The ideological identikit of some of the rebel forces is alarming. The TPLF, for example, are considered as ferocious local replicas of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. (Domenico Quirico, La Stampa, Italy, 26/4/1991)
Ethiopia sadly is one of the most politically repressive countries in the world. Makau wa Mutua in Ignoring the Lessons of History, December 1994
Tribalism is an atavism, retrogression back to the embryo. Tribal thinking is extremely primitive. (Mwalimu Julius Nyrere, September 1994)
I am convinced that there are better ways to address Ethiopias ethnic problems without giving ethnicity primacy above all issues in the political system. The danger of an ethnic based system is that it encourages disunity and hostility, especially in a country such as Ethiopia, (US Senator Harry Johnstone, September 1994).
The Ovambos of Southern Africa say the fool laughs at himself. Some present day Ethiopians seem to enjoy doing just that. A number of Ethiopian web sites of the Diaspora have recently posted a September 4 report by the International Crisis group on Ethnic Federalism and its Discontents”. None of these sites have ventured a critic on the 45 pages report but it is safe to assert that they seem to be delighted. Not surprisingly though, the clique in power in Addis Ababa has cried foul because the ICG criticizes it though it gives it credit that it does not deserve at all (see Aiga Forum article on the subject). However, this report of the ICG is too late and very confused and superficial and therefore one more evidence of how and why such so called experts and the US administration have failed to understand the reality of Ethiopia.
An objective appraisal of the Ethiopian situation has been lacking for long from foreign quarters. Their premises have often been flawed and their conclusions quite mistaken. The International Crisis group had in the past an analyst/member called John Prendergast (now with Enough Project) who was a State Department official at the time when the Tigrean front took power (1991). He backed the repressive and ethnic chauvinist Tigrean front to the hilt and wrote, with the Meles Zenawi advisor Paul Henze (former CIA and Rand Corporation employee), articles attacking as Amhara chauvinists those who stood against the TPLF. Here is what Prendergast and Henze wrote back in September-December 1993 (Ethiopian Commentatora TPLF funded magazine):
Heated rhetoric is raising the political temperature in Addis Ababa. Through the deceptively named All Amhara Peoples Organization and the Coalition of Ethiopian Democratic Forces, this possessed elements who have vested interests in the maintenance of the Mengistu regime, are baiting the new government with racially and religiously divisive rhetoric. They are being funded and encouraged by exiles abroad, some of whom were collaborators with Mengistu. They hope to provoke violent reactions which will lead donor governments and agencies to cut off aid to the Transitional government and to isolate it diplomatically (p.58).
Racial rhetoric? What does that mean? The apologists of the repressive regime ( it is being provoked) do fail to mention (as they lie shamelessly) that the All Amhara Peoples Organization was formed after the TPLF takeover and worked legally in the country while the Coalition (COEDF) was made up forces like the EPRP, the EDU, and others who had for years struggled against the Mengistu regime.
That bias and prejudice seem to have lingered on within the ICG. While the ICG report does criticize the Meles Zenawi regime, it should be said that the basic criticism is superficial and confused and continues to echo the TPLFs insidious assertions and fallacies. The ICG report is soaked with the TPLFs Amhara oriented prejudicial conclusions. The report states that Amhara elite opposed ethnic federalism because it goes against and impedes, in their view, a strong unitary state. The conclusion is that the opposition (designated as Amhara in the ICG report) wants a strong unitary state and is opposed to ethnic federalism on this ground. This is totally baseless and false. The Ethiopian opposition with the EPRP included called for years for decentralization. In fact, almost all the programs of the EPRP advocated for a federal system. The EPRP also proposed a federal solution for Eritrea, a stand for which both the TPLF and the EPLF (Eritrea) attacked it as chauvinist and more. The ICG writers could have made some research before making such a fallacious assertion. The ICG report shares so much of the TPLF prejudicial positions against Amharas that it concludes that the 2005 elections were shaped by Amhara and nationalist discontent with the loss of Eritrea Shame on the writers of this report! At least one should research, try to get an objective appraisal. Let us briefly deal with the mistaken assertions and conclusions.
The 2005 elections were historic in that the majority of the Ethiopian people confronted all odds and cast their vote against the TPLF/EPRDF. It was not an Amhara nationalist affair at all. The assertion that all opposition is Amhara is a basic line of the Tigrean ruling front and it assumes that the Amharas, as a people and/or ethnic group, ruled over Ethiopia and benefited from it. This is just an echo of the anti Amhara propaganda of the ethnic fronts and secessionist forces who tried to rewrite history through their skewered ethnic prism (their fantasy of Ethiopian colonialism, Abyssinian settler colonialism, etc). Any decent research would show that the majority of Amharas (poor peasants like most other Ethiopians, suffered from the repressive regimes and if truth be told the Amhara peasant of rural Shoa and mountainous Semien/Dashen was worse off than the peasant in Tigrai or Eritrea. The ICG report goes on to refer to the Diaspora as dominated by Amharas and Amharanized urbanites. Take it this way, read it in any other way, the ICG reports strongly asserts, directly and otherwise, that the Ethiopian peoples opposition struggle is Amhara or Amhara dominated and we all know that these devilish Amharas exploited and oppressed the vast majority and are now furious because they lost their privileges!!! It smells of Henze and Prendergast doesnt it? No wonder the ICG report quotes the likes of John Young who were pathetic TPLF scribes.
The 2005 elections in which the opposition CUD and UEDF were able to mobilize the majority against the TPLF was a historic occasion whose dimension and impact has escaped the ICG report writers. Millions of Ethiopians of almost all ethnic groups took part in the election and the EPRDF was resoundingly defeated. Even thousands of Tigreans in cities like Addis Ababa voted for the CUD and unless the ICG calls them Amharanized urbanites they hailed from the birth province of Meles Zenawi. The loss of Eritrea was not the main and biggest issue of the 2005 electionthe repressive and ethnic discriminatory rule of the TPLF was. By the way, the ICG takes the EPRDF fiction as fact and refers to the satellites of the TPLF gathered within the EPRDF as TPLF -friendly forces. The reality is that there is no EPRDF (in fact some even argue that the TPLF per se does not exist) as a bona fide front made up of independent organizations. During the 2005 elections, the Ethiopian people rose as one to defeat the TPLF at the ballot box and it is grossly unfair to designate this event as shaped by Amharas and nationalists. Who are these nationalists if not the damned Amharas? Amharanized urbanites? The ICG shames itself!
The ICG report is also flawed in its analysis of the pre 1991 situation. Its reference to EPRP and Meisone as student organizations is surprising to say the least; though it is true that both organizations emerged from the student movement and intelligentsia they were by mid seventies mass based parties in opposite camps. The defeat of the Derg regime was not the work of the TPLF alone either as the report bluntly asserts. The ICG report states also that by mid 1990s the only party with an identifiable program was the EPRDF. Really? What happened to the OLF, the EPRP/COEDF, and the legal opposition groups? None of them had a program or was it all invisible? A certain kind of myopia, heavily influenced by the TPLF and the ethnic groups, seems to have afflicted the ICG personnel who wrote this report. Their appendix on rebel groups presents the history (and formal and superficial at that) of only the OLF and the ONLF. Are there no other rebel groups now? Were there not then during the time of the Derg? The ICG tendency to assume as true certain TPLF assertions goes as far as taking at face value the present TPLF/EPRDF claim that it now has 5 million or so members and the Meles resignation charade (he wanted to step down but has been pressurized to stay is how the ICG report presents it with no desire to be funny). But this is not the only problem.
The ICG reporters start out seemingly with a desire to criticize the ethnic federalism of the ruling Tigrean clique but they end by doing the opposite. They credit the TPLF/EPRDF with radically transforming the political system and assert that it was not the principle of ethnic federalism per se that has proved problematic. This is how they elaborate on it: ethnic federalism has dramatically enhanced service delivery as well a rural inhabitants access to the State allowing the EPRDF to extend its authority deep into the countryside: Are these experts writing about Ethiopia? What extension of services? All existing services are actually in the pits. The rural population having access to the State can be read as fiction. The ruling group has spread and extended its authority mainly based on and through its repressive power and apparatuses. For anyone who has any inkling of the Ethiopian reality the above assertion of the ICG report jars and offends. They go on to claim that economic growth and expansion of public services are to the regimes credit. Such wild statements make their declared attempt to be critical of the regime and objective a sham.
The ICG report is, despite claims of on place interviews, a tattered piece which gives more credit to the repressive regime than criticizing it. Moreover, the focus and sympathy is again on other ethnic groups and not on the right or struggle of the Ethiopian people as a whole. That ethnic federalism is bankrupt and the base of the whole problem of bad governance has been denied by the ICG report which tries to blame the alleged Amhara yearning for a unitary state to be the core of the problem. This done and even the historic 2005 election reduced to an Amhara protest, there was no chance for the report to redeem itself. Diaspora web sites (Amhara and Amharanized in the ICG view) must be accused of masochism for giving publicity to this report that does injustice to the people of Ethiopia. Back in the seventies groupies of the ethnic and secessionist fronts (Peter Niggli, Dan Connell, Kristy Wright, Gayle Smith, Firebrace and Holland. Abdurahman Babu, etc) and later Prendergast and the Paul Henzes were attacking the Amhara people at every opportunity. In the process, the TPLF and company have slyly sold their unholy diatribe against the Amhara. Their falsification of history has been taken as the truth by so called experts who apparently are prejudiced and totally disinterested in facts and do not make any effort to research on the truth of the situation. Thus, the ICG report may please some of the usual quarters, but is flawed, impaired and an affront to the people of Ethiopia.
Two years a go, the TPLF, government has made a deal with the Sudanese president Omer Al Bashir and among the deals, TPLF led government agreed to cede a vast fertile farm land of Ethiopia to the Sudan, in return, Sudan agreed to hand-over Ethiopian political refugees and prevent any political movement against the tplf regime in the Sudanese soil and also Sudan agreed to supply oil with a discount price.
The first victim of the deal was our father Shaleka Atanaw Wasie, and many others. On September 21, 2007, our father and 15 others were handed-over to the tplf security services and were detained at
notorious Makelawi prison in Addis Abeba. No family visitation was
allowed, nor formal charges were filed.
On July 2009, when our father health deteriorated at Maakelawi prison cell, they throw him at Kaliti concentration camp/prison. After back and forth with prison officials, finally he was admitted at hospital for treatment escorted by watchfully eyes of armed guards. But sadly it was too late. The doctors tried hard whatever they could do, but he was already weakening by lack of proper treatment for long time. He passed away 8 am Friday=2 08/21/2009 at the age of 77. He was buried in the town
of Gondar, on Sunday 8/23/09. Shaleka Atanaw Wasie was born from his father Ato Wasie Desta Kassa Akalu and from his mother Emahoy Genet Bilatawold Minteweledu in the locality of Adagne-Ager Sehari Giorgis, in Gondar province.
Prior to the ascend of the military junta, he was one of to develop
modern farming close to the Sudan border- Metema, Shimelegara, Delelo and Work-amba. Above all, he was instrumental defending the Ethiopian farmland bordering the Sudan, by arming and settling Ethiopian on the border area in order to prevent the Sudanese farmers and army Intruders. For his bravery, the crown government awarded him 60 additional armaments to be distributed for local people under his auspices. He paved 65km-feeding roads in his own resources from Metema to Shimelegara and to Delelo, along Ethiopian Sudanese border which follow with the line of the Guang River – the natural border of Ethiopia with the Sudan. He encouraged people to farm near the border, because Sudan was settling its own farmers along the border. Under Metema Yegeberwoch Mahber he browed from the government $3 million
Birr (at that time a lot of money) and distributed to farmers.
Every summer hundreds of armed local men used to go with him to Alatis (Ale Tiss) and Nebes Gebeya to check out if the border was secured. On their way, they hunt Lion and Zihon. In their way back they chant Guro Woshebaye, and a big Fukera ceremony used to be held. All mentioned area above are currently, partly or in its entirety are ceded to the Sudan, thanks to the current government in Ethiopia. In the late 80s, Crown Prince Asfawossen Haileselse confers upon him the rank of Bitwoded.
