28. December 2009 by Assimba.

By Harakale Mohamed Hanfere - Email: harmohanfere@gmail.com

On Wednesday, December 23, 2009, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) slapped an arms embargo on Issayas Afewarki’s regime and imposed targeted sanctions for allegedly aiding Somali rebels and threatening neighbouring Djibouti. The 13-member body voted overwhelmingly and passed a Ugandan-drafted resolution that ban weapons sales to and from Eritrea and imposed travel restrictions on, and freeze assets of, Issayas Afewarki’s political and military leadership. Libya, the lone Arab member of the council and the current chair of the pan-continental African Union (AU) bloc, is the only country that voted against the resolution.

This powerful resolution passed by the UNSC imposing sanctions against Issayas Afewarki’s Regime in Eritrea is critically based on key justifiable measures including, but not limited to: an arms embargo; the inspection and seizure by Member States in their territory of such cargo to and from Eritrea; and, the imposition of a travel ban, and the freezing of assets of, Issayas Afewarki’s political and military leadership who is already blacklisted by the AU and UNMEE Committees other international bodies for its active participation in piracy, arms smuggling and intensification of tension along all the borders of neighbouring countries. As UNSC has strongly emphasized in the past weeks, this brazen act of Issayas Afewarki’s regime is based on pure contempt and disdain. But the Council’s findings on factual evidence and considering of provisions of international law on circumstances that instigate piracy, arms smuggling and intensification of terrorist training camps throughout Eritrea has brought to the fore the Afewarki regime’s continued travesty of justice and amplified dangers inherent in its systems. The fact of the matter is, this resolution was originally conceived by neighbouring countries facing the challenges of piracy, terror plots and destabilization of peace; and later it was executed by 13 UNSC member countries including, but not limited to the United States, Britain, and especially Uganda who sponsored the resolution for purposes of decisive and determined action packaging. Undoubtedly, the UNSC based its resolution on an earlier resolution passed by the AU that was warning Afewarki’s regime to adhere to international law and order. But Afewarki’s terrorist regime persistently continued to give in. In defiance of all hitherto passed resolutions against it, Afewarki’s regime still refuses to adhere to international law and order. Setting aside the retarded, outdated, and misguided policies and his guerrilla “Administration”, Afewarki has loathsome personal agenda and obsession to destabilize the region through wanton and contempt.

Hence, it is timely to exert an all rounded embargo and break Afewarki’s ever standing arrogance both internally on the Eritrean populations that are divided on religious, ethnic and political grounds; and externally for pushing arms smuggling, piracy and terrorist actions. Actually, what are the accusations levelled against Eritrea? How do these accusations match with the provisions of the UN Charter? Does the embargo process pursued against Issayas Afewarki’s regime conform to the modalities and precedents of the UNSC? I hope the following 5-reasons provide sufficient answers to these quarries.

First of all, the UNSC accusations against Issayas Afewarki and his regime for involvement in Somalia have evidentially been substantiated and verified by reports submitted to UNSC by UNEMEE, AU, IGAD and Ethiopia exposing Issayas Afewarki and his regime’s destructive roles in the region. The sanction imposed on Afewarki’s regime was the result of the Eritrean government’s simultaneous destabilization missions in Somalia, Djibouti and the Ogaden region inside Ethiopia. Hence, UNSC-Member States approved this substantiated resolution precisely for this very reason. Besides, the Somalia Monitoring Group had also previously accused Afewarki’s regime on several occasions for supplying arms to those opposing the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Somalia. Likewise the Council demanded Afewarki’s regime to “cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly” the TFG in Somalia; and further indicts Afewarki for not only providing political, financial, and logistical support to armed groups engaged in undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia, but also advancing piracy on international water of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. Getting substantial financial backing from Libya and handful Arab countries that would like to challenge the West in clandestine, Afewarki’s regime has gained momentum for political will and source of finance for its arms distributive clouts to bankroll armed groups in Somalia, Ogaden, Djibouti and the rest of the region. As for the accusations of political support, it is an open secret that Afewarki’s regime has steadfastly refused to recognize the TFG in Somalia for its covert and unfounded reasons. In fact, these lop-sided and unbalanced positions emanate from Afewarki’s profound desire to destabilize the region’s peace by propagating further the crisis in Somalia. These political considerations aside, the fundamental legal issue at hand is whether Afewarki’s outlaw regime can come to terms of jurisdiction as crafted by the UNSC. Indeed and very truly indeed, it is within the UNSC’s mandate to punish with punitive measures against any bandit regime like that of Afewarki’s. Afewarki should not be allowed to continue acting as a springboard for piracy, arms smuggling and funnelling terrorism that cause regional destabilization; and on accounts of religious and political views it manifests against the majority of the world nations; it should be stopped from its illegal piracy propagation roles and its invasion on a defenceless country like Djibouti arbitrarily.

