By Stephanie McCrummen, Washington Post Foreign Service

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — War or no war with Somalia, Mulunesh Abebayhu wants out. Out of her teaching job, where Ethiopian security forces constantly harass her because of her political views. Out of this city, where hundreds of protesters were killed by police bullets after disputed elections last year. And, if she can manage, out of this country that she believes has plunged into the abyss of dictatorship at the hands of its prime minister, Meles Zenawi, a staunch ally of the United States in the vulnerable Horn of Africa.

“He confuses the Westerners so that he can keep ruling,” said Abebayhu, 54, an opposition member arrested along with an estimated 30,000 others in the sweeping post-election crackdown last year. “Our party does not believe in this war. Our priority is to eradicate poverty, not go to war. Meles knows this war is a way for his system to survive.”

As Ethiopia and Somalia’s Islamic Courts movement inch closer each day to all-out conflict, a widespread view among people here in the capital is that Meles is using the conflict to distract people from a vast array of internal problems and to justify further repression of opposition groups, including ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia.

In particular, opponents of war say he is playing up the claim that there are al-Qaeda operatives within the Islamic Courts in order to maintain the support of the U.S. government, which relies on a steady flow of Ethiopian intelligence that some regional analysts say is of dubious value.

A recent attempt by Congress to sanction the Ethiopian government for widespread human rights violations failed after former Republican House leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), lobbying on behalf of the Ethiopian government, argued that the United States needs Ethiopia in order to fight terrorism.

“We don’t know why the Americans let them get away with it,” said Abebayhu, who was denied her request for a U.S. visa and who said she receives death threats regularly.

Meanwhile, Meles has become so disliked in the city that people compare him unfavorably to the former dictator known as “the Butcher of Addis Ababa,” Mengistu Haile Mariam, who was convicted last week of genocide after a trial lasting 12 years.

Around Victory Square, one of many roundabouts in this city of a thousand cafes and tin-patch markets, passersby offered opinions similar to that of Nemera Bersisa, 35, a record-keeper on his way home from work.

“I believe the Dergue regime is better than this one, even if they killed people,” he said, referring to Mengistu’s rule. “This regime is democratic only in words. They kill people without any law, and they arrest people without a reason. This government is trying to stay in power by using different mechanisms, like claiming the Somalis are invading. But this is not the case. Meles is trying to externalize his problems.”

And those problems are vast.

After 12 years in power, Meles presides over a nation that still does not produce enough food to feed its own people, relying on the U.N. World Food Program to supplement struggling farmers. The number of people infected with HIV is rising every year: At least 500,000 Ethiopians are living with the virus now, according to government figures. At least half of the population lives on less than $1 a day, which is not enough to buy a single meal.

A smattering of new skyscrapers have gone up in Addis Ababa lately, and in recent years, the gaudy Sheraton Hotel was built, a fortified palace of marble and brass and $100 Scotch set amid a rusting neighborhood of leaning, one-room shacks. Locals call it Paradise in Hell.

Last year’s elections began with high hopes and degenerated into a bloodbath. Opposition groups, who made significant gains but did not win a majority according to the national election board, accused the government of rigging the tally and flooded the streets to challenge the results. During the rallies in May and November last year, unarmed protesters were sprayed with bullets while others were hunted down, killed inside their homes and in their gardens, in front of children and neighbors.

Though the official government report released in October listed 197 demonstrators killed, some members of the government’s own commission and human rights groups have estimated that the number could be as high as 600. Seven police officers were killed.

Since then, the mood around the capital has been grim.

“After the elections, the government is ruling Ethiopia by military force and propaganda, we all know that,” Bersisa said. “We’re dead after the election.”

While most of the 30,000 prisoners taken after the election have been released, several hundred opposition leaders remain in jail, including the elected mayor of Addis Ababa, Birhanu Nega, who was a professor in the United States, and Haile Miriam Yacob, who served on the U.N. commission settling a border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Four private newspapers have been shut down. A reporter for the Associated Press was expelled. And random arrests on the streets of Addis Ababa continue daily, people say.

Residents of a largely Ethiopian Somali neighborhood called Rwanda say that government security forces have been rounding up people who refuse to swear allegiance to Meles’ ruling party, a charge the government denied.

“Their main target is Ethiopian Somalis,” said Reagan Dawale, 30, who left his home in the Somali region of Ethiopia because of the tense atmosphere there, only to find a similar situation in the capital.

In a recent interview, Meles, a former Marxist guerrilla who shed his fatigues for tailored suits when he took power in a 1991 coup, referred to the opposition as leading an “insurrection” intent on overthrowing the government by violent means, a charge opposition leaders deny.

Meles has introduced a few words into the Ethiopian vocabulary. Someone who is out of line is a “fendata.” Dissatisfied, unemployed workers who must be controlled are the “adegnabozene.” A “bichameberat” is a person who has crossed into the danger zone.

Meles said he retains U.S. support when it comes to defending Ethiopia against the Islamic Courts movement, which now controls much of Somalia, including Mogadishu, the capital. Meles said the Islamic Courts have already attacked Ethiopia by arming secessionist Ethiopian Somali groups in the Ogaden region along the Somali border, a claim opposition leaders believe is both exaggerated and hardly a justification for war.