After the Dergue ascend to power, he felt that given the experience of military dictatorship around Africa and the military junta handling of Aste Haileselasies case, he was not comfortable to live with it, as a result, he prepared him self to oppose the junta in all available means. In 1968, he managed to contact Ras Mengesha Seyoum and General Nega Tegne in exile and brought them back in Ethiopia in Metema area in a strict confidential undertaking for consultation. Ras Mengesha and General Nega, stayed at Shaleka Atanaws farm for 24 hours, after lengthy discussion, they agreed to form a political party, and also both agreed to work in two fronts, namely, domestic (in Ethiopia) and external (foreign), accordingly, Shaleka Atanaw took the responsibility of the domestic recruitment part and Ras Mengesha and General Nega, the foreign part. Political party later known as Ethiopian Democratic Union (EDU) was formed.
In 1969/1970, under his leadership, all western area of Gondar region, Tach Armachio, Metema, Quara Adagne-Ager, Denbia, Chilga, Delgi, Alefa Takussa, Chaco, Dawa and Qounzila in Gojam, to mentions a few, were liberated except few towns from the brutal dictator, the Dergue. Most notably, when Metema was liberated the brutal dictator Mengistu Hailemariam personally declared in national TV and radio that abiotachin Tekelebese Yekerun Samintat Nachew. Also two of his sons, Wondimhunegne and Digissu were executed by Melaku Tefera in Gondar town, in 1969. The Dergue confiscated all his properties residential and commercial houses, heavy-duty tracks, tractor, in Gondar and over 4000 Quintals of sesame ready to export in Addis Abeba. .
Although the EDU weakened by internal strife since 1971, however,
Shaleka Atanaw continued his resistance against the Dergue till its
demise in various forms. And later, his men fought against the tplf
wing EPDM of Bereket, in Tach-Armachio, in many occasions, till finally his men were pushed out into the Sudan, in 1991.
Although Many can be said and written about Sahleka Atanaw, however, suffice to say that he never fear death and always he is true to his words and deeds. He always faces adversity head-on. It is to be
remembered his predictive speech when EDU split in two camps and told the gathering of EDU members We have to remain together as one entity, other wise our fate would be that of the Palestinian we will live as a refugee20scattered in a foreign land forever. He was a
fearless man: In 1970, he was traveling in Denbia about 50 fighters
with him. Suddenly, the Dergue commando unity ambushed him and a war game resumed, after few hours of battle, the fighters with him
suggested to retreat because the say the enemy force are much higher and most of the good fighters are dead or wounded, so that at least they have to save his lives. What was his reaction? He did not respond by words, instead, he took-off his shoes and threw it away. I will not retreat I have no shoes to run – If any one of you chooses to save your own lives please do so. The Tagay alarmed by his response, but encouraged and they won the battle.
He has sustained 3 wounds throughout the struggle. In one of the
heaviest battle with Dergues 25th battalion brought-in from Harar
commanded by Lt Colonel Mekonen Hailemariam, I was in the side of my father, and both of us were wounded at the same battle. Mine was very serious. He said to me: hey son remember those who died before you and dont fear death. I survived.
Around June in 1970, when he was in Alefa Taqussa, he received a
message from Simeneh Desta of Gojjam. The message says that he needs a help to break the siege around him as soon as possible. Shaleka Atanaw never knows Simeneh before, but he heard about
his struggle against the Dergue in Gojjam. He asked the people and the fighters around him if any among us knew the place where Simeneh is. One of the commanders of the fighters stands up and said Im from that area. He was pleased. Under the command of that fighter 15 fighters were dispatched along the two messengers came from Simineh. Later after 15 days Simeneh arrived and joined Shaleka Atanaw. After three days of rest, Simeneh were sent to me in the liberated town of Metema with a letter from my father saying, I have to escort Simeneh to Gedaref in Sudan to the EDU headquarters. I did.
In another note: In March 1968, I was with my father when he traveled to the town of Gedaref, to talk to the Sudanese authorities regarding the situation in Ethiopia and we were staying at a hotel called Amir Hotel. There we met newly arrived Ethiopian from Tigray. They were two contending groups in Tigray: (1) Teranafit Committee (an Ethiopian rebellion) (2). Tegadilo Harnet Tigray (a separatist group now in power Addis Abeba). In Amir Hotel we were at room 9 and the separatist group led by Gessesse Ayele and another man now appears to me Seyoum Mesfin, in room 15. The other group Teranafit Committee members were staying at a private house. Our father used to talk to them regarding
the situation in Tigray region. The leader of the separatist group Ato
Gessesse Ayele20used to come to our room and talked to my father for hours. Some of their conversation was about the conflict between the two groups in Tigray. Our father took the initiative and offered to
mediate between Teranafit Committee and Tegadilo Harnet Tigray. Both groups accepted his mediation. In our hotel room, Aleka Tesfaye Woreta and others representing Teranfit Committee and Gesesse Ayele and appears to be Seyoum Mesfin from Tegadilo Harnet Tigray were present. The two groups were operating in Tigray, but disagreed on many political issues. After many discussions, both agreed to seek peaceful means under the leadership of Ras Mengesha Seyoum. My father has told
both groups that he has met Ras Mengesha and General Nega, but they has left for Rome the previous week – I will relay the situation and as soon as I got a response from them, I will let you know, he said. After these agreements both promised not to attack each other and both promised they would present the agreement to their leadership back home, and both left to Tigray through Kassalla.
After one month, from Teranafit Committee, our father received a
message saying that Teranfit Committee fighters has clashed at Shere
Awuraja with tegadilo Harnet Tigray and has killed Ato Gesesse Ayele and another person named Muse. My father saddened by the news. His wish of reconciliation was dashed. Teranafit Committee later becomes part of the forming of=2 0the EDU. When we see it back, our fathers effort to reconcile the two groups if it was succeeded could have averted the current agenda of the TPLF ethnic politics in our country.
After the TPLF, become a new ruler on Ethiopia, our father choose to stay in Sudan, but decided to send his families to the US and family members repeatedly asked him to leave Sudan and move to the US, but declined. He said, Im already afar from Ethiopia and I could not go further than this.
The TPLF administration has complained to the Sudan government about his presence in the Sudan, and has requested his extradition in many occasions. For example our father was detained by Sudanese security services in 2005 for 9 month in Khartoum, but despite his arrest the government of Sudan refused to hand-over to the woyane regime. Two years a go, however, after Sudan and the EPRDF reached agreement on the border land issue – which surrendered huge Ethiopian fertile land to the Sudan, Khartoum become a free land for the tplf security services, as a result, he was handed-over to the Addis Abeba regime.
In Addis Abeba, he was detained at Maakelawi hell without charge or visitation by family and friends. When his health deteriorated they
threw him to Kaliti concentration camp. When family members visited him at Kaliti, he was seriously sick, and later he was allo
wed to be admitted to the hospital at watchfully eyes of armed police. It was too late to save his lives, and passed away on 8/21/09 and buried at Gondar town on 8/23/09.
The inhuman treatment of our father by the hand of the tplf regime is disgusting but it is also the daily practice of the regime against many Ethiopians in wider scale.
Finally, we would like to express our deep appreciation for the outpour support we received and indignation by fellow Ethiopians for the loss of the giant lion. Especially our many thanks go to Soccep and Amnesty International human Right organizations for their unqualified support throughout our ordeal.
As Assistant secretary of State for African Affairs during the George Bush jr administration, Jendayi Frazier did not exhibit an acute and deep grasp of the African reality, especially that of the war torn Horn of Africa. Aside from patting the dictators in Addis Abeba and other places and prompting Meles Zenawi to send troops into Somalia (a very disastrous move from the outset), she did not pursue a policy that encouraged democratic change or governance in Africa.
Ms Frazier has appeared again on the scene advising Hilary Clinton what policies to adopt via a vis Africa. This is what has prompted this brief reply. Frazier suggests four “quick steps the administration can take to translate the rhetoric of love into policies that advance mutual U.S. and African interests:
Place Eritrea on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Oppose congressional legislation to extend the trade preferences in the African Growth and Opportunity Act to all developing countries.
Hold a summit at the White House with the presidents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.
Move the headquarters of the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) from Germany to Liberia.
These four steps, more than any love messages, will signal a real commitment that the mutual interests of the U.S. and Africa will remain strong and secure under the Obama administration”.
Ms. Frazier’s prescriptions are worse than placebo for Africa‘s woes. Sanctions on Eritrea will not contribute an iota towards solving the Somali conflict unless the aim is to please the dictator in Addis Abeba. The problems of Eastern Congo are linked to blood stained and strategic minerals coveted by the West and China too and holding a summit of the leaders of Rwanda, Uganda and the DR of the Congo is not a primary remedy. Kabila of the Congo is responsible for selling his country and the people to highest bidder while both Uganda and Rwanda have been accused by the UN of robbing the minerals of Eastern Congo. The main culprits are the Western mineral companies who finance the militia and fan the carnage there to lay their hands on the coveted coltan, gold, etc (see the communiqués of the Enough Project). It is not even that much necessary to state that Africa does not need foreign troops on its soil and that the so called anti terrorism mission of Africom is in reality helping the dictators in the Horn and other regions of Africa.
The problems in the Horn of Africa are fundamentally lacked to the lack of good governance and democracy. If sanctions are to be decreed they should be decreed on all the tyrants, ranging from Meles Zenawi to Nguema to Kabila and more. The selective hue and cry against Zimbabwe and Eritrea is but the usual double standard and the callous politics of supporting pro West tyrants no matter their dismal human rights record. Moreover, the conclusion that the problem of Somalia is linked to international terror groups is basically flawed and mistaken. The panacea for Africa, which must be primarily sought by Africans, is mainly the struggle to end the reign of the tyrants and establish democratic governance. Part of this campaign demands that Africa gets free of foreign interference, foreign military bases and neo colonial type of plunder. If America under Obama wants to help Africa it should sanction the tyrants, stop the plunder of Africa for its oil and minerals and support democratic forces.
.
Global Research, August 25, 2009
Stop NATO – 2009-08-24
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
The 2009 World Population Data Sheet published by the Washington, DC-based Population Reference Bureau states that the population of the African continent has surpassed one billion. Africans now account for over a seventh of the human race.
Africa’s 53 nations are 28% of the 192 countries in the world.
The size and location of the continent along with its human and natural resources – oil, natural gas, gold, diamonds, uranium, cobalt,
chromium, platinum, timber, cotton, food products – make it an
increasingly important part of a world that is daily becoming more
integrated and interdependent.
Africa is also the last continent to free itself from colonial domination. South America broke free of Spanish and Portuguese control in the beginning of the 1800s (leaving only the three Guianas – British, Dutch and French – still colonized) and the post-World War II decolonization of Asia that started with former British East India in 1947 was almost complete by the late 1950s.
Sub-Saharan Africa was not to liberate most of its territory from
Belgian, British, French, Spanish and Portuguese colonial masters until the 1960s and 1970s. And the former owners were reluctant to cede newly
created African nations any more than nominal independence and the ability to choose their own internal socio-economic orientation and foreign policy alignment.
In the two decades of the African independence struggle the continent
was marred by Western-backed coups d’etat and assassinations of
liberation leaders which included those against Patrice Lumumba in the former Belgian Congo in 1961, Ben Barka in Morocco in 1965, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana in 1966, Eduardo Mondlane in Mozambique in 1969, Amilcar Cabral in Guinea-Bissau in 1973 and Marien Ngouabi in the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) in 1977.
In his latest Anti-Empire Report veteran political analyst William Blum wrote, “the next time you hear that Africa can’t produce good leaders, people who are committed to the welfare of the masses of their people,
think of Nkrumah and his fate. And think of Patrice Lumumba, overthrown in the Congo 1960-61 with the help of the United States; Agostinho Neto of Angola, against whom Washington waged war in the 1970s, making it impossible for him to institute progressive changes; Samora Machel of Mozambique against whom the CIA supported a counter-revolution in the 1970s-80s period; and Nelson Mandela of South Africa (now married to Machel’s widow), who spent 28 years in prison thanks to the CIA.” [1]
Some of Blum’s references are to a series of proxy wars supported by
the United States and its NATO allies and in some instances=2
0apartheid South Africa and the Mobutu Sese Seko regime in Zaire in the mid-1970s and the 1980s, such as arming and training the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), the unspeakably brutal Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO), and Eritrean and Tigrayan armed separatists in Ethiopia as well as backing the Somali invasion of the Ogaden Desert in that country in 1977.
