The Poverty of Dictatorship

BY Dani Rodrik
CAMBRIDGE – Perhaps the most striking finding in the United Nations’ recent 20th anniversary Human Development Report is the outstanding performance of the Muslim countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Here was Tunisia, ranked sixth among 135 countries in terms of improvement in its Human Development Index (HDI) over the previous four decades, ahead of Malaysia, Hong Kong, Mexico, and India. Not far behind was Egypt, ranked 14th.

The HDI is a measure of development that captures achievements in health and education alongside economic growth. Egypt and (especially) Tunisia did well enough on the growth front, but where they really shone was on these broader indicators. At 74, Tunisia’s life expectancy edges out Hungary’s and Estonia’s, countries that are more than twice as wealthy. Some 69% of Egypt’s children are in school, a ratio that matches much richer Malaysia’s. Clearly, these were states that did not fail in providing social services or distributing the benefits of economic growth widely.

Yet in the end it did not matter. The Tunisian and Egyptian people were, to paraphrase Howard Beale, mad as hell at their governments, and they were not going to take it anymore. If Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali or Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak were hoping for political popularity as a reward for economic gains, they must have been sorely disappointed.

One lesson of the Arab annus mirabilis, then, is that good economics need not always mean good politics; the two can part ways for quite some time. It is true that the world’s wealthy countries are almost all democracies. But democratic politics is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for economic development over a period of several decades.

Despite the economic advances they registered, Tunisia, Egypt, and many other Middle Eastern countries remained authoritarian countries ruled by a narrow group of cronies, with corruption, clientelism, and nepotism running rife. These countries’ rankings on political freedoms and corruption stand in glaring contrast to their rankings on development indicators.

In Tunisia, Freedom House reported prior to the Jasmine revolution, “the authorities continued to harass, arrest, and imprison journalists and bloggers, human rights activists, and political opponents of the government.” The Egyptian government was ranked 111th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2009 survey of corruption.

And of course, the converse is also true: India has been democratic since independence in 1947, yet the country didn’t begin to escape of its low “Hindu rate of growth” until the early 1980’s.

A second lesson is that rapid economic growth does not buy political stability on its own, unless political institutions are allowed to develop and mature rapidly as well. In fact, economic growth itself generates social and economic mobilization, a fundamental source of political instability.

As the late political scientist Samuel Huntington put it more than 40 years ago, “social and economic change – urbanization, increases in literacy and education, industrialization, mass media expansion – extend political consciousness, multiply political demands, broaden political participation.” Now add social media such as Twitter and Facebook to the equation, and the destabilizing forces that rapid economic change sets into motion can become overwhelming.

These forces become most potent when the gap between social mobilization and the quality of political institutions widens. When a country’s political institutions are mature, they respond to demands from below through a combination of accommodation, response, and representation. When they are under-developed, they shut those demands out in the hope that they will go away – or be bought off by economic improvements.

The events in the Middle East amply demonstrate the fragility of the second model. Protesters in Tunis and Cairo were not demonstrating about lack of economic opportunity or poor social services. They were rallying against a political regime that they felt was insular, arbitrary, and corrupt, and that did not allow them adequate voice.

A political regime that can handle these pressures need not be democratic in the Western sense of the term. One can imagine responsive political systems that do not operate through free elections and competition among political parties. Some would point to Oman or Singapore as examples of authoritarian regimes that are durable in the face of rapid economic change. Perhaps so. But the only kind of political system that has proved itself over the long haul is that associated with Western democracies.

Which brings us to China. At the height of the Egyptian protests, Chinese Web surfers who searched the terms “Egypt” or “Cairo” were returned messages saying that no results could be found. Evidently, the Chinese government did not want its citizens to read up on the Egyptian protests and get the wrong idea. With the memory of the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement ever present, China’s leaders are intent on preventing a repeat.

China is not Tunisia or Egypt, of course. The Chinese government has experimented with local democracy and has tried hard to crack down on corruption. Even so, protest has spread over the last decade. There were 87,000 instances of what the government calls “sudden mass incidents” in 2005, the last year that the government released such statistics, which suggests that the rate has since increased. Dissidents challenge the supremacy of the Communist Party at their peril.

The Chinese leadership’s gamble is that a rapid increase in living standards and employment opportunities will keep the lid on simmering social and political tensions. That is why it is so intent on achieving annual economic growth of 8% or higher – the magic number that it believes will contain social strife.

But Egypt and Tunisia have just sent a sobering message to China and other authoritarian regimes around the world: don’t count on economic progress to keep you in power forever.

Dani Rodrik is Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and the author of One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth.

Source

Did Ethnic Federalism Save Ethiopia?

By: Samuel M. Gebru

February 16, 2011

1991 is an important year in modern Ethiopian history. The year served as a monumental change for Ethiopia, from military rule to a transitional government that pledged to bring about social democracy. What saved Ethiopia in 1991 was ethnic federalism. But is it helping Ethiopia today? What lessons can our African neighbors learn from our experience? Can Ethiopia improve its federal framework?

Ethiopia is largely regarded to as an influential state actor in regional and continental politics. With Addis Ababa serving as host of the African Union and one of the top diplomatic capitals of the world, Ethiopia yields influence beyond its borders and the African continent. After almost two decades of a brutal military rule, Ethiopia reopened its borders when Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam’s government crumbled down in 1991.

By mid-1991, transitional President and leader of the northern rebels that toppled the military government, Meles Zenawi, promised sweeping reforms geared at keeping Ethiopia intact. Despite its shortcomings, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) did achieve some degree of representation from various ethnic, political and intellectual movements.

During this tense year, warring ethnic groups began voicing strong calls for secession from the Ethiopian union. Interestingly, Ethiopia remains one of the oldest polities in the world. The new political arrangement that the TFG adopted in its 1995 Constitution under the “Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia” was a parliamentary republic based on ethnic federalism. New borders were drawn up, dividing Ethiopia into nine states and two federally chartered cities. The TFG’s reasoning in choosing nine states was based off their method of figuring out what ethno-linguistic group could be grouped with others. The grouping took the term of “nations, nationalities and peoples.”

In a January 7, 2011 Reuters article, “Federalism in Ethiopia helps maintain unity,” by Aaron Maasho, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who has been leading the government since 1995 as Prime Minister and since 1991 as transitional President, stated that Ethiopia’s “balkanization” was avoided by ethnic federalism. The Prime Minister is correct in stating that Ethiopia was saved through ethnic federalism, granting autonomy to the “nations, nationalities and peoples.”

