24. July 2009 by Assimba.

Call me by my name, address or title By Obo Arada Shawl - July 23, 2009

This is the final piece of article written in memory of a student activist, a planner in transport & communications and a public servant. His name was Assegid Wolde Amanuel (AWA). His professional address extended from Moyale in the south, Assab in the east, Karora in the north and Kurmurk in the west labeled as MAKK ኤትዮጵያ. His job title was an economist and later a minister of Transport & Communications. His civil title was Ato Assegid as opposed to ግራዝማች ፤ ቀጝዝማች ወይም ጛድ

Introduction

In the past two articles, I have indicated AWA’s participation in the Ethiopian Student Movement as well as in his professional expertise in transport & communication sectors of the Ethiopian economy where it is believed that Transport and Communication are the nerve centers for any meaningful development.

Aethiopia is considered to be a backward nation not because of its lack of social, religious or cultural factors but of its undeveloped modes of transport and communications. In Aethiopia almost 80%-90% of its passenger and freight are moved by traditional mode of transport such as walking and horses for traveling, pack animals such as donkeys and mules for transporting goods and services.

As a public servant, AWA has facilitated the movement of Aethiopians to and from. Doing so, the interaction of peoples of Aethiopia whether in going to war or running away from war was accomplished by AWA’s responsibility via his professional understanding of public service not military service. In other words the interactions of T&C have brought the Eathiopian people to a better understanding of cooperation though not necessarily of coordination (CC).

Public Service

I know that there are individuals who think that working under the Monarchy or the DERG would automatically qualify them to be servants of Haile Sellassie and Menghistu but not of the Public. Such ideas emanate from people who were neither ever landed in professional jobs nor do have a clue about a clandestine political struggle – where freedom of any kind is banned. I bet the contribution of those professionals who had worked under the Monarchy or the DERG could weigh more than those who were in the battlefields. Let the benefit and cost analysis begin to roll – sabotaging the aims and objectives of militarism as well as of feudalism.

Public sector is about “budgeting” whereas in the private sector it is about “cost”. Transport and communications sector in Eathiopia was and is public, private and autonomous. From this we can understand how difficult it was to evaluate and pinpoint AWA’s role in this sector of economy especially when it was dominated by a public policy dubbed as the “revolutionary Ethiopia”.

By the way, what is public policy? Public policy is an attempt by a government to address a public issue. In public policy, there are three parts (PPP),

• Problems

• Players and

• Policy

The problem in AWA’s case was the issue that needed to be addressed namely the transport of people, goods and services.

The player is the individual or group of individuals that is influential in forming a plan to address the problem in question. Again in AWA’s case the Central Planners of the DERG dubbed as the agents of the so-called revolution had their models from GDR and Moscow whereas the model of T&C for Assegid was from the West, resulting in a conflict of visions.

Policy is the finalized course of action decided upon by the government in this case Menghistu and his military cronies. AWA has nothing to do with top level of decision-making body. In most cases, policies were widely open to interpretation by non-governmental players, including those in the private sector. In this case, the role and influence of AWA was limited due to his non-membership holder of workers of Ethiopian party alias COPWE.

How was Public policy defined? It is defined as the course of action or inaction taken by government entities in regard to particular issue or issues. Normally, public policy was to be embodied in constitutions, legislative acts, and judicial decisions. The era of AWA’s public service was the era of revolution and counter-revolution.

Ministry of Transport & Communications

Politically if not psychologically, anything that flies in the sky, crawls on land, swims in sea or water, was under the “Ministry of the DERG”. Technically and in practice though it was a different matter. Everyone and everybody had his/her own game plan. A country of conspiracy and secrecy, the end result is what and where we are now.

However, for the ministry of transport and communications where AWA had spent his entire professional and public life, the following procedures were relevant

The rational model for the public policy-making process can be divided into the following three parts:

• Agenda setting

• Option-formulation and

• Implementation.

