1. The political landscape in Ethiopia bristles with an array of groups and forces that have declared themselves to be, in one way or another, friends of Western industrial powers, chiefly the USA and EU, and, as such, subscribing to the values of democracy, the market (capitalist) economy and human rights as defined by those powers. At the same time, each and every one of the groups invariably professes to be the sole custodian of the popular aspirations for freedom, liberty, prosperity and general well-being. In other words, while a reading of their political programmes and manifestoes suggests the existence of broad, common themes that all of them share, none of them is eager to concede that such is the reality or that it is at all possible. The desire to stand alone and appear to be totally independent of others runs so deep that any apparent similarity, even identity, of objectives is vehemently denied.

2. Another major spectacle the political forces in Ethiopia display is the absence of any sense of historical, geographical (spatial) or temporal perspective in their thinking or practice. Reading their literature or listening to them, one will be left with the impression that the world is still in the 17th or 18th centuries, if not earlier. Thus the Oromo Liberation Front has championed, and is constantly calling for, a re-enactment of the wars that the Oromo people lost during the rough and tumble period in Ethiopian history (lasting roughly the second half of the second Millennium) when contests to dominate the Ethiopian state took all manners of shapes and involved forces as disparate as currently arraigned to snatch power from the TPLF/EPRDF. Others too entertain the same views though with diverging emphases and pursuits. The TPLF is increasingly veering towards re-establishing the Tigrayan dynasty that lost the Ethiopian crown to Shoa after Yohannes IV. Naturally, it does not own up to this; it pontificates, instead, on its concoction of ‘revolutionary democracy’ whereby a facade of democracy is maintained (in particular to appease foreign powers who demand it these days even from their puppets) but the role of the state and its institutions have been fashioned in accordance with the whims of a small group at the top and in furtherance of their sectarian goals. Shameless arguments of ‘our time has come’ have even been openly peddled by a few Tigrayan intellectuals to resurrect and support the ascendancy of a Tigrayan aristocracy long considered dead or hopeless. This time, of course, the objective is not to create a landed aristocracy but an industrial-financial one (based it happens on transferring state assets by sheer abuse of power and sometimes under the cover of ‘privatisation’).

3. The absence of perspective has a direct bearing on the activities of political groups. It is virtually impossible to discover a political programme among the political groupings in Ethiopia that offers clear alternatives to the ongoing perpetual decline of the country and the course of self/destruction most of them engage in. The perennial jockeying for power among these groups aims at excluding everyone else and, as a consequence, the politics of the land has turned into a ‘war of all against all’. The fact that practically all of them have signed up to subservience to foreign governments, especially the US and EU, and their policies for countries like ours has not dissuaded them from adopting such a path. In other countries, like-mindedness in programmes would generally persuade groups to merge or, at the very least, work together. Thus, upwards of four groups operate under the umbrella of freedom and liberty for the Oromo people; yet, they have not been able to create a unifying platform among themselves, leave alone solve the problem of freedom for a huge chunk of Ethiopia (Oromia) without freedom for all of it! To cite another example, the Hibret groups (both domestic and foreign-based) stand to all intents and purposes on the same pedestal as that of the Kinjit; nevertheless, they make it appear that they would prefer to work with the devil rather than join forces.

4. To understand these anomalies, one should look beyond the repeated declarations of Ethiopian political groups about their commitments to democracy and justice. The concept of power among most groups is still synonymous with warlordism and fiefdom. They view the role of the general public as one of onlookers and silent supporters–one might add, just as was during the imperial era. They equate the value of democracy and the need to earn the popular mandate to govern as merely peripheral to their pursuit of conquering the state; they consider them to be inconveniences, if they themselves are in power (just as during the reign of Haile Sellasie I, then the Dergue, now the TPLF), or as one of the means of gaining access initially (virtually all groups). In other words, democracy is perceived as a means of confirming one’s claims to hold on to or gain power rather than as a foundation for popular self-rule or self-determination. Very few among the individuals at the helm of the political groups are sworn to live and die by its principles. On occasions when assertion of those principles could have had a profound impact on the political process, many have been found wanting in one respect or another. In recent times, those expelled from the TPLF leadership (Gebru Assrat & Co.) had lacked a grasp of those principles and never asserted (practised) them while they were in positions of power and influence and until after they themselves fell victim to the dictatorship that everybody else but them had witnessed and deplored. To cite another instance, one of the young pretenders who made his name by open denunciations of the autocratic rule of the TPLF and its many misdeeds, Lidetu Ayalew, did not understand, or assert, the roles of those principles in the political process when he was on the ascendancy in the merger with other groups to form the Kinjit. Instead of working out within his own organisation, in an open and democratic manner, the necessity for such a merger and the modality of its implementation, he cried (literally!) foul about the manner of his ouster from the key positions he had apparently desired to gain (a subject of an entire book he wrote) after the fact, namely on his personal defeat, and reneged on his party’s agreement to merge. It is interesting to note that his personal wounds affected all his judgements and post-merger activities leading even his own erstwhile supporters to doubt whether he was a democrat at all, whether he had abandoned fighting against the dictatorship side by side with other groups, including even the Kinjit.