Over the past five years French troops and bombers have waged deadly attacks inside Cote d’Ivoire, Chad and the Central African Republic either in support of or against rebels, always in furtherance of France’s own geopolitical objectives. In the second application of the so-called Blair Doctrine, in 2000 Britain sent troops to its former
colony of Sierra Leone and has de facto recolonized the nation, taking control of its military and internal security forces.
But in the post-World War II period there has only been one direct
American military action in Africa, the deadly 1986 air strikes against Libya in April of 1986, Operation El Dorado Canyon.
While conducting wars, bombings, military interventions and invasions in Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, the Middle East and recently Southeastern Europe over the past half century, the Pentagon has left
the African continent comparatively unscathed. That is going to change after the establishment of the United States Africa Com
mand on October 1 of 2007 and its activation a year later.
The U.S. has intensified military involvement in Africa over the past
seven years with such projects as the Pan Sahel Initiative (PSI),
launched by the State Department but which deployed US Army Special Forces with the Special Operations Command Europe to Mali and Mauritania among other locations. U.S. military personnel are still engaged in the counterinsurgency wars in Mali and Niger against Tuareg rebels.
The Pan Sahel Initiative was succeeded by the Trans-Saharan
Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCTI) in late 2004 which hasAmerican
military personnel assigned to eleven African nations: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal.
The Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative was formally launched in
June of 2005 with the deployment of 1,000 American troops, among them Green Berets, in Operation Flintlock 05 in North and West Africa to engage with counterparts from seven nations: Algeria,Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia.
Until their transfer to the Africa Command (AFRICOM) all 53 nations on the continent except for those in the Horn of Africa (assigned to Central Command) and the island nations of Madagascar and the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean (handled by Pacific Command) were within the area of responsibilty of the European Command (EUCOM), whose top commander is simultaneously the Supreme Allied Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
As such the past two EUCOM and NATO commanders, Marine General James Jones (2003-2006) and Army General Bantz John Craddock (2006-June, 2009), were the most instrumental in setting up AFRICOM.
Jones is now U.S. National Security Adviser and at this February’s
Munich Security Conference opened his speech with “As the most recent
National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders
from Dr. [Henry]Kissinger.” [2]
In 2008, while serving as State Department special envoy for Middle
East security and chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United
States, Jones said, “[A]s commander of NATO, I worried early in the
mornings about how to protect energy facilities and supply chain routes as far away as Africa, the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea.” [3]
Shortly before stepping down from his military posts with NATO and the Pentagon “NATO’s top commander of operations, U.S. General James Jones, has said he sees a potential role for the alliance in protecting key shipping lanes such as those around the Black Sea and oil supply routes from Africa to Europe.” [4]
Three years ago a Pentagon web site documented that “Officials at U.S. European Command spend between 65 to 70 percent of their time on African issues, [James] Jones said….Establishing such a group [military task force in West Africa] could also send a message to U.S. companies ‘that investing in many parts of Africa is a good idea,’ the general said.” [5)
During the final months of his dual tenure as NATO’s and EUCOM’s top military commander, Jones transitioned Africa from EUCOM’s to AFRICOM’s control while also expanding the role of NATO on the continent.
In June of 2006 the Alliance launched its global Rapid Response Force with its first large-scale military exercises off the coast of the
former Portuguese possession of Cape Verde, in the Atlantic Ocean west of Senegal.
U.S press reports of the time offered these details:
“Hundreds of elite North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) troops
backed by fighter planes and warships will storm a tiny volcanic island off Africa’s Atlantic coast this week in what the Western alliance hopes will prove a potent demonstration of its ability to project power around the world.” [6]
“Seven thousand NATO troops conducted war games on the Atlantic Ocean
island of Cape Verde on Thursday in the latest sign of the alliance’s
growing interest in playing a role in Africa.
“The land, air and sea exercises were NATO’s first major deployment in Africa and designed to show the former Cold War giant can launch
far-flung military operations at short notice.
“‘You are seeing the new NATO, the one that has the ability to project stability,’ said NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a news conference after NATO troops stormed a beach on one of the islands on the archipelago in a mock assault on a fictitious terrorist camp. “NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe James Jones, the alliance soldier in charge of NATO operations, said he hoped the two-week Cape Verde
exercises would help break down negative images about NATO in Africa and elsewhere.” [7]
Rwandan troops heading to Sudan in 2005
NATO’s first operation in Africa had occurred a year earlier in May of 2005 when the bloc transported African Union troops to the Darfur region of Sudan, at the crossroads of a war-riven region comprised of the Central African Republic, Chad and Sudan.
The Alliance has since deployed warships to the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, last year with Operation Allied Protector, and this
August 17 NATO announced that it was dispatching British, Greek,
Italian, Turkish and U.S. warships to the area for a new mission,
Operation Ocean Shield. These operations don’t consist of mere
surveillance and escort roles but include regular forced boardings,
sniper attacks and other uses of armed and often lethal force.
On August 22 a Netherlands contingent of the complementary European Union naval force off Somalia used an attack helicopter against a vessel in the area which subsequently was taken over by troops from a Norwegian warship.
Over three years before, now U.S. National Security Adviser and then
NATO chief military commander James Jones addressin
g what was his major “national security” concern at the time, “raised the prospect of NATO taking a role to counter piracy off the coast of the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Guinea, especially when it threatens energy supply routes to Western nations.” [8]
A month later both he and NATO’s then top civilian leader, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, reiterated the above commitment.
“NATOs’ [commanders] are ready to use warships to ensure the security
of offshore oil and gas transportation routes from Western Africa, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s Secretary General, reportedly said speaking at a session of the foreign committee of PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe].
“On April 30 General James Jones, commander-in-chief of NATO in Europe,
reportedly said NATO was going to draw up a plan for ensuring the
security of oil and gas industry facilities.
“In this respect the bloc is willing to ensure security in unstable
regions where oil and gas are produced and transported.” [9]
Two months earlier a U.S. Defense Department news source reported this from Jones:
“U.S. Naval Forces Europe, (the command’s) lead component in this
initiative, has developed a robust maritime security strategy and
regional 10-year campaign plan for the Gulf of Guinea region.
“Africa’s vast potential makes African stability a near-term global
strategic imperative.” [10]
Jones “raised the prospect of NATO taking a role to cou
nter piracy off the coast of the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Guinea, especially when it threatens energy supply routes to Western nations” in April of 2006 and the Pentagon and NATO have followed through on his pledge and exactly in those two opposite ends of Africa.
At article a few days ago by Daniel Volman, director of the African
Security Research Project in Washington, DC, called “Africa: U.S.
Military Holds War Games on Nigeria, Somalia” provided details on how far plans by James Jones and the Pentagon have progressed over the past three years.
Working with what sketchy information that had been made public about Unified Quest 2008, last year’s rendition of what the U.S. Army web site described in an article of this year under the title of and as “Army war games for future conflicts” [11], conducted by the United States Army War College, Volman’s article included this information:
“In addition to U.S. military officers and intelligence officers,
Unified Quest 2008 brought together participants from the State
Department and other U.S. government agencies, academics, journalists, and foreign military officers (including military representatives from several NATO countries, Australia, and Israel), along with the private military contractors who helped run the war games: the Rand Corporation and Booz-Allen.
“The list of options for the Nigeria scenario ranged from diplomatic
pressure to military action, with or w thout the aid of European and
African nations. One participant, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel
Mark Stanovich, drew up a plan that called for the deployment of
thousands of U.S. troops within 60 days….
“Among scenarios examined during the game were the possibility of direct American military intervention involving some 20,000 U.S. troops in order to ‘secure the oil,’ and the question of how to handle possible splits between factions within the Nigerian government. The game ended without military intervention because one of the rival factions executed a successful coup and formed a new government that sought stability.
General Ward “[W]hen General Ward [AFRICOM commander] appeared before the House Armed Services Committee on March 13, 2008, he cited America’s growing dependence on African oil as a priority issue for Africom and went on to proclaim that combating terrorism would be ‘Africom’s number one theater-wide goal.’ He barely mentioned development, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping or conflict resolution. [12]
In addition to nations already shelled, targeted and threatened like
Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Eritrea, even long-time and staunch U.S. military allies like Nigeria are not beyond the reach of hostile
Pentagon action. Nigeria is the main power in the fifteen-nation
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which over the past nine years has deployed troops to Sierra Leone, Liberia and Cote d’Ivoire on the request of the West, but that loyalty will not protect it when its own moment arrives.
The U.S. has employed other countries as regional military proxies –
Ethiopia and Djibouti in Northeast Africa, Rwanda in Central Africa,
Kenya in both – and has designs on South Africa, Senegal and Liberia
for similar purposes.
Since its establishment in October of 2007 AFRICOM has lost little time in marking out the Pentagon’s new continent.
Even prior to its formal activation the Pentagon conducted the Africa
Endeavor 2008 23-nation military exercise with forces from Benin,
Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Uganda, the U.S. and Zambia as well as representatives from ECOWAS and the African Union. [13]
The operation was held under the auspices of the U.S. European Command at the time as AFRICOM wasn’t activated until October of that year but it included the participation of the then fledgling AFRICOM and U.S. Marine Forces Europe (MARFOREUR), U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the Marine Headquarters, Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa [14], but “Next year’s exercise will be sponsored by U.S. Africa Command.” [15]
This January the U.S. Department of Defense announced that “The U.S.
Army Southern European Task Force [SETAF] officially has assumed its new role as the Army component for=20U.S. Africa Command.”
The Pentagon web site from which the above quote is taken also provided this background information and portents of the future:
“Since the 1990s, SETAF has worked with African nations to conduct
military training and provide humanitarian relief in countries such as Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda, Congo and the former Zaire. [Congo is the former Zaire, as Zaire was the former Belgian Congo]
“In the coming years, SETAF, operating as U.S. Army Africa, will
continue to grow and build capacity to meet the requirements needed to coordinate all U.S. Army activities in Africa.
[U.S. Army Africa] is not an episodic, flash in the pan,noncombative
evacuation operation. [16]
In the same month, demonstrating another new AFRICOM component and the continent-wide reach of the American military and its recently acquired client states, it was reported that “Air Force C-17s will soon begin airlifting special equipment for Rwandan Peacekeepers in the Darfur region of Sudan, marking the kickoff of the first major operation engineered by U.S. Africa Command’s air component, Seventeenth Air Force, also known as U.S. Air Forces Africa.” [17]
This May the newspaper of the American Armed Forces, Stars and Stripes, carried a feature on joint U.S.-British training of the Rwandan army, one which bears a large part of the blame for the deaths of over five million Congolese since 1998: The biggest loss of life in20a nation related to armed conflict since tens of millions of Chinese and Soviets were killed during World War II.
Rwandan and Ugandan troops invaded Congo in 1998 and triggered ongoing cross-border fighting which persists to this day. Rwanda and Uganda are both U.S. and British military client states.
The Stars and Stripes feature detailed that American instructors “are
currently working with a team from the British army to train
instructors with the Rwandan army. Those instructors will then train
their own troops many of whom will serve as peacekeepers in places such as Sudan.” [18]
It quoted a British officer, Maj. Charles Malet, who “leads a
contingent of British forces based in Kenya,” as saying “Weve been
producing short-term training in this part of the world for a long,
long time. [U.S. Africa Command] has stood [up]. Its great to link up
and provide a sort of introduction.” [19]
The training of the Rwandan armed forces by the United States and its NATO allies has less to do with Darfur than it does with devastated Congo.
In November of 2008 the United Nations reported that “Rwandan forces fired tank shells and other heavy artillery across the border at
Congolese troops during fighting” [20] which began when former
Congolese general Laurent Nkunda staged an armed rebellion in the east of the country which led to the displacement of 200,000 civilians.
