10. April 2010 by Assimba.

Hama Tuma

Without going deep into the not so negligible difference between an illusion (more of a perceptual problem) and a delusion (concerning belief despite facts to the contrary) it is safe to state that most of Africa suffers from the delusion of being independent fifty years after some 18 African countries allegedly gained their “independence” from Colonialism which was a tricky monster if there ever was one.

Colonialism came with the Bible in one hand and as the Africans bowed to pray the white man took the land and their alleged freedom (at least from being colonized by a foreign country). Colonialism played many tricks on gullible Africans and its most damaging joke was to declare that it has left (front door exit) while actually rushing back in through the back door (neo colonialism using the black bourgeoisie). The puppets wearing black masks, denounced so bitterly by Frantz Fanon for one, were quick to declare that formal independence (flags and a native government that played the puppet role to the hilt) was actually the real thing while the delusion was being promoted as actual. A national flag, a black oppressor in a Mercedes Benz and a Rolls Royce, palaces and corrupt and hedonistic existence for the few and Africans were expected to hail this as freedom and salvation. Those who said the Emperor was actually naked and that colonialism has continued in a new garb (with the old stink in place) were quickly silenced. Belgian and CIA agents collaborated to have Patrice Lumumba murdered. Freedom fighters Um Nyobe, Felix Moumie and later on Mondlane, Machel and Cabral were gotten rid off in one way or another. Pan Africanists with a strong anti imperialist stance were made victims of foreign engineered coups as in Ghana and Nkrumah. Colonialism never left but wore a new mask, Africa was doomed as the traitors had a field day selling the whole continent without any scruples or qualms.

The one party state that was the darling of the West fleecing Africa through a corrupt and malleable strongman (Mobutu is a good example) went against any notion of democratic governance. Rebellions were bound to erupt here and there and the colonizers had to spread again the virus of what Nyrere called “tribalism”and is nowadays referred to as “ethnicism”, the “Ethnic assaulting the Nation” as Samir Amin put it in a book. Africa’s desire to consolidate nation states broke against the iceberg of ethnic assault and the division helped carry the goal of the rapacious West to its zenith. (Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were also to become victims of this sponsored ethnic or nationality assault). Worse still, even the ethnically or nationally cohesive people like the Somalis succumbed to the virus, divided on clan levels and are still going on with their carnage no matter what. Yet, we must admit that, fifty years on, the delusion of independence is no more a big problem–we all know few African countries are really independent. Actually, the two countries that had never been colonized, mainly Ethiopia and Liberia, are also fine examples of dependence and neo colonial servility. Liberia was handed over to freed American slaves and these imposed their corrupt rule over the “natives” with the help of America and North American companies like Firestone rubber company and when the jury of revenge came (via the Samuel Doe coup) it was indeed violent (Tolbert and many ministers were summarily shot). Liberia was not independent in the 19th century and is not so now either. Ethiopia was never colonized (maybe the Ethiopians read the Bible before the white man and were not duped to close their eyes and pray) but the regimes in power for more than seventy years were/are puppets of foreign powers (USA and the Soviet Union) and Ethiopians have never realized their dream of democratic governance. This is not to say that there was little difference between the colonised and the not colonized (perhaps there is some in the psyche and type of wounds) but it is to assert that colonialism did not leave, not ever, but stayed on with more fangs and new garbs. As I said, colonialism is a tricky monster.

Like it can even change colour and appearance given the fact that China is now busy replacing the old and known plunderers. As a Young Turk plunderer, China seems to have little or no scruples other than fiercely pursuing its own national interests but it has learnt the moves and gives lip service to the “delusion”, the flag and the false belief in a non existent sovereignty. Buttering up our ego, telling us we are rich and proud when we are poor and miserable and they are taking away our wealth and backing our killers (Beshir, Meles, Mugabe, etc). In reality, the assault on our pride and self respect has been so strong that most of us have succumbed to self hate (a bonanza for the skin lightening product manufacturers for example) and lack of self confidence. We claim that partaking wisdom at the feet of the white man is all, we speak English or French and we are wise and we know it all (as opposed to the “ignorant” majority that doesn’t), and our salvation can only come from the good will of the new colonizers. The pathetic souls who pray “Our Father who art in the White House” are good examples of this malady. The dependence and absolute lack of belief in the strength and power of one’s people is very damaging especially in light of the real situation in which there seems little hope of achieving meaningful social change peacefully. And yet, it is sadly true that the armed rebels claiming to fight for our liberation have turned out to be murderous thugs ( Renamo, RUF, LRA and others), lumpen guerrillas if you want. Our misery is compounded; colonialism is dead but long live colonialism is not a dead cry.

It is of course possible to contend that we should be left alone with our delusions. It is probable that if one takes one’s hell as a paradise then the suffering may appear less (illusion). Ethiopian say if we call it life dwelling in the graveyard may be comfortable or warm. The perspective matters. If the poor man does not drink butter in his dream he would have died sooner from constipation is another favourite saying in Ethiopia. Delusion plays a role. Instead of a white Bwana governor we have a black native oppressor–is there no difference? Isn’t it better if we delude ourselves that there is a difference especially when we cannot find an iota even using a magnifying glass for investigation? Less expectation, less frustration. More delusion, less pain. The bastards have not left (blood diamonds, blood Coltan, a whole continent plundered without mercy) but why not delude ourselves that they have? Viewed from this angle, the delusion of independence makes our graveyard feel warm. We all know we live in a “cold” continent so why harp on it and shiver when we can embrace our delusion and sweat from the imagined heat?

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

9. April 2010 by Assimba.

By Getachew Reda www.Ethiopiansemay.blogspot.comThis briefly written article is a reply to all concerned fellows who are critical to the Ethio-Eritrea People to People friendly conference carried here in San Jose. This response is not of the committee. This response is mine as a citizen and a media operator. Therefore, if you have any critique, question or response please do address to me not to the committee or to the participants or guests.I was triggered to come to response this article after I read my good friend Yelfiwos Wondaya (a decent, patriotic and a good old friend of mine indeed- may I add). Yelfiwos being my compatriot friend this time, I felt it needs a reply for his commentary “Conference in the Horn of Africa”. I wish he addressed his concern only to the people who held a conference based on his title (Conference in the Horn of Africa). My friend Yelfwos shouldn’t linked the San Jose- “people to People Conference” between Ethiopians and our brother/sisters who called themselves Eritreans” with that Conference organized by few Shabia sympathizers (Neamin Zeleke a good patriot- but fall short recently for reason odd to me and some few) and guests from Shabia lovers and racists (Amanuel Beidemariam for example whom his Shabia view articles appeared on Ethioforum.org and Abugida websites ) that have bleeding heart to Isayas Afewerki. 