“Our argument is that all the governments we’ve known since 1960 say they want the Ogaden,” said Beyene Petros, leader of the main opposition group, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, referring to Somalia.

The Islamic Courts say it is the Ethiopians that have invaded Somalia. While Meles has repeatedly denied having troops there, the United Nations and regional diplomats estimate that at least 8,000 Ethiopian soldiers are in Somalia, backing the weak and divided transitional government.

Petros said Meles is poised to make precisely the same miscalculation in the Horn of Africa that critics say the United States made in invading Iraq: that a vastly superior military force can crush an ideologically driven guerrilla campaign.

“We should defend our borders, but I don’t believe in a hot-pursuit campaign inside of Somalia,” Petros said. “And I don’t think this war is going to change the hearts of the Ethiopian people.”

By Stephanie McCrummen, Washington Post Foreign Service

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — War or no war with Somalia, Mulunesh Abebayhu wants out. Out of her teaching job, where Ethiopian security forces constantly harass her because of her political views. Out of this city, where hundreds of protesters were killed by police bullets after disputed elections last year. And, if she can manage, out of this country that she believes has plunged into the abyss of dictatorship at the hands of its prime minister, Meles Zenawi, a staunch ally of the United States in the vulnerable Horn of Africa.

“He confuses the Westerners so that he can keep ruling,” said Abebayhu, 54, an opposition member arrested along with an estimated 30,000 others in the sweeping post-election crackdown last year. “Our party does not believe in this war. Our priority is to eradicate poverty, not go to war. Meles knows this war is a way for his system to survive.”

As Ethiopia and Somalia’s Islamic Courts movement inch closer each day to all-out conflict, a widespread view among people here in the capital is that Meles is using the conflict to distract people from a vast array of internal problems and to justify further repression of opposition groups, including ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia.

In particular, opponents of war say he is playing up the claim that there are al-Qaeda operatives within the Islamic Courts in order to maintain the support of the U.S. government, which relies on a steady flow of Ethiopian intelligence that some regional analysts say is of dubious value.

A recent attempt by Congress to sanction the Ethiopian government for widespread human rights violations failed after former Republican House leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), lobbying on behalf of the Ethiopian government, argued that the United States needs Ethiopia in order to fight terrorism.

“We don’t know why the Americans let them get away with it,” said Abebayhu, who was denied her request for a U.S. visa and who said she receives death threats regularly.

Meanwhile, Meles has become so disliked in the city that people compare him unfavorably to the former dictator known as “the Butcher of Addis Ababa,” Mengistu Haile Mariam, who was convicted last week of genocide after a trial lasting 12 years.

Around Victory Square, one of many roundabouts in this city of a thousand cafes and tin-patch markets, passersby offered opinions similar to that of Nemera Bersisa, 35, a record-keeper on his way home from work.

“I believe the Dergue regime is better than this one, even if they killed people,” he said, referring to Mengistu’s rule. “This regime is democratic only in words. They kill people without any law, and they arrest people without a reason. This government is trying to stay in power by using different mechanisms, like claiming the Somalis are invading. But this is not the case. Meles is trying to externalize his problems.”

And those problems are vast.

After 12 years in power, Meles presides over a nation that still does not produce enough food to feed its own people, relying on the U.N. World Food Program to supplement struggling farmers. The number of people infected with HIV is rising every year: At least 500,000 Ethiopians are living with the virus now, according to government figures. At least half of the population lives on less than $1 a day, which is not enough to buy a single meal.

A smattering of new skyscrapers have gone up in Addis Ababa lately, and in recent years, the gaudy Sheraton Hotel was built, a fortified palace of marble and brass and $100 Scotch set amid a rusting neighborhood of leaning, one-room shacks. Locals call it Paradise in Hell.

Last year’s elections began with high hopes and degenerated into a bloodbath. Opposition groups, who made significant gains but did not win a majority according to the national election board, accused the government of rigging the tally and flooded the streets to challenge the results. During the rallies in May and November last year, unarmed protesters were sprayed with bullets while others were hunted down, killed inside their homes and in their gardens, in front of children and neighbors.

Though the official government report released in October listed 197 demonstrators killed, some members of the government’s own commission and human rights groups have estimated that the number could be as high as 600. Seven police officers were killed.

Since then, the mood around the capital has been grim.

“After the elections, the government is ruling Ethiopia by military force and propaganda, we all know that,” Bersisa said. “We’re dead after the election.”

While most of the 30,000 prisoners taken after the election have been released, several hundred opposition leaders remain in jail, including the elected mayor of Addis Ababa, Birhanu Nega, who was a professor in the United States, and Haile Miriam Yacob, who served on the U.N. commission settling a border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Four private newspapers have been shut down. A reporter for the Associated Press was expelled. And random arrests on the streets of Addis Ababa continue daily, people say.

Residents of a largely Ethiopian Somali neighborhood called Rwanda say that government security forces have been rounding up people who refuse to swear allegiance to Meles’ ruling party, a charge the government denied.