The BBC revealed at the time that “journalists report that some of
Laurent Nkunda’s rebel fighters are in the pay of the Rwandan army.
“This has renewed fears that the fighting will see a re-run of the
five-year Congolese war, which involved nine nations, before itended
in 2003.” [21]
The British Financial Times conducted interviews with “former rebels and observers on the ground” who said that “the uprising led by Laurent Nkunda, the renegade former Congolese general relies heavily on recruitment in Rwanda and former or even active Rwandan soldiers.”
Referring to Rwandan President Paul Kagame, the report added, “Mr Nkunda and Rwandas government, military and business elite share a history….Mr Nkunda, a Congolese Tutsi, was an intelligence officer in the guerrilla army that Mr Kagame, a Rwandan Tutsi, used to…seize power.
“Mr Kagame launched invasions of Congo in 1996 and 1998 and supported uprisings….” [22]
The following month a U.S. congressional delegation “traveled to Rwanda and Ethiopia to meet with U.S. ambassadors, AFRICOM officials and various ministers of each country, including Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Rwanda Foreign Minister Charles Murigande.” [23]
Ethiopia invaded Somalia on America’s behest three years ago and
Rwanda’s repeated incursions into Congo could not have occurred without a green light from Washington.
As an Ugandan commentary at the time of the latest attack
on Congo from Rwanda stated, “London, New York and Paris are among the top consumers of minerals from Congo. They lecture humanity on the need to uphold
human rights and the sanctity of property rights whilst their thirstfor strategic minerals unleashes terror on innocent women and children
in Eastern Congo.” [24]
Last week an AFRICOM spokesman announced that “The United States military will be sending experts to the war-torn eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo this week.” The initial deployment will be small, he added, but “more may follow….” [25] AFRICOM would be better advised to monitor the activities of the Rwandan military it trains and arms.
Also last week the Pentagon stated it was deploying “unmanned
reconnaissance aircraft in the skies above the Seychelles archipelago” in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar and AFRICOM commander General William Ward said, “We have the recent arrival of our P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft that will aid in conducting the surveillance of Seychelles territorial waters and as we look into the future, (we will) bring unmanned surveillance vehicles.” [26]
Two days later Ward said “that the rise of radical Islamist militant
group al-Shabab in Somalia makes East Africa a central focus of the
U.S. military on the continent.”
Voice of America added:
“General William Ward has pledged continued support to Somalia’s
transitional federal government….He made his remarks duri
ng a visit to Nairobi, Kenya, which is a key U.S. ally in region.” [27]
Until last October Africa was the only continent other than Australia
and Antarctica without a U.S. military command. The fact that one has now been established indicates that Africa has achieved heightened importance for the Pentagon and its Western military allies.
An analysis of why Africa is a major focus of attention and why now
rather than earlier was provided by U.S.-based writer Paul I. Adujie in the New Liberian on August 21:
“America’s Africa Command, in conceptual terms and actual
implementation, is not intended to serve Africa’s best interests. It
just happens that Africa has grown in geopolitical and geo-economic
importance to America and her allies. Africa has been there all along.
“There were, for instance, reports of how the American military, acting supposedly in partnership or cooperation with the Nigerian military, literally took over Nigerian Defense Headquarters….
“It is probably important to mention that the United States already
operates at least three other commands, namely, the European Command (EUCOM), Central Command (CENTCOM) and Pacific Command (PACOM), therefore the Africa Command or (AFRICOM) will be the fourth leg of US military global spread.
“America’s Africa Command is…machinery for Western governments to pursue their vaunted economic, political and hegemonic hemispheric influence at the expense of Africans as well as a backdoor through which Westerners can outmaneuver rivals such as China and perhaps Russia in addition.” [28]
Notes
1) The Anti-Empire Report, August 4th, 2009 http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer72.html
2) Real Clear Politics, February 8, 2009
3) Agence France-Presse, November 30, 2008
4) Reuters, November 27, 2006
5) U.S. Department of Defense, August 18, 2006
6) Associated Press, June 21, 2006
7) Reuters, June 22, 2006
8) Associated Press, April 24, 2006
9) Trend News Agency, May 3, 2006
10) U.S. Department of Defense, March 8, 2006
11) www.army.mil, May 6, 2009
12) AllAfrica.com, August 14, 2009
13) United States European Command, July 29, 2008
14) United States European Command, July 16, 2008
15) United States European Command, July 29, 2008
16) U.S. Department of Defense, American Forces Press Service, January
28, 2009
17) U.S. Air Forces in Europe, January 9, 2009
18) Stars And Stripes, May 24, 2009
19) Ibid
20) Associated Press, November 3, 2008
21) BBC News, November 13, 2008
22) Financial Times, November 11, 2008
23) Times-Journal, December 8, 2008
24) Sunday Monitor (Uganda), November 9, 2008
25) Daily Nation (Kenya), August 18, 2009
26) Reuters, August 19, 2009
27) Voice of America News, August 21, 2009
28) New Liberian, August 21, 2009
I read with interest you long article trying to justify yourself and to cast yourself as a Bulge and not as a Tigre as some people may have stated when dealing with your nefarious role as head of the so called Ethiopian Commodity Exchange. As you did try to explain, the ethnic origin of any person is not really that important if only the TPLF you so loyally serve had not made it the main and primordial issue of Ethiopian political and economic life. In Other words, what is important is not the fact that you are Tigrean born but that you are a loyal serve of the TPLF and especially the robber baron Meles Zenawi.
The so called Ethiopian Commodity Exchange is a means to assure the economic stranglehold and domination of the TPLF over the Ethiopian economy much as the EFFORT conglomeration is doing. Your role is to assure this and nothing else. Of some 85 companies who have forked out the thousands of Birr to have a seat in the commodity exchange (ECE), 63 are TPLF owned big companies like Guna or front men of the TPLF. The independent private groups are tiny ones helpless in the face of the Guna giant which deals with hundreds of millions of Birr. You surely know ho Guna sold the Ethiopian wheat reserve to Egypt via the Sudan ( the Tigrean former GTZ truck drivers now employed by Sebhat Nega doing the transport) and earned millions if dollars while buying replacement wheat from South African on loan. You also know how these Sebhat hired truck drivers were once paid by Sebhat Nega with cocaine confiscated from Nigerian mules/ transporters and how they sold this cocaine in Addis to earn thousands of Birr.
Weizero Eleni, you head one of the most dangerous bodies for the total robbery of Ethiopia’s agricultural produces to benefit the Tigrean bourgeoisie. The aim of your CE is to monopolize the market/ sale of Ethiopia’s agricultural produce ranging from coffee to sesame and more. The damaging effect of your activity on coffee traders is already known. The control of sesame production (Humera and other places) by the TPLF and the exclusive sale of this through the commodity exchange is also known. Through the ECE you head, the TPLF is trying to assume full control of the Ethiopian agricultural production and market and to prolong its anti people rule. That is your role that no amount of demagogy or “I am an Ethiopian” trumpeting cannot hide. You are not an Ethiopian but a rabid Weyane up there with Ethiopia-haters like Meles and Sebhat. The twelve or so independent companies who have a seat in the commodity exchange are covers for you and the TPLF, they get crumbs as the main market is controlled by the 62 or so TPLF companies with millions of stolen Birr.
Weizero Eleni when the day of judgment comes and if you have not managed to flee your place will be in the dock and then we shall be delighted to hear you explain how you were a patriotic Ethiopian while you helped and abetted the TPLF in destroying the Ethiopian economy and perpetuating the rule of ethnic chauvinists.
The above quotations should be born in mind when we discuss issues of Eritreans with Ethiopians. The first quotation was in response to a question what do we get? posed by a woman who was waiting for Thomas Jefferson to announce the type of government American should have. The second was quoted from a film titled A few good men, an answer for Tom Cruises question.
In the Eritrean case, PIA (President Issayas Afeworki) has delivered to the Eritreans what they wanted Haarnet or Nazanet – whichever it is, I cannot figure it out.
In the Ethiopian case, the so-called politicians, remnants of the DERG regime and the apolitical individuals who seem disinterested not only in finding solutions to our peoples problem but also in distorting the true past history of the Ethiopian Revolution. Or alternatively they are against the Eway Revolution for fear of the unknown. In other words, these are the groups who cannot handle the truth that was set by DEBTERAW and his Revolutionary Party (EPRP).
It will be in the context of Independence versus Truth that I am putting myself into the current debate and discussion among the following contenders.
·Shaleka Dawit vs. Saleh (Gadi) Johar
·Hassan Umer Abdella vs. Elias Kifle
·Neamin Zelleke vs. Tsegaye Kassa
·Jember Mintesnot vs. Semere T Habtemariam
·Zewge Fanta vs. Ayalsew
But before commenting on the pro and cons among and between these groups of individuals opinions and value judgment, I have to re-post (I might add at the time that a couple of webmasters declined to post it) the following article that I have written almost ten years ago. I am forwarding it to be posted again hoping that will educate my readers to catch up with the current discussion and debate about Eritrea and Ethiopia.
AS IS, here is the article
DEMOCRATIZATION NOT RECONCILIATION
By Wolde Tewolde
13 January 2001
A little bit of history
My knowledge of ancient and medieval history on Eritrea, written or oral, has been very limited, but I have witnessed an era of history between the end of Italian colonialism and the beginning of the Millennium. Here is the summary.
For 1 month (2001-?), Eritreans are pleading for reconciliation/democratization
For 2 years(1998-00), Eritreans were fighting for Territorial Demarcation
For 7 years(1991-98), Eritreans were muddling for Economic Reconstruction
For 17 years (1974-91), Eritreans were seeking for self-determination, Democracy and Socialism
For 12 years (1962-74), Eritreans were combating Ethiopian annexation
For 10 years (1952-62) Eritreans were opposing UN Federal arrangement
For 11 years (1941-52), Eritreans were fighting against British Administration
For 51 years (1890-1941), Eritreans were fighting against Italian colonialism
All in all Eritreans have waged battles and wars for 110 years. But the most prominent armed guerrilla war went unabated for 30 years (1961-1991) thanks to Awates single bullet. It was an era of mission and vision but not of value.
B-13 group has motivated me to write. Although their analysis of the Eritrean condition was fairly accurate, B-13s characterization of the situation as national crisis was incorrect and hence their call for national unity and reconciliation were inappropriately alarming and perhaps deceptive. Nevertheless, one has to give them credit for speaking out loud.
If we accept that Eritreans struggled against Italian Colonialism, British Administration, self-rule, Ethiopian oppression and Tigrean mass deportation for over a century, when was the real national crisis? Was it at the beginning, the middle or the end? I leave this to the reader. We cannot discount the fact that TPLF or EPRDF however you want to call them have endorsed the Referendum for Eritrean Independence. The only thing that we are unable to ascertain is whether the battle at Badme were meant to be as a jumpstart for TPLFs hidden agenda or simply a test of the waters by the PFDJ for asserting their power on the ground. This will definitely take time to find out. However we take it Eritreans, under no circumstance, were in a national crisis at the end of 1st Millennium. B-13s characterization as national crisis was totally wrong and misleading. B-13 demanded for national debate, and it is a common sense that there should be no national debate during such crisis. May be this is a la Eritrean academicians and medical doctors, I do not know. I am hoping now that B-13 will continue to demand a National debate and not back off from their previous demand.
I have promised my readers to air my thoughts and opinions on each of the three issues.
Out of the eight topical issues and concerns raised by the B-13, only three deserve proper attention for public debate. These are the followings:
National Unity and Reconciliation
Collective Leadership and
The Constitution
For this month, I am dealing with the first issue of unity and reconciliation.
