Opinion: Addis Ababa does not have Jericho’s Wall

By YohannesY

Once upon a time there was a man name Joshua. Joshua/Eyasu was one of the strongest leader ever seen in the history of Israel, and was advised by God to be strong and courageous because he was the one who would lead the Israelites to possess God’s Promised Land.

Here is this strong, self-confident man who trusts in his strength, leadership and military skills, but followed God’s orders when told to do something unexpected. He was told that he needs to make a big noise with his fellow Israelites in order to conquered Jericho, this mighty warrior ready to fight and die for Israel.
But instead of fighting for the city, he was told to make noises with his fellow Israelites. He put his reason aside and listens to the order of the divine command and he obeyed it.

When the people heard the sound of the rams’ horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the town and captured it. Joshua 6:20

I truly believe this story occurred in the old biblical time, I understand it is very difficult to understand for the carnal mind but it happened.

However the main reason I mentioned this story is to express my frustration on the Diaspora Ethiopian politician. These days Diaspora politicians think by making a lot of noise from a distance they think they can collapse the Addis Ababa/EPRDF wall but unfortunately that is not going to work because the old Joshua time a deeply convicted leader who provide the Israelites with unshakeable leadership fought along with his people.

And also the western world did not pay attention to the Ethiopian Diaspora, and it seems to me that Mr. Meles achieved his objective by using the Ethiopian opposition weakness. And tactfully he divide and weak the leaders of the oppositions, he puts some in Jail and scared them and then allowing them to leave the country and leave the Ethiopian people struggle without leadership.


"If you want to fly with the eagles, you can't hang around with the chickens."

The government of Ethiopia is not genuinely or adequately challenged by the Ethiopian oppositions because the Ethiopian oppositions are not ready to engage in Ethiopian political process plus the government did not tolerate the opposition groups at all. So we Ethiopians are stuck with two rigid and uncultured political leadership they do not know how to compromise so for us, we cannot elect between the horse and the mule. They are not better than each other.
As I see it, first the oppositions are not organized internally and externally, there is no united goal or purpose, they do not have a solid foundation and cannot rely on them, it is amazing some of the opposition group were in leadership for such a long time but never learn from their past experience, they are operating the same way, nothing change so you are relying on Ethiopian opposition; you lean on them, they will pierce your hand and will hurt you. You cannot rely on them because they are not organized and united. So somebody need to tell them organized or lost forever!

And also there are a lot of reactionary elements who are working against Ethiopian interest and some of the oppositions are influenced by selfish greedy leadership or by Eritrean’s government agents. Actually some of the Ethiopian Diaspora opposition elements are highly influenced by the Eritrean regime and it seems to me that they are infiltrated by sheabe foot soldiers. And a few years back they declared to us that Issias is as the man of the year and they have a nerve to tell us that the number one Ethiopian enemy as the man of the year, they are testing the Ethiopian Diaspora intelligence.

So in order to be against or weaken the government of Ethiopia some of the opposition Diaspora will not hesitating to sleep with anyone including with Ethiopian known enemies. What really bothering me is that some of the oppositions articles are reckless about the future of Ethiopia, it seems to me they do not care about the future of Ethiopia, they did not have anything to offer or honest outlook except trashing the government of Ethiopia, what has to be done for the future of the country, and very difficult to differentiate if the author is Ethiopian or Eritrean who hate to see Ethiopia progress.

I want to mention that, there are real Ethiopians who loves their country dearly and want to see a well developed and democratic and peaceful Ethiopia, these peoples are the most precious children of Ethiopia are scattered all over the world, they always say something constructive to advance the Ethiopian people progress. No string attach on their view than progress of their country.

In other hand, I want to recognized that, if you want, you can discredit the author but unless you are in denial, whatever way you see it, the Ethiopian government are doing their job, development in Addis and other part of the country including the blue Nile project and 13 Universities and a lot of private colleges are established and a lot road and dams are constructed in every part of the country and we Ethiopian see and witness this effort. But because we are part of the world community and as any other country the economy is goes up and down life become harder and the economy is not improving for the ordinary people. I believe it takes time. Rome did not build with one day. But I like their effort.

However even though Ethiopian government tries to focus on the economy and they put their utmost effort to improve the Ethiopian people life, they should put some more effort to establish a real democratic system, where the oppositions and others freely express their view and without intimidations. And let them fight genuinely without violence but with ideas, where the Ethiopian people judge and make a decision on their future. Unless the Ethiopian government goes that direction and they will fail, nothing can save them when the lions are awake; there is no question about that.

What has to be done?