Secondly, the UNSC’s resolution refers to the “decision of the 13th Assembly of the AU, calling upon the UNSC to impose sanctions against Issayas Afewarki’s regime in Eritrea. It was tabled, and only opposed by Libya which has a special linkage with Afewarki and his regime for reasons explained herein above. More importantly, the UNSC’s function is to base its decisions on evidential resolutions adopted by AU and on the basis of indisputable facts focused on international law.

Thirdly, the UNSC-Resolution recommends other penal measures against Eritrea on the accounts of border disputes with Djibouti where the latter has been appealing both to the AU and to the UN for quite a number of years in the recent past. Regarding the border dispute with Djibouti, the UNSC’s demand reiterates its call in Resolution 1862 adopted in January 2009 that Afewarki’s regime must pull out its forces and all their equipment from disputed territories and ensure that no military presence or activity is pursued in the area. That resolution had given Afewarki’s regime in Eritrea five weeks to pull out. It is recalled that the dispute over the Ras Doumeira promontory on the shores of the Red Sea last flared up in June 2008 after previous clashes in 1996 and 1999.

Fourthly, Afewarki and his regime forget the fact that there has never been any legally accepted border demarcation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Nor has the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia been given any viable solution. This has encouraged Afewarki’s regime to captivate the overwhelming Eritrean population under the guise of “national military service” with which to constantly keep them in check and at an alert position for likely war situation against Ethiopia along the long stretching and yet non-demarcated borderline.

Fifthly, according to a recent article on www.Africa.com, most Eritrean people do support the United Nations sanctions imposed on Eritrea under the ’repressive’ Issayas Afewarki’s regime that has repeatedly been accused of destabilizing the Horn of Africa since it gained its de-facto “independence” from Ethiopia in 1993. According to ABC News Reporter Dana Hughes from Nairobi, Afewarki and his regime officials admitted on December 16, 2009 that the Eritrean soccer team as officially missing, after failing to return home from a tournament that took place in Kenya. The plane carrying the 12 players and the coach to Nairobi returned to Eritrea with only the coach.  It sounds like an intriguing mystery, but the truth is those young men, who disappeared while in Kenya are just some of the thousands of the Eritrean youths who try to defect from Afewarki’s SAWA-Military Garrison by all possible means every year. It is an open secret that Eritrea is considered as one of the most repressive regimes currently existing in the world. In fact, there is no freedom of press or religion. The regime’s tough nationalization of nearly all private enterprises has left the country in abject poverty. As it stands, it is illegal for any one Eritrean to leave Eritrea without Afewarki and his regime’s approval, which is hardly ever granted. Mandatory conscription can last indefinitely. The tyrant dictator Afewarki holding fast the driving seat, he justifies the indefinite conscription policy by maintaining his argument that his regime needs a strong and large army to counter Ethiopia, on the non-demarcated border issues that erupted in 1998 and still continue at full-swing. But according to the Human Rights Watch, this brutal policy of Afewarki, along with other repressive measures persistently taking place inside Eritrea has turned its population to live under a totalitarian military giant garrison. In fact, Human Rights Watch has documented several cases of people who tried to flee being imprisoned and tortured. Needless to say, Eritrea’s security forces reportedly have a “shoot to kill” order for any citizen caught trying to flee the border into Sudan, Ethiopia or Djibouti. The situation is so severe that the United Nations High Commission of Refugees recommends countries should not deport any Eritrean, because of the almost guaranteed mistreatment upon the refugees return. For those who do escape, their families become direct targets for revengeful attacks by Afewarki’s garrison keepers; indeed, several families reportedly have to either pay a fine of several thousand dollars or face prison sentence themselves. By 2007, when Afewarki’s regime issued a new policy that all travelling athletes must deposit about $6,000 before leaving the country, this has now become a kind of insurance policy that they would return home. But this time, the 12 young men who were sent to Kenya decided to stay away whatever the price of escape is to them or to their families. They found it worth paying and disappear once and for all than to toil under a tyrant regime engulfed in endless misery.