“Their main target is Ethiopian Somalis,” said Reagan Dawale, 30, who left his home in the Somali region of Ethiopia because of the tense atmosphere there, only to find a similar situation in the capital.

In a recent interview, Meles, a former Marxist guerrilla who shed his fatigues for tailored suits when he took power in a 1991 coup, referred to the opposition as leading an “insurrection” intent on overthrowing the government by violent means, a charge opposition leaders deny.

Meles has introduced a few words into the Ethiopian vocabulary. Someone who is out of line is a “fendata.” Dissatisfied, unemployed workers who must be controlled are the “adegnabozene.” A “bichameberat” is a person who has crossed into the danger zone.

Meles said he retains U.S. support when it comes to defending Ethiopia against the Islamic Courts movement, which now controls much of Somalia, including Mogadishu, the capital. Meles said the Islamic Courts have already attacked Ethiopia by arming secessionist Ethiopian Somali groups in the Ogaden region along the Somali border, a claim opposition leaders believe is both exaggerated and hardly a justification for war.

“Our argument is that all the governments we’ve known since 1960 say they want the Ogaden,” said Beyene Petros, leader of the main opposition group, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, referring to Somalia.

The Islamic Courts say it is the Ethiopians that have invaded Somalia. While Meles has repeatedly denied having troops there, the United Nations and regional diplomats estimate that at least 8,000 Ethiopian soldiers are in Somalia, backing the weak and divided transitional government.

Petros said Meles is poised to make precisely the same miscalculation in the Horn of Africa that critics say the United States made in invading Iraq: that a vastly superior military force can crush an ideologically driven guerrilla campaign.

“We should defend our borders, but I don’t believe in a hot-pursuit campaign inside of Somalia,” Petros said. “And I don’t think this war is going to change the hearts of the Ethiopian people.”

By Abdi Galgalo

Realizing that “…Iraq’s neighbors greatly affect its stability”, the Iraq Study Group puts forth a recommendation to the Bush administration to ?[s]top destabilizing interventions and actions by Iraq’s neighbors.? The report vividly shows that countries can willingly destabilize their neighbors at will for regional hegemony, and other selfish interests. Unless the Bush administration is waiting for Somalia or Horn of Africa Study Group?s recommendation, the destabilization role of Meles Zenawi regime in Somali must immediately be stopped now.

The only foreign force openly destabilizing Somalia at present is the Ethiopia Defense Force [currently under the control of the ruling Tigrean People’s Liberation Front – TPLF] and its security forces. Ethiopia?s military presence in Somalia is the main cause for the stalled peace talk between the Union of Islamic Court and Transitional Federal Government. The Zenawi force that has been menacing citizens on the streets of Oromia including the capital Finfinne (Addis Ababa), Gambella, Ogadenia, and Sidama has already been exported to the streets of Somalia. The International Crisis Group reported last year that ?in the rubble-strewn street of the ruined capital of [Somalia]?Ethiopian security services?are engaged in intimidation, abduction and assassination.? Moreover, a leaked U.N. report confirms the presence of up to 8,000 Ethiopian troops in Somalia in a clear violation of Somalia?s sovereignty.

The despotic regime justifies its intervention by supplying the international community with unsubstantiated claims of Islamists terrorism threat in Somalia. Contrary to Zenawi?s claim, the U.S Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, said last June that it was ?unclear whether the Islamic militia or elements within it were linked to, or gave shelter to al-Qaeda operatives?. No report has yet been released from the U.S. administration rescinding Jendayi Frazer?s statement. However, this official statement of the U.S does not correlate with the behind-the-scene actions of the U.S. ? which is, the (tacit or secretly expressed) support of Ethiopia?s military intervention in Somalia with the pretext of containing terrorism threat. In fact, the U.S. was the prime architect of the recent U.N. resolution that adopted the deployment of foreign troops at a time when Somalia is returning to relative normalcy. The resolution echoed Ethiopia?s claim to justify the deployment of foreign troops against the will of the majority of the Somali people and against the advice of many states and international agencies.

It is bewildering that the despotic Ethiopian regime is still being regarded as a ?staunch ally in the war against terrorism? while its track record show acts of domestic and cross-border terrorism. This U.S. stance on Ethiopia is contradictory to what Dr. Condoleezza Rice claimed to have learned from the failed U.S. policy in the Middle East. Dr. Rice said that “for 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy ?, and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all the people”.

Ethiopia?s meddling in Somalia is a clear manifestation of the lack of a genuine multiparty system, the rule of the law, and democracy in Ethiopia. If the ruling party that has monopolized the state power contuses to hamper democratic transition, neither stability nor democracy will be achieved in the horn of Africa. Democracy and stability in Ethiopia and the horn at large can be achieved only when the aspiration of all the peoples of Ethiopia is achieved, which will effectively curb the Ethiopia?s ruling party aggression on neighboring countries.