NUR (National Unity and Reconciliation)
In my article of 13 December 2000, I have indicated that National Unity for Eritreans was achieved with the culmination of a National War that was fought not only at Badme but also in all Fronts. The war was perceived as a reversal from the incorrect stand by the TPLF organizational theory of Ethiopian colonialism. The TPLF has also blurred the correct stand of self-determination as proposed by the Revolutionary party of Ethiopians and Eritreans with that of their colonial theory. An additional factor, which blurred the rationale for war between the EPLF and TPLF, was that both organizations proclaimed as Marxists determined to fight Imperialism both that of the United States and the Soviet Union. The real war between Eritrea and Ethiopia under these Liberators liberation was fought for confusion (hidden agenda). At best the TPLF with the Ad whites at the helm desperately desired to gain access to the Red Sea and make Ethiopia a prosperous country or at worst to bring down the Ham knights who want to keep Eritreans at a poverty level. Who knows may be the Ad whites thought that the Ham knights were Italians to be given lessons after 115 years? I do not know. Just the same, for the majority of Ethiopians the War was fought for their National flag (rainbow) and for their ethnic identity (ED). Access to the Red Sea was not an issue for the majority of Ethiopians.
EPLFs wars against Yemen, Djibouti, Sudan and Ethiopia were fought not for acquisition of lands but perhaps for an assertion of national colonial independence. These small wars were the real tests for Independence of Eritrea from invaders (socialists), intruders (proponents of democracies) or from colonizers (imperialists) all mixed up in a bug. Just the same, for the majority of Eritreans, the Red Sea and the city of Asmara symbolized not only their survival but also as their national identity. As a result the identical issue of pride and security was finally sealed with the accommodation of thousands of mass deported of Eritrean origin from all over Ethiopia. National unity of a different kind unparalleled in their history was achieved.
If the unity of purpose was achieved, why then B-13 and others are asking for a unity and reconciliation? Really where is the confusion coming from? As indicated in the brief history of struggle, most Eritreans had a straightforward kind of methodology of combat with the single exception of the future that is understandable. The answer lies, I believe, between the years of 1974-1991. This was the time when Eritreans and Ethiopians were floundering for NDS (Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism). If this is so we need a re-examination of the class struggle, democracy and capitalism.
It is obvious that people can be confused with so many fundamental issues for so many years and it is also understandable for many people to blame one another and demand for an immediate Reconciliation because in their minds and hearts, reconciliation is synonymous with peace. Once the fuzzy questions of NDS (Nationalism, Democracies and Socialism) are finally cleared to the majority of Eritreans and Ethiopians, prescription will be simple. Why do we need reconciliation, will reconciliation bring peace? The answer probably is no.
What is reconciliation anyway?
The world is a better place without confrontation but whenever confrontation arises reconciliation is the solution. Most nations and individuals believe it is better to gain from stability rather than from chaos. What is reconciliation then? Reconciliation follows confrontation. As pointed earlier, Eritrean organizations were involved in recruiting their members by a) by educating b) by tricking and c) by threatening. I do not have facts and figures as to how many Eritreans were educated for what they were fighting for, how many were cheated and how many were threatened to join. Whatever has happened, the nationalists got what they wanted. That means that they are automatically reconciled with the nation of Eritrea (The authorities prefer to call it a State, do not ask me why). On the other hand, some so-called old enemies were allowed to enter Asmara freely without any reprimand. At least, I have not heard of no one who was not welcomed or put into prison because he/she visited his/her native land. But on the other, I have heard tons of stories about others who refused to follow EPLFs line of ideology, market and religious practice, to say the least, who were harassed.
Is it the wrong say to oppose petitioning, reconciliation, fighting or democratization? What is the right way?
Awate opted for an armed struggle and it was clearly to redress the annexation by Ethiopia. This took a little over 40 years. The irony is that fortunately or unfortunately, EPLF has carried out ELFs mission of Independence from colonization and annexation (Haarnet). Simultaneously, the group of C-13 of Cairo had initiated a professed dream of struggle for Eritrean peace, democracy, and Independence. Fighting and Independence go hand in hand as we saw in C-13s vision and Awates mission.
What about Democracy and Justice?
PFDJ has the correct name for pursuing the issues of democracy and justice. So far, the Party or the Organization has not lived up to its true name, as it is neither involved in democratizing nor in creating social justice. The PFDJ is reportedly involved in a sort of business venture neither entrenched in private nor in social nature but in a mixed sort of economy (I do not understand what it means for todays world). Anyhow Democracy and Justice should go hand in hand. EPLF has gun in one hand and democracy and/or justice in the other.
What about Reconciliation and Democratization?
These two concepts are interchangeable. The lack of understanding democratization process will leave us for reconciliation option only. Followings are some samples why reconciliation is essential and urgent.
Awate.coms mission statement calls for the reconciliation between the past and present.
Gebre Fesshazion: the Reconciliation theory and the Eritrean culture of debate of December 01, 2000 write, as The Eritreans are the most unified people in the continent. Gebre continued to argue, Nowadays the issue of democracy is the hot spot among Eritreans in the Diaspora. No one disagree about it; but everyone can be different about the time of its implementation. Eritrea does not need reconciliation. Again Gebre clearly confuses politics with policy issues.
Men hot Woldemariam in his articles of Reconciliation and National unity, calls reconciliation a vital term in Eritrean politics.
What about petitioning and crisis management?
When the so-called national crisis emerged, B-13 presented rather E-mailed their petition and demanded for a crisis management. These two concepts let alone to be interchangeable; they do not go hand in hand. By the way, how many of those 13 in Cairo or in Berlin were Democrats, Independents or Socialists? Some on should figure it out. But after 1991, there was no discussion of about Democracy, Socialism not even about the nature of capitalism. Everyone was for grubbing material wealth at any cost.
A little bit of advice for all Eritreans
On the one hand, compassionate and informed people whether Ethiopians or foreigners of any country admire the tenancy and endurance of the Eritrean people. While on the other, mean and uninformed Ethiopians and foreigners will loathe your perseverance and desire for liberty and equality. But above all, there are real people who wonder when the EERA (Eritrean Educated, Refugee and Asylee) will come to an end. An acquaintance of mine from the Jewish Community told me to be imperfect. He said that Christ was perfect and that was why he was crucified. Human beings can only be in excellence. God may be slow to anger and yet quick to forgive. Thing about this wisdom.
What do we need for final solution? I can present three areas of concern for discussion
FAMATA
MAN
WRT
The above acronyms will be discussed in future articles.
Menhot named our situation as collective insanity I prefer to call it collective ignorance. I know many readers rather hearer will be offended, but take it easy, the world is much simpler than the previous full century.
According to the writer, quoting from a document Nehanan Alamenan translated as our objectives and we might have put us in the wrong direction. Obviously, if it says we, then it doe not represent the Eritrean people (unless he is an emperor), it implies a section of the population.
I have not read the said document and I am not interested to read it. It sounds as a Machiavellian type of governance. Mr. Woldemariam pleads for reconciliation a la Mandela type. Both are not feasible. Machiavellian is buried for good by the Information Age. Mandelas case is a case of race and discrimination. Eritren liberation is liberation from fear of retribution and a desire to share power. What are needed are a la Democracia, a la Democracia, and a la Democracia. What is Democracy? Every one of us should study and understand its history, concept and application. It is not enough to repeat the word.
As an opposition Party, ELF has a daunting task ahead for its members. First and foremost, they should regroup or reorganize and be formidable political party. I believe there are there main reasons for the ELF to become an opposition not a loyalist party.
ELF was the victims of aggression
It can redress what has been done by EPLF and
ELF members can feel elevated that they were part of the long struggle for national independence and now they can be part of the reconstruction effort.
But before anything else, ELF should democratize itself internally. For without justice and democratization, ther is Eritrea without Eritreans.
Conclusion
We have to equate democracy building with reconciliation. If Eritreans dont want democracy, then they do not need reconciliation. But I know many want reconciliation. So stop that nonsense that democracy is not for Eritrea.
Democratization and democracies is the solution for Eritreans and its neighbor. Young people can learn from mistakes. Old people like myself do not seem to be learning from past failures.
Eritreans and Ethiopians should do the following: –
By Melesse AdaneSuccess story is no more; the crisis within the powerhouses continues, so is the prospect of Ethiopian revolution. More often than not, both convulsion from within and a revolution from outside are the factors that amount to the final disintegration of tyrannical regimes. When a push comes to shove the powerhouses, both the parliament and the congregation from within will be no more. In a ways, any given tyrant regime that takes control of a state power without legal sanction and rules the nation with an absolute power is prone to collapse gradually if not suddenly, as a result of convulsion from within and a revolution from without. In this case, the current Ethiopias socioeconomic crisis aside, the damage already done by an internal conflict from within TPLF/EPRDF and the church led by Aba Paulous is a signal that the tyrannical regime led by Meles is growing fade by the day and blinking dim on a daily basis. Eventually, though it appears that the tyrant regime is about to cease to exist.
Firstly, given that there is tension in both powerhouses led by Meles of TPLF in the palace and Aba Poulous of the religious Commerce in the church, the opposition must incite those who opposed to Meless dictatorial regime into action. They also must call upon them to stand in solidarity with the people against Meles regime and as well agitate the public to be watchful and ready to deal with whatever comes next. For sure, the on going internal conflict would undermine TPLF/EPRDFS organizational strengths and technical support it happens to preserve from within. And in due time the civil disobedience popular with both young and old, audiences shall reinforce the internal conflict and finally put an end to the ethnocentric dictatorial regime in Ethiopia. Although revolution may have generated many competing theories in the past still it is bound to be the only way to do away with tyrannical regimes and their domineering way of life. Be it the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, American Revolution, Ethiopian Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Agrarian Revolution, Gunpowder or Protestant Revolution, all of them were about change. Radical Change now! Therefore, revolution is a must now both to reflect on the current understanding of our situation in Ethiopia and the complex phenomenon the tyrant regime brought us to rule our country with an iron fist.
Secondly, in order to intensify the conflict amongst enemy camps, one would capitalize more on the wisdom of Ethiopian society. It is true that the wisdom of Ethiopians is prevailing against the unfounded hatred, fear and mistrust TPLF has been trying to make us feel. Meaning Ethiopians continue to feel and behave in a manner that benefit all in the family, and continue to adjust actions and deeds in response to the desires and needs of their links. And moreover, together Ethiopians do praise Ethiopian nationalism by raising their flag instead of being divided and weak by an enemy. In other words, they happen to show their devotion to their motherland and her interests as opposed to those narrow nationalists whose excessive and fanatical devotion is tribal and rival of the nation of Ethiopia itself. To that effect, Ethiopians continue to carry on the unity slogan and as they move forward they mutually give enthusiastic approval to the motto of one flag, one nation and one people. Isnt that true that Ethiopian flag is much more popular than it was then during the previous regimes? Together they manage to refuse to comply with the newly piece of legislation against their flag passed by so-called Ethiopian parliament is a case in point. So in this case, Ethiopian wisdom says it all that Ethiopians embracing Ethiopian nationalism will come victor at the end as had had happened in Adawa, Mekidela and many other battlegrounds wherein Ethiopians of all walks of life engaged in an armed conflict and defended their common territory against foreign aggressions in the past. Likewise, as ever before, Ethiopian national anthem together with Ethiopian flag will be praised by all Ethiopians regardless. Because, both Ethiopian national anthem and flag are symbolically popular, associated with their greater Ethiopian identity , period, and cause of all time . Moreover, Ethiopian national anthem will have taken place to celebrate a sense of solidarity Ethiopians enjoyed for centuries as opposed to that of narrow nationalists song sung to shed tears for a Killil territory
Be that as it may, would it matter whether or not Meles said I will leave power? After all, convincing his likes of something that is not true at all is what Meles is good at. Based on that , one would conclude that it may be is a mixed signal he wants to send us, one is to trick us thereby to buy time and the other possibility is for sure that he is desperate to the point where he loses hope. But altogether we can agree on that TPLF/EPRDF is in a serious internal strife as we speak. As the last resort, however, he will do anything possible to save his power but in vain. Because, it appears that time is not on his side anymore. And also, all the indications we see show as that that the decline and fall of the ethnocentric dictatorial regime in Ethiopia is near. Upon his departure , however, the new era of hope shall began in Ethiopia, a hope that things will turn out well for all Ethiopians to live together and that good will ultimately triumph over evil in the land of Ethiopia. To that end, given that Meles of TPLF is squeezed in between and overwhelmed with a great deal of urgency and anxiety from within, the oppositions together with the general public must take the advantage of the situation sooner than later.