However, to what extent Ethiopia was “saved” remains the question. Critics would argue that the right to secession as provided in Article 39 Section 1 does more harm than good. The line reads: “Every Nation, Nationality and People in Ethiopia has an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.” Critics also argue that while the ethnic federalism framework in theory would greatly benefit Ethiopia, it is misused often by the authoritarian nature of the Ethiopian government. The most interesting claim is that the ruling party, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), purposefully included Section 1 of Article 39 to ensure Eritrea’s legal secession in 1993. This claim is practically, and perhaps even correctly, viewed as an open secret.

Ethnic federalism has indeed saved Ethiopia from destruction particularly as the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) both continue to wage an armed secessionist movement in southern and southeastern Ethiopia. It allows previously marginalized societies the right to self-determination and self-governance; to speak their own language, to learn their own ethnic and cultural history.

For ethnic federalism to continue in Ethiopia today, political, social, economic and intellectual leaders need to come together and engage in conversations with both each other and the Ethiopian citizenry as to how to go about devising a new strategy forward. Conversations about ethnicity, identity, nationality and patriotism also need to be held in the villages of Ethiopia’s rural regions, where 85% of the population resides; in the public and private institutions of higher learning, students must be challenged to confront the issues facing their society daily, from poverty to democracy. If the current system continues, it won’t be surprising to see stronger opposition against Article 39 and perhaps the reinforcement of existing secessionist groups.

Allowing the “nations, nationalities and peoples” their rights to self-determination will continue to help Ethiopia move forward so as long as the practice of ethnic federalism is kept in line with its original intentions of promoting democracy and not nepotism or confusion over secession. Ethiopia’s neighbors, perhaps most prominently the Republic of Sudan, could and can still learn from its experiment with ethnic federalism. Had the Arab-dominated government of Sudan respected the ethnic identity and political, economic and social rights of the people of Southern Sudan, the world could have seen very different results from the recently held referendum.

Improving Ethiopia’s federal framework will undoubtedly take time before all sides of the political and social discourse can be “convinced” of mature and thoughtful dialogue for the country’s long-term development. It is evident that having comprehensive dialogues should be in the best interest of both the ruling party and the opposition parties. Ultimately, the growth of democracy, the promotion of education and equitable and sustainable economic development is what will continue to “save” Ethiopia.

History has shown that when Ethiopians view each other as partners, they are able to achieve wonders. As the Ethiopian proverb goes, “A partner in the business will not put an obstacle to it.”

Land grab devastates Gambella region

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 @ 10:02 PM ed
By Obang Motho–