5. The fact of the matter is that, although many would not admit it, the current dominant thinking among the political elite borders on feudal parochialism and autocratism. Clearly, despite the destruction of the aristocracy in Ethiopia, one of the potent consequences of the 1974 Revolution, their sway continues in the ideological and cultural fields. Open debate still trails behind secrecy and gossip, declarations of real beliefs and aims are snowed under by smokescreens and subterfuge, the critique of ideas always takes second place to character assassinations, slander, misrepresentation and the like. It may be instructive to compare two books published in Addis over the last two years in Amharic pertaining to the current conditions and the possible ways out of them. Lidetu Ayalew and Gebre Kidan Desta’s books are remarkable by their exposition of feudal self-adulation and the absence of ideas which seek to take Ethiopia forward. The authors lament, respectively, the real or imagined loss of their personal or group positions. Lidetu screams about the unfairness and devious methods used to dislodge him from his expected top position in the Kinjit without at any moment pointing to the lapse in either the democratic process or the weaknesses, if any, in the democratic cause that the Kinjit sought to champion. If his disagreement was about the lack of a democratic process in effecting the merger or the content of the programme being drawn, then his best option must have been to alert, and appeal to, his own organisation for a suitable solution. In reality, as he has written in his book, he had issues not with any of these but with some of the figures who later became senior leaders of the Kinjit. Gebre Kidan (in his book, ¾ƒÓ^à I´w“ ¾ƒU¡I}™‹ c?^ Ÿƒ“”ƒ eŸ³_) similarly attacks the views of what he calls the enemy of the Tigray people (the ‘Ankoberites’) simply because those people oppose the TPLF for one reason or another. His denunciations of the Ankoberites is not based on proof that the TPLF has instituted democracy in Ethiopia but on linking them with their apparent support for Emperor Menelik whom he views as a traitor to Emperor Yohannes IV. Curiously, through his vigorous defence of Yohannes IV and denunciation of Menelik and the Ankoberites he projects a historical link between the TPLF and Yohannes IV and some sort of justification for re-establishing the supremacy of the TPLF-led Tigrayan elite over the Ethiopian state lost after Menelik’s ascent to power. Although his exposure of the narrow-mindedness of the present-day ‘Ankoberites’ is generally appropriate, at no point does he seek to subject the TPLF to any criticism for its failure to embrace the values of democracy and its lack of appreciation of what its ascendancy over the Ethiopian state demanded of it. Indeed, Gebre Kidan’s unquestioning loyalty to the TPLF and refusal to take it to task even based on the pleas of the ex-TPLF group of leaders to the Tigray people consign his book to an apology for the feudal parochialism and autocracy that the TPLF has reverted to over the years. It would therefore not be surprising if Gebre Kidan took his tirade to its logical conclusion and recommended the formal crowning of a Yohannes V for Ethiopia today.

6. The limitations of the current political movement for change in Ethiopia in terms of a pronounced absence of democratic and libertarian values, even at the level of the respective leaderships, explain the proliferation of egoistic but inept individuals as well as unprincipled, even wishy-washy, organisations. As far as such persons and groups are concerned, the establishment of a network of persons equips them with the tools to stake their claims over the Ethiopian state, to the exclusion of everyone else, if possible, but at any rate with ambitions towards it. The fact that most would not countenance integrating with other groups to create larger organisations is not only symptomatic of the strong desire to capture power alone and not to share it without any one else, thus creating a fiefdom, but also of the dearth of understanding of what the democratic alternative entails. The long-standing disdain for the ordinary man or woman that the feudal autocracy has planted in the minds of the elite (notably the present-day politicians) translates into discounting them as a potent force for social and political transformation. The real meaning of democracy to the political groups (whether aspirants or incumbents) in Ethiopia therefore is an involvement of those ordinary men and women only when absolutely necessary. Where access to political power and wealth are available through other channels (such as by order of the US or EU to the incumbents, a military coup or armed insurrection supported by whoever is willing including the Mullahs in the region), the role of the populace will be unceremoniously ignored. Before it got into power, the TPLF was one of the organisations which advocated profusely the need to establish a democratic state (I´v© S”Óe+). Indeed, having got rid of the entire army and many other organs of the state on assuming power in 1991, it was in the unique position of starting from a clean slate. If democrats were at its helm, they could have embarked on an unparalleled era of social transformation in Ethiopia. Yet, the morning after its capture of power, it mounted attacks on the very people who had been eagerly waiting for an alternative to the diabolical military rule of the Dergue; it suppressed democratic liberties and excluded from the transitional government all other political forces save those who accepted its total domination. In other words, it re-installed the rule of the gun shortly after ending the 17-year period of Dergue rule. No wonder, people quickly dubbed its rule ‘Dergue II’.

7. The serious question that needs to be tackled today consequently is whether there are any political forces with a sufficient depth of grasp of, and firm commitment to, democratic values that can single-handedly or in cooperation take hold of the state and transform it into a democracy? It may come as no surprise to the reader that we do not find even a single force that qualifies currently for such a historical task. Although elements of democratism may be found among many groups, they do not express themselves on all occasions or fully. The secretive nature of discourse among and within Ethiopian political groups makes it extremely difficult for the democratic elements to assert themselves and gradually overtake the rampant feudal-parochial thinking that remains dominant within those groups. To be sure, the rise of Jacobins or Young Turks is not conditioned on the prior existence of a full-fledged democratic movement as they are supposed to spring into action from the moment they grasp the necessity for change. However, at least during the post-War Ethiopian historical period, the Patriots followed by the reformists and the revolutionaries did not mange to stamp their authority on the rising wave of opposition to imperial rule. The lack of an organisation to spearhead their aspirations always left them vulnerable to the powers that be. Even when, finally, organisations started to emerge in the 70s and 80s, the dominant group (EPRP) was seized by the obsession to snatch power from the ‘illegitimate’ Dergue and sacrificed everything else to that objective; its resort to ‘urban guerrilla tactics’ and total shutdown of any internal democracy (including the killing of some of the leaders and an emerging opposition) led to widespread state reprisals and the decimation of the same group and other democratic forces. The resulting demise of the Jacobins in Ethiopian history has left a gap that remains unfilled to this day.