And then it is up to the oppositions and the public at large to exploit the situation at hand and move on. as it happens, a ground breaking revolution is necessary, and then, unity, organization and strong leadership are the most important continuities the public need in order to remove TPLF/EPRDF out of power and replace it with a new and democrat system of government. After all, violence is inevitable in Ethiopia so long as TPLF/EPRDF is in power. As the offensive intrusion of TPLF/EPRDF against the will of the public unfolds, taking precautionary protective measures on the part of the public to safeguard its civil liberties is inevitable. So much so, the people of Ethiopia in general and the genuine oppositions in particular have every right to react in response to WOYANES violent act. Collectively, we should defy and defy now to the ethnocentric dictatorial regime of Meles Zenawi and Aba Paulous of his own kind.
In conclusion, the, rundown powerhouse of ethnocentric dictatorship in tandem with its mischievous political philosophy needs to get battered down by a unified force. A unified force led by Long Standing Political organizations; a unified force that is prepared to resist, to control, and vanquish that of a body of politics called Killil is needed to take over and lead the revolution to victory. Replacing KILLIL with some broad based government in Addis Ababa is also the first safety measure that our unified forces led by our Long Standing Political Parties have to take on and work to that end. And also, as mutual trust and confidence are the true interests of Ethiopians, the said upcoming broad based government has to pick up where mutual trust and confidence are celebrated and put in place to boost the Morales of our compatriots and Ethiopian society as a whole. To that end, what is expected of Ethiopians of all walks of life is nothing but becoming more unified than ever before. Ethiopians are believed to be defiant to all forms of tyrant regimes. They dethroned the king and unseated the military junta. Two are down and one more go. An all out war against the ethnocentric dictatorial regime must begin now by intensifying rumors of Meles resignation and accelerating the fall of his tyrannical regime in Addis.
Enachenifallen!!
Posted inArticles|Comments Off on TPLF/EPRDF is eating itself Alive!
(A reply to the self-defeatist camp of Neamin Zeleqe)
By Tsegaye Kassa
OF PERMANENT ENEMIES & INTERESTS
Some Opposition groups seem to believe in the statement that there are no permanent enemies but permanent interests. The USA follows the policy that it co-operates with enemies if it is in the interest of its national security. For the USA, there are permanent interests but no permanent enemies. Permanent interests cannot be safeguarded if there are enemies that are against the strategic interest of a nation. The USA would not co-operate with any country if it stands against its national interests. Any nation that stands against the sovereignty of any other nation is the enemy of that nation. Eritrea is arming secessionist groups who are against Ethiopia. Eritrea aims in fact to dismember Ethiopia. Thus the Eritrean leadership is an enemy as long as it stands against the strategic interest of Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian Opposition should face the bitter reality and find a solution rather engage itself in sweet daydreams. It is naïve and unforgivable to allow the very enemy engage itself to further cause damage to the Ethiopian Nation. Ethiopian patriots should distance themselves from Eritrean secessionist forces. They are becoming part of the problem and not the solution. This does not mean that the Opposition should not stand against Meles Zenawi and his clique. The writer wants to stress again and again that both TPLF of Tigrai and EPLF of Eritrea are enemies of Ethiopia and have to be dealt with equal vigour and intensity. In case of some countries, it seems that Ethiopia has permanent enemies. Ethiopia has to defeat these enemies by organizing its population defend the patria (the fatherland). The Opposition should wage a relentless struggle to maintain the pre-1991 political boundary. The Eritrean people are Ethiopians and have to be integrated in our community as Ethiopians.Opposing the Tigrean and Eritrean leadership is in no way standing against the people of Eritrea and Tigrai.
As in the past, the opposition seems to fall prey to catechisms and slogans that stand against the opposition itself and against the Ethiopian people. There are permanent enemies and permanent interests depending on the situation. There might be also permanent interests only. The evidence-based behaviour of this group and that group will, decide whether the Opposition is to wield either strategic or tactical alliances. As to working with Eritrea, the evidence is against it. It is counterproductive because Eritrea is an instrument of expansion and control for Egypt and other traditional enemies of Ethiopia. Unfortunately Europe seems bent on anti-Ethiopia crusade too and we could safely say that Europe and USA will use Eritrea against Ethiopia. In all cases, Eritrea at this juncture in history is anti-Ethiopia and collaborating with Eritrea means helping traditional enemies of Ethiopia attain their goal of dismemberment and fragmentation of Ethiopia. The opposition should rather agitate the Eritrean people to overthrow the Issayas regime. By collaborating with Issayas Afewarki, the Ethiopian Opposition is weakening the democratic struggle of the people of Eritrea.
THE DEFEATIST CAMP OF ZEAMIN ZELEKES IS SPINELESS
Though this is a reply to the absurd scribble of Neamin Zeleqe under the title The Imperative for Ethiopians Dealing with Eritrea, there is in many websites and other media a serious betrayal and indirect attack on Ethiopia as a nation. This is really a very shameful defeatist tendency which we have to up-root and control. One case in point is the Amharic Daily Ethiopia Zare. This Amharic Daily has been disseminating self-defeatist articles that try to project Eritrea as an ally of the democratic movement in Ethiopia. A recent article that Issayas Afewarki stands for unity of Ethiopia was disturbing to read in the newspaper. The Ethiopian opposition should stand for the unity of Ethiopia and should be able to discern the hypocrisy of Eritreans. The Ethiopian Opposition should never collaborate with Eritrea for this legitimizes Eritrea as a separate and legal entity. Recognizing Eritrea as a country and collaborating with it, is tantamount to legitimizing the illegal rule of Meles Zenawi. Our point of departure should be the pre-1991 status quo and we should oppose to Eritreas secession from her Motherland Ethiopia and to Woyanes (TPLF) rule in Ethiopia. We should fight against both Meles Zenawi and Issayas Afewarki, for these two persons are directly responsible for the current unbearable situation of our people. We have to look for other countries and organizations for logistic and material support for our struggle to create a united and democratic Ethiopia.
ETHIOPIAN WEBSITES BECOMING A MEDIA FOR ERITREAS ANTI-ETHIOPIA PROPAGANDA
Ethiopian websites and newspapers who promote the propaganda of Eritrean secessionist forces should be boycotted and be seen as our national enemies that will have to be brought to justice when the opportunity comes. Almost all Ethiopian websites published Neamin Zeleqes absurd scribble. This in future should not be allowed. Are we asking Shaebya (Eritrean secessionist movement) to come and liberate us from Woyane (TPLF)? This is really ridiculous. How can the Ethiopian opposition forces ally to dismantle Ethiopia? There is either too much passivity in the democratic movement or the political awareness is so low that Ethiopians are so apolitical that they do not know who their enemies and allies are. Websites like Ethiopian Review called by Ethiopians sarcastically Eritrean Review have played a negative role in misleading and diverting the Ethiopian people from focusing on the real political issues. The Ethiopian Review presented fascist Issayas Afwarki as man of the year. Such disinformation has some impact on the Opposition movement to Meles Zenawi and some Opposition groups went to seek assistance from Eritrea. Besides such destructive propaganda is humiliating to the many families that have lost their loved due to the misrule of Issayas Afewarki. In general, such propaganda would promote crime and fascism in our region. People like Issayas Afewarki should be condemned and brought to justice. The website Ethiopian Review should be accountable for the death and suffering of the Eritrean and Ethiopian people because of the criminal and fascistic acts of Issayas Afewarki, who was presented as the Man of the Year by the Ethiopian Review website.
For the last 18 years, we seem not to understand how our country is being driven to more chaos and social deprivation. That the Eritreans are playing a negative role in the destruction of Ethiopia should be unequivocally clear. We have to observe how Eritreans are abusing Ethiopian communities in foreign countries and at home. This is partly due to the lack of awareness and the readiness of the Ethiopian communities to defend and fight for Ethiopian values. To do this we should stop Eritreans from using and abusing our communities. Our churches should be for Ethiopians only. The Eritreans have been coming to Ethiopian community services with a plan to infiltrate and control the communities. However Ethiopians have defended their communities and many are functioning properly. That Eritreans publish in Ethiopian newspapers to legitimize the status quo in Ethiopia and Eritrea is not new. This has been the case in the early days of the Ethiopian Student Movement. For Eritreans, it is natural to use and abuse Ethiopian resources to legitimize the secession of Eritrea and to wage the struggle to dismember Ethiopia. Neamin Zeleqe could be an Eritrean. He could also be an Ethiopian, who is very much frustrated by the current situation in Ethiopia. In all cases, it is entirely wrong to disseminate the idea of collaborating with Eritrea. We have rather to distance ourselves from Eritrean secessionist groups. We cannot be armed and trained by Eritrea to unite and democratize Ethiopia. We have to hold together as Ethiopians and stop Eritreans from infiltrating in our organizations. We have to use our resources for the cause of Ethiopia only and any anti-Ethiopia article should not be allowed to circulate. Eritrea cannot be our ally to erect a democratic Ethiopia. Ethiopia should rely on her own population and seek assistance from countries that do not stand against our strategic interest.
DEFEND THE HISTORY OF ETHIOPIA AND OPPOSE THE FALSIFICATION CAMPAIGN OF ERITREA AND TIGRAI
On the awareness of our community on the history of Eritrea and Ethiopia, there seems to be much to be done. We should bear in mind that we are not being rude to Eritreans if we defend the true history of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Defending the history of Ethiopia is important for the democratic movement to strengthen itself. No country in the world rejects its own history or restrains from defending its history. The Eritreans are destroying the history of Ethiopia in many different ways. They reject the heroic struggle of the people of Ethiopia against Italy. The Eritreans disseminate the fallacious idea that Ethiopia was liberated by the British duringWorld War II. The patriotic resistance of the Ethiopian people against fascist Mussolini and the birth of the many selfless heroes and heroines are ignored. Without Belay Zeleqe, Abune Petros, Zeray Deres, Dejazematch Gebremariam, Dejazmatch Balcha and many other heroes Ethiopia would not have been liberated. CIA fact sheet about Ethiopia and Eritrea shows how the Eritreans have falsified Ethiopian history. If Eritreans stand for the unity and liberation of Ethiopia, they should not falsify Ethiopian history.
No country in the world has falsified Ethiopian history. All European, American and other historians have documented the history of Ethiopia and that the Eritreans are trying to falsify this well-documented history of Ethiopia is really beyond comprehension. Ethiopians should condemn such acts of the Eritreans. We have to defend the history of Ethiopia for generations to come and for the present generation. Eritreans have given us Ethiopians a hundred years home work, to use the expression of fascist Issayas Afewarki. Issayas Afewarki has been trying to pit Ethiopian ethnics against each other. Eritreans hate and look down upon Oromos and other southern tribes of Ethiopia. The Oromos are seen as animals by Eritreans. But the fascist junta under the leadership of Issayas Afewarki has been training and arming Ormos with the aim of seceding Oromo region from Ethiopia. The Oromos are being insulted by Eritreans as dogs as we were to notice from some of the discussion forums. Oromos and all ethnies of Ethiopia have been living together for millennia. Practically there is no ethnic discrimination as we see it in many African countries but the whole country Ethiopia has no democratic rule and all tribes suffer directly and indirectly under the suppressive regime of Meles Zenawi.
The idea that some groups in the Opposition find Eritrea as an ally should be rejected and condemned. The Ethiopian opposition to the rule of Meles Zenawi should not allow itself to collaborate with Issayas Afwarki of Eritrea. At this juncture in our history, we have to be very careful not to go to bed with our fatal enemies. It is suicidal and very humiliating to ally and collaborate with Eritrea to dismember Ethiopia. Eritrea is a sworn enemy of a democratic and united Ethiopia. The self-defeatists like Neamin Zeleqe are enemies of the Ethiopian people and should be ignored. We have to look for our strategic allies elsewhere. Eritrea cannot be our ally in our struggle to create a democratic Ethiopia. Eritreans gave us Ethiopians a hundred years home work not to unite Ethiopia but to dismember it and to pit one ethnic group against another like it was the case in Rwanda between Hutus and Tutsis.