Deforestation of 5,000 hectares of agricultural land leased to Verdanta Harvests of India could have an irreversible impact not only in Ethiopia, but also to downstream populations in Sudan and Egypt.
The Ethiopian Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) is ignoring objections from Ethiopian President Girma Wolde-Giorgis, from the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia (EPA) and from the indigenous Mazenger people of Gambella, to the clearing of 5,000 hectares of ancient forests in the Godere District, located at the headwaters of five critical rivers in the Nile Basin that are major tributaries to the White Nile.
Despite the fact that the Mazenger and other indigenous people have depended on these forest-covered lands for their livelihood for generations and despite well-founded fears that the deforestation of the area could have serious and potentially irreversible effects on the people, habitat, wildlife and water, the Minister of Agriculture has authorized a fifty year lease of the land to the Indian company, Verdanta Harvests (VH), who plan to use the land for a tea and spice plantation; destined for export. The absolutely cavalier attitude of the MoARD towards anyone else’s authority, rights or concerns gives evidence of how frenzied and money and/or power-centered these land deals have become in Ethiopia. In Godere, the clearing of the trees has already begun; blatantly disregarding all warnings, protests or claims to the land.
As objections fall on deaf ears, it appears that compliance with publicized protocols is non-existent with decisions being made at the whim of a few Meles-regime cronies at the top. The failure to consider the short and long term environmental risks associated with these land grabs; not even including the impact to the lives of the people, could have extremely dangerous consequences as millions of hectares of choice Ethiopian agricultural land are leased throughout the country. It gives the impression that Meles and his cronies are trying to make “fast money” before the regime collapses; then abandoning these investors to the mercy of a new government who might not be willing to sell out on the people.
Here is a more sequential explanation of what happened in Godere; with more details available through a recently leaked eighteen-page document (see linkhttp://www.solidaritymovement.org/amharic/110208TamiruAmbelo.pdf ) in Amharic that we in the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE) acquired regarding the above-mentioned deal. The letters reads like a drama; showing a game of double-talk, manipulation and intimidation being played by this regime with the land, lives and future of the people.
Summary of the Document
Sometime last spring (2010), the local Mazenger and other indigenous people in the villages of Gomare and Bako (Godere district) discovered that their homes and forest-covered land they depended on for everything; including hunting, gathering and beekeeping, were soon to be leased to an Indian company who would be clearing the forests to make way for a tea and spice plantation. As a result, they were targeted for displacement. After hearing about this, the local people in both villages organized and sent a team of representatives to Addis Ababa. The team included: Tamiru Ambelo; Chairman of Gomare village, Ameya Kesito; secretary of Gomare village and Kasahun Kekilo; an elder from Bako village.
While in Addis Ababa, they met with the President of Ethiopia, Girma Wolde-Giorgis, supposedly the Head of State in the administration, and explained to him what was happening. They told him that this land should not be given away to investors; telling him that it belonged to them as indigenous people who had lived there for generations, that without it their livelihood would be destroyed, that they considered the forests sacred and that the environment would be greatly impacted through the deforestation of the region. Much to his credit, President Girma listened to them and supported their position.
In response he wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia (EPAE); saying that the EPAE should tell the MoARD to suspend this project. Again, much to the credit of the EPAE and in an effort to follow their established mission of protecting the environment, the EPAE also listened and supported the peoples’ position. On May 6, 2010, the EPAE wrote a letter to the MoARD, with copies to Gambella Regional Governor, Omot Obang Olum and President Girma, saying that the short term benefit of leasing this land (including clearing it of its forests) would not outweigh the long-term costs to the country and that the lease should not proceed. They added that there were local environmental NGO’s present in the district who had been very involved in teaching the locals how to protect these valuable forests for the future and that they had done a very good job.
On November 19, 2010, Governor Omot responded indirectly to this EPAE position; not to them, but by writing a letter to Godere District authorities; telling them that this land (5000 hc) had already been given to an investor, Verdanta Harvests (VH) and that the agreement could not be altered at this time. He explained that VH had already paid the government $19,000 US for 3,012 hc of the land; towards an agreement that would give them 5,000 hectares for fifty years at $6 US per hectare. He told them that the project was to proceed without interference.
His letter was backed up by the MoARD, who on November 25, 2010, sent their own team to meet with the local people in the villages. However, when they met, they excluded those officials who had opposed it; including the chairman of the village, Tamiru Ambelo. Instead, they only invited the village vice chairman, a man more “sympathetic” to their own point of view—as well as other select people—to meet with the general public. When they met, they heavily lobbied the people for their support of the project. They labeled any who disagreed with it as being “anti-development;” saying that such people opposed the very development and investment that would bring roads, employment and income to the people.
In response to this meeting, on December 9, 2010, Tamiru, Ameya and Kasahun wrote another letter to President Girma; updating him and asking him to intervene once again because despite his letter and the directive from the EPA, Gambella Governor Omot Obang Olum and the MoARD were proceeding with the clearing of the land. This time President Girma wrote a letter directly to the Minister of Agriculture on December 10, 2010; literally telling him to stop this project from going any further because this land, with its abundant rain forests, should be protected; explaining how the headwaters of these critical rivers could be affected and how the people depended on the forests for their livelihood. He copied the letter to Omot Obang Olum, the EPA, the local authorities, local residents and even to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi himself.
No formal response to his letter is recorded in the 18-page document we acquired; however, on January 25, 2011, the administrator of the Godere district wrote a letter to the two kebele villages of Gomare and Bako; directing them to immediately fire Tamiru from his job as chairman of the village and in his place, to immediately appoint the vice chair as chairman of the village. As mentioned previously, this vice chair had been in favor of the land investment project. Tamiru was accused of working with “anti-development” people in trying to kill the project and of working against the interests of the local people. He was also accused of opposing literacy, job creation and other kinds of development. Currently, the project is moving forward and the forests are being cleared.
In conclusion:
What is happening in Godere is only one example of what is going on throughout Ethiopia as the legitimate concerns of the people are manipulated or suppressed and as those who speak out are harassed, intimidated, punished (losing jobs, property, etc), beaten, arrested or killed. This case is only exceptional in that both President Girma and the EPAE took the side of the people; yet, even then, no one listened to them. We hope this government will not take any actions against Tamiru, Ameya and Kasahun; but if any punitive actions result, we will report on it.
Where is the accountability and rule of law in this government that portrays itself as being democratic, environmentally conscious; even representing all of Africa in the climate talks and as a progressive crusader for economic development? The Meles regime is being run like a mafia; a kleptocracy of Meles, his family and his cronies. Regardless of its elaborate laws and grandiose rhetoric, every decision in Ethiopia is at the whim of someone at the top who might profit in some way. Punitive measures; including human rights violations, are the predictable outcome for any who dare resist by getting in their way. From the prospective of the Meles regime, all indigenous land is for sale; regardless of the impact on the people, the environment and the country.
As one local Anuak man said, “Ethiopia has never been colonized, but now it has been colonized by the tiny minority of people who run the country. It is not only the outsiders who are complicit with them in robbing the country, but also the opportunistic Ethiopians; including some in the Diaspora.”
Information has been leaked to the SMNE regarding names of Ethiopians both within and outside of the country who are colluding with the Meles regime in the land grab schemes.
The SMNE continues to receive leaked information from conscientious Ethiopians who are secretly outraged by this injustice and morally convicted to not cooperate any longer with the Meles regime in their corrupt and illegal practices which have been going on for nearly twenty years now. These courageous Ethiopians have provided other information to us as well and we expect continued leaks of such documents and information to still come forth from Ethiopians who can no longer ignore this.
One of those documents is a list of some of the Ethiopians who have capitalized on investing in these land grabs; knowingly leasing the land under situations where the people are not consulted, where the environmental impacts have not been studied or heeded and where people are being forced off their land with no compensation or provision for their needs. This displacement is not only being carried out in the rural communities; but also is going on within the city limits of Addis Ababa. The people are promised “development,” but almost none has been seen. Some see this as an opportunity to make quick money; taking advantage of the great vulnerability of the people as they rush in to exploit the moment. However, even though no one seems to be watching; the eyes of those God-fearing Ethiopians—scattered among the villages, offices and departments throughout the country—are watching carefully and are quietlyacting on it.Here is our recent example.
The SMNE has been given a list of more than a hundred names, phone numbers and locations of Ethiopian investors in Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, Afar, Amhara region, Southern Nations and Oromiya who have taken advantage of the opportunity; buying 1,000 to 5,000 hectares of land in cooperation with this repressive government who is now starting to forcibly remove the people from their homes to resettlement villages. Many are refusing to go, but others, fearing reprisals, have left. We intend to release these names; including those who live in the Diaspora so Ethiopians can know who is helping rob the country. When this government falls, any agreement that has been signed regarding the land will not be binding. These agreements are illegal; completed without consulting the people, under the threat of retaliation and by a government who has stolen an election and kept citizens captive. Actions that have displaced the people through forced villagization projects will be reversed.
New Ethiopia
In a “New Ethiopia,” whether in Godere, Addis Ababa, Abobo, Arba Minch, Adwa, Asosa, Awasa, Babille, Bonga, Debre Dawa, Dessie, Debre Tabor, Dimma, Dembidolo, Debre Berhan, Gambella, Gondar, Gorgora, Gog, Harar, Humera, Jimma, Jijiga, Kombolcha, Kulubi, Mek’ele, Mizan Teferi, Metu, Moyale, Negele Boran, Nekemte, Sodore, Sodu Welmal, Tullu Milki, Turmi, Woldia, Wolleka, Abelo, Yeha; and above all; in the north, south, east and west of New Ethiopia, no matter what ethnicity, political view, language, religion or any other differences, this injustice should outrage all of us as citizens of a country where “humanity comes before ethnicity” and where “no one is free until all are free.”This is what the SMNE is all about.
President Girma and the EPAE have tried to do what was right and just for the people, but were ignored! Regardless, we commend them highly for what they have done in trying to implement the law in a country where there is no rule of law. They are examples of some of the good Ethiopians trying to operate with integrity; yet who are totally compromised by a corrupt and lawless few who hold the country hostage. We also give much credit to the representatives and the people of Gomare and Bako for their remarkable work, persistence and courage; particularly the leadership.
All of these people are heroes. May God help increasingly more Ethiopians to follow their conscience; rising up to do what is good, right and just. Eventually, with God’s help and with each other, we will reach the “tipping point;” unbalancing this regime away from evil, ethnic hatred and oppression and towards a New Ethiopia where the God-given rights of all Ethiopians are respected. Be ready for that tipping point may come at any moment! May God free our souls with His presence; lifting up the curtain of fear and apathy that binds us to our past; replacing it with love, truth, courage and the moral conviction necessary to lead us rightly into a new future!
______________________________________________________________
Please do not hesitate to e-mail your comments to Mr. Obang Metho, Executive Director of the SMNE, at: obang@solidaritymovement.org

Ethiopia: Open Letter to Professor Stiglitz

By Ethiopian Economists

Professor Joseph Stiglitz
University Professor
Economics Department, Columbia University
814 Uris Hall, MC 3308
420 West 118th Street
New York, NY 10027

February 15th, 2011

Dear Professor Stiglitz,

First, we Ethiopian economists and scholars express our sincere admiration for and recognition of your distinguished work in advancing the frontiers of economic thinking and your world renowned contributions to the theory of information which earned you and your colleague (Professor Grossman) the highest esteem, the award of the Nobel Prize in economics.