Instead of trying to change the Ethiopian government change must start within. If you cannot change yourself cannot change the government, change always must come within, then it will go out, you need to get organized and earn the Ethiopian people’s trust.

At the same time, The Ethiopian people are progressing and are more politically matured than you think. Like the youth of the rebelling Arab countries, to some extent Ethiopian progressive youth have access to the Internet, they are informed and they know what is going on in their own back yard. They can different between the opposition and the Ethiopian government and I am sure if they obtain genuine election they will choose EPRDF, because the opposition did not show anything except impractical theory, it is painful but it true! I do not surprise if Ethiopian people 100% vote for EPRDF.

Monitoring Group Finds The Smoking Gun On Eritrean Regime

A 400+ page report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea, which was made public today, states that the Eritrean regime, far from complying with the UN Security Council Resolution 1907, is actually engaged in more brazen and reckless behavior that threatens to destabilize the entire Horn of Africa, and beyond. The report, which was finalized on June 20th and submitted to the UN Sanctions Committee, was sent to the Security Council on July 17th.

The Monitoring Group accurately describes the Eritrean regime as a clique where “power is concentrated in the hands of individuals rather than institutions” who “depend more heavily on political and economic support from foreign Governments and diaspora networks than from the populations” within its borders.

The Monitoring Group says that notwithstanding the Eritrean regime’s claims that its involvement in Somalia is based on humanitariasm, or motivated by desire to bring about a lasting solution in Somalia, its “continuing relationship with Al-Shabaab, for example, appears designed to legitimize and embolden the group rather than to curb its extremist orientation or encourage its participation in a political process.” Al-Shabab is a terror group which has pledged its allegiance to Al Qaeda and taken credit for the July 2010 Kampala bombing during the FIFA World Cup, which killed 74 and injured 70 innocent Africans.

Moreover, says the report, the Eritrean regime’s “involvement in Somalia reflects a broader pattern of intelligence and special operations activity, including training, financial and logistical support to armed opposition groups in Djibouti, Ethiopia, the Sudan and possibly Uganda in violation of Security Council resolution 1907 (2009).”

The Eritrean regime’s support for armed groups—specifically forbidden by Resolution 1907—has continued and intensified. In Djibouti, the Eritrean regime is supporting the hitherto defunct FRUD. In Ethiopia, the Eritrean regime is supporting a myriad of armed groups including the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), the Afar Liberation Front, the Afar Revolutionary People’s Democratic Front, also known as Ugugumo; the Sidamo Liberation Front; the Tigrayan People’s Democratic Movement and other “unidentified fighters from the Amhara and Gambella regions of Ethiopia.” In Somalia, the Eritrean regime is supporting Al-Shabab. In Sudan, it has a human and arms smuggling arrangement with the country’s Minister of Transportation; in South Sudan, it is supporting the armed groups of South Sudanese rebels Athor and Gadet.

The reason the report is over 400 pages is the detailed documentation of what “support” means. “Support” to the outlaw Eritrean regime means training, arming and financing armed groups.

Whereas all the support the regime provides armed groups can be rationalized by skeptics as standard activities of hostile neighbors, what is likely to place the Eritrean regime in the cross-hairs of the UN is the same one that resulted in unanimous condemnation of the Eritrean regime by a regional body, IGAD, just last month: its decision to target civilian centers in Addis Abeba. The Monitoring Group places the entire responsibility for this terrorist plan on the Eritrean regime:

“Although ostensibly an OLF operation, it was conceived, planned, supported and directed by the external operations directorate of the Government of Eritrea, under the leadership of General Teí’ame. If executed as planned, the operation would almost certainly have caused mass civilian casualties, damaged the Ethiopian economy and disrupted the African Union summit.”

The Monitoring Group manages to answer, credibly, the one question that has given pause to skeptics; namely, how does an extremely poor country like Eritrea manage to provide the arms and financing for so many disparate groups? The answer: the Eritrean regime is not a government but a mafia-like organization. The country is governed by an “opaque network of senior party, military and intelligence officials”, and decisions are made in a “highly personalized and often clandestine manner” and therefore, “the necessary resources are mobilized and managed” in “informal and routinely illicit ways.”

Much of what is in the report is detailing the “illicit ways” which include use of Eritreans with dual nationality; foreigners appointed “honorary ambassador;” corrupt government officials of neighboring countries; direct cash funding from Qatar and Libya; and business fronts for the regime’s intelligence services. The question posed by the Eritrean strongman and his henchmen repeatedly—“where is the evidence”—has been presented in words, pictures and even an audio recording of one of Isaias Afwerki’s generals coordinating a terrorist activity.