8. In our view, the drawbacks of the currently sprawling groups in grasping democracy and practising it can be overcome in one of three ways. The first path is that of democratising them gradually, by effecting an internal transformation. Such an attempt has been in evidence in respect of the OLF and the Kinjit. Though not much is known of what is transpiring within the OLF, various sources suggest that it has had many internal upheavals and changes. Berhanu Nega’s personal account of the events and circumstances that led to the merger of the various groups into Kinjit and its participation in the 2005 elections as well as pitfalls indicates the existence of a similar process within Kinjit. Though couched as personal experiences and a political manifesto of sorts, the book represents a systematic exposition of alternative views to those held and practised by the governing party. Considering the internal dissonances and disarray that the Kinjit manifested in the period before the incarceration of its entire leadership (covered in an earlier article by the author, “Post-Election 2005 Ethiopia–A Sketch of Political Trends and Follies”), the book provides a programmatic guide for its unification and growth. One would have to wait and see whether it will serve as a tool for consolidation and resurgence of the Kinjit in the direction that Berhanu has charted. It is not difficult to judge at this stage that, in the conditions of the grip of feudal-parochial, sometimes also fascist, sentiments and thinking that prevails among the broadest membership, such a transformation will be, at the very least, long and arduous. The manner in which the internal squabbles over legitimacy within the ‘Kinjit International Leadership’ has been, or failed to be, dealt with portrays the persistent nature of the problem. No movement can become democratic virtually through a public pronouncement alone unless it begins to breathe and practise its principles. The Kinjit also has the unenviable task of proving to ALL Ethiopians that they should not fear from its prominence, that all its members subscribe to complete equality and non-discrimination. In particular, it needs to weed out, first from its leading ranks then from everywhere, persons who preach and promote plain racism under the guise of fighting the TPLF dictatorship (or the moronically phrased ‘TPLF Tigrayans’) or ‘ethnic politics’.

9. A second path for grasping democracy and practising it is to create a ‘Young Turk’ movement from scratch. Understandably, the demise of the first true attempt to create a democratic movement in Ethiopia has left behind many negative experiences. The idea of a radical transformation of society is being shunned in favour of either foreign tutelage or electoral democracy and the operation of market forces. Both options in the end count on incremental changes that might drag Ethiopia out of the morass it finds itself in–in effect along the lines of what has happened to many an African nation. However, the results of such a process have been all too familiar in those nations: unending decay, social and economic dislocation, disease and poverty. Leaving Ethiopia to the global economic and political forces and whatever they might bring about will end in the same way. Thus the adoption of novel or, better still, smart solutions to get it out of the current rot will be in urgent demand. Therein lies the rationale for the emergence of a ‘Young Turk’ movement, or shall we say, a ‘Young Ethiopia’ movement. Its objectives would be the renewal of that historical nation by installing a democratic regime and introducing radically new solutions to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

10. A third path for democratising Ethiopia is through the creation of the broadest consensus and convergence among the currently active political forces and groups. It has been argued above that there is no single force capable of spearheading democracy in Ethiopia, nor do we see a forceful expression of the values of liberty, justice and self-rule among any section or group within them. Where individuals have set out such objectives for the political forces to embrace (an example is the ‘Citizens Charter’), there still remains the absence of a forum for disseminating and critiquing them through debate and open political exchanges. Clearly, because weaknesses span groups and individuals engaged in the political process, it would be ideal to bring them all (especially the groups) together in the interest of the broadest section of the population and to try to paper over cracks in democratic thinking and practice. The alternative would be to engage in the spectacle of perennial somersaults of political groups in their pursuit to take over power from each other even with the full knowledge that none is more legitimate or mass-based than the rest. Ethiopians should not be exposed to the danger of one power-hungry group or another masquerading as democrats or liberators taking over from the TPLF only to discover the morning after that the rule of the gun has again won the day.

11. The call for consensus and convergence among political groups becomes all the more necessary because of the global forces arraigned against such nations as Ethiopia with a view to harnessing their natural and human potentials for the former’s economic and technological progress. While such forces represent a veritable danger for a total decline, even wipe out, of the entire country (not to mention that of sections that myopically seek to secede), only a unified political movement and solidly constructed national objectives can withstand their onslaught. Where, as it currently stands, political groups are allied to one foreign power or another and profess all kinds of wild dreams (Ogadenia!), the chances of rebuilding the economy will remain theoretical, forget the need to democratise the state. A by-product of creating the broadest consensus among political forces is the provision of space for alternative views and the growth of a new political culture. The remains of the Jacobins and any newly emerging ‘Young Ethiopia’ movement would have all the room they will desire to grow and supply leaders for the nation.

12. It would seem completely proven that the era of cyclical power plays in Ethiopia must come to a close if those devoted to its people and wishing to initiate a revival of the nation are to succeed. The creation of the broadest alliance of political movements and groups will be absolutely indispensable not only to take over from the TPLF but also to prevent any future repeat of decades-long dictatorship where the nation’s resources are squandered, freedom and democracy are mere smokescreens for dictatorial rule and society sinks further and further into poverty, disease and total decline. Finally, it must be noted that only such a power shift will equip Ethiopia to meet the challenges that globalisation throws at her. Any other formula will not disable the currently rife factional/fractional politics from continuing to endanger her standing presently and in the future.

The author would like to dedicate this piece to the memory of Yohannes Petros who died suddenly last week in London, England.

Assafa Endeshaw, London, England
February 2007

February 19, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:
In your second inaugural speech on January 20, 2005, you made a magnificent promise to all people in the world who endure under despotism and dictatorship, “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” We Ethiopian Americans commend you for your steadfast commitment to the cause of liberty throughout the world.

Ethiopians Have Responded to Your Promise

Mr. President, on May 15, 2005, Ethiopians rapturously responded to your promise, and stood up for liberty and democracy. Over 26 million of them — over 90 percent of the registered voters — stood up at the polling stations throughout the land and cast their ballots to choose their government, and to peacefully petition the seasoned practitioners of tyranny and oppression to stand down.

On that fateful day, Mr. President, Ethiopians did what has never been done in their ancient country’s history: They chose their leaders freely; and spoke directly to their present rulers and told them they are tired of 15 years of one-party rule. They want change. They want a country where the rule of law reigns supreme, and human rights and civil liberties are respected.