In light of your stature, it will not come as a surprise to you that those of us who hail from developing countries follow what you say very closely. In this regard, we kept a keen eye and learned a great deal of your interest and involvement in matters of development in the Third World over the past few years. You will agree with us that all people—irrespective of race, religion, age or other attribute-- aspire to be free of oppression, poverty and corruption. The monumental changes that are taking place in Tunisia and Egypt which are now raging in the rest of North Africa and the Middle East are illustrative of the human passion for freedom and dignity. Given this emerging trend, we were astonished by your recent interview with Bloomberg (2. February 2011, “Real Risk of Spillover from Egypt Unrest”), in which you discussed the situation in Egypt. When the journalist asked what advice you would provide to the Egyptian Government you said that, “at this point they have to open up and democratize; I think there’s just no choice; I think they’ve been very slow at doing this […] they ought to follow what’s going on in Tunisia”. We would like to inform you how elated we were to hear your unconditional support of the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people. The first important step toward democratization took place on February 11 when a peoples’ led popular revolution forced President Hosni Mubarak to step down from power after ruling Egypt with an iron fist for 30 years.

What we find baffling is the contradictory signals you voice. Your appreciation of the importance of democratization in Egypt clashes with your long-held posture with regard to the application of the same principles in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular. On a closer look, your critical approach to repressive governance does not appear to be applicable to Africa. We say this with justification and with the hope that you will reconsider your stand. In the past two decades you lent incalculable support, through your words and your actions, to Ethiopia’s minority dictator, Meles Zenawi, who has ruled Ethiopia for 20 years. We would like to draw your attention to Peter Gill’s book Famine and Foreigners. This insightful analysis provides the world with a detailed account of how you developed a warm and intimate friendship with the ruler of Ethiopia, and how you and Mr. Meles became brothers-in-arms against the operations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the country. Our concern is not about personal friendship but about the policy implications the friendship implies. We are talking about the legitimacy that your warm friendship and endorsements gave to the head of one of the most repressive regimes in Africa today.

The Ethiopian ruler to whom you lent your undivided attention and support is the same person who has inflicted untold brutality and pain on innocent civilians, communities and the country through acts of alleged genocide, crimes against humanity and human rights violations. Mr. Meles Zenawi has stolen elections repeatedly; massacred hundreds and mass-detained over 40,000 citizens in Addis Ababa and other cities in 2005/06. Genocide Watch, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the New York Times, the State Department’s annual human rights reports and many other media, public, and human rights agencies have given careful account of these and other atrocities. The independent Global Financial Integrity group has documented billions of dollars of illicit outflow of funds under his watch.
You will agree with us that there are real consequences when internationally known intellectuals with power and influence provide legitimacy to dictators such as Mr. Meles Zenawi. On the ground, the lives of ordinary Ethiopians who are denied livelihoods, suffer from unemployment, live with hunger and face the indignities of living under a repressive system each and every day tell the real story. These Ethiopians have been caught up between your policy/ideological preference on the one hand, and your delight in finding an African ruler who is happy to play the African anti-neoliberal Robin to your Batman. Don’t you think this is unfair and unjust? We regret to say that, in your ideological and intellectual battles with the IMF in collaboration with Mr. Meles, you gave a dictator the benefits of your global status as a leading economist. He has used this to polish his international image. The cost to the Ethiopian people has been high. African intellectuals, academics and fair minded leaders find this kind of affinity with African dictators regrettable and unbecoming of leading economist like you. What saddens and amazes us is your endorsement of Mr. Meles Zenawi’s knowledge of economics and his intellectual acumen. This, we find utterly irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Ethiopia has many intellectual leaders scattered around the globe. Mr. Meles Zenawi is not one of them. This disservice to the Ethiopian people and to the rest of Africans is contained in your book, Globalization and its Discontents, in which you state that Mr. Zenawi “demonstrated knowledge of economics—and indeed a creativity—that would have put him at the head of any of my university classes”. You speak highly of the way he rules the country, saying “Meles combined these intellectual attributes with personal integrity: no one doubted his honesty and there were few accusations of corruption within his government.”

How do we reconcile your assessments and conclusions with other experts and global institutions such Human Rights Watch, Transparency International, Global Financial Integrity, Mo Ibrahim, Oxford University and even the World Bank? . As far as we are concerned he has several times failed his economics tests miserably. His economic policies and programs have brought untold suffering to the Ethiopian people. In the event you are not aware of his many failures, we would like to identify a most recent one. Recently he imposed price caps on a dozen or so goods. When imposing his ill-fated price caps measure, Mr. Zenawi told us that he was doing it in order to curb the month-to-month double-digit inflation that the country was experiencing. As any student who has taken principles of economics course would have predicted, the colossal failure of the price cap measure has not only backfired on his regime; it has also brought untold suffering to the Ethiopian people. As we predicted, every negative and secondary effect of price caps that any economist would theorize has been realized in Ethiopia. Mr. Zenawi’s price caps measures qualify to be cited as lessons in how to mismanage an economy. As if this is not enough, Mr. Zenawi tried to shift the blame on the Ethiopian entrepreneurs and merchants. A few days before imposing the ill-fated price caps measure, he gathered about 584 businesspersons and accused them of price gauging, hoarding and engaging in unhealthy competition. He told them that he would “cut their fingers” unless they cooperate with him. For anyone who watched the entire taunting process (and the ones before it) and Mr. Zenawi's rants and the stunned faces and silence of the 584 businessmen and women, it was clear that the attendees were scared and did not know what to say. He met with and freighted the business community despite the fact that he had been informed (see, for example, http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/67399) that the root causes of the price hikes and runaway inflation were the supply rigidities brought about by the opaque system that he imposed on the country. These include the creation and support of party-owned conglomerates which have dominated the vital sectors of the country’s economy, expansionary monetary policy (accompanied by negative real interest rates) and government spending- both of which have played their part in injecting liquidity into the system; lack of productivity; continuous devaluation of the birr - the latest one being the 20% devaluation announced on September 1st, 2010. To make matters worse, the latest information we have indicates that Mr. Zenawi’s government is contemplating to expand the price caps. The piling of mistakes continues unabatedly despite the fact that some of us had illustrated the negative ramifications of price caps (see, for example, http://gadaa.com/oduu/7573/2011/01/12/the-futility-and-damaging-effects-of-ethiopian-price-caps/) ahead of time so that lessons could be learned.