The Monitoring Group makes the following five recommendations:

(a) The Security Council should consider encouraging Member States to introduce rigorous due diligence guidelines for international financial institutions, including multinational banks, which handle funds or host correspondent accounts for Eritrean banks, embassies of Eritrea, PFDJ entities or affiliates, and request them to cooperate with the Monitoring Group in its investigations;

(b) The Security Council should consider encouraging Member States to introduce rigorous due diligence guidelines for mining companies operating in Eritrea with respect to payment of taxes and royalties, and any other form of revenue accrued from mining production, to the Government of Eritrea in order to prevent the use of such funds in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions;

(c) National Governments should demand that the Government of Eritrea cease to violate the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations through the collection of extraterritorial taxes by its diplomats, and should examine domestic legislation to determine whether the collection of funds by party agents or community “wardens” in their territories is in fact legal — especially where it is accompanied by intimidation or coercion— and, if not, instruct law enforcement authorities to take appropriate action;

(d) National Governments should consider waiving Eritrean privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention, until the Government of the State of Eritrea officially acknowledges and enacts its own responsibilities under the Convention, principally to prevent the illicit transfer of PFDJ funds via diplomatic pouch;

(e) National law enforcement and intelligence agencies, especially in the East African region, should sensitize their personnel to the potential threat posed by the Eritrean external operations directorate, assign higher priority to monitoring its activities, and enhance information-sharing with their partners
source

Ethiopia: Setting the record straight on the Nile

By Fasil Amdetsion
The coming together of six East African states to sign the Cooperative Framework Agreement regulating use of the Nile – the first basin-wide agreement to attract the support of a majority of Nile riparian states – has elicited widespread media coverage. Ethiopia’s announcement that it intends to build a new mega dam along the Nile has further spurred the journalistic frenzy.

As is often the case with stories about a region which seldom makes international headlines, but for the most harrowing of crises, some of what is written is correct, but significant aspects of what appears in print is wrong.
Read more

Ethiopia: Setting the record straight on the Nile

By Fasil Amdetsion

The coming together of six East African states to sign the Cooperative Framework Agreement regulating use of the Nile – the first basin-wide agreement to attract the support of a majority of Nile riparian states – has elicited widespread media coverage. Ethiopia’s announcement that it intends to build a new mega dam along the Nile has further spurred the journalistic frenzy.

As is often the case with stories about a region which seldom makes international headlines, but for the most harrowing of crises, some of what is written is correct, but significant aspects of what appears in print is wrong.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Lester Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute, writes that East Africa’s recent drive to use the Nile is unfortunate for Egypt and poses ‘a grave threat to Africa’s newest democracy,’ given its growing population and dwindling water resources.[1] Brown neglects to mention why Egypt’s 81 million citizens are ostensibly entitled to a monopoly over the river, to the detriment of the Nile Basin’s 220 million other inhabitants.

Most other commentary, does not show such a wanton disregard for East Africa, but is often rife with inaccuracies nonetheless.

Here’s what is right: Egypt contributes no water to the Nile, but together with Sudan, makes exclusive use of the river. Egypt justifies its monopoly by pointing to two archaic treaties. Egypt signed the first such treaty with Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1929 (and an updated version with independent Sudan in 1959). The 1929 Agreement allotted twelve times more water to Egypt than Sudan, whereas the 1959 Agreement gave Egypt 75 per cent of the water and Sudan 25 per cent. Both agreements apportion no water to upper riparian states.

The British also signed onto the 1929 Agreement on behalf of their colonies, pledging that no works reducing the quantity of water flowing to Cairo would be undertaken in British-administered territories. The Egyptians claim that these agreements preclude the upper riparian states (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) from sharing in the river’s plentiful bounty.

These basic contours of the story are accurately reported, but the details which follow, often are not. Broadly speaking, the fallacies fall into three categories.

First, that the 1929 treaty bestows upon Egypt an unqualified majority stake in the Nile and that this agreement is legally binding on upper riparian states.[2]

Second, that the upper riparians are trying to rewrite or renegotiate the 1929 and 1959 Agreements by entering into the new Cooperative Framework Agreement on the Nile.[3]

And, third, that such modification is sought in order to dispossess Egypt of its ‘majority’ rights.[4]

These statements are inaccurate and must be corrected.

The 1929 Agreement does not bind all countries through which the Nile flows. In the case of the DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Ethiopia, the matter is straightforward because these countries never subscribed to the 1929 Agreement. One need not be a lawyer to understand that non-parties to an agreement cannot be bound by its terms. It is plainly obvious that Egypt cannot enjoy an unqualified majority right to the Nile, if Ethiopia, from which approximately 85 per cent of the water flows, is not a party to the 1929 Agreement.