The UNSC-Resolution-1907(2009) is thus a timely action; critically founded on international law and irrefutable facts. Among UNSC member nations, the United States has also employed its support to the resolution on clearly justifiable sanctions against the troublesome Afewark’s regime. All alone Afewarki’s regime dreams to turn the tables and victimize innocent neighbouring nations through its wanton, disdain, piracy arms smuggling and terrorist training camps and other cynical crimes that it is responsible for in the first place. In fact, the truth is, Issayas Afewarki and his regime remain steadfastly responsible for the mayhem and suffering that is bedevilling not only Somalia, but also Djibouti, Ogaden and the Eritrean population at large. Indeed, it is an open secret and common knowledge that as intractable as the Somali crisis may be, there were real hopes of a turnaround for the better by 2006. But for reasons that defy rationale, Afewarki’s regime then acted to roll back those promising developments by instigating havoc and defying Ethiopia’s and Uganda’s involvement in peace keeping roles within Somalia. That single debacle alone aggravated the humanitarian crisis to this very day in Somalia to unprecedented levels. Therefore, what the UNSC has acted recently is purely based on rightful justice and legality. Indeed, it took action on solidly existing evidence gathered from stakeholders seeking justice. Also it seriously bode well for keeping international law, peace and order in tact. This is why we strongly feel that a bright day is on the way thanks for the UNSC-sanctions against Afewarki and his destructive and evil-filled regime.

Posted in Articles | Print | 5 Comments »

26. December 2009 by Assimba.

By Obo Arada Shawl  December 23, 2009

The spirit of Wallelign

The process of Debteraw

The writings of Hama Tuma

have triggered respectively, to the downfall of the Monarchy, the military Dictatorship and to Ethnic Tyranny

Introduction

The politics of Eathiopia tend to pull in different directions. It is definitely three-dimensional class, the class of EPRDF led by TPLF, the class of EPLF led by EPDJ and all others with or without EPRP. The collective thoughts of Wallelign, DEBTERAW and Hama have predicted the end of nation states long before they began the struggle for change. Nowadays, the Nation State appears to be almost a nostalgic fiction. Take, for instance the State of Eritrea, or Tigrai state, for that matter, ten years ago, both TPLF and EPLF were fighting tooth and nail to become a nation state.

Recently, I have been reading a book entitled the “generals” by Eyob A. Endale (shambel) It is a book about how the Ethiopian generals attempted to overthrow one of their own military dictator, Colonel Menghistu Haile Mariam. Why on earth do the “generals” attempt a coup d’etat? This week, we are hearing about death sentences against coup plotters. I thought we have passed the stage of coup d’etats!

What was/is wrong with the elites of Eathiopians? Where do they learn their life lessons? Is it from their parents, peers or genes? Or is it something else? Perhaps, their education or training is alien to the Eathiopian masses. Where were these coup d’etat plotters during the Ethiopian Revolution and counter-revolution? I was not only surprised but also shocked to read about the way the generals died. No wonder, the so-called generals had to loose the war against EPLF and TPLF. They seem not to learn anything from the Eway Revolution.

The concept of self-determination by Wallellign Kassa Mokenen, the Eway Revolution as applied by DEBTERAW, Tsegeye G. M and the challenge of electoral politics by the writings of Hama Tuma are all - assets and heritage of EPRP. No one seems to deny that the experience and heritage of EPRP would come to be the prime mover of struggle in the context of Eathiopia.

In the entire struggle for power and politics in Eathiopia, notwithstanding with the above assertions, there are two missing points. First, it is the nature of the Eathiopian Revolution and second, it is about how the strategy and tactics for the Revolution were applied. In the first instance, the Eathiopian Revolution was about change of concepts and attitudes and not changing of personalities. In the second instance, the methodology applied was guerrilla warfare - የተራዘመ ትግል - not coup d’etat - መፈንቅለ መንግሥት - or Insurrection - አመጽ -. Unless and otherwise, Eathiopian politicians are clear about these concepts, theories and applications, there will be no common ground to reach at a solution via reconciliation or negotiation.

For a good period of years, the Eathiopian politics will seem to pull along three-dimensional directions, i.e. Nationalism, Reaction or Revolution. In other words, Separation, Unification or Division. In actual fact, Eway Ethiopia has stepped into five dimensional directions, according to my mentor DEBTERAW. Let me briefly go over the missing points of departure.