The world knows Mr. Zenawi as articulate when speaking with foreigners. Ethiopians know him as sinister and cunning, brutal and repressive. For these reasons, we are puzzled by your unreserved praise of his economics. It is a disservice to the majority of Ethiopians for you to give legitimacy to a leader whose family, party and endowments control the economy with an iron fist. He runs a party owned and controlled business empire through his wife, decimates the private sector, and instills fear into farmers of losing their land, and access to inputs. Worse, if they complain about unfairness in rural service provision they will be punished. Like us, the Economist magazine strongly differs with your assessment about Mr. Zenawi’s economics acumen, stating that the Ethiopian Government is “one of the most economically illiterate in the modern world”. A Wikileaked cable from the US Embassy to Berlin also stated: “Germany reported addressing Ethiopia's economic situation, namely hard currency and the poor investment climate, with Meles directly and being struck by what they described as Meles' poor understanding of economics”.

In no small part to your contribution, Mr. Zenawi’s appearance at Columbia University on 22, September, 2010, shocked the Ethiopian community in the Diaspora and in the country. His speech, the essence of which was the condemnation of neo-liberalism, was preceded by your warm welcome and introduction. You invited Mr. Zenawi to speak at World Leaders Forum at Columbia despite the fact that you were amply informed of his regime’s atrocities by many people of Ethiopian origin. Letters were sent to your institution via Lee C Bollinger, President of Colombia University, the student paper at Columbia, Columbia Spectator, and through several faculty members at Columbia. Your University’s website initially carried the following scandalous statement about the visit. We presume that you were not unaware of the statement.

“Under the seasoned governmental leadership of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, now in his fourth term, and vision of the Tigrai Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) and Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), Ethiopia has made and continues to make progresses in many areas including in education, transportation, health and energy.”
Mr. Meles Zenawi is hardly a “seasoned leader.” Ethiopians and most objective observers know him as a brutal dictator and his regime is one of the most repressive and corrupt regimes in the world today. We would like to draw your attention to the latest Freedom House report which downgraded Ethiopia’s position from “Partly Free” to “Not Free.” Using the newly installed “Anti-Terrorism Proclamation” and “Charities and Societies Proclamation” law (CSO law), the regime has muzzled freedom of expression and criminalized human rights activities. Yes, progress has been made in infrastructure projects but at the expense of quality and fairness. For example, some of our own research and the researches of others indicate that, thanks to the huge sums of donor funds, student enrolment ratios have improved but quality has deteriorated. This fact has been acknowledged on August 26, 2010, when the Ministry of Education issued a directive that categorically banned all public and private higher learning institutions from running distance education programs, and all private higher learning institutions from offering on-campus law and teachers’ education programs.
In light of the above and the ample reliable documentation of repression, gross human rights abuses, alleged genocide, single party and endowment command and control of the national economy, massive unemployment, land grab and mismanagement of the national economy, we urge you to no longer give legitimacy to the dictatorial regime led by Mr. Meles Zenawi. We believe that your past support and endorsement may have overlooked the real facts on the ground. As a Nobel Prize winner and a reputed leading economist you have provided Mr. Zenawi status and legitimacy he and his regime do not deserve. He is universally identified as one of the worst dictators in Africa today. The democratic wave that brought down dictators in Tunisia and Egypt is not likely to stop there. Foreign Policy magazine reported that the Tunisian and Egyptian ex-presidents are not alone. It provided a line-up of the eight worst dictators that fall into this category. Meles Zenawi makes this membership. (“America’s Other Most Embarrassing Allies”.) Your video of February 2, 2011 has shown that you are able to see the downfall of autocratic rulers who choke their country and economy.

We urge you to be part of a legacy of prominent voices around the globe who believe in human freedoms and possibilities. At the end of the day, economic development is about people. You will agree with us that the nexus between economic development and good governance is so compelling that any form of dictatorship can’t be acceptable in North Africa, the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa.

We thank you in advance for your attention.

Sincerely,
On behalf of Ethiopian Development Policy Focus Group

1. Getachew Begashaw, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, W.R. Harper College, Chicago, IL (Member).
2. Aklog Birara, Ph.D. Senior Advisor (recent retiree, World Bank) and Adjunct Professor, Trinity University of Washington D.C. (Member).
3. Seid Hassan, Ph.D. Murray State University, Murray, KY (Member)

Ethiopia is not Egypt

By Yared Ayicheh

President Hosni Mubarak has finally stepped down. Congratulations to Egyptians and glory to the hundreds of martyrs who paid with their lives to bring the 30 year old dictator to his knees. Egyptian military’s restraint to use force and not to undermine the voice of the people it serve’s has been superb, much respect to the Egyptian military – well done! As an Ethiopian, I must say, I feel jealous, very jealous of Egyptians. First they use the Nile River, while we sing about it. Second, they have a much better economy than Ethiopia – they don’t have food shortage or famine. And now, third, they have challenged and pressured their dictator to step down. I am very jealous—but in a good way.

It’s a fact that the initiating causes for the Egyptian uprising are also all present in Ethiopia. But Ethiopia is not Egypt. Egypt has its own history, geo-political importance, economic dynamics, and political background. It is simply irrational for Ethiopia to be like Egypt. Ethiopia needs its own custom tailored solution to its challenges.

History: Historically Egypt is seen as one of the oldest civilizations in the world—some estimate Ancient Egyptian history to be 5000 years old [1]. The Ancient Egyptians are in no way to be compared with the Ancient Ethiopians – the evidence for the Egyptian civilization is just insurmountable when compared with Ancient Ethiopian civilizations. We Ethiopians claim to be ‘civilized’, and yet the reality is we are anything but civilized. We are backward and uncivilized! Any Ethiopian that fails to accept this reality, I am willing to label, is brainwashed by propaganda or is delusional.

Geo-Political Importance: Egypt’s importance to the rest of the world can be witnessed by the recent interest of the global economic heavyweights, US, EU and others, who found themselves dumfounded by what took place in the past few weeks of the Egyptian uprising. Egypt’s importance has to do with the Suez Canal, oil and Egypt’s great influence in the Middle East – Egypt’s half a million army is also not desired to be under radical Islamist control or influence either [2]. As long as the world is addicted to oil, Egypt will continue to be more important than Ethiopia. If similar uprising takes place in Ethiopia, I don’t believe the global powers would give as much attention as they have to Egypt; all they care about is the stability of East Africa, not the political reforms much needed in Ethiopia.