But the 1929 Agreement carries no weight with respect to Britain’s former East African colonies too. Indeed, there are multiple arguments – from the fact that the treaty violates fundamental norms (referred to by lawyers as jus cogens), to the fact that it was too one-sided (a Leonine treaty, in legal parlance) – which militate in favor of concluding that the agreement was void at its inception. Even if that were not the case, under international law, newly independent states are generally not considered to inherit treaties, unless such treaties deal with the discrete issue of international boundaries. [5]

Moreover, the upper riparians are not attempting to rewrite or renegotiate the 1929 Agreement, for how could they rewrite an agreement they refuse to recognize, consider illegitimate, and to which they have registered strenuous on-the-record objections? Instead of modifying existing agreements, the upper riparian states are trying to institute a framework for the utilization of the Nile, where there previously was none.

Finally, by coming together to conclude an agreement, upper riparian states are not trying to ‘dispossess’ Egypt. The lack of significant works in the upper reaches of the Nile basin does not imply acquiescence to a purported Egyptian right, which East Africans are supposedly suddenly clamoring to appropriate for themselves. Instead, the paucity of construction reflects the historical inability of East Africans to muster the requisite resources to develop the Nile because of political instability and the hurdles to international funding put in place by Egyptian diplomats.

These corrections are not mere semantic quibbles. Words matter, and inaccuracies – be they legal or historical in nature – risk becoming conventional wisdom if repeated often enough. It is incumbent on concerned Africans to avail themselves of every opportunity to set the record straight.

* Fasil Amdetsion is an Ethiopian-American lawyer based in New York. He is a member of the Global Advisory Board for the International University of Haiti and a member of the Board of Directors of the African Services Committee.

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF ETHIOPIA – Ambassador Imru Zeleke

A letter to the people of tomorrow (an uneducated view)
You are in your twenties and thirties, you have grown up in one of the most painful era of Ethiopian history, you have been traumatized by the violence and misery that you have endured and seen since your birth. All you have learned and viewed from your unhappy experience is the ever increasing poverty and wretched existence of your people, including you family and kin. All this spirit and physical flagellation has certainly left you with some bitter view of your country, especially that it is a home grown calamity that started with good intention and end up into a catastrophic cataclysm.

You identify yourselves mostly as Ethiopians, for better or worst, because it is the only origin, history and culture you can identify with, and for its worldwide recognition. You also enjoy Ethiopian cuisine, music, humor, manner and style, your civilization is second to none in the world. You can quote you history from ancient times, you are repository of two great religions Christianity and Islam. All this heritage, and the gifted talent of our people, should have given us a spring board to create a modern and dynamic nation. But instead of building our future on the basis of our wealth and traditions, we fell victim of ideologies and notions that had already failed their own authors.

It is true that our inherited Monarchical system of government had, even by its own reckoning, that it has seen its days. Nevertheless, in its quest for survival it had introduced many positive elements that constituted a good foundation for the future. Yes it was not democratic, yes it was oppressive, but compared to what followed it might be called almost liberal. (Dr. Minasse Haile’s monograph “Comparing Human rights in two Ethiopian Constitutions”, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring 2005.) Thus, began a deconstructions and unbridle mystification of Ethiopian history and the creation of the evil “bully” the “Amara” oppressor. Accordingly to the new legend the Amaras who inhabit the regions of Gondar, Gojam, Wollo and Shoa have a higher standard of living than Americans, which they gained by exploiting the rest of the population. If you visit those area you won’t see their wealth because they make them invisible by some mysterious magic, you need special three-dimensional eye glasses. Which reminds me, some years ago there was a fashionable song in Ethiopia named “Ayn yeTfeTerew hulun lemayet new”, one day my five year old daughter asked “why is it that cannot see everything” I told her that it is because she is not yet a Ph.D.