The DERG military Factor: a power player

Although the DERG (comprised of 120 members) assumed political power without the generals of Ethiopia, nominally, they had placed personalities like generals Aman Andom and Teferi Bante, at least to lead them in name - hypocrisy.

On the one hand, it was true that the DERG’s pronouncement was based on a revolution and not on reform. The DERG led by Colonel Menghistu had attempted to destroy, the ancien regime, to harass the Bureaucrats, and to become friendly with Moscow and Havana in order to oppose western countries political system of government. While on the other hand, the DERG’s Politburo was mainly comprised of military men. This means that the generals were part and parcels of the military rulers of Eathiopia another hypocrisy.

The “generals” have seen not only the movement of the guerrilla fighters but also, their organizational set up. It was a truism that the nationalists were embarked on a long struggle based on the peasant masses. From the DERG’s side of movement and organizational structure, it was similar with a flavor of fear of the Dictator Colonel. What I don’t understand is the “generals” attempt to overthrow the dictator without throwing him from the plane or putting him under house arrest. Besides, not only a coup d’etat was “massacre” considering the generals’ power position. Why did they not learn from Menghistu’s ‘slogan of massacre’ ለምሳ ያሰቡንን ለቁርስ አደረግናቸው

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that some of the military Eathiopian elites have learnt to accept a struggle for a democratic Eathiopia - a step in pentagonal dimension.

The“BEKAGN” and the “NOW” Generation Factor

This generation includes the victims of the DERG who were cheated by the military regime, particularly those students who were involved in Edget Behbret, those soldiers, marines, air forces or national guards; actually those who were promised by the DERG that it will return to its barracks once it has eliminated the ancient regime and its allies. Or alternatively, to those gullible Eathiopians who believed that Menghistu would fight until the last bullet to be used by him. Besides, this group includes those who were in prison or who saw deaths and mayhem within the “Revolution”.

The second groups of “NOW” are those would not believe that “Ethiopia” had a glorious history of trade, religion, independence and civilization. Even if it had, this generation claims it is of no value. All they are interested is”quick cash”. The amazing thing is that they don’t know what cash is let alone money and finance. This generation is a product of EPRDF.

The Walleligne Factor: Concept of Self-determination

The Eritrean concept of struggle for Indepndence obviously was initiated in 1896 right after the Italian occupation. 65 years later, the Eritrean struggle formally started with an armed struggle.

Politically, the struggle took shape when the University students especially the radical students determined to solve the question of nations and nationalities. The university students’ challenge against the administration, the professors and the subject matter became obsolete. The student body became followers of the radical student leaders.

As to the national question, many papers and discussions were presented but the most important article was written by WMK and it was presented on the occasion of freshman party. Later on, Walleligne’s article was published in the popular student magazine of ‘struggle’. The Ethiopian government newspapers condemned WMK’s article on the national question. The Ethiopian University Students were also depicted as anti-Ethiopia. Wallellign was labeled as an agent of Imperialism as well as anti-Amhara.

However, both charges against Wallellign were absolutely false. Once the Ethiopian government propaganda machine lied about Wallellign and the student body, other news media continued to lie about WMK and the student body.

Despite TPLF and EPLF’s distortion and damage of the question of nationality, WMK has sacrificed his life for the unity of Ethiopia via theory and application for he was Tsinhate Muhur Akal. The democratic nature of Wallellign will be honored when truth prevails.

Wallelign and his seven comrades* had attempted to hijack a plane and all killed but one by anti-hijackers. WMK and his comrades were not to kill or blow up themselves as in the current terrorists practice. They just wanted to scare the crew, the anti-hijackers and the passengers in that order. WMK and his team did not have the heart to kill but to sacrifice as their comrades in Assimba – shading blood if necessary – not in the name of the Eathiopians but in real terms. That event was a testimony for action.

As to the spirit of WMK, he was a highly motivated person and an honest thinker. He thought hard about the role of the ruling class. He knew that oppression (cultural and social) had created more damaging effect on the Eathiopian populace than exploitation (economic). WMK emphasized in his writings about the pretension of not only the Amharas but also even the Tigrians pretension of becoming Ethiopian with an “Amhara face”.

I do not think it is fair to blame WMK for the cession of Eritrea and others that would follow. And we should blame the TPLF for perpetuating the concept of self -determination out of context. Even now, the TPLF are caught between the followers of WMK’s article or becoming a wholesome Eathiopia. There is no creativity but copycat.

The DEBTERAW Factor: The Eway Revolution

DEBTERAW was prepared mentally, physically and emotionally to finish what was started – the Eway Revolution. He was not for coup d’etat; he was not for insurrection but for the long march of educating, organizing and arming the people of Eathiopia to empower them with information, knowledge and wisdom. DEMOCRACIA for DEBTERAW was a process not an end.

Articles on CALL ME BY NAME: a debate with DEBTERAW or Solutions with DEBTERAW should be revisited for grasping the essence of the Eway Revolution. They can be found on Debteraw.com Assimba.org Ethiox.com or by goggling on Goggle.

EPRP was the best political party fighting for the Eathiopian people. EPRP was a visionary political party for it saw the future and explained it in a new way

The Hama Tuma Factor: the struggle for Electoral politics

Hama Tuma is a prolific writer of Eathiopia as well as on African affairs. Since his early days of youth, he has been consistent with his ideology for combating against real or perceived enemies of Eathiopia and Africa.

EPRP was not well known for its political prowess or for its populist discontent, according to Hama’s writings

A politically correct struggle was a lost struggle. Take the Badme war, take the generals’ May coup d’etat, take the current article 39 in the constitution, and take Ginbot 7 Election or the coming election of 2010. They all depend on political correctness or in our parlance, feudal mentality.

However, it is time to reconsider EPRP’s role in the current Eathiopian situations/conditions, as its enemies were ferocious to disrupt its mission and physically destroy its entity. EPRP can only win when its leaders talk head to head, when its army meets face to face, when its members communicate heart to heart and when the party regardless communicates with all Eathiopians soul to soul.

The most “dissenting generation” against EPRP have been those groups who became vengeful of events and circumstances. Such groups are those who really believed that Eathiopia was first in everything but was destroyed by those who were involved in one way or another in a “revolution” or socialism. Or alternatively, these are the groups who prefer to blame others but not themselves or rather who are scared to express their opinions in public but mostly involved in back biting. Hama Tuma’s writing usually targets against such groups of hypocrites- አስመሳዮች - ፈሪዎችና ምንደጝች -

Conclusions

WMK has contributed a lot of ideas and thoughts for all Eathiopians to act whereas DEBTERAW’s contribution is immensurable in terms of implementing the ideas and concepts of the Eway Revolution.

Hama Tuma’s writing and exposition of opportunists and self-conceited Eathiopians along with their foreign masters have done incalculable damage to EPRP’s image but an immense benefit and pride to the majority of Eathiopians.

If Eathiopians were to sacrifice lives and resources in the Eway Revolution, we must finish the war and the struggle to its conclusion. We must be committed to win and reach the goal.

In addition, EPRP’s associates* its supporters should be educated and informed on EPRP’s current mission and vision. Its leaders should lead, its army should defend, and its members would support. All these three units were supposed to sacrifice lives and resources. EPRP was not for political correctness. It was founded on correct political and democratic system to be instituted in their country Eathiopia.

TRUTH WILL PREVAIL

For comments and questions

woldetewolde@yahoo.com

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

13. December 2009 by Assimba.

By Alem Mamo

There are dictators and there are purist dictators. The first group of dictators have the minimum intelligence required to notice and somehow accept when their time is up. They reluctantly give in realizing the fact that time and history are not on their side. The latter group, however, believes that the principles of dictatorship should not be adulterated or diluted. As a result they continue to rot in their bubble, failing to wake up when the smoke detector goes off. Since this group of dictators are chronically delusional they keep telling themselves, ‘I am in control’, ‘Things are fine’, ‘I will crush my opponents’, so on and so forth. They have extremely exaggerated versions of their own self worth. Adolf Hitler, Nicolai Ceausescu, Benito Mussolini, Samuel Doe, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Mengistu Hailemariam, Slobodan Milosevic, and yes, the current menace, Meles Zenawi, fit into this band of dictators. They regularly have to invent a narrative to nourish their egomaniacal personalities. The narrative is primarily based on their insistence that their version of the truth is not only superior but also absolute.