My main concern of this commentary that I like to address was not the above issue I quoted Yelfiwos, but  to explain what some of his definition of “People” in his commentary and also some Eritreans such as the Awate.com editor Salah Gadi wrongly may be even naively and ignorantly or arrogantly , or his usual dismissing of Ethiopia’s being generous to educated him to the level referring his relation with Ethiopia “as Misery and misery and misery” <purposely  misinterpreted- any people to people relation dismissing it on his website commentary saying to some his likes “Eritreans” that carried conference regarding the Ethio-Eritrea issue (though that conference in London - was carried by some Eritreans who have connection with TPLF/Meles as the Shabia die sympathizer Ethiopians carried it in DC). But, his interpretation of Ethiopians and Eritreans issue dismissed it in a worst statement of ignorance the following.  “  …Then, you have to scrap the whole misleading notion of “peace with Ethiopia” because there is no enmity between Eritreans and Ethiopians, at all. Proof? Eritreans and Ethiopians in the border areas are still intermarrying, burying their dead together and praying in the same churches… and you do not speak their simple language. Why are you trying to resolve an enmity that doesn’t exist but in your minds? Please learn to deal with matters that count, that break the bondage of Eritreans. Learn to address real issues that affect the entire Eritrean people instead of wallowing in trivial issues every now and then. Clean your houses first before sniffing for a non-existent problem with your neighbors.”  Ngdet London,Kahsa Weyane (By Saleh (Gadi) Johar-April 01,, 2010 

Now, I will leave such ignorance to all readers to think how ignorance the fellow is to dismiss the present bloody and hateful relation of the two society as a “factious or nothing is happening between the two of us”.  Salah as a website editor and a person who participated as observer ( Asenadai/organizer- of the fraudulent Eritrean Shaabia Freedom Referendum- (?) so called Eritrrean Referendum) and to comment on it as no hate relation is between the two people exited is too naïve! If anyone dismissed in such a way denying that there is no animosity between Eritreans and Ethiopians, then they are living in a different world (one needs not to search and read what is posted on the Eritrean websites or Pal Talks or magazines and radio or their audio video concerts… Only a fool can dismiss in such naivety not articulated and educated website master and an Engineer (?). Let alone Salah to say there is no animosity among the two people- even Isayas and Meles the perpetrators of  the conflict and hate stated “There is no hatred among the two people. Sure!!!!!!) 

   Now, let me quote how Yelfiwos linked us with those (the title he named) above.“Patriotism lives on and performing national duties in a faithful manner is what patriotic act is all about.  Be just that or be not.  Back to the name changing trail; CUD was a coalition next to so-called KESTE-DAMENA one of the integral parts of CUD itself then without the name Ethiopia attached to it, then, all splinter groups came out of it with the exception of MEAD called themselves the same exact way CUD has done in terms of avoiding the name Ethiopia, G7, UDJ, and MEDREK are the cases in point here and then noticeably AFD was formed by carefully avoiding the name Ethiopia too, then, comes the so-called Ethio-Eritrean conference that took place twice in San Jose, CA, and here we go again the so-called Conference on the Horn of Africa is another occasion for another group gaming its way to the top of its profession.” 

First of all let me started with what he said regarding patriotism. “Patriotism lives on and performing national duties in a faithful manner is what patriotic act is all about.” As the same time he dismissed what he said by dismissing those of us who tried to perform faithfully national duties such as easing conflicts and hate among Ethiopians and Eritreans brothers and sister that took so much life and family splits and so much sufferings. 

What also made me so uncomfortable is when he accused my San Jose Ethio-Eritrean People to People brotherly conference linked us with the group/trail he accused of avoiding the name “Ethiopia” on their titles by saying “.  Back to the name changing trail; CUD was a coalition next to so-called KESTE-DAMENA one of the integral parts of CUD itself then without the name Ethiopia attached to it, then, all splinter groups came out of it with the exception of MEAD called themselves the same exact way CUD has done in terms of avoiding the name Ethiopia, G7, UDJ, and MEDREK are the cases in point here and then noticeably AFD was formed by carefully avoiding the name Ethiopia too, then, comes the so-called Ethio-Eritrean conference that took place twice in San Jose, CA, and here we go again the so-called Conference on the Horn of Africa is another occasion for another group gaming its way to the top of its profession.” 

What in the world happened to my brother Yelfiwos? Brother, how in the world can we be accused of changing names and linked/compared with notorious organizations who hate Ethiopia who were organized and orchestrated by EPLF noticeably AFD and the rest as Embryo that grew to its way to the top of its profession? It is absurd to deliberately sett us with such accusation by a clever way of writing using  “….Comes the so called Ethio-Eritrea conference that took place twice in San Jose, CA and here we go again the so called Conference on the Horn of Africa is “another group” (quotation added mine) gaming its way to the top of its profession.” 

I tell you, I have read and heard so much crap from all sides from Eritrean website editors, TPLF website editors and Ethiopians that the San Jose conference is been given so much names before the conference. Participants ad guests were been asked or coerced not to participate- but, the truth the matter is after all the conference every one of them concluded that such conference and gathering was Community solving issue that leads to ease tension and create or resuscitate the brotherly and sisterly relation among Eritreans and Ethiopians that can help to examine what went wrong among us. This is has nothing to do with business of changing Ethiopian names or avoiding Ethiopian names or whatever premature rumors is been spreading all over the media. 

I have invited all; including TPLF Aiga cadres that were trying sending rumors about us to come to the conference and explain their views to explain why such wholly mission is negative or a threat to both people. None of them came and didn’t show up- knowing they have no point to offer based on their rumors behind the screen they were writing. So, according to my memory, people know me for years that I Getachew Reda will not join with groups that have intention or has mission of change the name of Ethiopia into something else. Brother Yelfiwos knows my position and won’t miss this. Therefore such linking to such group needed to be corrected in the future. If such could have been the agenda I will be the first person to withdrew and alert you. But, that is not the case at all.   Finally, I have also like to address the meaning of people. I have read Eritreans (Awate editor on his mail to me) and brother Yelfiwos on his articles and also TPLF supporters who wanted to hijack such start to their own advantage miss interpreted the word “people”. All of them used similar view saying (I will paraphrase generalizing each of theirs different way of saying to one sentence) << no one has the authority or the moral ground to decide or conduct or talk about the fate of the two people. >> well, well, well! Who are the “people”? Is that not me and you made up of? People are not separate entity from the individuals that build the “people”/ “group”. If we wait for some unknown body called “people” to do the conference outside individual initiations-there can’t never happened a  conference that will be stated or conducted by “people” unless “we the people” initiated by individuals is held or conducted. Individuals are us the people who are the yolk of the so called “people” and the total sum of conscious and unconscious elements of “people”. Even according to my yelfiwos or others of saying if such is going to be called peoples’ – it should include all organization/political and the like. There are also who do not believe in all the mentioned representatives of organizations or do not know them or recognize them as their representatives. So where is the line to draw and decide this are representatives of the people and these are not? If we do, we will all end up in hypocritical arguments.The definition of people goes like this “  The body of persons who compose a community, tribe, nation, or race; an aggregate of individuals forming a whole; a community; a nation.” Therefore, we as the inhabitant of Ethiopia and as individual, we have the full right to organize to ease the tension that matters or be hurdle to our families, countries relationship. There is nothing wrong to assemble and discuss or passed resolution regarding what we feel to be solved. We can agree and disagree based on the solutions and resolutions and methods that any conference and political group passed or indorsed. But we can’t tell people we have no moral ground or authority or right to discuss about issues that matters to them. It is our fundamental right to discuss and create the best solution for the problem. We can’t wait for some unknown entity called “people” apart of individual involvement in the effort of building peoples’ issue to solve our problems. 