Within the agenda-setting stage, the agencies such as the Highway Authorities and government officials from the Central Planning used to meet to discuss the problem at hand. In the second stage, option-formulation, alternative solutions are considered and final decisions are made regarding the best policy. Consequently, the decided policy is implemented in the final stage. Implied within this model is the fact that the needs of the Aethiopian societies are a priority for the players involved in the policy-making process. Also, it is believed that the government will follow through on all decisions made by the final policy.

Unfortunately, those who frame the issue to be addressed by policy used to exert an enormous amount of influence over the entire T&C process through their political affiliations, personalities, and personal interests. The final outcome of the process, as well as its implementation, was therefore not as effective as that which could result from a purely rational process. The Public policy though it continued to be vital in addressing economic and social concerns of societies, the DERG, notwithstanding along with its loyal friends had collapsed on its own weight.

AWA had the skills and knowledge to understand not only the complexities of transport and communications but also the feudal mentality of many of his colleagues’ vis-à-vis his revolutionary contemporaries’ vision and mission. The following facts and figures could indicate the nature of AWA’s industry in which he was involved.

On the one hand, the costs of infrastructure is astronomical as shown in the examples below

• Roads cost $410,000 per km

• Railways cost $900,000 per km

• Ports cost $40-60 million per berth

• Airports cost $300 per 1 passenger capacity

The above figures are in us dollars and are obtained from World Statistical Data

On the other hand, demand for freight and passenger was very high. Transport is essential not only in developed nations but also in developing countries that we tend to take for granted.

Transport and communications not only are expensive but also they are complex in the sense that we have also what is known as the “hardware” and the “software” infrastructures. AWA was mainly involved in the “software” infrastructure and as such it was/is more than we think we know enough about people to be involved in this type of infrastructure investment. AWA was a classical example to be misunderstood.

AWA has definitely assisted in the development of transport and communications such as roads, ports, airlines, railways, river and sea development as well as in the “software” infrastructure investment that were/are mostly financed by the World Bank and international finance capital. A case in point was that AWA has sent his employees for further studies for over two years while other ministers and authorities send their trainees for short duration in order to buy consumer goods from abroad notwithstanding the long term benefits of our country Eathiopia.

Democracy

AWA’s support for DEMOCRACIA did not seem to be born out of a naïve sense that democracy means or will necessarily brings rapid economic progress. Unlike many of his colleagues AWA did not define democracy in terms of procedural terms to the protection of civil liberties, participation in decision-making, voting election and governance reforms. AWA knew when such democracy fails, people will have to resort to another form of government. The MIESO group as well as GINBOT 7 had confirmed HIS POINTS of view.

AWA’s Democracy was a substantive outcome like economic development or social justice. Demand for Democracies emanates from

• Understanding democracy

• Political awareness

• Political knowledge

• Formal education and

• Membership in the student movement

The above criteria had solidified AWA’s belief in a public service that was based not only on a fundamental change of economics but also on a political system of government.

In contrast to AWA’s work colleagues the right to rule is ascribed to an office rather to a person. AWA was loyal to laws and to the “Eway Revolution”. AWA did not pay loyalty to the big bosses either to Emperor Haile Sellassie or the Dictator, Menhgistu and in return AWA’s subordinates were expected not to pay loyalty to him but to the laws and institutions of Aethiopia.

For AWA, no challenge was more profound than controlling corruption as he had believed then that when public resources bleed and as public officials serve their own ends rather than the public good. AWA’s dilemma was not to be deciphered so easily.

On the hand as economists love to say, AWA understood

1. As Development and governance suffer by the policy of the DERG

2. As the conflict intensifies by the nationalists

Aethiopians would turn to alternative regimes.

While on the other hand, AWA has realized that

No country in Africa was suffering between democracy and pseudo democracy than Aethiopia as

1. Civil liberties were constrained

2. Opposition rights were tenuous

Because of the above dilemma, AWA’s aspiration was geared to the following two principles

• To achieve sustainable development, democracy would not stand still; freedom alone will not be enough

• Democratic institutions to control corruption and constraint would have to be installed.