But human rights, democracy and justice remains elusive in Ethiopia, even today. One hundred and eleven prisoners of conscience who have been held in detention for nearly a year and half — many of them top leaders of opposition parties and members and human rights defenders — were told to come to court today to find out their fate. But when they showed up after months of calculated and malicious delay, they were told once again to come back. So justice is delayed and denied once more. Such, Mr. President, is the elaborate shell game the present rulers of Ethiopia play with justice, and the human rights of innocent victims of a wrongful and vindictive government prosecution.

Ethiopians Ask If the United States will Ignore Their Oppression

Mr. President: Those accustomed to ruling by force and intimidation have defiantly refused to heed the collective voice of their people, and allow a peaceful transition to democracy. They have cynically dismissed the prudent advice of the international community, and refused to conform their conduct to the rule of international human rights law. They continue to cling to power despite universal exhortations for national reconciliation and dialogue.

In the aftermath of the May, 2005 elections, Mr. President, Ethiopia’s rulers have chosen the path of repression, and unleashed violence against the civilian population unmatched in the recent annals of political savagery. An official Inquiry Commission set up by Zenawi’s regime, in its briefing to the United States Congress, documented the wanton killings of 193 unarmed protesters, and wounding of 763 others over a 14 day period in June and November, 2005. The Commission also documented the imprisonment of 30,000 suspected political opponents.

But, Mr. President, the catalogue of flagrant human rights abuses is not limited to atrocities committed over these few days. Zenawi’s regime continues to engage with impunity in extrajudicial killings of opponents, and presently holds thousands of political prisoners throughout the country. Zenawi’s regime has criminalized the exercise of the basic rights of free speech, assembly and the press, and continues to use the criminal justice system for political ends. Opposition leaders and human rights defenders continue to be subjected to prolonged prosecution and detention for pretended offenses, and judges have been inducted in the service of political partisanship. The regime has erected an extensive security apparatus and dispatched swarms of malignant mercenaries throughout the land to harass, intimidate, persecute and wreak havoc on the lives of the people. And for good measure, the current rulers of Ethiopia in their unrestrained hubris, continue to thumb their noses at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other related conventions necessary for the public good.

Mr. President, to borrow the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the Ethiopia’s rulers today continue with impunity their “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny.”

Ethiopians Ask If the United States will Excuse Their Oppressors

Mr. President: Today, Ethiopians ask whether you will honor your promise and stand with them, or excuse their oppressors. As Ethiopian Americans, we do not believe for a moment that you will stand on the side of those who have perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on thousands of unarmed protesters, imprisoned thousands of ordinary men and women on suspicion of political opposition, and jailed the rightful representatives of the people. We believe you will keep your promise and stand with all who stand up for liberty.

But our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia are not sure, and so they ask: “Will you excuse their oppressors, or stand with them?”

Two Types of Ethiopians in the World Today

Mr. President: There are two kinds of Ethiopians in the world today. There is an infinitesimal number of Ethiopians upon whom God has shed his grace and live with dignity, respect and hope in the greatest nation in the world, the United States of America, and other parts of the free world. And there are millions upon millions who live in their homeland seared in the flames of withering tyranny and oppression.

But the suffering masses of humanity in Ethiopia are not strangers and nameless people to be pitied from a distance. They are, Mr. President, our kinsfolk — our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, grandmothers and grandfathers, and neighbors, and countrymen and women.

As Lincoln has taught us, half the people can not bask in the sunlight of freedom while the other half struggles in the darkness of oppression. We, Ethiopian Americans, can not stand mute living under the beneficence of the American Constitution while our kinsfolk suffer under the sweltering heat of oppression.

Duty of Freedom Loving Ethiopian Americans

Mr. President: As free Ethiopian Americans, we have a solemn duty to help those we have left in Ethiopia. It is a duty that geminated in the magnificent promise you made to the world’s oppressed: “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” When those we have left behind in the land of our birth stand up for liberty, it is our duty to stand with them, by them; and with you, Mr. President, and the American people standing by our side.

As Ethiopian Americans, Mr. President, we bring to your attention the daily solicitations of our loved ones: “Isn’t there anything we can do to help them as Ethiopian Americans using the mighty Constitution of the United States of America? Isn’t there anything the American people can do to help them rise from under the yoke of tyranny and oppression?

Must American taxpayers bankroll their oppressors?”

Illusions of Hope

Mr. President, the great American patriot, Patrick Henry, facing similar tyranny and
despotism as contemporary Ethiopians said: “It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.” And looking over the past 15 years, Ethiopians are beginning to wonder if their aspirations for liberty are merely idle indulgencies in the illusions of hope.

Mr. President, the present rulers of Ethiopia have spurned and ignored all demands for justice and liberty; and have responded to their peoples’ petitions for democratic rights by inflicting upon them unspeakable violence and injury. They have categorically rejected the intercession of the international community — to release all political prisoners and their leaders who languish in prison, to institute the rule of law, to seek peaceful reconciliation — with contempt and derision. All efforts to institute the rule of law and ensure respect for human rights have been reduced to a distant illusion of hope.

In vain, Ethiopians now ask: How much longer must they languish under withering oppression? When will they breath the fresh air of liberty? Will America shut its eyes as they are transformed into lifeless mannequins by a totalitarian government?

But we Ethiopian Americans refuse to believe America will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to their plight. We believe there is real hope so long as the millions of Ethiopians remain armed in the holy cause of liberty. There is hope, because as Patrick Henry said: “There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.” And as Ethiopian Americans, we know you and the American people will fight with us, alongside us, and with God’s will, help bring the blessings of liberty and human rights to those we have left behind.
Counter-terrorism and Human Rights

Mr. President: When you addressed the United Nations General Assembly last September, you spoke passionately of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and “the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.” You said, “This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.”

Mr. President: Ethiopians know all too well the scourge of terrorism that has been unleashed on the world. They appreciate and support America’s role in spearheading the struggle against these elusive forces of evil. You should rest assured that Ethiopians wherever they are will never abandon America in its struggle against global terror. Never! Never! Never!