If there is, there is one thing “people” can do. Agree or disagree with the resolution or policy they frame.  But, when we dismiss organizations as negative, mercenaries or with hidden agenda- it only should focus to those known sympathizers of Anti Ethiopia gangs not to those who have never linked or had history of linkage of such group. Finally, believe me we are conducting this conference knowing we Ethiopians are mainly putting a lot of effort to create a climate of brotherly and sisterhood regardless we know Eritreans are far from reaching us. We did this, because, we like to show them the usual Ethiopian tradition and humbleness as good people as we were all the time to Eritreans ever since history seeing them as our blood and family. As you all know, we Ethiopians are not welcome to their restaurants and concerts, conferences without being seen received in a hostile eye or reception/ or seen as strange (many proofs for this), but Eritreans are welcome in Ethiopian restaurants, nightclubs, musical concerts, our stores (some stores in San Jose are even now selling their racist books, CD –music/movies even clothes that has EPLF flags and design-!- (do not ask me how that happened- ask the store owners) in our gatherings freely enjoying without receiving hostility from Ethiopians (owners, organizers or guests).  

We all are familiar with such huge gab. But we knowingly do so to washout what they have been brainwashed and misled by Eritrean organizations and “TPLF” gangs and sympathizers (though after Badime war TPLF sympathizers are in a different line and mood now with the rest of the Ethiopians). “የኤርትራ ህዝብ ስማ!…. የመንግሥትህ መሪ የሆነዉ ተድላ ባይሩ……የ አማሮች ተገዥ ሊያደርግህ በመዘጋጀት ላይ ነዉ…. አንድ ጊዜ ከሸዋ ወጥመድ ዉስጥ ከገባህ በሗላ ለዘላለሙ መዉጫ አይኖርህም።…ቆርጦ የሚዋጋልህን ቀጥተኛ ኤርትራዊ ለፓርላማዉ አባልነት ምረጥ…” በማለት “ አክሱማዊዉ ወልደአብ ወልደማርያም”  በ50ዎቹ ሲጽፉት የነበረዉን፤ ጽሁፍ ዛሬ “ቀጥተኛ ኤርትራዊ” የተባለዉ በወልደአብ የተወደሰለት “ኢሳያስ አፈወርቂ” ከመረጠ በሗላ እና “ነፃ ሆነሽ ስመለስ የናፍቆት እምባየን አፍስሸልሻለሁ” ያሉዋትን ኤርትራ፤ “ከአማራ ወጥመድ” ከወጣች በሗላ “ለዘላሙ መዉጫ የሌለዉ ወጥመድ እና ባርነት “በቀጥተኛዉ” ኤርትራዊ ቀንበር ከወደቀ በሗላ አብዛኛዎቹ ኤርትራዉያኖች በዘር እና የጥላቻ ፖለቲካ ተስብከዉ ወደ ባሰ ጥላቻ እና ደም መፋሰስ በመግባታቸዉና እኛዉንም ጨምረዉ  ወደ ጥላቻ ጨዋታዉ ሜዳ ስለጨመሩን፤ ከዚህ ከገባንበት ወጥመድ እንዴት ወጥተን ሰላማዊ ግንኙነታችን መልሰን እንዴት እንገምባ” ከሚል እሳቤ እንጂ - ያገራችን ሰንደቃላማ፤ክብርና ስም ለመለወጥ የገባንበት አላማ እንዳልሆነ ሕዝቡ እንዲያዉቀዉ በዚህ አጋጣሚ አሳስባለሁ።

                          Best Regards to all – www.Ethiopiansemay.blogspot.com

                                   Getachew Reda

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

4. April 2010 by Assimba.

By Yelfiwos Wondaya

One wonders why some quarters continue to avoid the name that says Ethiopia . If the intention is to extract our patriotic memories we hold on firm for Ethiopia , the intention will not go any further than it already did. However, I leave that for the groups to elaborate on the notion of name changing trail and beyond, and yet as any loyal citizens, I remain firm in using my shield, a symbolic image that is associated with Ethiopians’ defense system against foreign aggression. Defending is what I know and defending is what I do to shield my identity. And also, whether or not the intention is to wipe out our memory of which we are or that of our national feelings often prevails over enemies, I also leave that for the groups to respond as well. Patriotism lives on and performing national duties in a faithful manner is what patriotic act is all about. Be just that or be not. Back to the name changing trail; CUD was a coalition next to so-called KESTE-DAMENA one of the integral parts of CUD itself then without the name Ethiopia attached to it, then, all splinter groups came out of it with the exception of MEAD called themselves the same exact way CUD has done in terms of avoiding the name Ethiopia, G7, UDJ, and MEDREK are the cases in point here and then noticeably AFD was formed by carefully avoiding the name Ethiopia too, then, comes the so-called Ethio-Eritrean conference that took place twice in San Jose, CA, and here we go again the so-called Conference on the Horn of Africa is another occasion for another group gaming its way to the top of its profession. Well done, whether or not the entire groups mentioned here have something in common, or done by accident or by design, I for one would like to ask all of them to answer the same question I asked above. Altogether, what are your sentiments on the matter? The matter in this trail is name changing. And the other thing I would like to comment on is that that it is pathetic for a self-appointed Think Thank to think of an institution formed in a far away land by few is a remedy for Ethiopia. At any rate, such notion of settlement is morally wrong and politically incorrect and cannot correspond in part with our belief system back home in Ethiopia . Does any given group be it political or civic or both have a right to pass any motions on behalf of our great nation without getting a mandate from the people of that very nation? I believe not! Isn’t that the reason why we are opposing to Meles of TPLF to begin with? I like to say yes for the answer.

First of all, both the guests and participants in this so-called Horn of Africa are Ethiopians. If that is so, why bothered to call it “A Conference on the Horn of Africa instead of putting the Ethiopian agenda first and then about the Horn of Africa in general? And yet the privileged minorities believed to have more power, social standing, wealth and talent than the rest of us in Diaspora cannot represent us much less representing the interest of Ethiopians living in Ethiopia .

Once again a fear of backdoor dealings dominating Ethiopian thinking both at home and abroad for sometime must come to a close now. Ethiopians are no longer interested in a group that carries out an indirect sort of dealings with anyone other than our own to settle our national affairs. To begin with, one would say without fear of contradiction that an initiative that comes from outside into a place where it does not belong is bound to fail. In all honesty, though coordinating the various aspects of our activities, organizing the potential candidates of our future government and applying efficient working methods in order to make the entire arrangement work effectively must be our business. And also organizing a new platform that creates an environment in which the influence of the majority is welcomed to abate our misery is our goal. For we are at Liberty , we must remain free to take any measure necessary to attain our liberty and freedom on our own. Isn’t that common for any human society to defend its liberty and freedom on its own? So fighting against any sort of interventions that limit our freedom and sovereignty is something that any responsible citizen is obliged to accomplish. To that end, one has to admonish Ethiopians of all persuasions to stay alert and not to get duped by any backdoor dealings that breach our sovereignty ever again. And most important of all, if and when Ethiopia ’s fate is determined must be determined not by outside influence but by Ethiopians themselves. Of course, we the people of Ethiopia knew full well that Meles is a bridge to no where; but does not mean though that an agreement reached by unknown and private individuals on a foreign land without including the greater majority of us is acceptable. So in principle imposing one’s regime upon the same people is what Meles of TPLF has done, which is why we opposed it, and we continue to oppose such practices no matter who does it. So, as an alternative, Ethiopians deserve to have a representative government led by a statesman who is widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good or a broadly based coalition government consisted of all Ethiopian political and civic organizations. I personally believe that this sentiment is deeply rooted in the concept of the Ethiopian sociopolitical culture and tradition which can be described as a set of attitudes and ideas common to all Ethiopians as well. To that end, holding a conference that avoids the name Ethiopia itself and many other Ethiopian political and civic organizations would not be acceptable at all. If need to be, a national conference that includes all Ethiopians of all persuasions would be commendable.