Economic Dynamics: Even though Egypt and Ethiopia have close to 80 million population each, Egypt’s economy is much stronger with a GDP of half a trillion dollars [3], while Ethiopia’s GDP is a mere 85 billion dollars [4]. The Egyptian tourism industry by itself has, in 2009, “brought in $10.8 billion, according to Egyptian Tourism Ministry figures” [5]. When it comes to per capita income, Egypt’s is $6000, Ethiopia’s is $1000 [4],[5]. I think I have made my point here; Ethiopia is clearly economically weaker than Egypt.

Political Background: Recently, our Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, responding to a question in the Ethiopian Parliament [6], made an interesting point regarding the political background of Ethiopia and the necessity for all opposition parties to accept the constitution fully. Even though I have disagreements with our Prime Minister’s party, I agree 100% that Ethiopian opposition parties have to completely accept the constitution—no buts or ifs, this is not to say there is no room for amendments in the future. Ethiopia has its own ethnic, political and religious background; and all constitutions, including ours, are framed with consideration of each country’s background or history. Egypt only has three ethnic groups: Egyptian, Bedouin Arab, Nubian [7]; Ethiopia’s more than 70 ethnic groups make Ethiopia’s politics very complex and less maneuverable. The need for pluralism in Ethiopia’s politics supersedes that of Egypt’s. Ethiopia is not Egypt. Egypt may not need Article 39, but Ethiopia does.

Ethiopia’s opposition is also not the Egyptian opposition. Ethiopia’s opposition is not Muslim Brotherhood. Ethiopia does not need a Muslim Brotherhood because Ethiopian Muslims and Christians have been living harmoniously for centuries. What our opposition parties need is organizational maturity. Our opposition parties are fragmented, while coming across as being over saturated with too many chiefs or aba-worawoch; on the other hand we have a ruling party which has anointed itself as the political messiah of the Ethiopian peoples. Ethiopia’s problems need a solution much like an orchestra than a single man band.

Give-and-Take Politics (Seto Me’Qe’bel): Ruling and opposition parties must compromise and reach a common ground both can work with to loosen the tense political and economic situation Ethiopia is in. Ethiopia’s political dynamics needs reform not revolution. Dear Ethiopian politicians, here are points of compromise for the ruling and opposition parties to consider for initiating practical give-and-take politics:

Ethiopia - Yes We Can! From Tahrir to Meskel Square

A Response to Yared Ayicheh and et al

By Tibebe Samuel Ferenji

The father of modern nonviolent movement Mahatma Gandhi said “I can not teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.”

I was standing at the Red Light at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and University Boulevard at 11:05 AM, when I heard the news about the resignation of Egypt’s Mubarek. Few minutes before that, I was dissecting the piece written by Ato Yared Ayicheh and some of the comments written by the EPRDF supporters. I was replaying in my head Mr. Mubarek’s defiant and arrogant response to the people’s demand that he resign from his post ASAP. Then, I was thinking about the fate of Mr. Meles Zenawi. I was wondering if Mr. Zenawi is going to use this golden opportunity to rise to the occasion and leave a foot print in the political history of Ethiopia; or continue to be defiant and leave a finger print on his way to prison, or exit the country to live in exile to be hunted down like a common criminal. Then, the airwave was filled with the announcement of Mr. Mubarek’s resignation. I have no words to describe what I felt. I said to my self, Yes, today I am an Egyptian!
It is with the hope of similar result in Ethiopia that I am scribing this piece. In doing, so, I would like to point out some of the similarities between Mr. Mubarek and Mr. Zenawi. Mr. Mubarek ruled Egypt for 30 years with fake elections, just like Mr. Zenawi, except that Mr. Zenawi has been in power for 20 years. Mr. Mubarek imprisoned his opponent when the opponent won the election, the election was rigged and Mr. Mubarek continued to occupy his office illegitimately; Mr. Zenawi did the same thing. After decades of stagnant economy, Egypt Economy began to show growth particularly the last five years. Similarly, Ethiopia’s stagnant economy has been showing some growth the last five years. Mr. Mubarek used the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Extremists as Boogiemen to fend of criticisms for his continued State of Emergency rule, and human rights abuses. Similarly, Mr. Zenawi injected “Interahamwe” in Ethiopian politics to create his own Boogiemen and presented himself as a man who would fight terrorism in the Horn of Africa. He claimed that if he leaves office, Ethiopia would be destabilized. We heard the same claim from Mr. Mubarek. Both Mr. Mubarek and Mr. Zenawi introduced the concept of “Organic Democracy” to their respective countries. Both intentionally ignored the universal application of democratic principles.

There are several similarities that can be mentioned here; I think for now this will do. In addition to this similar characteristics, Ethiopia and Egypt share similar predicament. Both countries have high unemployment, hyper inflation, and the gap between those who haves and who have not is widening in alarming rate. Both Ethiopia and Egypt implemented State of Emergency; journalists are detained in violation of the respective countries’ constitutions; opposition political organizations operate under abusive circumstance. Both regimes enjoyed unshakable support from their Western allies despite the fact they continue to abuse the civil and human rights of their citizens.

The people of Ethiopia and Egypt expressed their displeasure with their regimes and demanded reform. They gave their vote to the regime’s opponents during the elections; but their voice was stolen repeatedly. Both people lived under brutal police states. They tried to make their voices heard. When they made loud noises, the security apparatus mercilessly abused them in attempt to silence them. Despite that fact, they continued to make silent noises. The regimes continued to be defiant, abusive, corrupt, and merciless. It is when a revolt erupted in Tunisia and the despot leader was thrown out from power he held for 23 years, the people of Egypt inspired and once again began making a loud noise to take over their government; and to take charge of their destiny. The people of Egypt nonviolent struggle was about to turn into violence when the regime hired thugs that resorted to violence to intimidate the public and crash the revolt. The people defended themselves but continued to be disciplined and demand the resignation of Mr. Mubarek. Despite the unwavering support of the West for Mr. Mubarek, the people of Egypt won this chapter of their struggle. Do not let the Westerners posturing and news release asking that Mr. Mubarek make orderly exit fool you. Deep in their heart, they wanted “a reliable ally” in Egypt. What they cared about was their interest. After all it is their guns and tanks that are used to silence the ordinary citizens. Now at least, it is an open secret that the “Western Democracies” interest is not similar to the interest of the ordinary people.