But, Mr. President, America must also never, never, never abandon the cause of human rights in Ethiopia. As you have eloquently pointed out, we can defeat extremism by making it possible for ordinary men and women to freely determine their own destiny, and by upholding those principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. America must stand by Ethiopians as they strive to build a democratic society where there are no arbitrary arrests or detentions, where citizens are free from torture, cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment, where those accused of criminal offenses are given a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, and the rights of free speech, press, assembly and petition for grievances and privacy are respected, and the rule of law reigns supreme.

Mr. President, in March, 2005, at the National Defense University, you said: “When a dictatorship controls the political life of a country, responsible opposition cannot develop, and dissent is driven underground and toward the extreme. And to draw attention away from their social and economic failures, dictators place blame on other countries and other races, and stir the hatred that leads to violence. This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off.”

We agree with you. In Ethiopia the “status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off.” The status quo must change. But there are those who will resort to duplicity and chicanery to preserve the status quo. They have now embarked on a global diplomatic and public relations offensive to draw attention away from their nauseating record of gross human rights abuses. They blame their neighbors and stir up fear against them; and by spreading rumors of war seek to create alarm and plunge the international community in historic regional conflicts. But Mr. President, these are also the very same ruffians who rule not by the consent of the people, but by force of arms and intimidation; and now seek to conceal their monstrous crimes against humanity in a wicked litany of anti-terror rhetoric. They have no credibility.

But, Mr. President, America’s abiding support for human rights should not be deflected by artful propaganda, bogus regional crises, savvy disinformation campaigns or other clever political trickery and deception. We echo your words when we say the fight for human rights is fundamentally a fight against terrorism; and we believe the “world beyond terror” that you spoke of to be a world in which human rights are truly respected and upheld, and the dignity and liberty of ordinary men and women preserved and protected under the rule of law.

America Always Keeps Its Promises

Mr. President, last June you said, “When America gives its word, it keeps its word.” We believe you will keep your word that America will stand with the oppressed when the oppressed stand up for liberty. Now that Ethiopians in Ethiopia have stood up for liberty, we Ethiopian Americans and Ethiopians in the Diaspora ask you to stand tall with us as we stand together in brotherhood and sisterhood for human rights and democracy in Ethiopia. We ask you to stand with us and exert the moral authority of the American people, and condemn those who brazenly and flagrantly violate international human rights law, and seek to drag humanity back to the age of barbarism.

Now Is the Time to Stand Up For Human Rights in Ethiopia

Mr. President, now is the time to stand up with the Ethiopian people. Now is the time to stand up for human rights in Ethiopia. Now is the time to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Ethiopia, and to demand freedom for all jailed opposition leaders and human rights defenders. Now is the time to demand justice: “Bring the killers and those who ordered the killing of 193 men and women and children to account for their crimes.” Now is the time to declare: “All who violate the human rights of their people will have to account for their crimes before the bar of justice.” Now is the time to state with conviction: “America has had enough! American taxpayers will no longer bankroll tyrants and dictators!” Now is the time to candidly tell Ethiopia’s dictators. “Stop playing games with human rights. Stop making a mockery of democracy.” Now is the time, Mr. President, to proclaim to the Ethiopian people: “It’s high time for you to enjoy the blessings of freedom, democracy and human rights! America stands by you!”

Please Stand With Us and Support H.R. 5680 — “The Ethiopian Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Advancement Act”

Mr. President, there is a simple way you can stand with Ethiopians and help advance the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia: Support H.R. 5680.

This bill provides for a comprehensive scheme to advance democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. First and foremost, it demands the release of all prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia, including opposition party and civic leaders. It provides ample resources to undertake institutional capacity building, including technical assistance to perfect the electoral process, strengthen legislative bodies, political parties and civil society organizations, assist in the development of an independent judiciary and professionalize the prosecutorial agencies, foster the growth of independent private journalism and promote the privatization of the electronic media, facilitate the free operation of human rights defenders and organizations, and promote reconciliation efforts between government and civil society organizations and opposition elements, among other things. This past October, the bill passed with full bipartisan support in the 50-member House International Relations Committee.

Mr. President, in the words of the great American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, in H.R. 5680, America offers Ethiopia a promissory note for $20 million in down payment to promote freedom, democracy and human rights. But instead of accepting and cashing this note in the bank of democracy and human rights and spreading the blessings of liberty to the people, the present rulers in Ethiopia have hired a mighty army of lobbyists to defeat this bill, hoping to extinguish forever the yearning for freedom of the Ethiopian people. But with your support, Mr. President, we will prevail against any army that threatens liberty and human rights.

Mr. President, you have said, “Americans, of all people, should not be surprised by freedom’s power. A nation founded on the universal claim of individual rights should not be surprised when other people claim those rights. Those who place their hope in freedom may be attacked and challenged, but they will not ultimately be disappointed, because freedom is the design of humanity and freedom is the direction of history.”

Mr. President, we Ethiopian Americans say: “Amen!” and “Hallelujah!”

Mr. President: As an Ethiopian American, the greatest reward and honor that I have received is the opportunity to defend the American Constitution and American liberties in the courts of the realm, and to prepare young Americans to understand, appreciate and defend this great instrument of government. Those who have had the good fortune of making close acquaintance with our Constitution are able to discern its meaning and relevance to all those who live beyond America’s shores. Though the words of this great Constitution and the liberties enshrined in it speak directly to Americans, Mr. President, its spirit, its genius lifts the world’s oppressed and the wretched of the earth from the depths of their despair. So, on behalf of all Ethiopians who have heard your call and stood up for liberty on May 15, 2005, we Ethiopian Americans now ask you to stand with us, and by us.