Secondly, strange enough though that this very conference involved only the unknown and the private persons. If known most of them are known as notorious persons in Ethiopia or as defectors or both. Of course, some of whom I know were our comrades in arms but defected for other camps. Nothing is further from the truth, that this conference was not fairly selected to represent Ethiopians much less be all inclusive and all-embracing. With all due respect, though where is the moral-bound we Ethiopians are familiar with? How on earth a group living abroad believes in imposing its borrowed ideology against the will of our people and yet continues to enforce an argument Ethiopians are not interested in to engage in at all. I believe it is a belief of elite groups and what these groups hold to be true is not necessarily true to Ethiopians both inside and abroad. Especially, when they avoid the name Ethiopia , a country we supposed to be proud of.

Likewise, Ethiopians deserve a time and space of their own to choose their own government freely rather than having it imposed from outside. To me, a bad decision done willingly is much better than a good decision done by compulsion. Whether or not such institution formed outside of our country shall have a free ride to use the name that says Horn of Africa in exchange for Ethiopia is yet to be seen. But one thing is for sure; to the best of my understanding, even deciding on discussing, endorsing and imposing the choices of privileged minorities and foreign powers upon the fate of our nation is not acceptable by any measure. Don’t change my name against my will, a name on which my identity is driven, and my essential self that constitutes my individual personality for life.

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

2. April 2010 by Assimba.

Successive U.S. and western governments repeatedly have pronounced their intention to partner with states and support the advancement of democracy and freedom in the African continent. Surely, these well-intentioned commitments often generate a positive reaction from the civil society and pro-democracy groups in Africa and around the world. Despite, the articulation of such desire on paper, the delivery of the actual support, however, is not as clear or as straightforward as the declared doctrine seems. In fact, the files of the past and the present provide us with the uncomfortable truth that the U.S. and the west have supported (and continue to support) and have allied with tyrannical regimes in Africa in favour of stability, national security, geo-politics and economic interest.

However, the people of Africa are fully aware of the fact that democracy is a grassroots concept, and it could only be furthered from the bottom up. Furthermore, those who are struggling for democracy are also fully aware that they are the ones who will determine their destiny, and they are not under any illusion that external forces will deliver democracy to them. The dilemma that Africa faces is not that the U.S. and the west in general are not delivering on their promises; the complaint is that the U.S. and the west are in fact supporting undemocratic rules in Africa complicating and delaying the development of democracy.

It is this fact that is creating a level of unease and frustration among the majority of African people towards the past and present U.S. and western governments. In the early 1990s, following the end of the Cold War, Africa was brimming with hope and optimism as regimes that once were supported and sustained by the USSR crumbled and the emergence of democratically elected governments seemed inevitable. Unfortunately, this hope was short lived as newly minted and more ruthless tyrants marched into the capitals of Africa. In essence, the optimism was replaced by fear and resignation. Thus, the sad fate of the African people living under the clenched fists of dictators continues generation after generation.

Despite a few successes stories of democratic rule, Africa continues to be in the hands of ‘strong men’ who have no regard for the dignity and sanctity of human life. They govern under states of emergency; they kill, torture and pillage the wealth of the countries. Regrettably, some of these new bands of dictators are enjoying full material, diplomatic, military and political support from the western governments who claim that this support is for the advancement of democracy, respect for human rights, freedom, and the rule of law in Africa and around the world. In the course of reviewing the records of the recent past, however, one could easily come across startling facts that are contradictory to the doctrines that advocate democracy and human rights. Specifically, recent history highlights support by the U.S. and the west for tyrannical regimes in Africa, which inflicted unimaginable suffering on their own people.

Among many African countries that suffered as a result of the policy that favours stability over democracy one country offers a perfect yet tragic example. The country is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire. In this country of riches and abundant natural resources, one man built a personality cult and brought down the country to abject poverty and endless cycle of violence that continues to suck the country’s human and natural resources to this day. The tragedy of all of this is he did it with the support and blessing of the US and the western world.

The story of Mobutu began in 1963, while he was still an army commander. President Kennedy invited him to the White House. During the meeting Kennedy invited his guest to the Rose Garden for photographs and remarked, “General if it hadn’t been for you the whole thing would have collapsed and the communists would have taken over.” During the course of the meeting Mobutu asked for military hardware and training from the U.S. He specifically asked for six weeks parachute training for himself. President Kennedy’s only hesitation was “can you afford to be away from the Congo that long?” in the end Mobutu was given a command aircraft for his personal use and a permanent US Air force crew to go with it.¹ Sadly, it was there in the Rose Garden that one of the most brutal and corrupt tyrants of Africa was crowned.²

In 1970 Mobutu returned to the White House, this time as the President of Zaire. He was invited by President Nixon and was considered to be a reliable partner. During the meting President Nixon described Mobutu in the following terms: “Though you are a young man and you come from a young nation, there are things we can learn from you,” citing Mobutu’s handling of the economy as an example. “Tomorrow I have a meeting scheduled with my cabinet on the budget. I find in studying your administration that you not only have a balanced budget but a favourable balance of trade, and I would like to know your secret before meeting with the cabinet.”³ How could one understand the US with all its economic might at the time to be willing to endorse and learn a thing or two from one of the most corrupt and ruthless tyrants in the world. It is beyond mindboggling.

With the blessing from both Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, Mobutu for the next 40 years

pillaged the resources, murdered thousands, and plunged the country into one of the most vicious patterns of violence and economic stagnation. Today the people of DRC and the Great Lakes region in general are paying a steep price for the short sited and unsustainable policy of ‘stability.’ It is with this full blessing and support from the west Mobutu practically destroyed one of the most resources rich countries in the African continent. During this time Mobutu is said to have looted estimated $5 billion and placed it in Swiss private bank accounts.⁴ Even after his demise, the DRC continues to suffer from the legacy of violence and corruption he installed during his reign. Since 1998 5.4 million Congolese died from the ongoing conflict. The conflict has involved not only the citizens of the DRC but all countries in the neighbourhood and as far as Zimbabwe.

Not too far from the DRC is Liberia. Unfortunately, its history with dictatorship and corruption is not too different from that of the DRC. The most recent past of Liberia’s history is one of upheaval, corruption and civil war. When master sergeant Samuel Doe and his group of seventeen low ranking soldiers overthrew the last Americo-Liberian President, William Tolbert, the nature of the bloody coup shocked the world. On the night of 12 April 1980, Doe and his gang sealed the entry to the Executive Mansion, over powered the guards and found the President in his pyjamas, they fired three bullets in his head, gouged right eye and disembowelled him His body was dumped in a mass grave along seventeen others. It was the beginning of bloody violence perpetuated by Doe and his gang in Liberia.