The exercise of power by the DERG may have seemed to AWA as the delivery of public goods, not private ones. He might have believed sometimes that the revolution was in the right course. This was his dilemma. He was detached from the true clandestine revolution that was going on by DEBTERAW’S EPRP.

AWA was in conflict with the current president of Ethiopia, Girma W. Giorgis as well as with the chairman of All Amhara party, Hailu Shawl, not because of their political positions but because of their personal ambitions and greed while dealing with investment in transport and communications. That was AWA that I know serving the public good.

Conclusion

The shaping of public policy in Aethiopia is not only a multifaceted process but that it was very complex. AWA could be considered as an advocacy group who had attempted to influence public policy through knowledge and participation without political pressures.

Because of AWA participation in the student movement to define the problems faced by the lack of progress and his commitment to be at the service to Aethiopian public, he was a typical an Eway Revolutionary who would have confirmed his struggle for a subtle transform of change in toppling the ethnic government, the international attempt to deplete the potential resources of Aethiopia that have been preserved for centuries by the Orthodox churches and the Monarchies. We salute his effort in the “Eway Revolution” to initiate DEMOCRACIA.

AWA was not in a position to educate the general public but in a position to the public policy makers to explain about the nature of problems in transport and communications and how to solve them not by decree by POSDCORB, an acronym coined by Luther Gullick for (Planning-Organizing-Staffing-Directing-Coordinating-Reporting-Budgeting). In my terminology, I call AWA as ጽንሐተ ምሁር akal not only because he had participated in the Aethiopian student movements but also he was a professional who could evaluate and limit funding from the World Bank and other international organizations. That was a public service in its own right.

Time and history will tell whether AWA belonged to the SAD or MAD generations of Ethiopia.

TRUTH WILL PREVAIL

For questions or comments

woldetewolde@yahoo.com

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

24. July 2009 by Assimba.

Hama Tuma

“An obliging fool is more dangerous than an enemy” says a Russian proverb. In Amharic we say “kemogn dejaf mofer yikoretal” or “mogn indenegerut, beklo indasegerut”. Those Ethiopians who hailed the Obama speech in Accra and rejoiced at the possibility of a new deal for Ethiopia and Africa thanks to Obama remind us of such obliging and dangerous fools.

Ours is a continent that had endured so many speeches of eloquence and style. African leaders have been mostly demagogic, we have heard it all. Nkrumah, Ben Bella, Nasser, Nyrere, Banda, Sekou Toure and more were moving speakers and yet we found out, much to our dismay, that words and realities are two different things. Well crafted words and flowery phrases do not a good policy make. Hence, it is inexcusable for Africans to be swayed by public speakers that shroud the real issues with self evident truths (”the future of Africa is up to Africans”–isn’t it precisely to affirm this that Africans have been struggling?) and cover their dearth of knowledge with paternalist “you must do this” advice and threats. At the end of the day, the Obama speech was a rehash of the old American policy towards Africa, all bones and no meat, and an expression of the continuing incapability of Washington to come to grips with the real problems of Africa. One wonders why some Africans beat the festive drums over the Obama Accra speech even though such drummers as Raila Odinga of Kenya do prove the point that “it is business as usual” for Africa’s corrupt leaders. Obama did say once that his knowledge of African realities is equal to the knowledge of those who had occupied the White House seat before him–just imagine Reagan and Bush and even the Clinton fellow who hailed Meles, Kagame, Museveni,etc.. as democrats. Not very encouraging at all. Doing the visit to the slave prisons is just a photo op that even Bush had done in Senegal and it is by now an empty symbolism from a country that has refused to pay due reparation for the slave trade.

Is Obama ending the misguided policies of Bush or extending them wrapped in demagogy? As Americans are wont to say, where is the beef? Is he showing us the money? That Obama’s father was a Kenyan is neither here nor there as Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice and Johnnie Carson are African Americans/blacks/ and they did not hear the heartbeat Africa at all. Colour and birth considerations aside, Obama is an American, elected to safeguard the interest of America in Africa and the whole world. Obama’s vision of Africa is American and that of the ruling power holders of the big country. His refusal to acknowledge that Africa’s woes are mostly the results of neo colonial plunder and machination is at the center of his failure to understand the woes of Africa. He said accusingly that the West did not cause the economic problems of Zimbabwe and the West has little to do with wars in which children become soldiers. What? Zimbabwe’s economy was wrecked by embargoes and sabotage by the West ever since Britain raged against Mugabe for taking action against white landowners. No one n the west cried foul when Mugabe was torching Matabele land to crush an insurgency. The child soldiers of Sierra Leone for one were involved in a diamond war in which Britain and even South Africa played a major part. Who were the allies of Charles Taylor? Who financed Renamo? UNITA? And the ongoing war in the Congo? Western mining companies like British Ashanti corporation finance the militias wreaking havoc, recruiting children as soldiers and raping women in thousands. Obama harped on corruption and good governance in his attempt to attribute the blame on Africa itself but the reality shows us different. “No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20% off the top,” said Obama. Is this true? Absolutely not. The foreign companies actually want those scoundrels who can be bribed. From Lumumba to Nkrumah and more, nationalist African leaders have been victims of coups mostly engineered by the CIA and the West. Leaders that rig elections and repress voters enjoy American aid and backing. The butcher in Equatorial Guinea is sustained in power by American oil companies. President Nguema’s stolen millions were stashed in Washington’s Riggs Bank and Condoleezza Rice feted the tyrant. Western oil companies who ran after Africa’s oil have been allies of the despots be it in the Congo, Gabon, Nigeria or Angola (for a good exposure of how these giant companies practically manipulate the tyrants and the governments do read Nicholas Shaxson’s: Poisoned Wells–The Dirty Politics of African Oil ). And this affirmation by Obama that “we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments” or “no good governance no aid” is an old song crooned by Western leaders from Mitterrand to Blair to Clinton. American and western aid had actually gone to despots, to apartheid South Africa, to Egypt’s Mubarek, to Meles Zenawi, to corrupt Dos Santos in Angola, etc. Britain and France have also backed despots in their particular enclaves and as the competition from China (ruthlessly nationalist and arrogantly racist too) heats up the West is grovelling before the dictators in countries with oil and minerals. Foreign investment has thus been mainly in countries where scoundrel and thieves are in power. The issue of corruption is not also just an African internal affair as Obama wanted to imply but something that has been fanned and extended all over Africa by Western embassies and companies working intimately with African officials. Governments cannot skim 20% off the top if the Western companies were not in accord with them. Western investors hate honest and nationalist leaders (who overthrew and had Lumumba murdered? Allende? Mossadegh? Arbenz?) and are comfortable with corrupt rogues.

That is why Meles Zenawi is one of the usual guests of the G8 meetings and the very person picked by Tony Blair to head an African committee. Nigerian dictator’s solen billions ares till British and other western banks. Meles Zenawi and his corrupt wife have hidden millions in Citibank. The eight African leaders recently invited to the G8 meeting are all corrupt and seven of the eight are leading countries considered not free by Freedom House itself. Ghana may fare better now than others but it is also rife with corruption. In the UN Development Index report also Ghana is not that glorious (among the 20 poorest–142nd while Kenya is 144th). Corruption flourishes in Africa with Western collaboration. Africa is wrecked by wars in most cases financed and fanned by the West as it chases its greed for oil and minerals to the detriment of Africans ( more than 4 million have died in the mineral war of the Congo). Obama talked of the need for a strong parliament, honest police force, independent judges, independent press, a vibrant private sector, and a civil society. Fine requirements. However, if development depends on good governance and if America will not help those who have not instituted good governance then one is at odds to explain the actual and real policies of America in support of despots all over the continent. This is why Obama’s glossing over the damages of colonialism and neo colonialism grates and sprinkles salt on our wounds. Diseases and conflicts have ravaged the African continent but who is to really blame for that? Poverty is linked to the system; Ethiopia is suffering from famine not because its land is infertile. But who supports these regimes that impoverish the African people while opening up the country to the greedy western oil and mineral companies? Who is impoverishing African farmers by subsidizing its own farmers and making the African products cheap in the world market? Questions that Obama, like Bush, did not want to address at all.

There is the possibility that some hardened fools may still argue that all this was in the past and that things have changed now with Obama. Where and when? Besides repeating the usual (and mistaken) official diatribe against “genocide” in Darfur and terrorists in Somalia, has Obama really broken with the past? Let us take the Horn of Africa, a region we know much better than the American president. Somalia’s intractable clan war was complicated by Washington when it decided to arm the hated warlords against those it called terrorists linked to Al Qaeda. Like the WMD, it was said there were three or four top Al Qaeda operatives hiding in Somalia (they were never found) and the support to the venal warlords made the fanatics of the ICU appear better in the eyes of most Somalis. And then, Washington prompted Meles Zenawi to send in soldiers and actively supported the disastrous invasion which any Ethiopian would have told them was doomed to failure. The troops of Meles helped the Al Shabab gain more support, were forced to withdraw and Somalia is now in the pits with the fanatics in ascendance. And what is new American policy as concerns Somalia? Arming the so called moderates of the Transitional Government, paying Uganda and Djibouti (!!) for arms and training, fuming against terrorists, accusing Eritrea of arming the “terrorists”. More of the same. The misguided notion of considering the Somali mess as part and parcel of the so called war against terror is very flawed. Let us take Ethiopia where a ruthless dictatorship is in place. Taking Obama’s measures, it fails miserably to qualify as good governance: the parliament is rubber stamp and even the rubber is threadbare, the police force is brutal, corrupt and repressive, the judiciary is controlled by the State, civic society has been denied independent and vibrant existence, the free press is muzzled (Meles is named one of the worst predators of the free press), the private sector is stifled by the monopolistic economic firms of the ruling Tigrean front (TPLF). In 2005, the ruling front lost the general election but used violence to massacre more than 200 protestors, to jail thousands and to stay in power with the help of America and Britain. This repressive regime and its cold blooded head called Meles have remained to be the West’s darlings and Mr Obama was sitting together with this murderer in the last G8 meeting. W cannot talk of change because the new secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, who recently visited Ethiopia, praised the anti people regime as an ally and as the one that has brought democracy to Ethiopia. There is no new policy, no new deal, no firm American stand against dictators and tyrants.

So, if we judge the Obama speech in Accra from the real and bitter realities of poverty, war, AIDS, corruption and sovereignty. that is if we ask did he say something new or has he heralded any change, the answer is no. The “future of Africa is up to Africans” is an refrain we have heard before so many times from Western leaders that do not waste time to forcefully take our sovereignty away. It is empty talk. To rile against poverty, corruption, the lack of good governance without mentioning the lion’s share of the guilt and responsibility of the West is to bray at the moon and to hoodwink the victims. Talk of neo-colonial plunder, talk of oil companies robbing countries blind and backing tyrants and murderous militias, talk of subsidies that impoverish and debilitate African farmers, talk of taking real and concrete actions against tyrants and then we can listen. The West needs corrupt and repressive regimes in Africa for it to rob best the continent. President Obama should say no to this addiction, to this greed and craving of a junkie. Up to now, he has not done so. He is continuing the Bush policy incensing it with confusing speeches. Those Africans who imagine that “the end of tyranny is now” and that “with Obama in charge our sufferings will end” only prove the truth in the saying that a fool will laugh when he is drowning.

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »