honor, to defend his own ‘ideology’, he seems to have been forced to misrepresent me, while I am alive. I have no diatribe against the Amhara, nor a hang-up on a colonial theory, these are just mind creations of the Professor to appear as the ultimate defender of Ethiopia’s unity. One thing I want to say, however is that, Ethiopia is an unfinished project. All of us have a role in its final shape. But for this to happen the minimum code of conduct is to listen to each other, to feel each other’s pain, and to represent the facts as they are without misrepresenting them. The tactics and machinations which foiled the Ethiopian Student Movement and all the political movements that came in its wake are outmoded and tested by our joint failure to advance mutual understanding. We should try a new way, a new beginning.
Misunderstanding Sources of Nationalism: Elite Manipulation or Manifestation of Grievances?
Highly dismissive of the real cause of nationalism – which is identity based injustice – Professor Messay repetitively accuses “ethnic” elites for manipulating their people. Speaking of Oromo nationalism he asserts that “… what Jawar presents as a fact is not yet a fact; it is an elitist manipulation that uses past mistreatment to justify partition.” What I do not understand is how about the state backed, institutionalized and often violent “counter manipulation” orchestrated by those who oppose these “ethnic” elites? Wasn’t the entire field of academia and state institution exclusively controlled by the “unity or death” group for most part of the 20th century? Has the professor ever thought why a bunch of young college kids were able to convert peasant grievance into nationalism fueled revolutionary force and topple the guys with the “right” idea and the finest army? Why did “ethnic” movements outlive class struggle? It is too easy to dismiss nationalism as “elite manipulation” but we know that such approach has not helped in the past forty years. What those who advocate “unity-at-all-cost” fail to understand are that their violent, disrespectful and often chauvinistic approach to quell ethnic discontent helps fuel nationalism rather than defuse it.
I argued that, it’s not some abstract ideological aspiration that gave birth to ethnic based rebellion, but rather it was identity based political repression, economic exploitation and cultural subjugation. Thus, Eritreans, Tigreans, Oromos and others supported their perspective liberation front’s not because their elites were so effective in making the peasants study Stalin’s work, but because the people were yearning for an end to repression by any means necessary.
It’s this misunderstanding of the source of nationalism which leads the professor to give too much credit to Stalin on the raise of nationalism. For instance he says “According to the Stalinist vision, the liberation of the ethnic group has precedence over the consideration of unity with other groups” I am not a student of Stalin, but I never came across any research that puts Stalin as a good friend of nationalists. On the contrary, Stalin is well known for persecuting his own “Georgian” nationalists, because he ardently believed that the class solidarity of the workers takes precedence over the nationalist interest of the bourgeoisie. As an old student of Stalin, how could the Professor miss this fact? When fact and logic are thrown out the window, it seems there is no turning back but misrepresenting others is also acceptable because it serves a ‘higher purpose’ that of ‘maintaining unity at all costs’. But when trust is sacrificed to win, we will make ourselves the second Meles Zenawi of a different brand.
In connection to this, another issue which the professor keeps bringing up, but fails to substantiate with evidence, is the correlation between leftist ideology, nationalism, secessionism and armed struggle. He asserts that leftist ideology is responsible for growth of “ethnic” nationalism, secessionist demand, and armed struggle. This theoretical argument could have been persuasive four decades ago when the debate was based on assumptions, but now all those assumptions and theories have been tested and we have the benefit seeing real case studies that have made constructing imagined theories unnecessary. The world has been full of secessionist movements that do not advocate Leninist politics. There have been leftist movements who are not secessionist. There have been several secessionist struggles that are not armed. Here are some of the examples that debunk the said correlation.
* The Tibetan movement is a secessionist one but it is neither Leninist nor armed, the same is true for Quebecois secessionist movement in Canada.
* The Farc in Columbia is a leftist armed group but it is not secessionist, the same is true for the Moist in Nepal
* The BJP in India is an ultra-right wing Hindu nationalist movement which is neither armed nor leftist.
* Far left movements have taken power in several Latin American countries without armed struggle.
* At home front, EDU was a feudal party engaged in armed struggle opposing socialism, while EPRP was a leftist armed movement but it was not “ethnic” nationalist.