Despite Doe’s despicable human rights record, the US provided support to his regime, which ruled with a street gang style. One Senior US official was quoted in 1993 saying “we were getting fabulous support from Doe on international issues. He never wavered [in] his support for us against Libya and Iran. He was somebody we have to live with. All our interests were impeccably protected by Doe.”⁵

When Liberia held a national election on 15 October 1985, unprecedented numbers of voters turned out to cast their vote, with many walking for miles to polling stations and waiting for hours in the smouldering heat. When the initial vote counting showed that Samuel Doe has lost the election his hand picked election officials suspended the legal vote counting and assigned illegal re-count committee allied with Doe. On 29 October the so-called recount committee announced that Doe had won the election. While this day light election robbery was clear to the people of Liberia and the rest of the world the U.S. hailed this fraudulent election. In his testimony to US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Chester Crocker, President Reagan’s senior policy adviser, celebrated Doe’s victory in the following terms:

‘There is now the beginning, however imperfect, of a democratic experience that Liberia and it’s friends can use as a benchmark for future elections-one on which they want to build … the prospects for national reconciliation were brightened by Doe’s claim that he won only a narrow 51 per cent election victory –virtually unheard of the rest of Africa where incumbent rulers normally claim victories of 95 per cent to 100 per cent.⁶

The fact is that Doe’s claim of 51 per cent was not intended for local consumption because whether his claim of victory is 51 or the usual 99.9 per cent (as is the tradition by African dictators), the people of Liberia knew that the election was neither free nor transparent, and they knew that Doe was not going anywhere. Doe’s strategy was to create an election drama and by claiming only 51 per cent to show that he was not the same as the traditional African dictators. The strategy worked. As Chester Crooker declared the ‘beginning of democracy’ in Liberia, in reality it was the beginning of hell. Liberia is still fighting to shake off Doe’s legacy as well as that of his successor Charles Taylor, who is facing serious charges at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

These are just a two examples of how democracy, freedom and justice have been traded for ‘stability’ in Africa. If history were our teacher, these two examples would have taught the US and the western governments an important lesson. Unfortunately, it is a pattern that the western governments are having difficulty getting rid off. The problem of western governments support to tyrannical regimes in Africa is further solidified after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. While the Cold War geo-politics facilitated the partnership between dictators and the western regimes, the ‘War on Terror’ is helping tyrants in the African continent to quickly jump-on-the-bandwagon and gain legitimacy from the west while silencing pro-democracy groups domestically and building single party systems.

The new dictators, it appears, aren’t like the old tyrants they replaced. The new ones don’t call themselves colonel or field marshal as the Idi Amin’s and the Doe’s did. They don’t wear crisp military fatigues. They, in fact, wear expensive designer suits. The new dictators don’t sound like the old dictators; they talk in slick, soft and rehearsed prose and know how to speak the donor language. One such leader originally endorsed by President Bill Clinton as part of the ‘new generation of leaders’ is Meles Zenawi, the former leader of the rebel group Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and current Prime Minister of Ethiopia. In spite of Zenawi’s appalling assault against those who struggle for democracy, freedom and justice in Ethiopia, the US and western governments continue to support this ruthless tyrant. Due to this support, Zenawi and company continue to inflict widespread suffering on the Ethiopian people, and they are not showing any sign of relinquishing power through a democratic process of election.

Today, Zenawi is being invited to high-level international conferences and gatherings as a ‘leader,’ and yet the majority of the Ethiopian people know that he is not their leader. Such support by the western governments toward oppressive regimes is beginning to wear on the people of Africa, and the population is beginning to question the US and western governments’ commitment to democracy in Africa. These widespread negative sentiments of public opinion towards the US and the western world are taking a different form and shape. One particular example is the rapidly growing presence of China across the African continent. The recent spat between the Voice of America (VOA) radio and Meles Zenawi is a clear demonstration of China’s bold moves, even a daring confrontation with the US. While the news was about the admission by Meles Zenawi that his government was jamming the VOA, the other less talked part of the story is that there is evidence showing that Chinese technology and expertise are being used to silence the VOA Amharic service. Therefore, the question is this: Is China starting to confront the US on the airwaves through Ethiopian politics? Is this symbolic of the beginning of China’s occupation of Africa? In addition, and more importantly, what does this mean for democracy and human rights in Africa? We are beginning to see tyrants like Meles Zenawi thumbing their noses at the west as they get more confident of their power.

One troubling part of the emerging Chinese occupation of Africa is that the people of Africa are beginning to show more of a positive approval toward China than the US. For example, 61 per cent of Ethiopians see China’s influence as benefiting the country, whereas only 33 per cent see the US as a positive partner in their economic, political and social endeavours. In Tanzania, the margins are even wider with 78 per cent believing that China’s contribution to their country is a positive one and only 13 per cent believing that the US’s influence is positive.⁷ Such a dramatic shift of views and opinions is hardly surprising given the US and western world’s sustained neglect of the advancement of democracy in the African continent. One can interpret these opinions more of as a statement of anger and frustration with the west than genuine collaboration and desire to partner with China.

Finally, the US and the western world need to move beyond doctrines and words. If they really have any interest in democracy, freedom, justice and the rule of law in Africa, they must stop this outdated ‘strong man’ approach. Trading democracy for temporary stability is a dangerous slippery slope. History clearly shows that the end outcome of stability through dictators is deadly and certainly short lived, as with the DRC, Liberia, and so on. Today, the same old and tired foreign policy formula continues to haunt Africa, perhaps more visibly in the Horn of Africa than any other parts of the continent.

The new geopolitical concern that is the ‘War on Terror’ has replaced the Cold War strategy and tyrants like Meles Zenawi have been dancing to this tune. The reality is if we are smart enough we can learn a thing or two from history. Fighting terrorism through regimes that rule by terrorizing their own people can only radicalize the population and breed resentment and anger toward those providing military and political support to tyrannical regimes. Short-sited, quick fix foreign policy only produces ‘blowbacks’ and in the end blowbacks are more complicated and difficult to fix. Doctrines alone don’t build democracy and human rights. It is time to stand with the people of Africa and lend them a hand so that they can build a system founded on the firm grounds of democracy, liberty and freedom.

1 Meredith Martin, The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence, Simon and Schuster, 2005.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid. 295

4 See the Transparency International website: www.transparency.org/content/download/4425//26684/file/08Legalhurdles.pdf+transparency+international+Mobutu+US%245+billion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=c&gl=uk.

5 Ibid. 555

6 Ibid. 552- 553

7 Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is A Better Way. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. I obviously differ with Moyo’s opinion that the involvement of China in Africa is beneficial to the continent.

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

2. April 2010 by Assimba.

April 1, 2010

This is not about April the Fool. It is for real. Today, a certain Ghanaian provoked me that I am either from a small country known as Eritrea with no resources and or that of Ethiopia a country endowed with famine whose people are ignorant and miserable to say the least. In fact he suggested to me that Ethiopians and Eritreans should unite primarily for their own survival and secondly for the sake of Africa. In fact, further he stated bluntly that Africa is not uniting because of Ethiopian and Eritrean dispute of insignificant space.