Please support H.R. 5680.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Sincerely,

Alemayehu G. Mariam, Ph.D., J.D.
Professor of Political Science &
Attorney at Law

cc:
Vice President Richard Cheney
Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary State
Jendayi Fraser, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Representative John Boehner, U.S. House, Minority Leader
Representative Steny H. Hoyer, House Majority Leader
Representative James E. Clyburn, House Majority Whip
Representative Roy Blunt, House Minority Whip
Representative Tom Lantos, Chair, House Committee on International Relations
Representative Donald Payne, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
Representative Chris Smith, U.S. House of Representatives
Representative Michael Honda
Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
Senator Russ Feingold, Chair, Subcommittee on African Affairs
Senator Richard Durbin, U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate Minority Leader
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Ambassador Donald Yamamoto

By Ahmed osman

The pre-emptive doctrine, the notion that militarily powerful countries can topple regimes they do not like using their superior armies and then expect to be received by the citizens in the occupied territories as heroic liberators, is the height of folly. Yet, as has been observed before, if there is anything we learn from history, it is that we do not learn from history. The recent invasion of Ethiopia has created an atmosphere of hatred and civil war that has been halted by the Islamic Courts in the last six months. Consequently, the Western world, African countries and Arab League, including experts of Horn Africa and UN unanimously agree that Somalia badly needs a constructive dialogue between the TFG and all parties involved in Somalia’s conflict; in other words, the weak regime of warlord, Abdullah Yusuf who is flip-flopping should be pressed to form an inclusive government.

The recent American adventure in Somalia displays President George W Bush administration’s utter disregard for the precepts of international law and its bull-headed contention that the war on terror can be prosecuted as an entirely military affair. Any observer in Somalia will point out that the country has an extremely complex social and political structure, and solutions to the plight of its long suffering people demand equally complex solutions. It is worth noting that the latest impasse in the country derives directly from American actions and the dictator regime of Ethiopia that is governed by Meles Zenawi who is exporting his political crisis to another country. Meles has recently called the Cayeer Somali clan and aim at pitting Somali against each other so that Somali will never see the light of a strong government where he will be comfortable to rule Somali Region administered under his dictatorial regime.

Their ill-advised support for a group of warlords in an “anti-terror” initiative outraged ordinary Somalis and enabled the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) to galvanize support as it routed the warlords and claimed power. The American support for the warlords was an act of staggering shortsightedness. It neglected the complex issues in the country and, above all, signaled support for warlords who have harassed ordinary Somalis with extortion and corruption for too long. Somalis people have the right to live peacefully as in any citizen of this planet. Both US and Ethiopia have violated basic international law by inflicting its own hegemonic style of policing the world. Horn of Africa is in the process of transforming to another Iraq.

Yet, after the ICU toppled the warlords and grew from strength to strength, the Americans turned to the Ethiopian military to sort out the mess they had created. Predictably, the Ethiopian military campaign and the American air bombing have compounded rather than helped improve the situation. Ethiopia, which has twice fought with Somalia, is almost reviled by ordinary Somali citizens, not just for its aggressive military posture in the region, but also for its longstanding Christian identity.

The level of distrust of America is well documented and the manner in which US forces were chased out of Mogadishu in 1993 marked a watershed in recent American military history. Now, Somalia is occupied by a reviled neighbor backed by a superpower distrusted by the populace.

And, perhaps worst of all, this combined duet is in Somalia to back a Transitional Federal Government, which has almost no credibility with the population. The behavior of the TFG has left little doubt that its members have no ounce of statesmanship or common sense. Their utter refusal to reach out to various actors on the Somali scene is baffling. On the one hand, it is the TFG’s position that they do not need to talk to the Islamists because they have been vanquished. On the other, the TFG demands that a peacekeeping force be deployed to Somalia.

This is the supreme irony of a government, which claims it has no rivals, but still asks the international community to send peacekeepers to its capital! Most Somalis practice a moderate strand of Islam. It is obvious that the latest interventions have turned the moderate into a target for those seeking to recruit people to radical causes.

Rather than seek a consultative solution, including establishing a Government of National Unity and providing funds for reconstruction, the US and its allies have opted for the path of the gun. The results of this approach, as Iraq has shown, are not too hard to divine.

It is not too hard to see the situation in Somalia degenerating to the same level as that in Iraq. Therefore, there is significant knowledge about restoration of state in post-conflict in Africa and around the world, which are very successful and stable countries today like Uganda, Cambodia, Sirloin and Mozambique and also fail in some countries once and twice be happen Somalia.

Most of the blame in Somalia has to do with foreign countries direct involvements, excluding the participation of intellectual, civil organizations, religion organizations, business people, human right activist, various women organization, and mainly concentration of power in the hand s of warlords and hand pick individuals selected by warlords who can advance their interest.

The TFG is the outcome of two years of conference in Nairobi and its leaders elected with influence of forge money, but not by the choice of Somali people. The charter of TFG is premised with Ethiopian style of federal system which does not have an ounce of Somalis people input and Abdilllahi Yusf, who is well know for his criminal background, is forcefully elected.

In conclusion, first the USA and EU have to think strategically not to lose the important location of Somalia which might really fall in the hand of AL-QADIA. Secondly, the transitional government (TFG) has to accept sharing government with moderate Islamic until a genuine election will be held in the country. Thirdly, Somalia needs help in the reconstructions of the country and institutional building. Lastly, the international community should work to stop that Somali will not be a field of proxies war for the Horn of Africa dictators such as Meles Zenawi and Ethiopia has to remove its forces immediately.

Ahmed Osman resides in Jijiga

By Mammo Muchie

Introductory Note

On July 10, 1999 at 8:10 I composed this statement in response to a misreporting of a key note speech I made in Chicago at the ENC annual meeting. An American friend sent it to me last night. I think it is useful to put it out on the eve of a political decision on the prisoners of conscience whose positive or negative outcome has historic dimensions and consequences to the Ethiopian nation, democracy and history.

The debate in constituting with historicity the political framework around the idea of Ethiopia as the foundation for the expression of civil, political, economic, cultural, group self-determination and citizenship rights, opportunities and obligations is also relevant to the current political development in Ethiopia.

PART I

I would like to clarify the gist of my message to the meeting in Chicago.