Coming out into the light from the dark cloud of mystifications, it would be pertinent to ask of what and of whom this Amara polity is made off. As you all know a political group holding power cannot exists without allies and fellow travelers, with vested interest in the system. Even presently Meles has his own Amara, Oromo and other allies. Historically, the same paradigm stands for Ethiopia. In our part of the world Cushit and Hamitic people have been mixing for thousands of years. (Dr. Fikre Tolossa “Common Factors Uniting Ethiopians”, Ethiopian Review July 2011) Therefore, there has been a continuous population movement in the whole area, resulting in a miscegenation of races and tribes. throughout the centuries, our rulers stem from the same historical process. Few Ethiopians can claim racial purity and unique ethnic identity; all of us are of mixed origin, but for some cultural trends that differ amongst the many entities that make up the nation. As to political power the dominating group in the late one and half century has been an Amara/Oromo hegemony consisting of the Monarchy down to the lower ranks. Therefore, the claim that there was an oppressive regime composed solely of an Amara ethnic group is utter nonsense. If the Amaric language was preponderant and become the lingua franca of the nation, it is because of its age old alphabet and written religious and literary traditions, in difference to the oral vernacular. The Monarchs Minilik, Zewditu, Yassu, Haile Sellassie, Negus Mikael, and all the great leaders Gobena, Habte Giorgis, Balcha, etc. etc. where of mixed ethnic origin. Hence, if there was oppression and malfeasance by one ruling regime or another, the guilt must be shared by all and not to some fictitious character created to justify a political agenda. It is perfectly legitimate for one to espouse a particular social group and culture, but to use it as instrument for the deconstruction of a nation that has been built by the bloods and guts of millions of people from many origins is inacceptable, and neither conducive to a healthy and prosperous future.

This year when Americans are celebrating the 253rd year of their independence, we should be proud and celebrate our thousands of years of independence, despite the many crisis caused by our faulty governances. Unfortunately, we lament past misdeeds and negate our own role in the making of our disastrous fate, without devising solutions for our predicament. We are told to forget the past, as if it was not the foundation of our existence. We are advised to look to some indiscernible future where milk and honey will be plentiful and our whims and wants will be fully met. Which divine power will bestow upon us all these blessings? Is a good question to ask. In 1974 we were told to forget the past and look towards a prosperous future in a free and just society, we all know what happened after that. In 1991 we were promised the same, we all know the results. Now we are promised the same, and asked to consent a priori to the eventual ethnic breakup of the country, and accept a promissory note from political parties of doubtful consistence and popularity. Is this a promising future for a country that is barely striving to get out from abysmal poverty? Is this what the Ethiopian people aspire for their salvation?

No !! We must build our new Ethiopia on solid bases, on our common history and common heritage. We are not people sown on this Earth as some wild weed. We are civilized people of the first order, our tradition, cultures and values are universal. Our people are talented and our land fertile and rich. Let’s make the Ethiopian renaissance with a national spirit and rejuvenating outlook, instead of indulging in endless willy-nilly political deals that promise an uncertain future. In 2005 when more than two million people demonstrated openly in Addis Ababa and later when twenty six million voted peacefully without a single incident, they voted as Ethiopian and nothing else. We should stand with them and work unremittingly to liberate them from the TPLF nefarious dictatorship.

I am asking the young people that are the people of the future not to succumb to views vented by false prophets, and to inform themselves properly and judiciously about the realities in Ethiopia before acting. You must all realize that individually and collectively you are responsible for the fate of millions of people.

Reading the above some will probably say that I am an old foggy still anchored in the past. With all humility I say that I am not, I have struggled and fought for Human Rights and Democracy in Ethiopia for over half century, much before many of you were born, and I intend to do so until the end. I am a nationalist and patriotic Ethiopian, proud of my country of origin and the people of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia Lezelalem Tenur.

Journalist, Edit Thyself!

By Tesfai Hailu

In its July 09, 2011 editorial with sensationalized title, “Ager Yiseten” (“Give Us a Country”), the Amharic weekly Awramba Time condemned the dismissal of its lawsuit against the government owned newspaper, Addis Zemen, as “unfair and backwardly partisan”. I don’t have all the facts to weigh in on the merits of the court decision, i.e. as to whether the weekly was denied justice as it claims or is being a sore loser. Nonetheless, its bitter complaint is indeed attention grabbing.

The editorial, among other things, lamented that Addis Zemen continues to make false allegations against it and that the country’s oldest newspaper uses vulgar language in an attempt to defame Awramba. Moralizing that vulgar language is a token of ignorance and backwardness, the editorial expressed its concern that civility and tolerance are currently in short supply, and thereby warned that this may ultimately harm the country and its future.

Whilst reading the editorial, I couldn’t help but think, “Look who is talking!” I mean, as a regular Awramba Time reader, I’ve come to know the weekly as one that is highly dismissive of views it doesn’t endorse, and plays a polarizing role. If there’s a single newspaper in the country that beats it in the race to the bottom – i.e. in intolerance and being a source of sensationalized news and unsubstantiated allegations against individuals, groups or institutions it doesn’t see eye to eye – it’d be the notoriously unjust Amharic weekly, Feteh, whose name literally yet ironically means justice.