To his surprise, I informed him about Ghadafi’s recent suggestion of dividing Nigeria into Muslim and Christian nations just like the Muslim Pakistan separated from the Hindu India. This Ghanaian who thinks himself as a torchbearer for African freedom continued to argue that Ethiopia and Eritrea were Christian countries before but now both have turned to be Muslim countries in order to be rich. I said to my self, what a ridiculous assertion.

Here is my argument with this seemingly gentleman with full of naiveté. Eathiopia (both Eritrea and Ethiopia) were and are still endowed with Nature. By this I mean the ideal climate with Sun’s Energy, Human Origin and Social System. I explained to him that these factors by themselves are enough qualitative factors to emulate by other countries and societies. The Social system adopted by America, the wish list by many nations in order to claim origin of the Human species and by many nations including the USA to strive for Energy.

I suggested to him to differentiate between manmade famine and God’s will.

As to the resources, I asked this Ghanaian to further check with the American geological department whose slogan in the past says, “Everything begins with mining” but now the same department advises, “it takes a mine to build a bridge”. I hope he understood my analogy with Eritrean mining and Ethiopian building bridges.

Why is there so much misinformation about our country? I guess it is because of our misgivings. We tend to cover not our vices but our virtues. In the process, we are destroying our good values and at the same time projecting wrong side of our true history, culture and faith. I believe it is our own making. We have lost our integrity.

Let us take for instance, the way our politicians depict about our country. Every so-called politician would exaggerate the magnitude of Ethiopia’s problems in terms of economics, war and destitution. Every time a politician attempts to explain to me about vast problems, I immediately counter with questions about specific problems. Let alone to convince me with specific Ethiopian problems, they could not in good faith explain the nature of government and the governed. Maybe our people had lived as “Republicans” with no or limited government for centuries, which denies us the knowledge of, elected representatives.

On the other front, those who came to power have mainly depended on foreign advisors or pretended that they know the wish of their people. First of all they assume about the assumptions of their constituencies in the absence of facts and figures and secondly they deny freedom of access to radio, television or online (RTVO) as in the current governments in both countries.

So, let us rectify the situation by calling names. ADWA £ AADWA. The place of conquest of Adwa is less than or equal to AaDwa, the concept of conversion voluntarily from one position to another.

The first ADWA has reference to the place of war and the current leadership. That means the war at Adwa is a symbol for victory as well as “colonization”. There is too much dispute over those events. I leave this dispute to historians, if at all we have pro and independent historians. Another factor is about the current leadership whose value is based on riches as opposed to wealth. I am of the opinion that the virtue of the Tigrai people dubbed as poor was/is to be revered and admired. Their virtue was what made Eathiopia a proud nation. To be an Eathiopian was meant to have rights and freedoms given by the Almighty God. We had lived in Eathiopia with a history of becoming good, and of attempting to follow our conscience.

The solutions, I am proposing is the revisiting of Aassimba - the heart place of the enlightened Army, why the need for the long march of DEBTERAW’s path to FREEDOM – DEMOCRACIA- and Walleligne’s concept of self-determination for rights and freedom. If we link these three events, there is no doubt in my mind that the question of millions of Eathiopians including that of my Ghanaian colleague will be clear and answered without delay. Eathiopia was striving to be a moral nation until the leaders of TPLF appear on the scene. Selling children is an outright immoral, for example.

If there will be any reconciliation to take place within Eathiopia, it would be a reconciliation among the leaders of TPLF, among the EPLF/ELF, among the OLF and among the ISAPAS. Others will follow these major groups/ fronts or however you call them. This is because DEMOCRACY by EPRP, SEPARATION by TPLF, COLONIALISM by EPLF/ELF and COLONIZATION by OLF and UNITY by the DERG were not only historical issues and concerns but they are still burning questions of our time especially for the young generation. There seems neither healing nor closure without addressing these issues objectively and genuinely. The current call for freedom, justice, democracy, unity and the like by Kinjit is a recycle of the past. We have to build on what we had achieved. We cannot deny the past.

Incidentally, colonialism, separation, colonization and unity were incorporated in the struggle of EPRP’s concept of DEMOCRACIA. It is all recorded not only in the minds and hearts of millions of Eathiopians but also in some history books. All that is required is a political dialogue that is geared to understanding the issues for the purpose of reconciliation as opposed to revenge.

The only gut should come from those members, supporters and sympathizers of the EPRP and those who wish solutions not only for the local, regional, continental but also international. AADWA is not a semantic language. It is a concept of the body, the spirit and the mind of many Eathiopians, call them progressives or founders. While others have been fighting vis-à-vis individual personalities, EPRP’s struggle was focused on ideological and political ideas and issues.

TRUTH WILL PREVAIL

For questions and comments

woldetewolde@yahoo.com

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »

1. April 2010 by Assimba.

by Kassahun

“THE ETHIOPIAN RED TERROR TRIALS”,

(Edited by Kjetil Tronvoll, Charles Schaefer & Girmachew Alemu Aneme), James Currey, UK, 2009, 158pp

I had intended to write an extensive review of this book, a collection of very informative and analytical articles by scholars who are either Ethiopian or foreigners like Tronvoll¹ who are well informed on the reality in Ethiopia², but other engagements made this difficult. Time went by and in a due respect to better late than ever and because the Red Terror Trials (referred to as ERTT after this) have come to a close, I have written this brief review to call on readers to check out this valuable book.

Special Prosecutor Girma Wakjira, himself a former member of the EPRP, recently stated that the RETT has been concluded. The Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO), set up in 1992, dealt with the cases of 5119 accused ( some in abstentia) and the courts found 3589 of the accused guilty, freed 658, called 8047 witnesses and compiled 15214 pages of evidence. Some of the accused conveniently died before and during the trial. The book under review deals, through nine articles, with the ERTT, its raison d’etre, political anatomy, the context of transitional justice, consequences, comparison with traditions of restorative justice in Ethiopia, etc. The Red Terror was a bloody orgy that scarred the history and the psyche and soul of Ethiopia. Its repercussions are still being felt as the Terror has affected the living more than the dead and its message of barbaric repression was primarily intended to those who were not its victims on the receiving end of the Kalashnikov barrel. Moreover, the Red Terror was and is a controversial event in that most of the perpetrators are still alive (some still in position of power) and the torture victims and the relatives of the martyrs are also alive. A rewriting of history, or its outright revision, is today being undertaken in earnest mostly by the officers and officials of the defunct regime that carried out the Red Terror³and by the ruling TPLF which had taken some part in the Terror in Tigrai. The general revision goes along the line that the EPRP and Meisone (the two left wing organizations of the time) were, as historian Gebru Tareke put it, “slaughtering each other” with the military officers in power playing the spectator’s role. This preposterous theses is echoed not only by the memoir–writing former Derg officers and Red Terror criminals in exile but also by scholars like the aforementioned Gebru Tareke who was himself, alas, an EPRP member and can only be understood if we take into context that it did not also take him much time to praise the Meles Zenawi ethnic regime as democratic⁴.

The book edited by Kjetil Tronvoll and others tries to put the Red Terror in context (the article by Bahru Zewde: The History of the Red Terror) before delving into the ERTT itself and its implications. Bahru’s brief historical rendition of the Red Terror, an appraisal that tries to be objective and coldly detached, is full of assumptions that call for refutation. Bahru even goes as far as to dispute the number of Red Terror victims supplied by Babile Tola⁵ (while the even the BBC presents a half million number– BBC news, Dec.12/1999). The wrangling over the number of victims of the Red Terror assumes importance in that both the TPLF and former partisans of the Eritrean front (EPLF) like Bereket Habtsellasie made it a point to minimize the number to allege that the struggle waged by people under the leadership of the EPRP was minimal while they (the ethnic fronts) paid the most sacrifice. Bahru almost joins Gebru Tareke in inadvertently minimizing the role of the Derg in the carnage they called key Shibir/Red Terror/. Here is how Bahru puts it:

“Once the debate was over (between the EPRP and Meisone in the newspapers–K), both sides withdrew to sharpen their tools for the armed clash, EPRP preparing squads and Ma’ isone drawing on the military sinews of the state“. (p.24)

And:

“The first phase could be said to have begun in September 1976 when the Derg and its leftist allies launched a massive campaign against the EPRP characterized by denunciations of its alleged counter-revolutionary activities and detention of its members and sympathizers. In less than a month, hundreds of people already targeted for their pro-EPRP stance in labour unions, discussion forums and the student movement were incarcerated in various prisons of the capital. The EPRP, which appears to have been waiting for just such an occasion, retaliated by what it described as acts of self defence, that is the assassination of leaders and cadres of the opposite camp”. (page26, emphasis mine-K)

The above assertions could be understandable had they come from officials and apologists of the Mengistu regime out to deny their criminal role but Bahru is a historian of repute, a political prisoner of the Derg and one who should have known better. It is clear that Bahru tries to strike the “non partisan” middle ground but fails (as the above quotations show. The political debates in the State controlled newspapers in 1976 were not “dress rehearsals” (p.24) for the armed clash nor were they intended to make a convert of either Meisone or EPRP to the cause of the other. The debates were aimed at clarifying basic political issues to the reading urban public and they did help achieve that. The EPRP did not have a strategy of urban armed action and as such did not have squads in hiding in the city though one trained member (Seyoume Kebede- later martyred in the Red Terror) was infiltrated into Addis Abeba for possible operations to obtain funds if and whenever the need may arise. There was no “rush to the armed squads” as Bahru alleges once the debates were over. Neither was the EPRP “waiting for just such an occasion” (imprisonment/incarceration) to launch what Bahru calls the assassination of cadres and leaders. Alas, objective Historians are as rare as peace and democracy in Ethiopia.

Bahru goes on to argue that who fired the first shot is not really that important while it is actually very pertinent especially in light of his above quoted assertions that the EPRP was waiting for just a simple provocation to unleash its “assassination squads”. The facts of the time show in no uncertain terms that the peaceful political struggle process was shattered by the ruling junta (and its Meisone and other intellectual groups acting as its advisors). As Bahru admits the EPRP had won the political battle or had at least gained the ascendancy in that more people rallied to its banner than they did to that of the Derg and Meisone. This feeling of defeat was what led to the repression and it is not mere incarceration that occurred (as Bahru alleged) but plain murder and wanton killings as notorious Derg leaders Majors Getachew Shibeshi and Ali Moussa went on a murderous spree ( Asbe Teferi, Jimma, Awash, etc…Details of the killings can be found in Babile Tola’s book). Shallow mass graves were dug out by hyenas on the outskirts of Addis Abeba long before the EPRP fired a single shot or even before the Derg officially declared war on the EPRP. The decision to strike at the EPRP was made long before the EPRP reacted, the Nebelbal special force was brought into Addis Abeba and a list of assassination victims supplied by the Meisone (in July-August) to the Derg–all this long before the Derg officially declared war on the EPRP or before the EPRP attempted to kill Mengistu or Fikre Merid, the Meisone leader. Hence, for the sake of History, if not for the memory of the martyrs, it is necessary to blame the culprit for first resorting to violence and no reference to “verbal violence” introduced, according to Bahru, back in 1971 ⁶ can be used as a justification to spread the blame. The Derg and Meisone ushered in the violence and the EPRP resorted to armed self defence, a choice that can be criticized or supported depending on one’s political views and conclusions but the ongoing attempt to blame the EPRP for initiating violence, an attempt echoed by Bahru in this book, will not hold. Moreover, it is not the question of “assassination” that led to the division of the EPRP (as Bahru wrongly asserts). The factionalist situation of two EPRP leaders (called anja) was a result of differences on how to characterize the Derg and whether to struggle against it or ally with it. The anja leaders called for an alliance with the Derg while the majority opposed this option. Here also Bahru presents a non fact as he does on the killing of one of the Anja /faction/ leaders who he alleges was killed when the leadership “did not know what to do with him” p.27). Really? Anyway, the resort to what the EPRP called armed defence followed on the heels of the violent repression (not only incarceration but murder and execution) and did not precede it. To argue the opposite is not factual and the Derg remnants use it anyway to present themselves as victims and as “forced to defend the revolution by resorting to revolutionary Terror”. Bahru also passes without a single comment, in light of the fact that the trials were initiated by the ruling Tigrai front (TPLF), the accusation that members of the TPLF did take part in the Red Terror by being part of the POMOA (Provisional Office for Mass Organizational Affairs or Hizb Dirijit Tshifet bet) or the Red Terror committees in Tigrai (mention can be made of lieutenants Desta and Gebre Hiwot). I did expect a better and more informed analysis from Dr Bahru, more in tune with the facts and not a rehash of the facetious assertions and conclusions we have been reading or hearing from other partisan quarters.

The book as a whole focuses on the Red Terror trial and tries to place it within the context of retributive-restorative justice, reconciliation, democratization, rights, etc. The main or fundamental flaw in the articles is the assumption, as stated in the preface, that the ” EPRDF wanted to establish a societal consensus on the Derg period, apparently in order to draw a line and start afresh with a new mode of governance in the country.”(Page xi). Sarah Vaughan in her The Role of the SPO’ s Office) also echoes this (’the EPRDF was determined to record past events to educate future generations’) claim But nothing could be farther from the truth, notwithstanding self serving hindsight declarations by Meles Zenawi. The motive of the EPRDF in conducting the ERTT owed its rationale not from any noble pursuit of educating a generation or starting afresh with a new mode of governance but had more to do with what Vaughan presents as clearly influenced by political restraints and political expediency (p 60). To begin with any regime that came after the Derg could not avoid dealing with the Red terror and the people’s expectation for justice in one form or another and the TPLF/EPRDF was well aware of that. Yet, the TPLF/EPRDF was not ideologically or politically equipped to consider a South African type Truth and Reconciliation approach<not because as Meles Zenawi wrongly claims “there was no such experience at that time”⁷ but mainly due to the fact that political expediency to which the EPRDF was very sensitive dictated the path of persecution.