I. Some Points First:

1. It is the EPLF and not the TPLF which has been reported to have considered a proposal to adopt the Latin script for all Eritrean languages, including Tigrigna and Tigre which use the Geez script. The source for this is Tekle M. Woldemichael, “The Cultural Construction of Eritrean Language About Ethnicity”, in Crawford Young(ed.), The Rising Tide of Cultural Pluralism: The Nation-State at Bay?, Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, pp.179-99

What made the Tigrean’s reaction which you justly pointed out of his rudeness is how he threw a tantrum because the EPLF was criticised even when he is a supporter of the TPLF now. This was what baffled many observers.

2. There is a great need for an opposition political organisation and the unity of organisations on the basis of the unity of ideas. I suggested that ENC can contribute to such unity by building clarity on the Ethiopiawinet philosophy around which a political movement can strengthen. A unity of organisations without a unity of purpose or ideas, even if this was to solve a single issue results in performative ineffectiveness if not complete paralysis.

II. Here is the gist of what I tried to communicate at the ENC meeting

What I said in Chicago was ENC will do well to organise itself as an Ethiopiawinet political movement. It will help the fusion of CEOPO and others if it undertakes a political commitment based on the clarity of composing Ethiopiawinet from the politically ethnically fractured present. I was trying to say “charity begins at home.” It is wiser to spend energy by building ENC as an uncompromising Ethiopiwinet movement. It will influence others if it can grow stronger. What is missing is a political movement upholding the wider Ethiopwinet philosophy. We have a lot of politically drunk agitators running amuck by cashing in on their ethnic-vernacular group identity.

Woyanne has lots of them and those who oppose Woyanne like OLF and others have theirs. If any fractionalised group replaces Woyanne, it will have to do something like Woyanne did to inherit the Ethiopian nation and state.

If not, it will remain no more than an irritant to the power holding fractionalised power. Or else the dreadful third option: Ethiopia disperses like a family of fourteen young children whose parents become deceased suddenly with no immediate carer in sight!

There is an alternative for all of us who say we are Ethiopians: to work painstakingly to maintain Ethiopia from break-up by democratising and renewing it by building from its experiences of civilisation and history of proven resistance.

That brings me to the concept of Ethiopiwinet: For me and I noted Messay Kebede has written the book which contains essentially the views I hold on Ethiopiawinet, the latter is composed from the core experiience of:

a) Long history-perhaps as long as Persia’s and China’s,
b) An internally generated civilisation (written, art, architecture, music, religion and so on),
c) A history of resisting and scoring victories against economically and politico- militarily superior forces,
d) A unique psychological make up where the notion of the divine and the sacred graces every activity that the people engage in:

The individual, the state and the nation use for their lives divine presence whether they are Christians, Muslims, Judaic and even Pagans. The state had its own ethos and had its own ‘Fetah Negist’ and ‘Kibre Negist.’ In war we note how the idea of the divine is invoked to give courage to the troops when they charge(e.g. Giorgis’s participation in Adwa!) and in victory the people show humility by referring that all their power is due to the Gods.(NB. this is different from being moral or not!)

Whether we like it or not religion is a way of life to the peasant population. And the change we want, the modernisation we seek is to make life better for the majority of the rural areas. We do not go and preach Jeffersonian democracy or Marxism to them. If we are serious we go and learn from them and build on their beliefs and make modernisation sensible by translating it into the language and way of life they are used to. This is how Japan, Korea and others did it.

Even China with its Marxism did not reject Menicusian, Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist values which the population had. They tried to Sinnify their modernist weapon Marxism so that the people can embrace it. Like everything else which came into contact with China, Marxism became absorbed rather than the other way round!

There is an Ethiopian value system which is built from the experiences I described above. What makes the person from the South to those in the North connect mysteriously is this shared experience which was passed on from the wider Ethiopian culture confluence and communication.

Our generation rejected this by mounting two major myths: a) the Dergue employing Jacobin-Stalinist terror tried to force its hackneyed “Marxism” down the throat of the bewildered population, b) the various ethnic based fractional movements echoing rhetorics from China, Albania, Vietnam and so on tried to create ideologies of Tigreanism, Eritreanism, Oromoism and recently Amharism and anything and everything but Ethiopianism. It reminds me of Witgestein’s prescient remark of trying to look by climbing through the chimney and the window, when all along the door was wide open.

What is wrong with holding on and inheriting our Ethiopia and add modernisation, renewal and democratisation without breaking the framework and subtracting the nation and parcelling the state? Do we need to regress by relying on the politicisation of culture, language and blood to blackmail our way into power with Ethiopia as it is or by breaking it up altogether?

I believe the best and most possible cultural rights and expression for all the ethnic communities without subjecting them to ethnic cleansing and other violence is feasible with a healthy Ethiopiawinet. I do not see why we should not organise by affirming Ethiopawinet and maintain active local engagement wherever we come from. The key is to democratise the state, individual and the nation by affirming and not being condescending to the past.

The theory of the nation which decomposes Ethiopia by weaving the myths of Tigreanism, Eritreanism, Oromoism and so on goes counter to the core experience of the people, their long history, tradition, character and above all their historically evolved nationhood and state formation.

The Lenin-Stalin notion of the nation which the fractionalisers have imported their divisive politics from to Ethiopia is too scholastic, mechanistic, and deterministic. Itemising factors of language, territory, psychological make up and unleashing every petty nationalist bigot to search how his ethnic group might fulfil one or the other factor in full or in part is one of the most unattractive ventures which corrupts science and social practice at the same time.

Neither the ethnicism of Tigreans, Oromos and so on and nor Stalin’s shopping list definition of a nation are relevant to the Ethiopian situation. They cannot be a higher reality to the experience of our people. An experience where there was injustice along with civilisation, a history of epic resistance and a unique psychological make up involving the concept of the sacred in the every day living of all Ethiopians. The attack on this divinely graced Ethiopianet ” wukabi gefafi new” (is de-spiritualising/demeaning!)!