Many more of such cases can be listed. Therefore the reality is that movements, be it secessionists or those who want to reform an existing state, pick up guns when they think that all other venues and means of advancing their cause are no longer on the table or they avoid armed struggle when they do not see comparative strategic advantage in violent uprising. Hence, Professor Messay is making a very wild conclusion.
The issue of armed struggle leading to subordination has not been the rule as well. The Zimbabweans and South Africans were trained by Ethiopia, but never made them Ethiopia’s satellite. The EPLF was assisted by the West, but it never succumbed to their interest. Maoist China was assisted by Stalin’s Soviet Union, but it didn’t lead to China’s subordination as well. Hence Professor Messay’s argument that getting assistance from foreigners during the armed struggle will necessarily lead to subordination is not supported by life and experience. It’s worth noting here that my criticism of OLF’s relation with Eritrea is based on the nature of the relationship whereby there is neither strategic benefit due to distance from the battlefront, nor has there been tangible financial and logistical support. Worse, being in Eritrea, the leadership insulated itself from pressure and also became a hostage that cannot make independent strategic and institutional decisions.
Mishandling Nationalism: Redress or Repress Grievance
Nationalism is like boiling water, the pot is the repressive system, the heat is repression and grievance is its steam. The solution to such a problem depends at what stage the movement is or how hot the pot is. At an early stage, for instance, you defuse the tension by reducing the heat so you can prevent stream formation. If you miss the first stage and steam has formed, then you must use a combination of strategies which might include reducing the heat, adding cold water and loosening the cover. If it passes that stage, you have no control over the situation as either the pot will explode or the cover could be blown off.
Unfortunately, those who oppose nationalism often increase the pressure instead of systematically defusing such tension. At every stage they increase the heat by stepping repression which helps spreading resentment and galvanizing the oppressed. This often happens because of the gross underestimation of the potential force of grievance. By the time rulers realize their backers the real nature of the problem, they are no longer in the position to influence the outcome.
For instance so much resource and sacrifice was paid to keep Eritrea as part of Ethiopia but the effort was fruitless. Every attempt to crush the movement backfired, strengthening the rebels and further radicalizing their determination. To defuse the Eritrean nationalism and maintain the integrity of the country, Mengistu Hailemariam and his “Abiyotawi Ethiopia or Death” supporters could have negotiated for “Federation”, well before the political will for such consideration became null. And such an outcome wouldn’t have become considered a ‘defeat’ as the Professor suggested. It would have been a win-win situation. In fact, in 1981 EPLF had made the proposal for such negotiation, but was not accepted by the Dergue because it was believed EPLF was initiating a “referendum” talk because it was weakened militarily. The Professor should have learnt from his own experience from the Dergue years, that ‘politics is the art of compromise’ and not a place to shine with high sounding slogans.
The Way A Head
One might dislike the OLF or another might wish that Oromo nationalism never came to surface. These are good wishes given we add that the repressive systems that gave birth to the movement should have never existed at the first place. Now we have to deal with the reality. Oromo nationalism is a reality and we better come to terms with it and develop a strategy so that it can be channeled towards the common good. I believe that Oromo nationalism, properly understood, effectively organized and led by committed and visionary leadership, could be the greatest force, in cooperation with other movements, that can uplift the country and the wider region from the never ending crisis.
Towards this I propose that opponents and proponents of the movement understand the situation for what it is: Oromo Nationalism is borne out of identity-based injustice by successive regimes that culturally subjugated and ridiculed the Oromo reducing them to subhuman condition on their own land. It’s also a manifestation of grievance from economic marginalization of these people by forces who exploit their resources. Thus, opponents of this movement should understand that such social dynamics cannot fade away under repression or by condescending slogans such as extremism, tribalism or cover up of historical injustice. If those Ethiopians who genuinely lose their sleep over the balkanization of their country, love it earnestly and wish for a better future, they must embrace reality and work towards bringing a democratic, fair and integrated country. In short a justice based on fairness. Oromo nationalists should also know that the objective of the movement is not to “defeat” the oppressor, but to uplift our people. As such we need to overcome our bitterness that was caused by fresh scars of a century long process of dehumanization. As Paulo Freire nicely put it “the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed is to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well”. It is not enough to blame others for all the wrongs and expect difference; we must take leadership to bring about mutual understanding. I hope to say more on this in my upcoming essays.