In his piece titled “The Case against Jasmine Revolution in Ethiopia“, Ato Yared tells us not revolt against a brutal regime in Ethiopia. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, but, I beg to defer. Although Ato Yared’s intention is noble, what he has failed to understand is that the people from Tunisia to Jordan are revolting out of frustration and because their governments failed to listen to their voices. Up Rising is not a luxury, it is a result of frustration and a necessity for change. In case of Egypt, Mr. Mubarek had an ample opportunity to act in the best interest of his country and his people. Instead, he chose to look after his personal greedy interest. After all he did not become a Billionaire by acting in the best interest of his people. Some depots do not learn from other despots. They choose to scramble at the 11th hour to save their skin. Mr. Mubarek seem to be one of them. One of the smartest leaders in the Middle East in my opinion is king Abdullah of Jordan. King Abdullah began taking serious reform measures knowing that a revolution is knocking at his door.

Mr. Zenawi has similar opportunity today before it is too late. Failure to act would be disastrous to his regime and the country at large. Ato Yared argues that revolution may have an unintended consequences and cites the 1960s (1970s G.C) as an example. What he failed to realize is that the situation in 1970s is a lot different than 2011. Then, the world was divided in to two camps. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were more interested in putting stooges who promote their ideologies and their interests. Particularly we Africans were victims of a turf war between two “big elephants”. Today, that condition des not exist. More over, we have a more politically conscious society in Ethiopia than the one that existed in 1970s.

One of the major factors absent from Ato Yared’s piece is the role of the leftist elements in the 1970s revolution. The military regime was able to sustain its power because it was supported by leftist intellectuals particularly by MEISON and its allies until 1979. When the Military regime filled the power vacuum, we did not have organized political entities. Today the situation is different. There is no conducive atmosphere in Ethiopia today for any military junta to sustain its rule even if it takes power with some miracle.
Ato Yared raised two important questions in his piece: “Do Ethiopians need to change the Ethiopian government by popular uprising? Can Ethiopia afford to go through another ‘revolution’?” My answer to Ato Yared and others who support the regime is it depends. In principle, Ethiopians don’t need popular uprising to change “their government” as long as the government hears the people’s voice and reform. When I say reform, I am not talking about a cosmetic reform. The regime needs to be honest with itself and with the people. The whole world knows that there is no democratic governance in Ethiopia. Just like Mubarek, Mr. Zenawi has rigged the election. Mr. Zenawi could continue to lie to himself in believing that his party won the election. As Mr. Obama put it clearly last night, the fact that you hold an election does not mean you have democratic governance. If the regime is listening to the quite noises of the Ethiopian people and address the peoples concern, promote a national reconciliation, have an open dialogue with all concerned parties how to establish a democratic governance in Ethiopia, and transfer power to duly elected government in a free and fair election, then only then, the popular uprising will not be necessary.

However, just like Mr. Mubarek, if Mr. Meles continue to live in his delusional denial state of mind, be indifferent to the voices of the people, continue to be defiant to the suffering of the people, and continue to rule with the Iron fist under the State of Emergency, then the popular uprising is not only necessary, it is feasible. As we have witnessed, the popular uprising in Egypt was inspired by the revolution in Tunisia. Since such outside influence is a great factor in Egypt’s uprising, to the dismay of EPRDF’s ardent supporters, Ethiopians in Diaspora could play a crucial and significant role to inspire the uprising in Ethiopia.

To answer the second question, I would say Can Ethiopia afford not to revolt? If the regime fails to reform, the only option we have is a popular uprising. The people of Ethiopia cannot afford not to revolt at this juncture. This is the right time; this is the time where oppressed people from coast to coast are showing solidarity with one another. The world has opened its eyes and ears. We know that to the Westerners Mr. Zenawi is their “indispensable” ally; we Ethiopians know that is not so. Ato Yared tells us “the best alternative to popular uprising is reforming the toxic, uncompromising Ethiopian political culture.” However he failed to realize that the regime holds the key to lead in reforming the toxic political environment. It is not up to the people but up to the regime to change its toxic political discourse. As Gandhi asked, we are asking the people of Ethiopia not to bow to the threats of despots and their cronies. If the regime continue to ignore the people’s quite noises and fail to reform, then the best alternative for the regime change is nonviolent popular uprising, and nonviolent civil disobedience. Short of that, the choice would be between resorting to armed struggle and the continuation of a police state.
Those who support the regime and the regime have a golden opportunity to make history. They cannot any longer hide behind a fake election, Egypt had that. They cannot hide behind the illusion of stability; Egypt had that. They cannot hide behind the concept of “organic Democracy” Mr. Mubarek had tried that. Most importantly, they cannot hide behind the “Economic Growth” façade, Egypt had that. What is interesting in reading the comments of EPRDF supporters is their threats to those who advocate for the popular uprising in Ethiopia. They tell us that there will be blood shade in the streets of Ethiopia if Ethiopians revolt against the regime. If anything, they are confirming how brut the regime that they are supporting is. I have not read a single comment that shades light regarding the democratic governance and the existence of civil and democratic rights in Ethiopia. EPRDF apologists defend the regime by simply stating that “There is Economic Growth in Ethiopia.” May be we need to remind them that there is Economic growth in Egypt, in China, Saudi Arabia and other countries ruled by despots. They should know that Economic growth does not equate with political freedom and civil liberty.

Mr. Zenawi had fumbled the political football and the opportunity to be a great leader repeatedly. He has a chance to be remembered as the “Father of Democratic Ethiopia” if he has the courage to change course and bring all political factions for dialogue to promote national reconciliation. He has the opportunity to be Africa’s another Mandela. Failure to cease this opportunity however, only will lead to public discontent and eventually to public uprising. The ball is at Mr. Zenawi’s Court. Thus, it is up to Mr. Zenawi to have or not to have a revolution in Ethiopia. Some of Mr. Zenawi’s apologists have complained that we are using the word dictator to describe Mr. Zenawi. If they realy want its definition, I humbly refer them to Webster Dictionary.

I would like to conclude this piece by reiterating a slogan from Cairo’s Liberation Square that struck a cord with me:

We were Tunisians Yesterday, we are Egyptians today, and we will all be free tomorrow”. We all should congratulate the people of Egypt for their perseverance, discipline, devotion, dedication and determination. They started this revolution with the spirit of YES WE CAN! We Ethiopians should also begin our version of uprising with the Spirit of YES WE CAN!
God Bless the people of Egypt and Ethiopia!

Ethiopia a one party dictatorship has been the norm for nearly two decades. TPLF said no one in the face of the earth can remove us, they said that we do not afraid anyone!

Ethiopia - Brian Stewart and CBC a journalist and a media Ethio-Canadians never stop worrying about.

By Aie Zu Guo

In 1984 Brian Stewart of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported Ethiopia’s worst famine of the 20th century putting the blame squarely on the communist regime of Mengistu HaileMariam. Canadian taxpayers took his report at face value. On the contrary he praised the Tigrian Liberation Front (TPLF) guerrillas of Meles_Zenawi for distributing food aid to famine victims. Unfortunately, he never reported to us that TPLF was a Marxist-Leninist group identical to Enver Hoxha of Albania. Then one wonders about Brian’s motive of hiding the true faces of the TPLF. For those who are familiar with Ethiopian politics, then and now, two reasons remain outstanding. First is to discredit the military cum communist government of Ethiopia. Secondly is to help TPLF assume power in Addis Ababa.

In 1991, seven years after the famine, the communist military regime came to its demise. Another communist group called TPLF assumed state power. For Brian mission is accomplished. Soon he became the most favored journalist of Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia. His reports are often skewed to appeasing a dictatorial regime in Africa. The journalist’s regular mantras are that Ethiopia’s social, economic and political situation improved under Meles. Since his retirement in early 2009, many Ethiopians assumed that they are free from his claptrap cyber information about their country. Unfortunately, he comes out from his retirement cell in Toronto and feeds the Canadian public and the international community with news about Ethiopia’s rulers and on the famine looming over Ethiopia.

Instead of gibberish reports on famine, we would request Brian to tell Canadians on the state of human rights, democracy, and governance in Ethiopia. If he can’t, we have the temerity to tell this reporter about the true nature of the Government of Ethiopia (GoE), and the underlying causes of famine as follows.

Frequency of famine and its causes:

Under the TPLF rule of Meles, famine occurs every 3 years (in 1993, 1997, 2007, and 2009) against that of once every ten years during the military regime.

The causes of famine are both natural and man made. Ethiopia’s fully rain fed subsistence agriculture is dependent on the vagaries of nature for which even tyrants have no control. But with the right agriculture policy, this could be offset through the introduction of irrigation. If Ethiopia has gained economic and social transformation (as Brian prophecies), the GoE would have contained famine by transforming Ethiopia’s rain-fed agriculture to irrigated agriculture.


Disjointed priorities:

Monthly the GoE pays US$50,000 (US$ 600,000/year) to DLP Piper a US lobbying firm since the 2005 popular election that revealed the emptiness of the communist rule of TPLF. Over the past 5 years the regime has paid DLP US$3 million Dollars. At Birr 3500/Mt , this money would buy 12,857 MTs of wheat from local markets.

In Ethiopia Agriculture is a crucial activity that contributes to more than 60% of exports, 46.3% of GDP, 80% of foreign exchange revenues, and a massive 80% of employment . It is a sector dominated by the poor and who are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters and famine. Unfortunately the GoE’s priorities are different from people’s immediate needs. TPLF uses donor money to buy guns instead of making butter. Meles invaded Somalia to spend $1 million a day to sustain the invasion all in the name of terrorism.

International Aid:

The Honourable Hugh Segal reported to The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that bags of Canadian wheat are stored in a warehouse in the city of Mekele, Tigraye province to serve TPLF HQs when food aid is needed to starving children in the southern regions of the country. This journalist must remain honest to his profession and the organization he works with and tell us the truth about the GoE.

Population doubled yes it has doubled. Brian need to understand that international (including Canadian) aid to Ethiopia has also doubled. The G8 countries including Russia and China right off Ethiopia’s debt almost one hundred percent. This should have given GoE the momentum to contain famine and invest on food self sufficiency programs.

Governance, democracy and good government:

Lack of good governance and lack of democracy hinder development and food self sufficiency. In today’s Ethiopia a one party dictatorship has been the norm for nearly two decades. Three federal elections were held and won by the incumbent regime with 99.9% vote since 1991. In the 2005 election, the TPLF gunned down at close range 193 peaceful and innocent demonstrators, jailed leaders of the opposition and sent 70,000 to concentration camps to the south of the country. The seasoned journalist did not utter a word to the Canadian public when such gross human tragedy takes place at the door steps of the Canadian Embassy in Addis Ababa. Yet still, Canada spends millions of Tax payers’ money for human rights, governance, democratization and rule of law. Is it not that ‘Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development .’ In our view good governance is also one of the important factors of eliminating famine and hunger in Ethiopia and elsewhere for that matter.

The 4th federal election is scheduled for June 2010. Unlike the past, this election is won before people cast their votes. If Brain asks why, we have the audacity of telling him that public media is 100% controlled by TPLF. Private and independent media is paralyzed by draconian press law. Opposition leaders and supporters are harassed and imprisoned. For example Birtukan Midekas, a female opposition leader is imprisoned for life. Human rights are of abysmal failure. We advise Brian to refer to Amnesty International and State Department reports .

Let it be known that 4% of the 80 million people are ruling Ethiopia with a tyranny and impunity unparalleled in Ethiopia’s history. Ethiopians die of famine in thousands, but the most lethal one that kills the poor is bad government.

In developmental economic theory democracy, good governance, rule of law and respect of human rights are the fundamental pre-requisites of development, eradicating famine and poverty. These are also important ingredients of political, social and economic stability. Rightly so Pranab concludes that “if we take a suitably broad concept of development to incorporate general well-being of the population at large, including some basic civil and political freedoms, a democracy which ensures these freedoms is, almost by definition, more conducive to development on these counts than a non-democratic regime” .

Social Image:

True Ethiopians hate their nation's image as perpetual victim of disasters. They are protective of their image and decency. There is high level cultural and traditional sensitivity to be called beggars. During the 1984 famine, mothers carrying their dieing toddlers waited for their cue to receive food ration with at most discipline. In many parts of the world such a situation would end in a stampede or riot. Ethiopians prefer to die of hunger than telling lies and get food rations. It is shocking to see those who are not hungry and wealthy enough to feed themselves continue feeding their audience with false information.

Since Brian and CBC are blinded by their self aggrandizement, Ethiopia appeared to them as a difficult problem for the world to fix. Fixing Meles and his Marxist tyrants are harder than fixing Ethiopia’s famine and underdevelopment. With the right leadership and governance in place, famine and poverty can be fixed without fanfare. For the moment the time to fix takes longer than necessary, because some media outlets like CBC are not telling their taxpayers the true causes of famine and underdevelopment in Ethiopia. So long as the truth and the only truth about the causes of famine are not told, Ethiopia’s problems continue to be hard to fix and Ethio-Canadians remain worried about Brian’s reports. In the midst of this worrisome reporting it is important for CBC to remember that of all the ills that kill the poor, none is as lethal as bad government .


Aie Zu Guo. The writer can be reached at aiezuguo@yahoo.com