The political, economic, and human right problems in Ethiopia are not unknown to the United States. Ambassador David Shinn, who was U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia in the mid-to-late 1990’s, recently told a Harvard University conference that ?..Ethiopia has?a serious lack of true power sharing and weak governing institutions ?. [A]s long as there continues to be alienated groups in Ethiopia that believe, rightly or wrongly, they can not achieve their goals through the political process, these? [conflicts]? will continue and may worsen”. Shinn further warned against ?further alienation of the Oromo and Somali [Ogadenis]?.

The Tigrian ethnocratic regime in Ethiopia has employed a policy of suppressing targeted ethnonational groups, particularly the Oromos and the Ogaden Somalis. The alienation of the largest ethnonational group in the horn of Africa-the Oromo-has enabled the minority government to maintain state power in the hands of few loyal Tigrians. As a result, most Oromo political organizations, notably the Oromo Liberation Front, have been forced to go underground to struggle for the right of Oromos for national self-determination and for the establishment of a free, just, and democratic society in Ethiopia.

As a result of OLF?s departure, the Oromos are not fairly and genuinely represented in all affairs of the country. The relatively younger Oromo political parties, which were hoped to fill the ?representation vacuum?, have found it difficult to endure the brute nature of the Tigrian regime. Killing and intimidating Oromo MPs have become frequent occurrences in the country. As a result, some Oromo MPs have been forced to flee the country. The inhuman treatment of the Oromos has also caused the defection of many senior officials-judges, diplomats, military commanders, politicians and even athletes. Currently, over 30,000 Oromo political prisoners, including numerous political and civic leaders, are languishing in different prisons throughout Oromia. In an interview with the Guardian in London last month, the recently defected Oromia Supreme Court president has disclosed that there is an estimated 15,000-20,000 extra-judiciary killing committed by the state security apparatus in Oromia alone in the past 15 years.

While the vision of ?spreading democracy? to the Middle East ?required? the Bush administration to use military force, it is ironic that the peoples of Ethiopia are struggling against the U.S-backed undemocratic regime to achieve the same vision. The horn of Africa, particularly Ethiopia, is a region where democracy and the rule of law are chronically lacking. Perhaps, the Bush administration may not have realized that Africans, just like the rest of the people all over the World, yearn for freedom and democracy. In fact, the readiness of the Ethiopian populace to embrace democratic values of the West, as was amply demonstrated during the aborted May 2005 election, makes the Bush administration?s vision of ?spreading democracy? amenable for implementation in Ethiopia.

There is no justification to keep the Ethiopia?s dictator as an ally while the Oromos, who represent a good half of Ethiopia?s population, are being alienated, killed, and jailed for just being Oromos? How can a regime that steals elections and commits genocide against its own citizens be an ally of the greatest nation, the U.S.? The oppressed peoples of Ethiopia hope that the West, particularly the U.S., supports their aspirations rather than supporting a tyrant that is bent on destabilizing the Horn region. The continued support of the U.S. to the criminal regime in Ethiopia will be regarded not only as a betrayal of peoples? aspiration for freedom and democracy but also a betrayal of the very ideals of America-the fulfillment of people?s aspiration for freedom, equality, self-determination, justice, and human dignity.

Abdi Galgalo can be reached for comments at [email protected]

As the World watches as a full scale war threatens to erupt in Somalia, The Zenawi regime had better watch its Northern Border With Eritrea. The countries which have already fought one border war could find themselves in another if war in Somalia breaks out.

With several parties including the United Nations and the Transitional Government in Somalia making charges that Eritrea has been supplying the Union of Islamic Courts with both troops and arms. There have been several high profile incidents along the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea. These include defections by members of the Ethiopian Army and allegations of people smuggling across the border going both ways.

History tells us that a country fighting on two fronts does not do well. The French found out the hard way under Napoleon, Germany learned that lesson twice in 40 years and in the US the States that formed the Confederacy lost a conflict that had several fronts. So history does not bode well for the Zenawi Government.

 So there are several factors that could help decide if the Zenawi Government is successful. First is will the Oromo Stand loyal to Addis Ababa or will they join the Islamist Forces as they try to unite Somalia under a Islamic Government. Second is how many regional neighbors will play a role in the conflict? A report by the US State Department concluded that up to a dozen nations could get involved in this conflict. this will make the DRC war of the late 90s feel like a skirmish. Uganda has a debate going on in Parliament about whether or not they will send forces under an AU Mandate. What Kenya does is anybody’s guess.

There are two countries that could intervene if Necessary and they are the United States and France. Both erstwhile allies share a base in Djibouti. Both countries have rapid reaction forces stationed there and both nations have Naval and Air Assets in close Proximity. Any intervention may be on the short term due to the extent of the current deployment of the US Military worldwide.

So right now whether we like the actions and abuses of the Zenawi Government it may be in the best interests of the West to aid Ethiopia. The question of what concessions that the West will get from Addis Ababa may be done behind closed doors for now. But they will need to be done. And lip service to Democracy is not acceptable under any condition.