The EPRDF’s political constraints had also little to do with any preoccupation with the populace’s conception of justice or retribution but with its precarious or unsettled state in power at the time. The new regime was resorting to populist actions (mostly illegal like the summary on the spot execution of petty thieves) and calling for public denunciations of alleged Red Terror criminals. The call for denunciation to a populace that had to endure and do such horrible acts (denounce or you shall be denounced!) during the Derg regime was cynical and, at first, it did appeal to people who had grudges and serious grievances against the alleged criminals. In this way, the EPRDF was trying to be popular and the attempted murder in Djibouti of the “Butcher of Gondar (Melaku Teferra– deported later on and now sentenced to death by the ERTT)) and in Zimbabwe (of Mengistu Haile Mariam ) were aimed at getting it more popular support. Hence, the persecution of the alleged criminals was motivated by a desire to gain political support from the population, but this was denounced by the EPRP.⁸ The EPRDF resorted to repression of its own and with this it lost its credibility if any and the euphoria it tried to generate by pandering to what it imagined would be red hot mass emotion petered out. Moreover, the truth and Reconciliation path required active participation of the people and the civil society, requirements that the EPRDF could never imagine itself tolerating. As many of the articles in the ERTT book amply demonstrate, the SPO and the trials were conducted away from any active participation of the people concerned by the Terror or by the populace at large. The victim, that is to say the EPRP (whose demise has been proclaimed time and again by very many though it has continued to point out that all news of its death is an exaggeration), was not in any way involved and the so called Red Terror committee was exposed in due time as the gathering of a handful of people handpicked by the EPRDF itself⁹.And this also defeated any “educational” purpose if ever there was one on the part of the EPRDF in the first place. Actually, the human rights violations of the EPRDF made the pretension for justice in the RETT hollow and hypocritical.

In short, the EPRDF was after retributive justice if we take care to situate justice within its own restrictive context or conception. As Belgesem and Girmachew have correctly analysed it– (in The Rights of the Accused pp33-50)– the Ethiopian Red Terror trials have exhibited serious breaches of the rights of the accused. The SPO itself was accountable to the Prime Minister, habeas corpus was ignored, the accused did not have easy access to defence witnesses and the whole trial took a very long time. The sentencing also left much to be desired giving death sentences to minions and even letting the big fish free on grounds that have not been explained properly. In this respect, the article “Concluding the Red Terror Trial” is informative. Ethiopian courts are not independent under the EPRDF and the SPO was not independent either and this has negated any attempt to link the trials to any notion of democratization or restorative justice in a democratic transition as in South Africa.¹⁰ Barring the justifiably critical articles of Kjetil Tronvoll (The Political Anatomy of the Red Terror Trials) there persists in the book the tendency to take the EPRDF as it sees or presents itself. This is very apparent in Girmachew Alemu’s “Beyond the Ted Terror Trials–Analyzing Guarantees of Non-Repetition”. Girmachew misses the crux of the matter, the core of the problem, which is the EPRDF regime itself. The EPRDF had no moral or legal ground/justification to sit as a judge over the accused and this for very many reasons including its own participation in the Terror at least in Tigrai. The EPRDF came as a repressive force, violating many rights, resorting to repression and trampling upon the articles of its own Constitution ( in whose drafting or approval the people did not freely or really take part). What it was after was a half hearted vendetta (many justifiably wonder why the TPLF/EPRDF should want to punish the very people that massacred and weakened its arch enemy, the EPRP), retribution, lip service to the demands of the victims families for justice. In other words, it would have avoided any trial at all and buried the Red Terror (perhaps as an in fighting amongst the “chauvinist Amhara” as Sebhat Nega would have liked to label it), had not political expediency forced it to address the issue.

The guarantee for non repetition of the Red Terror requires almost all that the EPRDF had avoided to do. First of all, the existence of the rule of law, the respect of rights of the accused and due process must be assured. An independent judiciary if that be the option but better still an attempt to expose the truth with the active participation of the victims and their families, an approach that aims at really educating the future generation to say “never again”. Not retributive but restorative justice and in this respect Charles Schaefer has presented an interesting article on restorative justice in Ethiopia’s tradition (p.68). The EPRDF, as has become its nefarious practice of killing off prisoners, delayed the trial and hoped that the inhumane conditions in its prison would do the rest with the old and ailing accused ( as it did with Teka Tulu, Mengistu Gemechu, etc with Professor Asrat and presently as it is being done to Birtukan Midiksa) Girmachew takes the Constitution of the EPRDF at face value ( “a step foreword” and) glosses over the fact that it is not only the EPRDF that has recognized the basic rights of the people. Even the Haile Sellasie Constitution recognized basic rights with the rejoinder of “in accordance with the law”. Ditto the Derg. In Ethiopia, the problem of rights has never been the absence of its recognition on paper but the bitter fact that the regimes in place have forbade any exercise of these rights by the people. Haile Sellasie banned all political parties, the Derg denied the EPRP legality and resorted to violence and terror to stamp out political dissent and the EPRDF has done the same. To claim, as Girmachew does (page 129), that the ” FDRE Constitution provides an extensive human rights framework ” and the problem is the absence of related social culture and education about rights is naive and very wrong. It is not the lack of education about rights or the non development of the social culture (both debatable) that are the drawbacks but rather the fact that the EPRDF is dictatorial, repressive, a violator of rights and against the rule of law. This is the fact and that is why the ERTT played out as an irrelevance in Ethiopia, not to say as a farce.

This said, I recommend the book, The Ethiopian Rd Terror Trials, to all who want to know about that period and the way in which the EPRDF sabotaged the search for proper closure.

1 Tronvoll’s last book is “War and the Politics of Identity in Ethiopia, ” James Currey, East African Series,UK, 2009, 239 pages

2 the other scholars are Bahru Zewde,,Charles Schaefer,,Girmachew Alemu, Frode Elgesem,Sarah Vaughan and Elsa Van Huyssteen

3 Books, mostly in Amharic, are being written both inside Ethiopia and the USA by former Derg military and security officers whitewashing their role in the Red terror and trying to blame the victim, the EPRP, for the whole bloody chapter in the recent history of Ethiopia.

4 Gebru Tareke: The Red Terror in Ethiopia: An Historical Aberration”, 2004 (to be found in ethiopiafirst.com)

5 in To Kill A Generation: The Red Terror in Ethiopia, 2nd edition, Free Ethiopia Press, Washington DC,

6 Bahru elaborates on this notion of his whereby the so called verbal violence turned into physical violence in his new book: Society, State and History, Selected Essays, Addis Abeba University Press, 2008, pp238–251

7 The TRC was set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995, and was based in Cape Town. The mandate of the commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, reparation and rehabilitation

8 this and the practice of denunciation was exposed by the EPRP (in a BBC interview by EPRP then representative for Europe) Ghennet Girma and the TPLF tried to allege in an Addis Zemen article of the time that the “EPRP wants the Red Terror criminals to go unpunished”.

9 The Red Terror Committee was repeatedly denounced by the families of the red Terror victims and was recently accused of embezzling money collected for the erection of a monument in Addis Abeba for the victims.

10 Elsa Van Huyssteen’s article in the book details the differences between the two approaches

Posted in Articles | Print | 1 Comment »