The Opposition should struggle against Issayas Afewarki and Meles Zenawi. Both Meles Zenawi and Issayas Afewarki must be brought to justice. It does not make sense to ally with Issayas to overthrow Meles Zenawis regime. We have to work to replace Meles and Issayas with another accountable government. Melez Zenawi and his henchmen are dictatorial and are anti-Ethiopia. We could have tolerated if the current government in Addis Abeba was only dictatorial. But it is intolerable to have an anti-Ethiopia government. As is noted earlier, the anti-Ethiopia policy of Meles Zenawi is due he and his henchmen being Eritreans and have a hidden agenda to dismantle Ethiopia. The Opposition might be forced to use all means available to erect a pro-Ethiopia regime by co-operating wit Eritrea. However the fact that Eritrea is anti-Ethiopia compels the opposition forces to look for other alternatives of boosting the democratic struggle for a united Ethiopia. The Opposition should stand against the regimes in Addis Abeba and Asmara.
Any struggle has to have a vision and a cause it can die for. The Ethiopian people are struggling to defend Ethiopia. They are ready to die for Ethiopia. It is sadistic and a gross mockery of history if the opposition was to kneel down to a group of traitors and anti-Ethiopia crusaders in the regions called Eritrea and Tigrai. It is equally wrong and betrayal of the Ethiopian Nation to collaborate with Meles Zenawi and his henchmen. The Opposition should have the grain necessary to liberate and control Ethiopia. The issue of Ethiopia is the issue of the world. The world needs Ethiopia and any country will be ready to stand with the Ethiopian people in their struggle to safeguard the sovereignity and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. It might be that the Black Diaspora and Black African countries (Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda etc) will have to liberate and unite Ethiopia for Ethiopia is their symbol, their nation, their heritage, their liberty, their creation. The Opposition should weed out any defeatism in its ranks and should be able to see its role as very decisive for the unity and liberation of Ethiopia and Eritrea from the dictatorship of Meles Zenawi and Issayas Afewarki, who are contemporary lackeys of neo-colonialism. We have to draw a lesson from the experience of the Vietnamese people and see ourselves challenging and changing the decadent international community. We have a golden opportunity to renew Ethiopias mighty and greatness by uniting our forces. It is beautiful and an honour again to have a cause to stand for. The Vietnamese people paid an enormous sacrifice to liberate and unite their country. The freedom fighters under the leadership of Ho Chmin liberated North Vietnam and were fighting to liberate South Vietnam. They paid the necessary price for the liberation of South Vietnam and united it with North Vietnam. USA and Western Europe negotiated with the North Vietnamese for a peace deal which maintained South Vietnam as an independent country. The Vietnamese people rejected the offer that compromised the sovereignity and territorial integrity of the Vietnamese Nation. The North Vietnamese people paid more sacrifices and liberated South Vietnam from US control and united it with North Vietnam. Vietnam maintained its national unity and is now one of the worlds fast growing economies. The Vietnamese people had a very nationalist and patriotic leader. Had the North Vietnamese leaked the boots of USA and other countries, Vietnam would have been not united. In case of Ethiopia. The Opposition should commit itself to the unity and liberation of Ethiopia. The Opposition should be ready to die for Ethiopian Unity. The Opposition should never collaborate with forces that stand against the territorial integrity and unity of pour nation. The Ethiopian Opposition should fight the Eritrean secessionist forces and collaborate with them. It is only such a force that will aid the birth of a New Democratic Ethiopia. A self-defeatist group would only prolong the status quo of oppression and ethnic strife as is practised by the regime of Meles Zenawi and Issayas Afewarki.
There is much evidence that the regime in Asmara is a sworn enemy of Ethiopia. If we have to assess the situation evidence-based, then we have to be honest and fair for ourselves and Ethiopia. Issayas Afewarki is palying with ethnic hatred against the Tigray people. This is appealing to some of us who happen to be from the other ethnic groups. Some of us have fallen to the ethnic trap Issayas Afewarki and his advisors have put for Ethiopia. If Issayas Afewarki stood in the best interest of Ethiopia, he would not and should be against Tigrai province. The opposition should stop being a victim of Eritrea. It should be able to recognise the problem and try to stand against Issayas Afewarki and Meles Zenawi. The Opposition should and could exploit the contradiction in the enemy camp (TPLF, EPLF, OLF0 to safeguard the unity of Ethiopia. But the current alignment of forces in the opposition and Eritrea is in favour of Eritrea and any collaboration with Eritrea at this stage will only serve the anti-Ethiopia crusaders. This writer is optimistic that the Ethiopian people will stand against the anti-Ethiopia camp and will be victorious. It is only Ethiopia and her history which could keep Ethiopians united and democratic. The people of Ethiopia need to go through the bitter experience of betrayal. But in the end the Ethiopian people will be united and will promote a democratic unitary or federal state. It would have very easy and simple if nations could be dismembered by fooling them. The experience under the ethnic federalism and tribalism of TPLF-EPRDF is a mind opener and our people will have to stand against any force that stands against the Ethiopian Nation for this is natural that citizens of a nation defend their nation against forces that try to dismember it. The Ethiopian Opposition should clean its own camp from collaborators and defeatists in order to accelerate the struggle for democracy and unity in Ethiopia. Both TPLF and EPLF are enemies of the people of Ethiopia. After 18 years in power, we should believe what we see. Collaboration with Eritrea will affect the struggle of he Ethiopian Opposition in a negative way (to be continued).
AWA: student activist, professional and public servant
Call me by my name, address or title By Obo Arada Shawl – July 23, 2009
This is the final piece of article written in memory of a student activist, a planner in transport & communications and a public servant. His name was Assegid Wolde Amanuel (AWA). His professional address extended from Moyale in the south, Assab in the east, Karora in the north and Kurmurk in the west labeled as MAKK ኤትዮጵያ. His job title was an economist and later a minister of Transport & Communications. His civil title was Ato Assegid as opposed to ግራዝማች ፤ ቀጝዝማች ወይም ጛድ
Introduction
In the past two articles, I have indicated AWAs participation in the Ethiopian Student Movement as well as in his professional expertise in transport & communication sectors of the Ethiopian economy where it is believed that Transport and Communication are the nerve centers for any meaningful development.
Aethiopia is considered to be a backward nation not because of its lack of social, religious or cultural factors but of its undeveloped modes of transport and communications. In Aethiopia almost 80%-90% of its passenger and freight are moved by traditional mode of transport such as walking and horses for traveling, pack animals such as donkeys and mules for transporting goods and services.
As a public servant, AWA has facilitated the movement of Aethiopians to and from. Doing so, the interaction of peoples of Aethiopia whether in going to war or running away from war was accomplished by AWAs responsibility via his professional understanding of public service not military service. In other words the interactions of T&C have brought the Eathiopian people to a better understanding of cooperation though not necessarily of coordination (CC).
Public Service
I know that there are individuals who think that working under the Monarchy or the DERG would automatically qualify them to be servants of Haile Sellassie and Menghistu but not of the Public. Such ideas emanate from people who were neither ever landed in professional jobs nor do have a clue about a clandestine political struggle where freedom of any kind is banned. I bet the contribution of those professionals who had worked under the Monarchy or the DERG could weigh more than those who were in the battlefields. Let the benefit and cost analysis begin to roll sabotaging the aims and objectives of militarism as well as of feudalism.
Public sector is about budgeting whereas in the private sector it is about cost. Transport and communications sector in Eathiopia was and is public, private and autonomous. From this we can understand how difficult it was to evaluate and pinpoint AWAs role in this sector of economy especially when it was dominated by a public policy dubbed as the revolutionary Ethiopia.
By the way, what is public policy? Public policy is an attempt by a government to address a public issue. In public policy, there are three parts (PPP),
Problems
Players and
Policy
The problem in AWAs case was the issue that needed to be addressed namely the transport of people, goods and services.
The player is the individual or group of individuals that is influential in forming a plan to address the problem in question. Again in AWAs case the Central Planners of the DERG dubbed as the agents of the so-called revolution had their models from GDR and Moscow whereas the model of T&C for Assegid was from the West, resulting in a conflict of visions.
Policy is the finalized course of action decided upon by the government in this case Menghistu and his military cronies. AWA has nothing to do with top level of decision-making body. In most cases, policies were widely open to interpretation by non-governmental players, including those in the private sector. In this case, the role and influence of AWA was limited due to his non-membership holder of workers of Ethiopian party alias COPWE.
How was Public policy defined? It is defined as the course of action or inaction taken by government entities in regard to particular issue or issues. Normally, public policy was to be embodied in constitutions, legislative acts, and judicial decisions. The era of AWAs public service was the era of revolution and counter-revolution.
Ministry of Transport & Communications
Politically if not psychologically, anything that flies in the sky, crawls on land, swims in sea or water, was under the Ministry of the DERG. Technically and in practice though it was a different matter. Everyone and everybody had his/her own game plan. A country of conspiracy and secrecy, the end result is what and where we are now.
However, for the ministry of transport and communications where AWA had spent his entire professional and public life, the following procedures were relevant
The rational model for the public policy-making process can be divided into the following three parts:
Agenda setting
Option-formulation and
Implementation.
Within the agenda-setting stage, the agencies such as the Highway Authorities and government officials from the Central Planning used to meet to discuss the problem at hand. In the second stage, option-formulation, alternative solutions are considered and final decisions are made regarding the best policy. Consequently, the decided policy is implemented in the final stage. Implied within this model is the fact that the needs of the Aethiopian societies are a priority for the players involved in the policy-making process. Also, it is believed that the government will follow through on all decisions made by the final policy.
Unfortunately, those who frame the issue to be addressed by policy used to exert an enormous amount of influence over the entire T&C process through their political affiliations, personalities, and personal interests. The final outcome of the process, as well as its implementation, was therefore not as effective as that which could result from a purely rational process. The Public policy though it continued to be vital in addressing economic and social concerns of societies, the DERG, notwithstanding along with its loyal friends had collapsed on its own weight.
AWA had the skills and knowledge to understand not only the complexities of transport and communications but also the feudal mentality of many of his colleagues vis-à-vis his revolutionary contemporaries vision and mission. The following facts and figures could indicate the nature of AWAs industry in which he was involved.
On the one hand, the costs of infrastructure is astronomical as shown in the examples below
Roads cost $410,000 per km
Railways cost $900,000 per km
Ports cost $40-60 million per berth
Airports cost $300 per 1 passenger capacity
The above figures are in us dollars and are obtained from World Statistical Data
On the other hand, demand for freight and passenger was very high. Transport is essential not only in developed nations but also in developing countries that we tend to take for granted.
Transport and communications not only are expensive but also they are complex in the sense that we have also what is known as the hardware and the software infrastructures. AWA was mainly involved in the software infrastructure and as such it was/is more than we think we know enough about people to be involved in this type of infrastructure investment. AWA was a classical example to be misunderstood.
AWA has definitely assisted in the development of transport and communications such as roads, ports, airlines, railways, river and sea development as well as in the software infrastructure investment that were/are mostly financed by the World Bank and international finance capital. A case in point was that AWA has sent his employees for further studies for over two years while other ministers and authorities send their trainees for short duration in order to buy consumer goods from abroad notwithstanding the long term benefits of our country Eathiopia.
Democracy
AWAs support for DEMOCRACIA did not seem to be born out of a naïve sense that democracy means or will necessarily brings rapid economic progress. Unlike many of his colleagues AWA did not define democracy in terms of procedural terms to the protection of civil liberties, participation in decision-making, voting election and governance reforms. AWA knew when such democracy fails, people will have to resort to another form of government. The MIESO group as well as GINBOT 7 had confirmed HIS POINTS of view.
AWAs Democracy was a substantive outcome like economic development or social justice. Demand for Democracies emanates from
Understanding democracy
Political awareness
Political knowledge
Formal education and
Membership in the student movement
The above criteria had solidified AWAs belief in a public service that was based not only on a fundamental change of economics but also on a political system of government.