The author is a contributing editor to www.americanchronicle.com and comments on US Policy in Africa and Human Rights. He can be contacted at [email protected]

By Mohamed Mukhtar Hussein

The United Nations policy towards Somalia, and for that matter the greater Horn of Africa, oscillated from “stay the course” and “cut and run” during its existence. Over five decades ago, it passed a resolution on the federation of Eritrea to Ethiopia. The resolution on Eritrea was not only ignored, but also legitimized the concentration of government in the hands of the elite of the then imperial regime, which were supported by far away architects of the post-colonial African state. As a result, it removed state building and internal reconciliation from the hands of the contending grass-roots Eritrean and Ethiopian viewpoints. Thousands of Eritrean and Ethiopian people perished fighting different sides of the United Nations’ decision. African solution for African problems never received a fair hearing and interests hidden in the dark alleys of foreign interests dominated people’s agenda. People rallied behind selfcentered views of the few masked as a will of international community. It took the people of Eritrea thirty years to achieve what they wanted. That was then, an era of post-colonial squabbles and of privileged access to information, and this is now, an era of dynamic knowledge creation and sharing, the time for a de-colonized African mind to reign– in short, an epoch where the internet has truly liberated many from the shackles of misunderstanding and suspicion.

The UN passed Security Council Resolution 1725, under Chapter VII, on December 6, 2006. The resolution resolved, among others, that the UN decides “to remain actively seized of the matter.” What exactly does this mean? According to Slate (and Michael Byers of the Duke University School of Law), “A small number of international legal experts also consider the phrase a linguistic maneuver to head off unilateral action. The theory goes that the Security Council is actually hinting to various national governments to hold off on, say, sending tanks across the Euphrates River, since the dispute is still being adjudicated. If that is indeed the case, the phrase’s power seems somewhat dubious—nations routinely ignore Security Council pleas to remain idle.”

Resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are instruments meant for the international community to use economic and political sanctions with the possibility of the use of force if the council determines “the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”. The UN invoked Chapter VII of its charter on the situation of a small number of countries during its existence. These are former Rhodesia, Sudan, former Yugoslavia, South Africa, Somalia, Sierra Leane, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Angola, Eritrea, Rwanda, Haiti, Libya, and Liberia. About twenty percent of the resolutions involved Horn of Africa states, a disproportionately high percentage! Still, the Horn is far from enjoying peace, from achieving its potentiality, and from hoping for a ‘modesty destiny’ controllable to keep the interests of others at bay, or if that is not possible, to build a respectful and mutual collaboration with foreign interests. The UN has done a poor job in its operations in this region since post-colonial and post-imperial states appeared. Perhaps the UN needs to commission an assembly of wise men and mandate them to produce what I would call “The Report of the Horn of Africa Study Group”.

Resolution 1725 addresses the situation in Somalia. Among many other things, the UN provides a background of its decision, which is based on the “Deployment Plan for the IGAD peacekeeping mission

in Somalia”, and asserts that there is a “lack of clarity of the political agenda of the Islamic Courts”, and that there is an “uncertain situation in Mogadishu”. This claim is not factual. Given that the UN is expected to be impartial and a truth-telling organization, many wonder what went wrong here. In so many times, the Islamic Courts said its political agenda is to get rid of lawlessness, to restore people’s dignified existence, to provide national security services, to negotiate with the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) on power sharing, and to ascertain that no foreign forces are deployed in Somalia covertly or overtly. And they have succeeded in many of these during their short existence. The arguments that the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) has not focused on holding a truly open reconciliation conference in the now liberated Mogadishu or that it ignored to meaningfully engage the technocrats that have been idle in the capital for close to two decades are valid. But the UN denies that the condition of Mogadishu, after more than sixteen years of uncertainty, is now as certain as any city of its size can be. Does anyone believe that there is an uncertain situation in Mogadishu now? Mogadishu seemed hell on earth in the past, but not now. Perhaps, the UN wanted to say that it does not like what it sees in Mogadishu! Why does the UN claim that it would be “seized of the matter” later when it does not want to see the truth
now?

The Horn of Africa region (primarily Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya, and Eritrea) is home for many ethnic groups whose people practice moderate Islam, Christianity and indigenous religions. Even though the region is a victim of European colonialsim and cold war rivalry, which forced division and misunderstanding, the people have grown wiser over the years. They have met and lived together not only in the Diaspora, but in their respective homelands. They now read each other’s many online journals. If, in the past, a Somali believed Ethiopians are their eternal enemies, and Eritreans wished to remove their land from the continent so as not to be a neighbor to Ethiopia, the public intelligence is different now. An Oromo and a Somali Ogaden are now politically mature to reject a despotic Ethiopian government in favor of an alliance with their former Amhara political rivals. In southern Somalia, people revolted against their illiterate warlords and embraced a just umbrella under Islamic teachings. In the Diaspora, Horn Africans (Hornians) rage with anger directed at TPLF and its seemingly wholly-owned subsidiary, i.e. the so-called TFG. Ethiopians and Somalis categorically reject governments whose leaders masquerade as representative leaders of their respective states.