On December 11, 2009, Meles Zenawi demonstrated his delusional personality in front of local journalists (a.k.a. handpicked TPLF cadres). Answering a broad range of pre-planted “questions” (http://www.ethiotube.net/video/6974/PM-Meles-Zenawi-Press-Conference-on-Current-Issues–Dec-11-2009–Part-1), he jumped from one topic to the other without a semblance of coherence or a discernable pattern. Among the questions asked was the issue of possibly forming a national unity government in the next election, modelling the power sharing arrangements of Kenya and Zimbabwe. The answer he offered clearly revealed the inside workings of Meles Zenawi’s brain. One can pick two clear signs of delusion from this particular answer. First, instead of answering the question within the context of the Ethiopian political process, he chastised the political compromise made by Kenyan and Zimbabwean politicians. In this regard, I believe he still thinks he is in the Dedebit Mountain, and he is the leader of a guerrilla movement, not a leader of an internationally recognized state. Second, I say this because in doing so he violates one of the basic tenants of international relations and international diplomacy. This is the non-interference by outside leaders, in particular dictators, in the internal affairs of any sovereign nation moving toward democracy. While Zenawi grips tightly to the principle of non-interference when others challenge his human rights record, he ignores it when pointing toward the Kenyan and Zimbabwean processes, which are actually moving in a constructive and inclusive direction. A very convenient contradiction in support of one thing: absolute dictatorship…without borders.

The questioner asked about the possibility of a national unity government (if the need arises in the next election) modelling the Kenyan and Zimbabwean experience? “As for the so-called Kenyan and Zimbabwean model,” Mr. Zenawi said, “one must understand the strategy of the color revolution organizers in its entirety.” According to Mr. Zenawi, the strategy of the color revolution organizers is divided in to three stages. “ Their first goal is to achieve power through post-election chaos.” If that fails, he said, “They are prepared to settle for national unity government. Once they succeed that, their final goal is to remove the ruling parties of their respective countries from power.” He went further and said, “ This approach of rewarding the leaders of the color revolution is not only wrong, it is also undemocratic.” In an accusatory tone, he further elaborated on the Kenyan experience. “ In the case of Kenya” he said, “politicians agreed to form a national unity government after instigating religious and ethnic violence between the Kenyan people. The path Kenyan and Zimbabwean leaders took in power sharing is a path of chaos, destruction and most of all is undemocratic. Therefore, my government and my party do not intend to follow this path. It has no chance in Ethiopia.”¹

The United Nations Charter clearly states: No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly for any reason whatever in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted intervention and all forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the state or against political, economic and cultural elements are concerned.

The African Union Charter also clearly states under no circumstances can one country interfere in the domestic (internal) affairs of another country.² Contrary to these international covenants, Meles Zenawi has waded into the domestic affairs of Kenya and Zimbabwe. He even went as far as saying that the formation of national unity governments amounts to “rewarding the leaders of the Velvet revolution” here; without mentioning them by name he is referring to Prime Minister Raila Odinga of Kenya and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe. International diplomacy 101, even for junior level diplomats let alone for someone who claims to be a leader of a country is clear: Don’t meddle in the internal affairs of a state.

The formation of national unity governments in Kenya and Zimbabwe has been aided by national and international heavy weight diplomats. In the case of Kenya, for instance, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan personally facilitated the process and helped Mr. Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity Party and Mr. Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement party reach an agreement. It is clear that these governments are steps on the way to real democracy, but at least they are steps. As a chief negotiator of Kenya’s power sharing arrangement, Kofi Annan said: “ I have the firm impression that sufficient political will now exists among the coalition partners and sufficient unity of purpose exists among the public at large to provide Kenya with a historic opportunity for peaceful transformation. Yet, this is a time of immense challenge for Kenya. It is also time of great hope. By becoming together as one people, in pursuit of shared objectives, I am confident that Kenyans will overcome the difficulties of the past, restore confidence in Kenya as a unified nation and serve as a source of inspiration for people far beyond the country’s borders.”³

Ironically, the same man who was charged with the task of representing Africa at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Zenawi, shows no respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member state, as he shows no respect for democracy itself. Kenya is one country that I am familiar with and for which I have a special affection and affinity. In the mid-1980s when I was forced to leave Ethiopia due to the atrocities of the military regime, Kenya was my destination. It is there that I was welcomed with open arms and provided refugee status until I moved to Canada. I know the decency and generosity of the Kenyan people. By all accounts, they deserve respect and at least non-interference in their internal matters. Whatever political path they choose should be left to the Kenyan people and their elected leaders. An un-elected tyrant like Meles Zenawi has no business telling them how to govern themselves. I hope the authorities in both Kenya and Zimbabwe take notice and demand an explanation from this unruly regime, which still behaves in accordance with the law of the jungle, and does not know or understand the basics tenants of international relations.