In contrast to AWAs work colleagues the right to rule is ascribed to an office rather to a person. AWA was loyal to laws and to the Eway Revolution. AWA did not pay loyalty to the big bosses either to Emperor Haile Sellassie or the Dictator, Menhgistu and in return AWAs subordinates were expected not to pay loyalty to him but to the laws and institutions of Aethiopia.
For AWA, no challenge was more profound than controlling corruption as he had believed then that when public resources bleed and as public officials serve their own ends rather than the public good. AWAs dilemma was not to be deciphered so easily.
On the hand as economists love to say, AWA understood
As Development and governance suffer by the policy of the DERG
As the conflict intensifies by the nationalists
Aethiopians would turn to alternative regimes.
While on the other hand, AWA has realized that
No country in Africa was suffering between democracy and pseudo democracy than Aethiopia as
Civil liberties were constrained
Opposition rights were tenuous
Because of the above dilemma, AWAs aspiration was geared to the following two principles
To achieve sustainable development, democracy would not stand still; freedom alone will not be enough
Democratic institutions to control corruption and constraint would have to be installed.
The exercise of power by the DERG may have seemed to AWA as the delivery of public goods, not private ones. He might have believed sometimes that the revolution was in the right course. This was his dilemma. He was detached from the true clandestine revolution that was going on by DEBTERAWS EPRP.
AWA was in conflict with the current president of Ethiopia, Girma W. Giorgis as well as with the chairman of All Amhara party, Hailu Shawl, not because of their political positions but because of their personal ambitions and greed while dealing with investment in transport and communications. That was AWA that I know serving the public good.
Conclusion
The shaping of public policy in Aethiopia is not only a multifaceted process but that it was very complex. AWA could be considered as an advocacy group who had attempted to influence public policy through knowledge and participation without political pressures.
Because of AWA participation in the student movement to define the problems faced by the lack of progress and his commitment to be at the service to Aethiopian public, he was a typical an Eway Revolutionary who would have confirmed his struggle for a subtle transform of change in toppling the ethnic government, the international attempt to deplete the potential resources of Aethiopia that have been preserved for centuries by the Orthodox churches and the Monarchies. We salute his effort in the Eway Revolution to initiate DEMOCRACIA.
AWA was not in a position to educate the general public but in a position to the public policy makers to explain about the nature of problems in transport and communications and how to solve them not by decree by POSDCORB, an acronym coined by Luther Gullick for (Planning-Organizing-Staffing-Directing-Coordinating-Reporting-Budgeting). In my terminology, I call AWA as ጽንሐተ ምሁር akal not only because he had participated in the Aethiopian student movements but also he was a professional who could evaluate and limit funding from the World Bank and other international organizations. That was a public service in its own right.
Time and history will tell whether AWA belonged to the SAD or MAD generations of Ethiopia.
“An obliging fool is more dangerous than an enemy” says a Russian proverb. In Amharic we say “kemogn dejaf mofer yikoretal” or “mogn indenegerut, beklo indasegerut”. Those Ethiopians who hailed the Obama speech in Accra and rejoiced at the possibility of a new deal for Ethiopia and Africa thanks to Obama remind us of such obliging and dangerous fools.
Ours is a continent that had endured so many speeches of eloquence and style. African leaders have been mostly demagogic, we have heard it all. Nkrumah, Ben Bella, Nasser, Nyrere, Banda, Sekou Toure and more were moving speakers and yet we found out, much to our dismay, that words and realities are two different things. Well crafted words and flowery phrases do not a good policy make. Hence, it is inexcusable for Africans to be swayed by public speakers that shroud the real issues with self evident truths (“the future of Africa is up to Africans”–isn’t it precisely to affirm this that Africans have been struggling?) and cover their dearth of knowledge with paternalist “you must do this” advice and threats. At the end of the day, the Obama speech was a rehash of the old American policy towards Africa, all bones and no meat, and an expression of the continuing incapability of Washington to come to grips with the real problems of Africa. One wonders why some Africans beat the festive drums over the Obama Accra speech even though such drummers as Raila Odinga of Kenya do prove the point that “it is business as usual” for Africa’s corrupt leaders. Obama did say once that his knowledge of African realities is equal to the knowledge of those who had occupied the White House seat before him–just imagine Reagan and Bush and even the Clinton fellow who hailed Meles, Kagame, Museveni,etc.. as democrats. Not very encouraging at all. Doing the visit to the slave prisons is just a photo op that even Bush had done in Senegal and it is by now an empty symbolism from a country that has refused to pay due reparation for the slave trade.
Is Obama ending the misguided policies of Bush or extending them wrapped in demagogy? As Americans are wont to say, where is the beef? Is he showing us the money? That Obama’s father was a Kenyan is neither here nor there as Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice and Johnnie Carson are African Americans/blacks/ and they did not hear the heartbeat Africa at all. Colour and birth considerations aside, Obama is an American, elected to safeguard the interest of America in Africa and the whole world. Obama’s vision of Africa is American and that of the ruling power holders of the big country. His refusal to acknowledge that Africa’s woes are mostly the results of neo colonial plunder and machination is at the center of his failure to understand the woes of Africa. He said accusingly that the West did not cause the economic problems of Zimbabwe and the West has little to do with wars in which children become soldiers. What? Zimbabwe’s economy was wrecked by embargoes and sabotage by the West ever since Britain raged against Mugabe for taking action against white landowners. No one n the west cried foul when Mugabe was torching Matabele land to crush an insurgency. The child soldiers of Sierra Leone for one were involved in a diamond war in which Britain and even South Africa played a major part. Who were the allies of Charles Taylor? Who financed Renamo? UNITA? And the ongoing war in the Congo? Western mining companies like British Ashanti corporation finance the militias wreaking havoc, recruiting children as soldiers and raping women in thousands. Obama harped on corruption and good governance in his attempt to attribute the blame on Africa itself but the reality shows us different. “No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20% off the top,” said Obama. Is this true? Absolutely not. The foreign companies actually want those scoundrels who can be bribed. From Lumumba to Nkrumah and more, nationalist African leaders have been victims of coups mostly engineered by the CIA and the West. Leaders that rig elections and repress voters enjoy American aid and backing. The butcher in Equatorial Guinea is sustained in power by American oil companies. President Nguema’s stolen millions were stashed in Washington’s Riggs Bank and Condoleezza Rice feted the tyrant. Western oil companies who ran after Africa’s oil have been allies of the despots be it in the Congo, Gabon, Nigeria or Angola (for a good exposure of how these giant companies practically manipulate the tyrants and the governments do read Nicholas Shaxson’s: Poisoned Wells–The Dirty Politics of African Oil ). And this affirmation by Obama that “we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments” or “no good governance no aid” is an old song crooned by Western leaders from Mitterrand to Blair to Clinton. American and western aid had actually gone to despots, to apartheid South Africa, to Egypt’s Mubarek, to Meles Zenawi, to corrupt Dos Santos in Angola, etc. Britain and France have also backed despots in their particular enclaves and as the competition from China (ruthlessly nationalist and arrogantly racist too) heats up the West is grovelling before the dictators in countries with oil and minerals. Foreign investment has thus been mainly in countries where scoundrel and thieves are in power. The issue of corruption is not also just an African internal affair as Obama wanted to imply but something that has been fanned and extended all over Africa by Western embassies and companies working intimately with African officials. Governments cannot skim 20% off the top if the Western companies were not in accord with them. Western investors hate honest and nationalist leaders (who overthrew and had Lumumba murdered? Allende? Mossadegh? Arbenz?) and are comfortable with corrupt rogues.
That is why Meles Zenawi is one of the usual guests of the G8 meetings and the very person picked by Tony Blair to head an African committee. Nigerian dictator’s solen billions ares till British and other western banks. Meles Zenawi and his corrupt wife have hidden millions in Citibank. The eight African leaders recently invited to the G8 meeting are all corrupt and seven of the eight are leading countries considered not free by Freedom House itself. Ghana may fare better now than others but it is also rife with corruption. In the UN Development Index report also Ghana is not that glorious (among the 20 poorest–142nd while Kenya is 144th). Corruption flourishes in Africa with Western collaboration. Africa is wrecked by wars in most cases financed and fanned by the West as it chases its greed for oil and minerals to the detriment of Africans ( more than 4 million have died in the mineral war of the Congo). Obama talked of the need for a strong parliament, honest police force, independent judges, independent press, a vibrant private sector, and a civil society. Fine requirements. However, if development depends on good governance and if America will not help those who have not instituted good governance then one is at odds to explain the actual and real policies of America in support of despots all over the continent. This is why Obama’s glossing over the damages of colonialism and neo colonialism grates and sprinkles salt on our wounds. Diseases and conflicts have ravaged the African continent but who is to really blame for that? Poverty is linked to the system; Ethiopia is suffering from famine not because its land is infertile. But who supports these regimes that impoverish the African people while opening up the country to the greedy western oil and mineral companies? Who is impoverishing African farmers by subsidizing its own farmers and making the African products cheap in the world market? Questions that Obama, like Bush, did not want to address at all.
There is the possibility that some hardened fools may still argue that all this was in the past and that things have changed now with Obama. Where and when? Besides repeating the usual (and mistaken) official diatribe against “genocide” in Darfur and terrorists in Somalia, has Obama really broken with the past? Let us take the Horn of Africa, a region we know much better than the American president. Somalia’s intractable clan war was complicated by Washington when it decided to arm the hated warlords against those it called terrorists linked to Al Qaeda. Like the WMD, it was said there were three or four top Al Qaeda operatives hiding in Somalia (they were never found) and the support to the venal warlords made the fanatics of the ICU appear better in the eyes of most Somalis. And then, Washington prompted Meles Zenawi to send in soldiers and actively supported the disastrous invasion which any Ethiopian would have told them was doomed to failure. The troops of Meles helped the Al Shabab gain more support, were forced to withdraw and Somalia is now in the pits with the fanatics in ascendance. And what is new American policy as concerns Somalia? Arming the so called moderates of the Transitional Government, paying Uganda and Djibouti (!!) for arms and training, fuming against terrorists, accusing Eritrea of arming the “terrorists”. More of the same. The misguided notion of considering the Somali mess as part and parcel of the so called war against terror is very flawed. Let us take Ethiopia where a ruthless dictatorship is in place. Taking Obama’s measures, it fails miserably to qualify as good governance: the parliament is rubber stamp and even the rubber is threadbare, the police force is brutal, corrupt and repressive, the judiciary is controlled by the State, civic society has been denied independent and vibrant existence, the free press is muzzled (Meles is named one of the worst predators of the free press), the private sector is stifled by the monopolistic economic firms of the ruling Tigrean front (TPLF). In 2005, the ruling front lost the general election but used violence to massacre more than 200 protestors, to jail thousands and to stay in power with the help of America and Britain. This repressive regime and its cold blooded head called Meles have remained to be the West’s darlings and Mr Obama was sitting together with this murderer in the last G8 meeting. W cannot talk of change because the new secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, who recently visited Ethiopia, praised the anti people regime as an ally and as the one that has brought democracy to Ethiopia. There is no new policy, no new deal, no firm American stand against dictators and tyrants.
So, if we judge the Obama speech in Accra from the real and bitter realities of poverty, war, AIDS, corruption and sovereignty. that is if we ask did he say something new or has he heralded any change, the answer is no. The “future of Africa is up to Africans” is an refrain we have heard before so many times from Western leaders that do not waste time to forcefully take our sovereignty away. It is empty talk. To rile against poverty, corruption, the lack of good governance without mentioning the lion’s share of the guilt and responsibility of the West is to bray at the moon and to hoodwink the victims. Talk of neo-colonial plunder, talk of oil companies robbing countries blind and backing tyrants and murderous militias, talk of subsidies that impoverish and debilitate African farmers, talk of taking real and concrete actions against tyrants and then we can listen. The West needs corrupt and repressive regimes in Africa for it to rob best the continent. President Obama should say no to this addiction, to this greed and craving of a junkie. Up to now, he has not done so. He is continuing the Bush policy incensing it with confusing speeches. Those Africans who imagine that “the end of tyranny is now” and that “with Obama in charge our sufferings will end” only prove the truth in the saying that a fool will laugh when he is drowning.