An overwhelming majority of the people of Horn of Africa as well as many international groups and states registered their opposition to the recently passed UN resolution. Several reasons for this dissent are further described and illuminated. These include the possibility of religious strife in the region, the proliferation of illegal arms trade, the exploitation of the resources of the region, the lingering shortsighted views of proponents of stability at the expense of public reconciliation and democratization, and the great propensity for the rise of some forms of instability similar to those that have characterized Iraq recently, and DR Congo and the Great Lakes region in the 1990’s.

The resolution can be exploited by religious fanatics (Muslims or Christians). In this scenario, the wishes of the majority will be hijacked. As a result, death and carnage can multiply. Because of the ignorance prevalent in the region, society will be sucked into undesirable and confounding directions that make the future uncertain. The claimed objective of the resolution may not be achieved since once a religious strife takes precedence over others, cool minds will be so scarce. Hornians will in the end be the ultimate losers. Already, the TPLF-controlled Ethiopian regime began systematic exploitation of religion among Ethiopians who lived peacefully together for centuries and who have disagreed only on matters of secular politics and governance.

Melez Zenawi’s recent dictation to his self-concocted Ethiopian parliament to approve his war-mongering policies demonstrated to all Hornians a mind sprinkled with evil. This is not the first time Melez spoke of an impending Armageddon and the need for invoking sectarian violence to achieve political ends and to avert an imminent genocide. He seems to think of himself as clever when he attempts to disguise his inner self under opportunistic nationalism and piggybacks his determination behind a decision of his clapping parliament. When the people of Addis Ababa organized mass demonstrations against his junta’s theft of the 2005 election, Melez accused certain ethnic groups of planning to repeat Interhamwe-like genocidal acts. So, in a sense, the dark corners of the Melez mind is exposed one more time and it seems to contemplate plans for the exploitation of religion.

The argument, if at all Melez’s rants at his personal parliament could be called an argument, goes on as follows. Jihadists declared war on the Ethiopian people. By “Jihadists” he means the public revolution that carried the UIC in Mogadishu into prominence. The TPLF-controlled government of Ethiopia makes itself look stupid when it irresponsibly seeks financial and military support on the basis of terms like “Jihadists”, a term conveniently used in the west to misinform. According to The Guardian (and Derek Brown), ‘The essential meaning of jihad is the spiritual, psychological and physical effort exerted by Muslims to be closer to God and thus achieve a just and harmonious society. Jihad literally means “striving” or “struggle” and is shorthand for Jihad fi Sabeel Allah (struggle for God’s cause). Another level of jihad is popularly known as “holy war”. What is condoned is defensive warfare; Islam does not justify aggressive war.’

So, therefore, it is perfectly legitimate if the people of Mogadishu decided to fight Melez Zenawi’s terrorism in Mogadishu, and to strive to achieve a just and harmonious society. For over sixteen years Zenawi financed, armed, and slept with Mogadishu’s notorious warlords. He also succeeded in misinforming the Americans who sided with thuggish Mogadishu warlords, and their TFG. People finally decided to get rid of Melez Zenawi’s proxy terrorists in Mogadishu. Sixteen years of terrorist oppression was enough! The revolutionary public, under the leadership of the UIC, rightly declared Jihaad against the warlords and chased them out of town. Once defeated, warlords ran into the arms of Melez and demanded more arms and money from him. He not only obliged but promised he will talk with his friends in high places to legalize his covert operations in Somalia. He occupied portions of Somalia in the pretext of defending a TFG whose people do not support! As expected, Melez decided it is time to misinform the world to see UIC declaration of Jihaad on the warlords and Melez forces in Somalia as a declaration of war on Ethiopia.

Arms merchants and shadowy business figures are lurking in the shadows and are ready to take advantage of the situation. In this scenario, again, the interest of the people goes into the back burner and once this condition matures, the killing fields will multiply. The region will misallocate sorely needed resources that will now be apportioned for arms purchases. In addition, employment of children in the fights and the arms proliferation that ensues will put less priority on human development than on destruction and mayhem.

The world saw the dominance of narrow international agenda in the last few years. The futility of unilateral international action has been shown clearly in the recent release of the report of the Iraq Study Group. Sure, international terrorism is a menace to world peace. To fight terrorism, however, credible powers with genuine interests must not only collaborate, but they must also encourage participation of civil society. To say Melez Zenawi, whose government terrorized its people, can be an ally in the fight against terrorism is to be unrealistic. Melez calls a “terrorist” any political group that disagrees with his irrational execuberance in the creation of ethnic puppets supposedly representing ethnic states. His TPLF is the only nationalist party allowed to freely assemble and organize political views in Ethiopia.

According to the Iraq Study Group, “The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own.” There is no reason to believe this is a bad policy for America’s interests.

If the US is moving into a direction of reconciliation and away from obsession with unilaterally and externally supported stability, then why should the international community turn a blind eye when Melez refuses to reconcile with his own people? His negation to talk peace and development with his adversaries such as the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), and others should not be left unchecked and obscured in his Somalia adventure. The danger in the recent Somalia resolution lies in its attempt to allow Melez to invade Somalia, or to “ease into it”, gradually. A free hand for Horn of Africa’s neighborhood bully lessens the importance of good governance and human rights. Transparency, accountability, and participation of people in the affairs of their governments can not be replaced with less important causes such as dictatorial stability, which anyway leads to instability.

Ethiopia’s government needs to account for torching Fooljeex in the Ogaden, for the loss of life and property in Oromia, and for the wanton destruction of the lives of almost 200 peaceful demonstrators in Addis Ababa before it is allowed to dictate the outcome in Somalia’s political conflicts. It also needs to tell the truth and admit that it has damaged the nascent democratization process during the 2005 Ethiopian elections. In the end, nonetheless, Hornians must be shown, in good faith, that there are no hidden agendas to loot the resources of Ethiopia and Somalia using Melez as a tool and the UN resolution as the vehicle to legitimize what has been clearly documented as a despotic regime. Reconciliation in the Horn is more important than stability.

There are those who believe that Ethiopia is the key to the stability of the Horn of Africa. In their mind, blind support for anyone sitting in Addis Ababa’s Palace or Baidoa’s Villa Somalia, for example, is a sound international policy. No questions on good governance, people’s participation in government, and economic development leadership need to be raised as long a self-serving stability argument can be floated. Instead of helping people get on their feet, it is fancier to claim to have provided such demeaning assistance as food aid. Stability in the Horn of Africa is not dependent on the creation of a mirage, a falsehood, and, therefore, an easily refutable western-supported government shell controlled by a proxy leader who has no mandate from his or her own people. Why insult the intelligence of the more than 120 million people who call the Horn home? The oft-claimed position of the West of supporting democracy and human rights and the resulting “stay the course” policy of accepting dictators as “leaders” has turned into a music played for over fifty years, frustrating the poverty- and fear-stricken people of the Horn of Africa. Dictators bring instability, not stability. Real reconciliation and democratization is what is needed in this region.

“I think the choice of doing nothing is really not a choice at all,” John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN, stressed on the eve of the passage of Resolution 1725. True! But, the choice of arming an unpopular TFG and increasing the support of a TPLF regime, as Hornians suspect the intention of this resolution is, is really not a choice at all! The US and its allies must genuinely start to help democracy-building and to abandon relying on dictators. Superpowers have had enough of befriending dictators in the Horn of Africa during the cold war and the people of the region are really sick of the return of shallow policies that do not benefit them. The international community needs to be seized of the matter – the matter of telling dictators to go, of respecting the real public positions, of taking notice of the emerging cross ethnic solidarity among the Horn people to oppose autocratic rulers, of disarming warlords, and of supporting representative governments and the democratization of the Horn. For, resolutions do not make representative governments, people do!
______________________________
Mohamed Mukhtar Hussein, Ph.D., can be reached at [email protected]

Remembering the Forgotten Victims

As shown by the historical records of the past three decades, the people’s power has not been effective in Ethiopia. It is therefore difficult to consider this power as a source of protection for political leaders who are ready to take risks. In practical terms, the people’s power in Africa, and in Ethiopia, in particular, is radically different from the experience in Latin America, Asia and, as seen in recent political events, in many countries of the former East Block.

Looking at political events and developments in my country retrospectively, one sees that Ethiopians have never been to collectively share and enjoy the fruits of political events that have resulted from the people’s action, uprising and power. It is to be remembered that the people outright rejected the forceful imposition of power and rule by the undesired, uninvited military regime of Mengistu Hailemariam – yet he managed to rule my country with an iron hand for a long 17 years, with little or no effective, meaningful challenge from those being ruled. By using viciously crafted mechanisms of destruction to eliminate both intellectuals and the youth of Ethiopia – the future assets of the country – with the cooperation of our own families and relatives, the regime of the Dergue also managed to permanently divide and demoralize the people of Ethiopia, to the point of becoming unable either to rise up and challenge the Dergue itself, or to fight against external enemies such as the TPLF and EPLF. It is indeed depressing to painfully recall and admit that so many, perhaps millions, of Ethiopians were used by the cruel regime as tools to willingly expose their own friends, neighbours and colleagues, and hand them over to the killing machines of the Dergue. It was these actions of the Dergue regime that created permanent wounds and animosities among Ethiopians to the point that it seems difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile and cure. Perhaps because of this, we remain persistently reluctant to talk, write and debate about those painful histories and still fresh memories.

Even worse and more painful, in addition to these unhealed wounds and unforgettable scars in our recent history, we also know so little about the sources and causes that contributed to the abrupt resignation of Prime Minster Aklilu Habte-Wold’s entire cabinet on the 26 or 27 (embarrassingly, no exact date of resignation is to be found anywhere) of February 1974. Although this became a fertile ground for the emergence of the people’s enemy, the Dergue, and the subsequent structural crisis within Ethiopian society, this has not been explored and written up. Except through verbal stories and jokes told in family get-togethers and around coffee tables, most, if not all, Ethiopians have had no factual account – for example, based on meeting reports or recorded videos showing when, at which date and time, or indeed the exact reasons that led to the resignation of the late Prime Minister Aklilu Habte-Wold’s cabinet. And who was or were precisely responsible for this resignation of then Prime Minister Aklilu Habte-Wold and his ministers? Many Ethiopians say it was the Dergue that forced the entire cabinet to resign. But surely there was no Dergue or military committee at that time of their resignation? There was not someone in Addis Ababa at that time by the name of Mengistu Hailemariam. I saw him with my own eyes in early March 1974, a simple army officer or an obscure major, together with another officer from the Dire Dewa anti-aircraft division, talking to my uncle and his wife at the Harar Military Hospital while we were visiting my uncle’s wife younger brother, a member of the Ethiopian Air Force who was stationed in Dire Dewa. The Provisional Military Administrative Council had not yet been founded. There was as yet nothing in the compound of the fourth army division which was, and perhaps is still, located in Meshwalekia, Addis Ababa. The political tensions and crises that existed from January to the very day of Aklilu Habte-Wold’s cabinet resignation were nothing compared to the persistent and quite explosive political challenges, combined with armed confrontations – often with deadly results – that have faced and tested the unelected leadership of the TPLF since its arrival in May 1991. In 1974, there were only three or four demonstrations. The last (and a major) one, probably held on 26 or 27 February, is said to have resulted in the culmination of Aklilu Habte-Wold’s cabinet by resignation: it was indeed supported by the various sections and divisions of the Ethiopian armed forces. Can such demonstrations alone be seen as the decisive source and cause of the resignation of Aklilu Habte-Wold’s cabinet? How then? How come measures were not taken by the Emperor himself, as well as by Aklilu’s cabinet, in an attempt to silence the uprising? And why did Emperor Haile Selassie return home from the OAU African Heads of States Summit held in Mogadishu in late June 1974, knowing that the political temperature was heating up so dangerously and irreversibly? Didn’t he have reasonably wise advisors at that time?

Other Ethiopians argue that Aklilu Habte-Wold and his ministers were forced by Emperor Haile Selassie himself to give up their responsibilities. But how? Where are the documents, the written and recorded evidence? Does Ethiopia lack all historical records related to such resignations and the subsequent tragedies? What a huge embarrassment and deficiency for Ethiopia and its people! How is it possible that such extremely fascinating tragedies, such historically valuable and important events are not documented? How can they be so neglected, so that they are forgotten by entire generations, even that of my father? How in the world is it possible that the multiple, incalculable contributions to Ethiopia’s political development and political history, including the enormous achievements and respect my country gained from the international community through the hard, devoted work realized by those irreplaceable Ethiopian figures, can be so neglected and forgotten? Why is that? Where is the concern, the respect and the love Ethiopians generally have for the people and the history of Ethiopia, and towards those who played a crucial role in representing our country on the world political stage, who made history for our country?

The story surrounding the tragic, untimely and sudden murder of ministers, together with their compatriot army generals and civil servants, by the power hungry and power intoxicated Dergue members under the leadership of the most inhumane, cruel, anti-social animal called Mengistu Hailemariam, has remained buried, in exactly the same way as the story of the resignation of Aklilu Habte-Wold’s cabinet. No books, no films or video recordings based on facts seem to have been produced. It is probably due to our resulting ignorance that most Ethiopians of my generation often feel uncomfortable, even embarrassed, to talk or engage in debates involving these two tragic events. Yes, since there are no written meeting reports or video records that might indicate why and how the members of the Dergue reached their extremely cruel conclusions and decided to murder their own compatriots, most of us know little or nothing about the precise facts behind the killing of those 60 Ethiopian citizens in just a few minutes on the 23rd of November 1974 – we only know that they never faced due process in a court of law for the crimes of which they were accused

As time passes, later generations, including that of my daughter, will know even less. What is most remarkable of all is the lack of concern and the disinterest of Ethiopians in boldly confronting, exploring and writing about these painful events, the history of our own crises, which are also our own creations. Isn’t it tragic, even shameful, to realize that we Ethiopians still live without books, professionally produced films or video records of such important, fascinating but painful historical events?

I would further be interested in understanding why the Ethiopian Diaspora, including the opposition political parties and the Diaspora media outlets and websites, are so reluctant to provide forums that would bring together individual Ethiopians who have information about those two important historical events, so that they can be widely discussed and more deeply explored? It is to be remembered that in recent times Chapters of Ethiopian political parties and the Ethiopian Diaspora in general have been engaged in exploring and explaining the origins of TPLF and its founding fathers, as well as the later historical developments. How is it then possible that the personalities and immense historical contributions of those 60 or more Dergue victims, the events themselves, the whys and hows of their resignations and murders, can be seen as irrelevant, or less important than the history of the TPLF and its founding figures? Why is that our interest and fascination are more profound with respect to the histories of our enemies than regarding the historical achievements, contributions and personalities of our own people? What kind of Ethiopianess is that?

Dr. Maru Gubena, from Ethiopia, is a political economist, writer and publisher. Readers who wish to contact the author can reach me at [email protected]

The above text has been excerpted from one of my previously posted articles, “Looking at Forgotten Events and Future Strategies Conducive to a Mature Political Culture for Ethiopia: Putting the Cart Before the Horse?”