What is inferred in Meles Zenawi’s statement is the following: The acceptance of a national unity government by Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Kibaki sets a dangerous precedent for him and other delusional tyrants. If the trend continues in this direction, he is the next one to be forced to share his AK47 earned helm of power with others. Therefore, he has to clearly oppose this kind of government before anyone gets the idea of applying it to Ethiopia.

The problem with this thought is that the next time around it is him and himself alone who should be pleading for a national unity government. Whether or not he agrees, the wind of change will soon reach his office. The question is not if but when. Our concern is whether he would follow the path of Ceausescu, Samuel Doe, his predecessor Mengistu Hailemariam, or would he learn from Mugabe and Kibaki. In the meantime, Mr. Zenawi, if you are contemplating adding another ‘NGO’ into your business enterprise, the name Dictators Without Borders is not taken and it fits your Curriculum Vitae perfectly.

The writer could be reached at alem671@hotmail.com

1 http://www.ethiotube.net/video/6974/PM-Meles-Zenawi-Press-Conference-on-Current-Issues–Dec-11-2009–Part-1

2 http: www.Africa-union.org/au/Documents/Treaties/text/OAU_charter_1963.pdf

3 http://www.dialoguekenya.org/docs/End-of-yeararticlebyH.E.Kofiannan.pdf

Posted in Articles | Print | 2 Comments »

7. December 2009 by Assimba.

By Alem Mamo

There was a time in African history when visionary leaders defeated the unjust hegemony of colonialism. They envisaged a peaceful, developed, united and self-reliant continent that lives in peace with itself and others. Their commitment and quality leadership uplifted the spirit of the continent from the shackles of European colonialism and ushered the dawn of a new era. The central message of these leaders was unity over division, forgiveness over revenge. They stood strong and committed in the face of aggression and domination.

Emperor Hailesellassie of Ethiopia, for example, stood before the League of Nations in Geneva in 1936 challenging the European moral authority to protect the weak and powerless against the barbarism of the so called civilized world. The Emperor, for his part, predicted that if the western leaders fail to act against the aggression of Mussolini, who blatantly invaded a sovereign nation and savagely killed thousands of innocent civilians, that they themselves would be the next victims, if they fail to stop the madness of the fascist regime. The prediction came true after Benito Mussolini joined Adolf Hitler in 1936, and when Hitler and Mussolini aided Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil war, subsequently creating a formal alliance in 1939.

Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana steadfastly challenged the British colonial authorities, which occupied his country since 1844. Upon independence, he illuminated the spirit of Ghanaian’s and the people of Africa still languishing under colonial rule. Amilcar Cabral of Guinea Bissau, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and many more gave their lives for the betterment of their fellow citizens and the continent in general. Africa under their leadership was brimming with hope and optimism. The people of Africa began to see far beyond the euphoria of independence and freedom.

But that all began to change when army officers and thuggish rebel leaders began to take control of the countries, one after the other. Idi Amin, Mengistu Hailemariam, Samuel Doe, Jean- Bedel Bokassa, and many others established military dictatorships that stole the hopes and aspirations of the African people. As if that wasn’t enough, the struggle that was launched to get rid of the military dictatorships gave birth to the coming of unruly, thuggish rebel leaders who do not understand the principles of rule of law. They had no vision apart from their permanent thirst for vengeance, self-aggrandizement and destruction. The sad reality of Africa’s economic and political leadership poverty is at the point now that the people of the continent are being taken hostages.

Chinua Achebe, one of the most respected and celebrated novelists of Africa, wrote in 1983 “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership.”¹ Although Chinua Achebe lamented over the state of Nigeria twenty-six years ago the fact still remains unchanged. In fact, the reader of this article could simple take ‘Nigeria’ out of the above paragraph and replace it with any country in the continent, and there one can see a disturbing trend of leadership crisis across the continent.²

The current global economic recession followed what some analysts have labelled a “global democratic recession.” Africa’s performance has been worse than in recent history, with several coups in the continent since 2005, beginning with the Mauritanian military takeover, the post-election violence in several countries including Ethiopia’s 2005 elections, Kenya’s 2007 elections, and Zimbabwe’s political nightmare. The most recent example of the unconstitutional change of government in Madagascar again demonstrates that democracy in the continent is facing serious setbacks.³ Only one African country, Mauritius, is among the 30 full democracies in the world. About forty five percent of totalitarian regimes in the world are found in Africa. Africa is home to the world’s longest serving heads of states,⁴ and in 2008, of the 51 authoritarian regimes of the world, 22 are found in the African continent.