This was my message in the Chicago meeting.

Sincerely,
Mammo

Part II

Some Further Thoughts on Ethiopiawnet(16.02.2007)

It has been said that the longer we look back in the history of a nation, the further we can look forward or forge ahead in building a collective future. It has also been claimed that history is to a nation as a memory is to an individual. For an individual to lose memory is to lose a grip of reality. It has been a maxim held by African sages: ’They lost their history, so they lost everything.’ A nation, if it wishes to remain a nation must not be denied its right and indeed privilege to make a conception of history that yields direction and a future and insulates it from falling into a directionless and chaotic path like present day Somalia.

Arguably, contemporary challenges and demands must be taken into account into a nation’s history-making processes, but they must also be confronted to avoid the mindless rejection of Ethiopia’s historical achievements and the intelligent learning from the innumerable failures that is necessary to do individually and collectively as a people. Anything made at the expense of making a nation lose its historical identity, which is not, incidentally constituted from more than the sum of the arithmetic additions of a sum of languages, religions, territory, number of people in an ethnic group, and other variables is to undermine the ontological foundation of Ethiopia as an idea, a dream, project and nation.

Those who wish to opt out make not only themselves suffer, but also those who wish to remain with a positive and constructive rather than destructive and negative appreciation of Ethiopia’s long history.
We have seen what came of Eritrea after leaving Ethiopia? We were told Eritrea would be the South East Asian tiger, but is it that now? Is that what has become of Eritrea by the EPLF’s and TPLF’s gratuitous saying good bye to Eritrea’s core history which is tied with an umbilical chord with Ethiopia’s long social-economic history. History provides self-knowledge to a nation and that self-understanding is a necessary condition to undertake any meaningful development. Lack of consciousness of a nation’s history is not simply an intellectual failure. It can be a moral failure as it can expose unnecessarily a nation to unpredictable danger and suffering. We owe it to our ancestors who bequeathed a nation with history to avoid extremism, negotiate out of our conflicts, and find mechanisms to make social peace amongst individuals, communities and personalities.

Part III

Let us all Make a historic motion for the release of the prisoners of Conscience!!

February 19 is a critical moment in history. Will the prisoners of conscience be released or not? All those who understand history and wish the nation to go on with a democratising developmental trajectory will argue for the unconditional release of all the prisoners of conscience. Those now in jail are people with the moral stature that have answered to the call of the best in Ethiopian citizenship. These citizens should be honoured, not put in jail. Those who forced them into jail must be the first to move a motion to get their immediate release and compensate them for getting them into this unacceptable situation in the first place.

The alleged crimes they have been accused of makes absolutely no sense. All they did is engage in what they believed to be a democratic process. Those who invited the Ethiopian people to vote should have known that they too would be also voted out. The powers that are, however, were not prepared to accept the peoples’ verdict. Why did they engineer the election that they knew the outcome was not something they were not prepared to accept? Any power that respects the people would not play such games with history. The people manifested a will to govern. Those in power were unwilling to accept it. Those in jail argued fiercely for the respect of voice and votes.

We from outside, though far away from the scene, joined the criticism. Even we were not spared. We too got accused of crimes for doing nothing but exercise criticism with arguments that stung the power-holders that appeared open to a democratic transition only to discourage it with brute violence and deception.

There is absolutely no justification whatsoever to put the prisoners of conscience in jail for making a stinging criticism of a flawed election arrangement. That is their democratic right, the peoples’ democratic right.

If this nation is to leap into a new contemporary history, it must close the historical chapter by transcending tyranny and dictatorship for good. The effort to bring about a sustainable democratic transition by circulating the elites with the peaceful votes of peaceful citizens remains a top priority. It would have been a historic achievement were these to have come before the Ethiopian millennium on September 11, 2007.

On February 19, history offers a rare opportunity for the nation to unite when justice is served to the unjustly jailed and a grand spirit of harmony flows to create the necessary environment for national reconciliation. The priority of priorities is to release the prisoners of conscience by taking their situation as part of the writing of the long lived historical quest to make this old nation endure in the flowing river of time. Let Ethiopia be is integrally and intimately linked to making the unjustly incarcerated free. I appeal and call on those in power to heed to the call of history and join those in jail to create the grandest possible national reconciliation by creating a system to negotiate out any conflict this nation confronts in a strange and unpredictable world, and even worse living in the midst of a very difficult region the nation finds itself.

Concluding Remark

It is with this larger purpose and depth of thinking, commitment and dedication that we should cherish both the long memory and current meaning to us of being Ethiopian. There is intrinsic merit to preserve this ancient nation, and not give in to the degrading mantra of ethnic enclosures that has degraded civic Ethiopian citizenship to a particularly virulent and limiting concept of the ethnically defined and vernacularly fenced off citizen. This primordially and biologically condemned citizen must be fully liberated to emerge as the Ethiopian citizen par excellence. There can be no compromise on the Ethiopian and African framework for citizen expression and engagement. Everything is negotiable once the framework is accepted. There can be no negotiation with those who arrogantly and impudently call Ethiopia a fiction and an invention. Without the idea of Ethiopia, there is no idea of a future. Let us not forget that Ethiopia was the first non-European country that defeated a European power. The Japanese sent delegations to learn how Ethiopians organised to defeat a European imperial power. Many Africans in the Diaspora from America to the West Indies were inspired to continue the struggle for liberation owing to this historic achievement. Ethiopia can achieve even more by doing away with tyranny and poverty for good provided it overcomes the pettiness of its politics and reach out to the grand vision of historical presence.

I ask all in the nation to join me and say:

The World fears time
Time fears history
History fears Ethiopia
Let the Prisoners Free!!!
And Forever ,
Unite the people of Ethiopia!

Mammo Muchie, Ph.D., is Director of DIR Research Centre on Development & IR
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Fax.no. 00 45-98153298
http://www.ihis.aau.dk/development/
http://www.ihis.aau.dk/ccis/