I didn’t even have to look for past Awramba Time publications to cite incriminating words and statements of intolerance to make a case in point. In the same July 09 edition, in a column titled “Beser’at lye be’er mansat” (“Picking up the pen against the system”), for instance, the author vents his wrath on “so-called writers” (keep in mind the difficulty he has to recognize someone, who happens not to share his view, as a ‘writer’).

The author goes on with his ranting and name calling spree against people who, he alleges, “put their personal interests first; manipulate the public to enrich themselves; are more concerned about their overcooked shiro [a stew made out of powdered chickpeas] than the lack of justice in the country; chew on both sides of their mouth; are unaccountable to their conscience; crisis creators” and, my favourite, “anti-society zombies”. It makes me wonder how this type of language escaped the editors’ watchful eyes for “ignorance and backwardness”, or did it have an enlightening and progressive tone to it when used by one of their own? (Hence, the title “Journalist, Edit Thyself” is found fitting for this article.)

What’s more, this new columnist on the block has a beef with educated individuals whom he condemns as sellouts who have “traded their education to fill their pockets and stomachs”. This is not even inclusive of all the colorful language he used, but you get the picture. If the author had anything kind to say, it was reserved for fellow writers who share his view, and express themselves in the same manner, and perhaps with no manner, as he does.

Interestingly, he concludes with a quote from 18th. century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Man was born free yet we find him everywhere chained”. On that note, may I offer my unsolicited advice to the author to start looking inwards lest he himself is chained to the pole of smugness and intolerance,.

I wish this was an isolated incident from one writer who can’t curb his enthusiasm for lashing out, and seems to get a kick out of using the enemy-other as his punching bag. Unfortunately, such is pretty much the message Awramba Time et al. deliver week after week and page after page in their publications. This raises the question, why is it hard for them to see what they’re doing is exactly the same as what they accuse their real or constructed enemies of?

This is something they may have to explain, but there indeed are the usual suspects and repeat offenders to subpoena to the court of public opinion. And the first is the familiar political culture of intolerance that is the product of the zero sum political game, which continues to cause road rage on the unpaved, unfamiliar and congested political highway to democracy.

No one, of course, should be denied the right to criticize or promote his/her political view or public policy alternative as the best option for the country. However, that can and should be done without having to resort to demonizing political rivals, and alleging that the other has evil intentions. Let’s briefly look at one current and relevant example.

The ruling party is leading the country on a clearly defined political platform of developmental state principles as the shortest, safest and guaranteed route to salvaging the country from centuries of underdevelopment and poverty to a new era of growth and socioeconomic prosperity. To that end, the government is doing its utmost to rally the people behind its agenda, and is putting all its efforts to achieving the intended goals. As a result, reputable international institutions are recognizing the progress made in this area, and economically developed countries are now paying serious attention to Ethiopia which wasn’t the case a decade or so ago.

This doesn’t mean, however, that there are no issues of concern that need to be addressed. In that case, it’s the media’s responsibility and duty to identify, and bring them to the public’s attention for discussion and eventual action by policy and decision makers. But the way to do that is not by hitting below the belt; instigating a conspiracy theory; alleging politicians have a hidden agenda and ill will to harm the country and what not, which totally discredits the medium and undermines the message.

In contrast, legitimate concerns and criticisms will attract attention and win public support if they effectively pinpoint the unwanted byproducts of government economic policies, and thereby recommend viable solutions. Furthermore, when it comes to those with the view that the status quo is not working at all, the onus is on them to come up with a preferable and clearly defined economic alternative, and try to “sell” it to the people.

The second culprit is the tendency to be well aware of one’s rights and privileges, but thoughtlessly or opportunely ignore the duties and responsibilities. And, in my view, many journalists in Ethiopia are the worst victims of this syndrome. They are quick to speak loud and clear in defense of their freedom of speech, but ignore the fact that the freedom comes with societal and professional responsibility.

To sum up, unless the press in Ethiopia starts looking inward as much as it looks outward, and is ready to change its way, I’m afraid that it would continue to be a source for ranting, name calling and editorial self-pity and, in effect, nothing more than the guardian and promoter of a “culture of complaint” and dissent.

the author can be conntacted at teshailu@gmail.com

Ethiopia: Apocalypse Now or in 40 Years?

In October, 2009, I wrote a weekly commentary titled, “Famine and the Noisome Beast in Ethiopia”:

It is hard to talk about Ethiopia these days in non-apocalyptic terms. Millions of Ethiopians are facing their old enemy again for the third time in nearly forty years. The Black Horseman of famine is stalking that ancient land. A year ago, Meles Zenawi's regime denied there was any famine. Only ‘minor problems’ of spot shortages of food which will ‘be soon brought under control,’ it said dismissively. The regime boldly predicted a 7-10 percent increase in the annual harvest over 2007. Simon Mechale, head of the country's Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency, proudly declared: ‘Ethiopia will soon fully ensure its food security.’… Zenawi's regime has been downplaying and double-talking the famine situation. It is too embarrassed to admit the astronomical number of people facing starvation in a country which, by the regime's own accounts, is bursting at the seams from runaway economic development.

I concluded with a rhetorical question:

Images of the human wreckage of Ethiopia's rampaging famine will soon begin to make dramatic appearances on television in Western living rooms. The Ethiopian government will be out in full force panhandling the international community for food aid. Compassion fatigued donors may or may not come to the rescue. Ethiopians, squeezed between the Black Horseman [Scriptural metaphor for famine] and the Noisome Beast [Scriptural metaphor for evil beasts that terrify the land], will once again cry out to the heavens in pain and humiliation as they await for handouts from a charitable world. Isn't that a low down dirty shame for a proud people to bear?

In January 2010, I followed up with another commentary titled Ethiopia’s “Silently” Creeping Famine challenging the “famine deniers.” At the time, Mitiku Kassa, a top official of Zenawi’s regime had declared: ‘In the Ethiopian context, there is no hunger, no famine... It is baseless [to claim hunger or famine], it is contrary to the situation on the ground. It is not evidence-based. The government is taking action to mitigate the problems.’ Kassa issued assurances that his regime had launched a food security program to ‘enable chronic food insecure households attain sufficient assets and income level to get out of food insecurity and improve their resilience to shocks...and halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.’ Zenawi was entirely dismissive: “Famine has wreaked havoc in Ethiopia for so long, it would be stupid not to be sensitive to the risk of such things occurring. But there has not been a famine on our watch -- emergencies, but no famines.”

It is now July 2011 and the Black Horseman is standing at the gate. No more “emergencies”, just plain old-fashioned famine. This time it is the international aid agencies that are frantically sounding the 5-alarm famine. They warn that if donors do not provide substantial emergency food aid to 12 million people now, there will be famine of Biblical-proportions in Ethiopia and other neighboring countries unseen in the last 60 years. UNICEF warns that “millions of children and women are at risk from death and disease unless a rapid and speedy response is put into action.”

The silently creeping famine was visible to anyone who bothered to study the periodic reports of the aid agencies (and read between the lines) and regularly monitored the “famine early warning systems” over the past few years. But until now, no aid agency or donor country could force itself to use the “F” word. Political correctness had trumped the truth and the welfare of millions. The very aid agencies that are now frothing at the mouth sounding the alarm of a doomsday famine were describing the problem for the last few years in terms of “severe malnutrition”, “food shortages”, “acute food security phases” "food insecurity, scarcity, insufficiency and deprivation", "chronic dietary deficiency", "endemic malnutrition" and other clever phrases. They simply could not call a spade a spade. But famine by any other name is still famine. The “severe malnutrition” of yesterday has become today’s famine silently spreading to consume 12 million people.

Apocalypse in 40 Years?

Lately, everybody has been talking about facts and figures. It’s been all about percentages. Meles Zenawi says between now and 2015 Ethiopia’s economy will be growing at 12-15 percent a year. Recently, he told his party members: “We have devised a plan which will enable us to produce surplus and be able to feed ourselves by 2015 without the need for food aid.” That plan is anchored in what Zenawi calls “agricultural development–led industrialization” (ADLI), which purports to focus intensively on agriculture by technologically boosting the low level of productivity of small scale farmers and commercially linking them to the non-agricultural (industrial) sector. Zenawi says by 2015 extreme poverty in Ethiopia will be cut by 50 percent along with hunger (“severe malnutrition”) consistent with the U.N. Millennium Development Goals. The Ethiopian currency has been devalued by 20 percent over the past year. The annual inflation rate is galloping at 34.7 percent according to official reports (likely much higher). The International Monetary Fund predicts Ethiopia will likely have economic growth of 7.5 percent in 2011. On the political side, Zenawi said he won the May 2010 election by 99.6 percent. But lost in the stacks of fantasy percentages is a little big 3 percent that will ultimately determine the survivability of the Ethiopia people.

Last week, the U.S. Census Bureau had frightening predictions for Ethiopia, Nigeria and India. By 2050, India will be the most populous nation in the world, bypassing China sometime in the mid-2020s. Nigeria’s current population of 166 million will explode to 402 million. In just four decades, Ethiopia's population will more than triple to 278 million, placing that country in the top 10 most populous countries in the world.

Ethiopia’s population growth has been spiraling upwards for decades. In 1967, the population was 23.5 million. It increased to 51 million in 1990 and by 2003, it had reached 68 million. In 2008, that number increased to 80 million. The Census Bureau estimates Ethiopia’s population today at 91 million. Since 1995, the average annual rate of population growth has remained at over 3 percent.

Every government and regime in Ethiopia over the past one-half century has blamed famine on “acts of God.” For the last two decades, the current regime has blamed “food shortages”, “chronic or severe malnutrition”, “food insecurity”, etc., on “poor and erratic rains,” “drought conditions,” “deforestation and soil erosion,” “overgrazing,” and other “natural factors”. Zenawi’s regime even had the brazen audacity to blame “Western indifference” and “apathy” in not providing timely food aid for the suffering of starving Ethiopians. There is not a single instance in which any Ethiopian government or regime has ever taken even partial responsibility for food shortages, extreme malnutriion or failure to act and prevent starvation and famine.

The issue of “food security” aside, the central question is: Does Zenawi have a policy to deal with the little big 3 percent problem?

In 1993, Zenawi’s “Transitional Government of Ethiopia” in its “National Population Policy of Ethiopia” (NPPE) declared that “its major goal [was] the harmonization of the rate of population growth and the capacity of the country for the development and rational utilization of natural resources thereby creating conditions conductive to the improvement of the level of welfare of the population.”

Among the major objectives of the NPPE included “closing the gap between high population growth and low economic productivity through planned reduction of population growth…, reducing the rate to urban migration, reducing the current total fertility rate of 7.7 children per woman to approximately 4.0 by the year 2015… mounting an effective country wide population information and education programme addressing issues pertaining to small family size and its relationship with human welfare and environmental security.”

Among the strategies to be used in achieving these objectives included “expanding clinical and community based contraceptive distribution services, raising the minimum age at marriage for girls from the current lower age limit of 15 to, at least, 18 years, making population and family life related education and information widely available via formal and informal media”, facilitating delivery of population and family planning related services by non-governmental organizations and changing the law “to remove unnecessary restrictions pertaining to the advertisement, propagation and popularization of diverse conception control methods.”

Given the fact that the average annual rate of population growth in Ethiopia has remained at over 3 percent since 1995,commenting on the NPPE is belaboring the obvious.

Will There Be Ethiopia in 2050?

Whether Ethiopia survives as a viable nation in 2050 free of war, disease, pestilence and famine will not depend on an imaginary 15 percent economic growth or a ludicrous 99.6 percent election victory. It will depend on what is done to deal with the little big 3 percent problem. In other words, overpopulation poses the single most critical problem and decisve issue in Ethiopia today and the years to come.

Thomas Malthus, the 18th Century British economist argued that human population, if unchecked, tends to grow much faster than the capacity of the land to produce food. He explained that population can be controlled through “preventive checks” (such as family planning, wide use of contraceptives to slow growth, marriage at later age) or “positive checks” (mortality caused by war, disease, plague, disaster). The bottom line is that if Ethiopia cannot adequately feed, clothe and shelter 90 million of its people today, there is no way on earth she can do so for 278 million in just 40 years. If the “Malthusian catastrophe” is what is looming on the Ethiopian horizon, the outcome is predictable and certain: massive starvation and famine, extreme overcrowding, endemic poverty, total depletion of natural resources and massive environmental degradation. Widespread and extreme civil strife, conflict over scarce resources and epidemics will complete the grim picture.

What needs to be done is pretty clear. As the Indian economics Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has convincingly argued, the best way to avert famines (and simultaneously deal with the underlying problem of overpopulation) is by institutionalizing multiparty democracy and strengthening human rights: “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy” because democratic governments “have to win elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.”

Ethiopia’s famine today is a famine borne of “food scarcity” as much as it is a famine borne of a scarcity of democracy and good governance. Ethiopians are famished for democracy, starved of human rights, thirst for the rule of law, ache for accountability of those in power and yearn to breathe free from the chokehold of dictatorship. But after two decades of one-man, one-party rule, we do not even see the ghost of democracy on Ethiopia’s parched landscape. We can only see a malignant and entrenched dictatorship that continues to cling to power like ticks on a milk cow; and in the dark and gloomy 40-year Ethiopian horizon, we see the specter of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse aiming their swords, spears and arrows against a defenseless population of 278 million. Our only shield is a genuine multiparty democracy that functions under the rule of law!