On December 7, 2009 legitimate and illegitimate leaders alike will make the thousands of miles journey on their private jets to attend the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Some will present real and practical ideas for tackling the challenges of climate change. Others, like Meles Zenawi and the rest of Africa’s vampires, will extend their begging bowls instead of ideas and solutions. The likes of Meles Zenawi do not have the slightest respect for human dignity and human life, and they tell us that they are concerned about climate change and global warming. As laughable this may sound, this is the state of Africa to day. In a recent interview, Mr. Zenawi said “Africa will ask rich nations for billions of dollars to respond to the climate change caused by industrialized nations.”⁵ The problem with this approach is that, first of all, the climate challenge we face as a result of global warming could not be dealt by simply pumping money. Particularly, handing money to African despots like Meles Zenawi could in fact end up harming the people and the planet in general. Meles Zenawi, a man who personally ordered the murder of more than 150 peaceful protesters in broad daylight in Addis Ababa in 2005 wants the world to see him as a man who cares about the trees, water, land and sea, and yet he doesn’t even have the bare minimum respect for human life and human dignity.

.

The argument that these African tyrants have been making is that Africa as a continent did not contribute to the calamity of climate change and full responsibility lies on the side of the developed world. Well, the argument is not entirely true. As far as the average African is concerned yes, there is little to no blame. On the other hand, however, the vampire like leaders of Africa should be held accountable on two levels.

On a personal level, there are the fleets of limousines and luxury cars that they and their families use on daily bases; the private jets used by them and their families to fly to Europe, Asia and North America; and the energy consuming palaces, villas and luxury homes (all purchased with stolen public funds, while the people starve).

On a policy level, the list includes:

• Lack of knowledge of environmental issues and absence of comprehensive environmental policy;

• Lack of environmental impact assessment frameworks;

• Mass sale of land to corporations and foreign governments for food production with a goal of shipping the harvest overseas;

• Marginalization of experts and academics who could help develop sound environmental policy; and

• Implementing land policy that starves small farmers and involves mass deforestation.

For Meles Zenawi and other African tyrants to play a role of protector of the earth is not only an utter lie, it is an insult to the people of the African continent. As if the suffering these tyrants have inflicted on them is not enough; they show up on international stage claiming to represent those that they regularly imprison, torture, maim and kill.

The last time that Africa experienced genuine and inspiring leadership was between 1991-1994 when Nelson Mandela (Madiba) became the first democratically elected President of the Republic of South Africa. He generated hope and optimism, not only to South Africa, but also to the entire continent and the world as a whole. He advocated forgiveness and reconciliation to his nation scarred by the injustice of Apartheid. He brought his country from a brink of war to tolerance and coexistence. He walked out of prison with open arms and with a vision of an inclusive South Africa — a rainbow nation. Nelson Mandela didn’t govern from the point of anger or vengeance, he instead envisaged South Africa capable of moving beyond its past. That was one of the most hope full times in African history. For the first time in African history he also became the only leader to voluntarily walk away from the helm of power after just 4 years.

The leadership crisis facing most African countries in effect has caused a permanent image of the continent that is ravaged by war, famine, disease and poverty. Policy makers of the donor countries, citizens in those countries and international organizations need to understand Africa’s problem in its entire complexity, highlighting the lack of visionary leaders. In Copenhagen, what we will see is the likes of Meles Zenawi attempting to use the forum as a platform to garner legitimacy, which their own people know that they lack. Finally, those who orchestrate the murder, torture and disappearance of thousands of citizens should not be given a minute on the international stage and should be facing the wrath of international law. The challenges of climate change require leaders who respect human life, and all forms of life. Providing an international platform to Meles Zenawi and the likes is an insult to the intelligence, pride and dignity of the people of Africa and to the continent itself.

1 Chinua Achebe,

2 See Martin Meredith The State of Africa: A History of 50 Years of Independence, The Free Press, 2005.

3 http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2009/04/29/the-democracy-index-and-africas-performance/

4 http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2009/04/29/the-democracy-index-and-africas-performance/

5 http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GWForAfrica.htm

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »