Crystallizing the issues, bringing focus to the discussion of Alliance formation and the very nature of the Ethiopian Identity post TPLF/EPRDF

By GEZEW DERESE

August 26th, 2011 Print Email

In the last few months, the focus of discussion within the involved Diaspora has and remains to be about forming alliance among the opposition. This issue has unraveled fundamental differences and hot debates among many regarding the necessity and practicality of alliance formation, national unity, ethnic politics and the very nature of the post-TPLF/EPRDF Ethiopian identity.

The campaign for the hearts and minds of Ethiopians is in full swing. It is, hence, imperative to raise some hard questions at this juncture in our history so that we may all make informed decision on the choices in front of us.

For now, I would like to focus on what I would characterize as unclear direction being pursued by Ginbot-7, OLF and ONLF. In my opinion, the time has come to stop the free ride and demand a clear vision to the fundamental questions openly and unequivocally. It is my sincere hope that by so doing, it will help us to see clearly the strength and weaknesses of each vision.

Today is hardly the time to continue giving our leaders the benefit of the doubt and a “leap of faith”. For democracy and justice to prevail, now or in the future Ethiopia we envision to build, we must demand openness and accountability from the actors in the filed. Demanding clarification and debating on pertinent issues with respect is good for democracy. And it is in this spirit that I will highlight some of the issues that I believe require an honest examination and response from the responsible organizations.

1. Are ONLF and OLF pursuing “freedom /separation” from Ethiopia or just freedom from injustice within a united Ethiopia?

One of the major concerns of Ethiopians about the ONLF and OLF has been and continues to be the stated goals and desires of the two organizations. Based on their programs, their stated positions as articulated by their leaders on many occasions, it is evident that both are fighting to “liberate from the colonialist Ethiopia”.

Irrespective of what the G7-leadership and some unofficial spokespersons of the same tend to claim, the two organizations have not yet refuted this fact.. Nevertheless, G7 and some of its supporters seem to be passionately engaged in a campaign to paint a new picture, minimize its relevance or outright force us to turn our attention away from this reality.

Two recent articles that were released to the general public almost the same day by Ato Efrem Madebo - member of the leadership of G7 and by Dr Getachew Begashaw - the unofficial spokesperson of the current G7, OLF, and ONLF project, beg more questions than answer.

Part of Ato Ephrem’s article reads, I quote: “It’s bizarre and it’s really unfortunate that most of the recent naysayers and scribblers read what is not written and try to tell us their faith than what they think. For example, they are all over OLF, but they don’t even know what the acronym OLF/ ኦነግ stands for – they try to be more catholic than the pope by giving the OLF a new name. OLF (Oromo Liberation Front) is not የኦሮሞ ነፃ አውጪ ግምባር - it is (የኦሮሞ ነፃነት ግምባር). The difference between the two is as opposed as black and white (I’m talking color, not people). Please don’t tell us what you believe in, tell us what you think that and only that is what we can share and grow with.”

In this article, Ato Ephrem is clearly telling us, although timidly, that “OLF’s desire is not to liberate/separate Oromiya from Ethiopia but to have an Oromiya that has achieved freedom from tyranny subjugation, etc.” In a way, we are told they are fighting for justice and equality and not necessarily separation.

On Sunday, August 14, 20011, during an interview on Alula AbaNega Paltalk room Dr Getachew Begashaw reiterated the same message when he said “ኦነግ ነጻ ኦሮሚያን እመሠርታለሁ ሲል ሰምቼ አላውቅም” “I have never heard OLF stating that they want to form an independent Ormiya” (see Allula http://www.abugidainfo.com/amharic/?p=6954 ),Well, contradictions notwithstanding, nothing can be further from the truth. Let us see a few facts:

1. The OLF program clearly declares that: “The Oromo Liberation Front [OLF] is a political organization that is struggling for the realization of the national self-determination for the Oromo people and the establishment of independent state of Oromiya”. http://www.oromoliberationfront.info/objectives.htm

More recently, in a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General B. Moon, Mr, Daud Ibsa of the OLF wrote and we quote: “The Oromo people’s struggle for freedom is the natural outcome of occupation by an alien force - the Ethiopian regime. Such right, the struggle against foreign occupation and for self determination, is recognized by international community including the UN.”(OLF letter to Ban Ki-Moon, August 9, 2011)

2. Regarding ONLF, the following is what is openly stated in their web site “Fundamental Considerations of the ONLF”
A) The Ogaden cause is not at the heart of a dispute between the Republic of Somalia and Ethiopia. It is one of the visages of European colonialism in Africa. It is the cause of a nation betrayed by Britain and other colonial powers and annexed by Ethiopia in a manner contrary to the agreements concluded between the Ogaden people and Britain and in conflict with International Law and the Charter of the United Nations.
B) The struggle of the People of Ogaden and the aim of their movement is to obtain the right of self-determination rather than a struggle aimed at realizing the identity of a nationality. This is because Ogaden has never been historically or politically part of Ethiopia. http://onlf.org/?page_id=14
If the above is not a clear statement for separation, if this is not የኦሮሞ ነፃ አውጪ ግምባር; if this is not a vision of establishing an independent Oromiya and Ogaden(ia), what then is it?

In my opinion, what is required from a political figure is a straight talk, look at the painful facts and tell it as it is. When it comes to such important issue as a sovereignty of a nation, no one should be allowed to play with definition etc. I submit that the public has full right to demand full accountability from politicians I this regard.

I would like to invite the readers to look at the facts and be the judge themselves.

Interestingly, here is what Ato Efrem Madebo wrote in 2006 conflicting his present position on the same subject and get perplexed:“ As we all know, in the last twenty five years, the armed wing of the OLF was in action to separate Oromia from Ethiopia…(Enset: Article 39, AFD and the Oromo Liberation Front. Efrem madebo, 2006, www.enset.org/2006/06/article-39-afd-and-oromo-liberation.html

So, why would it be “bizarre” in 2011 to repeat what Ato Ephrem wrote in 2006? Have the facts on the ground changed since? Why try to present OLF as some thing that is other than separatism? Based on one’s own present political stand, it appears that Ato Ephrem and Dr Getachew are simply negating their past by simply applying the old saying that runs in Amharic as “መልከ ጥፉን በስም ይደግፉ”.

The fact of the matter is as they say in Amharic “Azelem Alu Akefe, hulum teshekeme new” whether you say የኦሮሞ ነፃ አውጪ ግምባር OR የኦሮሞ ነፃነት ግምባር OLF’s mission is to “liberate Ormoia from Ethiopian colonialism”. In plain language OLF’s and ONLF’s stated goal is to dismantle Ethiopia. This is the fact and G7 has the duty and responsibility towards its members and the general public to state this fact in no uncertain terms and stop sugarcoating the real desire of these organizations. It is time to come clean.

This issue becomes even more important and highly curious hence demanding of an immediate response when G7 leaders like Ato Andargachew Tsgie clearly state that” we should not use the phrase “Ethiopian unity” while perusing collaboration with different political forces. According to Ato Andargachew, a lot of crime has been perpetuated in the name of unity” (debate on ESAT between Meto Aleqa Ayalsew Dessie and Ato Andargachew). Therefore, according to him, we should not use this phrase as there are those who would be offended by the term “Ethiopian unity”. I find this statement to be insulting to the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians who stand proudly behind “Ethiopian unity “.
And I believe, it is imperative that G7 provide clarification on this issue without delay.

2. What about Art. 39, have we not listened to the people’s message yet?

Another issue that requires immediate clarity is the position of each political party ( or movement ) on the issue of “self determination up to secession”.

The core policy of the TPLF, as enshrined in its constitution under Article 39, is the article of separation into fiefdoms and kingdoms.

As seen in the last 20 years, Ethiopians passionately hate article 39 for it is divisive and inconveniently chokes the people’s aspirations of unity and territorial integrity of their country. A clear evidence of this and the rejection of a separatist agenda became clearly apparent in Ethiopia in 2005. Openly, the CUD put a political platform stating that they fully reject article 39 and declared that if they won the election and form the next government, they would make it null and void. Weyane on the other hand campaigned for the continuation of its policies including the preservation of article 39.

As we all know, Ethiopians overwhelmingly rejected Weyane and gave mandate to the opposition to govern. Clearly, they spoke that they do not want article 39. Simply put, their word was loud and clear: “no more YERASIN EDIL BE RAS MEWESEN ESKE MEGENTEL, NO MORE REFERENDOM TO SEPARATE FROM ETHIOPIA. We are all Ethiopians within a united and indivisible Ethiopia.” Among other things, this was one major message of the 2005 election.

Additionally, in 2009, MEDREK, a coalition of seven organizations operating on the ground in Ethiopia has completely rejected article 39. This is clearly stated in MEDREKS political program. The highly respected elderly politician Ato Bulcha Demeksa articulated this as follows “Oromos do not want secession from Ethiopia and his party has declared its opposition to the corresponding Article 39 of the current government’s constitution. He told Voice of America (VOA) that his OFDM party, various Oromo and other Ethiopian opposition groups inside the new FDD coalition have put this policy as one of their several uniting causes. Mr. Demeksa added that Article 39 was enforced into the constitution by Meles Zenawi’s TPLF in the early 1990s without the wish of Oromo people and political groups active during the transition period. He said Oromo people want democracy, equality and self-governance “
http://www.jimmatimes.com/article/Latest_News/Latest_News/Opposition_MP_Oromos_dont_want_secession_from_Ethiopia/32694

Let us not forget that OLF and ONLF were on the side of TPLF/EPRDF in their advocacy for article 39 in 2005 too. And that idea of article 39 which is shared among the three was rejected in 2005.

I am not surprised that the OLF and ONLF continue to demand self determination. These two organizations wrongly believe they are colonized by Ethiopia. Therefore, what they are asking for (self determination) is to “get their freedom from the colonizer”. In a way, what OLF and ONLF are asking now is what EPLF had been asking before 1993 As Petros Tesfagiorgis wrote, the reasons for the support of Eritrean born students to the then struggle of the Ethiopian progressive forces was rooted in the following thinking: “the Eritrean progressive students realized that if the oppressive feudal system is replaced by a socialist government the problem in Eritrea could be resolved peacefully based on the right of people to self-determination” (The Role of Haile Sellassie University Progressive Students: Excerpt From The conspiracy theory: Part 2, Petros Tesfagiorgis, Nov 27, 2007, Source www.awate.com )
Clearly, just like the Eritrean separatist groups wanted to use the “progressive force” in the 70’s to implement their dream of liberating Eritrea through self determination, today, OLF and ONLF are trying to do the same on the back of G7 and other Ethiopian forces.

Both in their political programs and in many of their public speeches, OLF and ONLF have said that they are willing to collaborate with other Ethiopians provided they agree to implement “the right to self determination” for the people they say they represent. This is straight forward. What OLF and ONLF want as a condition for working together with the pro Ethiopian groups is the acceptance of “the right to self determination implementation “ or in other words the implementation of TPLF’s Article 39 post-the TPLF regime.

Now, if we are all clear with the goal of the two organizations and their bottom line and/or their pre-conditions for agreeing to work with other organizations, then the issue is to clearly understand what G7’s position is on this issue. When G7 starts to work with (or collaborates with) ONLF and OLF, what have they agreed to regarding holding a referendum as articulated by OLF and ONLF? This is a question that G7 should clarify with no delay whatsoever.

In the article I quoted above in 2006, Mr Ephrem Madebo has said the following about article 39 or the “right of nations to self determination up to secession” Article 39 explicitly endangers Ethiopia’s existence as a nation, and it is included in the constitution against the will of the Ethiopian people. The social and economic development of Ethiopia is highly dependent on the unity of the Ethiopian people, therefore, no Ethiopian would be happy to see an article in his/her constitution that could reduce the size, political, and economic importance of Ethiopia” Enset: Article 39, AFD and the Oromo Liberation Front. Efrem madebo, 2006, www.enset.org/2006/06/article-39-afd-and-oromo-liberation.html
As member of the leadership of G7, does he now support this same concept “self determination “ put forward by ONLF and OLF.

On Sunday August 14, 20011, in an interview with the Alula Aba Nega paltalk room, Dr Getachew Begashaw has openly declared that he supports the referendum demand as articulated by OLF and ONLF ( see Allula http://www.abugidainfo.com/amharic/?p=6954 ), Well, let’s just hope that this was a mistake inadvertently uttered during the heat of the moment or, if not, let’s just hope this becomes clearer down the road.

During the recent ESAT interview with Meto Aleka Ayalsew Dessie, Ato Andargachew has said that while G7 is currently in discussion with OLF and ONLF, at the end, the alliance will be formed only among those who support the unity of Ethiopia. Now it is time to be clear and clean on this issue. Does G7 agree or not with the OLF’s and ONLF;’s demand for self-determination up to and including secession? If the answer is yes, will they also agree to a similar referendum for other Ethnic groups like the Sidamas, Amharas, Gurage’s, Afar’s etc? If this is about the right of one or two “ethnic groups”, does G7 think that other ethnic groups too have the same right? Where does this referendum stop? Does this mean then G7’s vision for post EPRDF/TPLF Ethiopia is to ask all ethnic groups whether they want to be part of Ethiopia or not? Is this the way to build or destroy Ethiopia?
I think it is time for G7 to come clean on this issue too without delay. I believe that this could happen only if we the people demand such clarity and hold the politicians accountable.

3. Awra dirijit “one strong leading organization” or an alliance of equals; are we laying the ground for pluralist future or for dictatorship?

One important issue that is increasingly becoming clear in this debate is whether it is necessary to form an alliance among Ethiopian forces (alliance of equal partners) , or whether alliance formation should revolve around one major leading political party AWRA DIRIJIT

During a debate with Meto Aleka Ayal Sew Dessie on ESAT, Ato Andargachew Tsigie was asked whether his organization, G7, would be willing to start a parallel process of unity /alliance formation with pro Ethiopian forces while continuing its engagement with OLF and ONLF. His answer was simply evasive and derogatory at the same time: “the poor Ethiopian forces are just useless elements”.

While the G7 leaders try for soft landing on this issue, Dr Getachew puts it bluntly in his article entitled “ Why engage in dialog with OLF and others ethno centric organization on the issue of Ethiopian Unity” http://www.abugidainfo.com/amharic/?p=6775

Well, the biggest question in this regard is, so how is this different from the TPLF’s concept of YEABITOYAWI DEMOCRACY leadership?

Few weeks ago, Dr Getachew quoted Eskindir Nega on OLF related issue. I want to remind Dr Getchew that Eskinder has also written about the Stalinist nature of the concept of “Awra/ Mmeri Detigit” or “vanguard party”. This concept of vanguard party has been related to the dictatorship of one party and the manipulation of the political process. Clearly, the concept of “Meri detejit” is a recipe for dictatorship. I believe that Ethiopians are not only interested to remove the TPLF/EPRDF dictatorship and replace it with a new one.I do not want to speculate and say that G7 is preparing to establish dictatorship in Ethiopia. But surely the concept of Awra / Meri Derejit is a recipe for the vicious cycle of dictatorship/s.

So the question that follows must be: do we need an alliance that fosters plurality, or do we really want to build “one strong party” that will lead “every one” to victory and establish a possible dictatorship. History has shows us that whether it comes from TPLF or the opposition “Awra/ Meri Derejit/vanguard party” eventually leads to dictatorship. I would rather stand for pluralism with all its messes than for any form of dictatorship. We have had enough of this for the last four decades! I stand for pluralism with all its challenges and oppose any form of “AWRA / MERI DEREJIT “.

There are also additional questions that could be raised for further clarification. This will include issues such as the relationship with Eritrea, the issue of What is cooking up there and why is G7 implicated on way or another?

The move forward

In my opinion, there are a number of issues that G7 has to clarify without delay. If it wants to enjoy the public support and backing, it is essential that G7 clarifies its position on the above and other major issues pertaining to the current engagement with ONLF and OLF.

The request for clarification should not be seen as an attack on or the provocation of G7. I see G7 as a unity force that has the potential to contribute tremendously to the struggle for the elimination of the TPLF/EPRDF’s dictatorship and replacing it with a democratic system. Unity between G7 and other unity forces is a nightmare for the TPLF’s regime and a sigh of relief for all Ethiopians who want to replace the current ethno-centric regime.

Public participation is the bedrock of citizen empowerment, a democratic culture and the prevention of abuse of power. It is the means by which political leaders and organizations are held accountable. This participation by the public can take many forms including actively writing on topics of interest, engaging in discussion forums and providing opinions on proposed agendas of political organizations and public leaders.

Organizations are led by people and as they say “People learn best when they are fully accountable and when they experience the consequence of their work”. I have no doubt that the current debate will help a lot in shaping and advancing an agenda of common interests among Ethiopians. So I would say, let us keep the debate in a respectful and constructive manner.

God bless Ethiopia

UNESCO pushes to lessen Ethiopia’s scanty power supply by around 2000MW!

By Kelebet Adam

The discourse over trading off environment for the sake of developing human society has become very insensitively and irrationally sensitive subject for people who thinks that they are they only one who cares about mother earth. The three views over nature as to human development efforts are presented below and find yourself which group you would fall in at the end. If you are a politician, there is little room to be bipartisan here and you have to pick one of the three schools of thoughts about nature.

Developmentalist view nature nothing but as one good. They argue that it is out there to be developed and used by human society. They put the human society at the peak of the pyramid. Human-being is a master of this world and hence he has to be free to use nature as he wishes. They see nature as more robust and intact and even inert system that it has already been equipped with self adjusting system. If something goes wrong with nature, it has its own checks and balances and hence no worry as it will take of itself. They argue that human beings interference with nature is trivial as nature is monstrous in size and very complex in its process system to be disordered by humans. They utterly defy the idea that nature is frail and would easily get ruined by human beings. Whereas, environmentalist view nature differently; and accuse the Developmentalist for having very anthropogenic (human-centred) and obstinate view for nature.

The environmentalists try to cool down the hot debate over nature vs development by putting themselves somewhere in between developmentalist and conservationist. They say nature is there to be used by all living things – both the fauna and the flora – equally and responsibly. And human being is the integral but also just one part of the whole nature system and hence shouldn’t be put on the peak of the pyramid but as part within the intricate web of interaction of all parties of this world. All living citizens of this world have a right to exist and human being is just one of them. No more no less. The idea of sustainable usage of all natural resources has a room this school of thought. Use it but responsibly. Make sure the benefits that human beings and other livings things are enjoying today is there fully for the next generation too so they would enjoy what we all have enjoyed this day.

On the other hand, the conservationists take nature just like their religion. For them, nature is untouchable. It should be left the way it has been whatsoever. It shouldn’t be interfered specially by the all-destroying and dictator creature of this world called a human-being. They see humans as number one threat to the nature system. They argue that nature is there only to be conserved. They allegedly argue that human beings have to live like their first dad and mom – Adem and Hawa – eating only berries and fruits from virgin forests; or if humans are tired of eating berries and fruits and wants to change their menu for a while, they can go and eat roots and tree barks with out interfering the frail mother nature so much.

The balance between developmentalist, environmentalist and conservationist has been swaying from one side to the other over period of time. History has been a paramount witness for that balance shift happening over the course of time.

The built environment that we have now today in excess in Europe and North America is hallmark that the developmentalists have been winning the nature vs development debate against the environmentalists and conservationists. Developmentalist were unchallenged and prominent when they were building Europe, North America and Russia while the Environmentalists and Conservationist were in obscurity and force-less to making their case against Developmentalist.

The populous wouldn’t have an ear for Environmentalists and Conservationists view of nature if they were to make their case against development if they were there to begin with, because, the people quest were very basic that they couldn’t get it from the raw nature system. The populous doesn’t want to go starve and hence they stood and toiled big time along with developmentalist when for instance the green revolution over Europe’s agriculture had been unfolding. Mother Nature was experiencing all different kinds of ills from European agricultural revolution when it was in the making.
Ground and Surface waters including lakes and rivers were very much polluted with pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers. Mass fish kill in the lakes, rives and estuaries were not uncommon. Other aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants had been harmed from the negative consequences of the green revolution.

I presume, in this period of time, it would be considered bizarre if one stands up and promotes conservationist and even more moderate view of nature, which is the environmentalist view to the scale we now see this time around on Africa's development efforts. Today’s Africa is way backward in terms of its development compared with then Europe and North America when the green revolution and all that harm on natural systems were foot- marked by humans.

This very same world today has long been witnessing large scale deforestation. This very same world we live in today has experienced and is still facing air pollution from industrial air pollutants. Toxic air pollutants plumed unregulated from big chimneys of Europe’s giant industries to the air until human beings breathe soot in and out and suffer from respiratory illnesses. Europe’s acid rain phenomenon alone is a recent past experience of this very same world we live in today. The London photochemical smog formation incident is still in humans’ fresh memory.

However, with all the mishaps humans had caused and have continue to cause on mother nature, the very same humans slept on their eyes and ears because they were convinced that bread is to be ensured first – because they knew that development will bring answers to most challenges of humans in this world as they live up in nature. Humans knew that they have to make medicines to treat diseases, and to do that they had to build pharmaceutical industries to produce meds in bulk. However that kind of very much needed development would come with zero environmental cost. Humans have been trying their level best to mitigate the environmental damages that they would cause on nature as they are chasing their development agenda as much as they humanly can.

UNESCO has recently asked the Ethiopian government to bring the Gilgel gibe III hydropower project into a complete halt. It is arguing that the Gilgel Gibe III hydropower dam project would endanger one the Africa’s world heritage sites - Lake Turkana ecosystem. UNESCO wants to lay off the 4000 hard working Ethiopian and expat men and women working with this specific project and make them jobless in one day based on baseless and unfounded allegation and unscientific and illogical argument.

As an environmental expert, I am not convinced with the argument that this specific project would harm the Lake Turkana ecosystem. It should rather be argued for the flip side of it. The Lake Turkana and the whole downstream communities would be benefited by this project as the omo river water flow specially during the wet season would be regulated and so they don’t get hit by the flooding. The project would bring solution for the ever present environmental challenges of omo riverine and Lake Turkana communities. As the flow of Omo water would be regulated after this project is finished, the downstream communities would hardly face flooding so they wouldn't be displaced from their lands, houses at times of flooding in the wet season of the year.

Lake Turkana would also be benefited when the flooding that was bringing in the nutrients from the high lands of Ethiopia to enriching the lake's nutrient profile and encourages toxic alagal bloom growth, which would a danger to the fish communities, etc, and form siltation and hence decreasing its effective depth and fastens the natural aging of the lake. With Gilgel Gibe III hydropower project, I see Lake Turkana’s natural age would be extended not be shortened as the water that would get into the lake would have less euthrophiying nutrients and silts.

‘’Heavy rainfall causes the Omo River to flood (June through September), bringing nutrient rich waters into Lake Turkana (Beadle 1981). In the far north of the ecoregion, near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the mean annual precipitation is 1,302 mm/year (Hughes & Hughes 1992).’’

‘’Lake Turkana is 260 km long, with an average width of 30 km, a mean depth of 31 m, and a maximum depth of 114 m. It has an area of approximately 7,560 km² and a volume of 237 km³ (Coulter et al. 1986).’’

‘’Lake Turkana is the largest lake in the eastern portion of the Rift Valley and the fourth largest lake by volume in Africa(Beadle 1981). Lying in a low closed basin at approximately 365 m asl, the lake is situated primarily in northwestern Kenya, with only its northern most end, the Omo Delta, inside Ethiopia. Of the twelve principal rivers that feed Lake Turkana, the River Omo is its only perennial tributary, supplying over 90% of the lake’s inflow (Beadle 1981). ‘’

To make a case to the world that one of the fourth largest lakes of Africa with 260km length and with a surface area covering close to 7, 560km2 is being threatened by these small nothing but hydropower projects that the poor Ethiopia is trying accomplish is unconvincing to say the least. This view that Nature is very frail and will die with even little human interference is purely conservationist view as presented above, and has no place in today’s Africa.

Africa needs development badly. Ethiopia is one of very poorest countries of Africa and of the world. Ethiopians mothers die from birth complications and related medical conditions, children die in Africa in thousands because of lack of basic access to heath care services. Millions have to be put on emergency food aid every year. There are none or little infrastructures such as roads, telecommunication, clean and wholesome water supply and sanitation facilities in the continent. And so on.

For Africa to change itself within short period of time, it has to develop all sectors most importantly its agriculture and then manufacturing. To do all that Energy is the single most essential input. With out Energy there is no way Africa would develop. The most environmental friendly way of generating energy (electric) has been hydropower in the case of Africa and hence it has to continue exhaustively and also responsibly invest on that sector.

I hope the UNESCO and others who are intentionally or inadvertently working against Africa’s development interest by putting this utopia kind of conservationist view of nature would come to understand the everyday challenges of Africans and to be specific the Ethiopians.

Kelebet Adam

The writer can be reached at z3rdeyegroup@yahoo.com

Does the Nile porject a hidden ‘bomb’ or promise for shared prosperity?

Part III of III
By Aklog Birara, PhD

This paper is third of a series on Ethiopian fascinations concerning the “Arab Spring.” Beyond these current fascinations, there are strategic economic and diplomatic dimensions that require deeper analysis and understanding with regard to relations between Ethiopia on the one hand, and Egypt on the other. I refer to the future development and use of the waters of the Nile River. I know of no other topic in the 21st century that evokes strong emotions and national sentiments in Egypt and Ethiopia than the development and use of the River Nile and its tributaries. These sentiments emanate from the fact that water is among the most precious natural resource assets in the world. It is the source of life, identity, civilization, food self-sufficiency and security, industrialization, potential wealth and security for those who possess it and a source of jealousy for those who do not. People need water to survive. They need fertile or irrigable land to procreate and to produce food. Water meets basic needs. As populations increase and infrastructural and economic demand intensify, governments are obliged to respond to the needs of their societies as a matter of urgency. They have little choice but to harness their water resources for the betterment of their respective societies. Understandably, government officials, experts, academics, and members of civil society from both sides express views that reflect competing national interests. Elementary school children in both countries find themselves growing up with the belief that their respective perception- that is single country-focused – is the most critical; and it is. Ethiopian history, resistances to foreign aggression, honor, and identity emanate largely from its coveted position as the source of the Blue Nile or Abay. When viewed regionally and multilaterally, perceptions on both sides often underestimate the interdependence of riparian nations in general, Ethiopia, and Egypt in particular. For peace to prevail, mutuality must govern relations and the future.

Seifu Metaferia Firew, a well-known Ethiopian poet, expresses the widely held view among Ethiopians that, as the “origin of the Nile, Ethiopia, continues to suffer from water scarcity” and from recurring famine. He suggests that this “shameful” condition continues not because Ethiopia does not possess water; but because its government is unable to “develop, harness, and use” the country’s “vast water resources and silt to dam, irrigate, produce and feed its large and growing population. Ethiopia, he says, loses two ways: “The waters of the massive Abay River (the Blue Nile) flow into the Greater Nile; and that this river takes away millions of tons of fertile soils from the Ethiopian highlands” year after year and provides the material foundation for Egyptian agriculture. At the same time, Ethiopia faces chronic drought, famine, skyrocketing food prices, and hunger. Today, more than 4.5 million Ethiopians endure the worst famine since the 1980s. In light of this, the author suggests that “Someday, I (meaning government), will be held accountable for gross negligence to develop the Abay River” so that Ethiopians will no longer go through the humiliation of hunger, destitution and international food aid dependency. The lack of prioritization in the agricultural sector in general and irrigated farming in particular is now a “national crisis.” The thesis of this chapter is that no current or future government in Ethiopia will survive unless it addresses this fundamental national crisis. To-date, successive Egyptian governments have managed to marginalize Ethiopia and bar it from exploiting its major rivers including the Abay. The fact that Ethiopia is “the water tower of Africa” has meant practically nothing when measured against the food self-sufficiency and security and modernization needs of the country. In contrast, Nile-centered and dependent Egypt has succeeded to meet domestic food demand and to create a strong agric-based industry that employs millions. Egypt has done this by invoking the principle of acquired or “historic rights” while denying Ethiopia fair and equitable share of the Nile. 1/

These two seemingly irreconcilable perspectives and principles lead me to the second thesis of the article. On the Egyptian side is the principle of acquired or “historic rights,” a principle inherited from the colonial era that gives Egypt total hegemony over the Nile. This hegemony clashes with the principles of equitable and fair share, principles that most Sub-Saharan African riparian states now embrace. On the Ethiopian side is the history-based and growing recognition that “historic rights” claimed by Egypt and to some extent Northern Sudan are unjust and unfair, and that colonial and foreign interference-based treaties and legal arrangements are no longer viable or acceptable. One cannot appreciate the depth and breadth of these two contending views unless and until one goes back and examines history. Ethiopia’s claim for fair and equitable allocation is not new at all, and predates pre- Aksumite Empire and the height of Egyptian civilization. The country’s history shows that King Lalibela wanted to build a dam long before dams had become an economic necessity. Emperors such as Zara Yaqob, Yohannes, Teodros, Menelik, Haile Selassie, and leaders such as Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi manifest visions and perspectives that defend Ethiopia’s national interests over its water resources. Emperor Yohannes IV died defending this sacrosanct principle, as did Emperor Teodros. Regardless of regime, Ethiopia and Egypt will remain adversaries over the use of the Nile. At best, they will remain keen competitors in the decades ahead.

Demography may now be destiny

The Nile River has been a major source of contention, rivalry, and animosity between Egypt and Ethiopia since time immemorial. The fundamental role of the Nile in shaping Egyptian life is incontestable. Egyptian civilization is a gift of the Nile six sevenths of the waters of which originate from the Ethiopian highlands. The battle for control and for influence of countries around it predates Egypt’s Pharos. From time to time, it has involved powers beyond riparian states for more than 7,000 years. This tradition to exercise monopoly continued under British imperial rule that imposed binding agreements on riparian nations on behalf of Egypt, a British colony at the time. Egypt signed a Nile Agreement in 1929 that offered it natural and exclusive rights over the Nile. This arrangement begun to unravel only after Sub-Saharan African states gained independence. Until then, Ethiopia stood as the sole voice in defense of the principle of fair and equitable share without success. This Egyptian inherited “historic right” and preponderance has virtually undermined Ethiopia’s legitimate rights to advance its national development by building hydroelectric and irrigation dams. Ethiopian and other independent experts contend that Egypt does not contribute a drop of rain or water to the Nile. Ethiopia contributes 86 percent of the water and uses only 1 percent for irrigation. Thirty percent of Ethiopia’s land mass that covers 385,400 square kilometers is within the Abay River Basin and its tributaries. This provides potential of 3,500,000 hectares of irrigable land, more than sufficient to meet Ethiopia’s food demand for decades. From 1990 to present, the country used only 90,000 hectares of the available potential within this land mass. Given geographic spread, population, and size, Ethiopia possesses geopolitical and demographic advantage unmatched by other riparian states. This enormous potential suggests urgency. Ethiopia’s population of 90 million–the second largest in Africa– will reach 278 million by 2050, the tenth largest in the world. This dramatic demographic shift will have profound economic and political impact not only in the Horn but also in the rest of Africa and the Middle East. This in itself foretells the need for change in the governance of Nile waters. Ethiopia’s legitimacy is firmer than ever before. There is no doubt in my mind that Ethiopia will emerge as a leading economy over the coming 25 to 50 years; if it resolves its current political crisis and establishes inclusive and participatory governance.

Colonial powers and especially Britain tried to tie Ethiopia’s hands at a time when the country was relatively weak. The May 15 1902 Treaty between Britain and so-called “Abyssinia” regulated the frontier between Ethiopia and the Sudan, a British colony. Article III of this treaty states that “The Emperor Menelik engages not to construct or to allow being constructed any work across the Blue Nile, Lake Tana or the Sobat which would arrest the flow of their waters into the Nile, except in agreement with the governments of Great Britain and the Sudan. “ This and the 1929 agreement weakened Ethiopia’s position in that both set a precedent used by Egypt subsequently to justify unfair and unjust arrangements. The Nile Waters Agreement of 1959 between the Republic of the Sudan and the United Arab Republic of Egypt benefitted from colonial precedents to which Ethiopia is not a party. At the center of all these agreements, the economic principles that the River “needs projects for its full control and for increasing its yield for the full utilization of its waters” are under-scored. It is unthinkable to realize development without a project or program. This same principle of project applies to Ethiopia. “Acquired or historic rights” trace their origins to these types of arrangements that conferred on Egypt and the Sudan exclusive rights to develop and use the Nile. Both countries continue to adhere to these outdated agreements as if the world remains static. “The absurdity of the land of the Blue Nile dying of thirst (during the Great Famine of the 1980s in which 1 million lives were lost; and today in which close to five million Ethiopians face death) was combined with fact that Egypt at that time (l980s) was about to face a similar catastrophe,” had rains not started in Ethiopia. This nature-driven interdependence between Egypt and Ethiopia virtually defines the acrimonious links between two competing societies that depend on the same river to achieve the same goals. “The intensive Egyptian-Ethiopian efforts to reach understanding that resumed in the early 1990s have not been facilitated by old legacies of mutual suspicion…Egypt was not only born of the Nile, it also lives by it, and its dependence increases with the pace of modernization and population growth.” The same forces that deepen Egypt’s dependence on the Nile are shaping Ethiopian society at speeds that no one had anticipated in the last century. I am not referring only to demographic change. Ethiopians aspire to achieve rapid and inclusive modernization, and possess the requisite talent pool and material resources to achieve these goals over the coming decades. The various dams built and proposed reflect this achievable goal. 2/

Ethiopian interest in harnessing and developing its water resources for development are not new. Successive Ethiopian governments tried to persuade the Egyptian and Sudanese governments of Ethiopia’s right to invest in its waters to meet changing needs. In 1960, the Imperial government under Emperor Haile Selassie sponsored a hydroelectric and irrigation feasibility study led by the US Bureau of Reclamation. In July 1964, the group identified 71 locations, 31 water, and 19 specific hydroelectric sites on the Abay River. It recommended the construction of hydroelectric dams that would produce 87 billion kilowatt electricity per year, more than sufficient to meet domestic demand. Irrigation dams of varied sizes would irrigate 430, 000 hectares of land and would meet the food security needs of the country for decades. Breakdowns of the proposals suggest the seriousness of the thinking and the sizes of the projects. One such hydroelectric dam would have been bigger than the Aswan Dam that contains 51 million cubic meters of water; and would generate more electricity than the Aswan Dam. The primary locations identified included Lake Tana, Mendassa near the Sudanese border and Makile. The government was able to realize only the Fincha Dam. The newly proposed Millennium Dam is not radically different in dimension or in location from earlier proposals.3/

Why did the other projects fail to come to fruition? The primary reason is Egyptian intransigence and rejection of any move by Ethiopia to develop its waters. The Tana Beles hydroelectric and irrigation project involving five dams near Lake Tana proposed in 1958–that would have benefitted 200,000 farmers under financing from the African Development Bank– was rejected outright by Egypt. The feasibility study conducted by the US Bureau of Reclamation and the Tana Beles project would have effectively transformed the Abay Gorge and Lake Tana into the “primary all-Nile reservoir to supply electricity and irrigation for Ethiopia while significantly enlarging and regulating the amount of water flowing into the Sudan and Egypt. “ The scheme would have benefited Egypt too. Egypt rejected all of the projects and persuaded multilateral financial institutions not to support Ethiopia’s ambitions. This rejection curtailed Ethiopia’s potential in developing its water resources to meet its food demands and to reduce poverty. In 1977, a World Bank study of the Nile concluded that the “Waters of the Nile probably constitute Ethiopia’s greatest natural asset for development. The development of the River Nile in Ethiopia has the potential to contribute significantly to poverty reduction, meet domestic power and food demands, and become a cornerstone of a future export strategy.” 4/

How do riparian states move from intransigence to commonality?

In my view, and as the World Bank study suggests, past arrangements are no longer viable and or acceptable to changing Ethiopian development needs. Governments must recognize the importance of averting the inevitability of war over the Nile. As a step forward, there must be willingness and readiness on all sides to build mutual confidence and trust. Ethiopians feel that the lead responsibility must come from Egypt. In the past and today, Egypt finances(d) and provides()d armaments and safe harbor to secessionist movements such as the Eritrean Peoples’ Liberation Front, the Oromo Liberation Front, the Ogaden Liberation Front, and the Tigray Peoples’ Liberation Front. These and similar activities must cease. The evolving consensus among riparian states and the world community suggests an urgent need for radical shifts in policy and covenants among all parties. Threats and suspicions must give way to win-win options that would serve all parties fairly and equitably. The alternative could be catastrophic for Egypt and Ethiopia in particular. War will have no boundaries; and no one will emerge victorious. Ethiopia is vast enough to develop its water resources without much danger. Those that tried to encircle and weaken it in the past failed because of the unity and patriotism of the population. The key point is that the threat of war is not a viable option. No one including Egypt can win a war that will engulf the entire region. Egypt and Ethiopia need one another not only to survive but also to thrive. Egypt’s priority is to ensure that it has adequate water flow. Ethiopia’s first priority is to achieve food self-sufficiency and security for its growing population. It cannot cope with demand until and unless it harnesses and develops its water resources as optimally as possible without affecting Egypt adversely. Hydroelectric and irrigation infrastructure at a massive-scale is a prerequisite in achieving this urgent goal for Ethiopia. This is a matter of survival, sovereignty, and national security for Ethiopia and Ethiopians.

In light of the above, Ethiopians within and outside the country agree that fair and equitable allocation and use of the Nile is a necessity. The vast majority of 11 riparian states, including South Sudan, endorse this fundamental principle. The Ethiopian government, other riparian states, and independent experts point out to successful examples in the rest of the world where riparian nations negotiated fair and equitable allocation and use of major rivers such as the Mekong, the Amazon, Indus/Ganges, and Okavango. Ethiopian experts suggest that the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) of 1999 provides an institutional framework for genuine negotiations and program implementation that will lead to cooperative development of the Nile. Egypt places numerous conditions on NBI to undermine its effectiveness. Professor Majeed Rahman recognizes that Ethiopia has needs too and points out that “Egypt’s defiance of the NBI and its lack of participation in the NBI’s initial attempt to convene such a cooperative agreement is a crucial aspect of the NBI’s objective to consolidate through cooperation in the negotiation for equitable distribution.” This lack of engagement from and inflexibility by Egypt leads Rahman to conclude that Egypt “has denied other riparian countries complete access to water resources along the Nile and for that matter has exercised her hegemonic power over the development and control of water resources in the Nile River Basin for decades.” 5/

Tesfaye Tadesse believes that Egyptian government attitude in maintaining the status quo began to change slightly for three fundamental reasons:

I)”Pressure” from the global community including the World Bank and UNDP;
ii) “Threats” from riparian states that they will go ahead and develop their waters with or without Egyptian consent; and,
iii) “Changes in Egyptian public and political” sentiments. 6/

This turned out to be an optimistic view in that the Egyptian government has dragged its feet with the hope that other riparian states will be willing to wait for decades more patiently. Egypt continues to adhere to its hard-line policy of maintaining the status-quo. Against this, Ethiopia pursues its ambitious water infrastructure project at a pace never witnessed in the country’s history. This includes “the controversial multibillion-dollar Nile River (Millennium) Dam that could supply 5,000 megawatt of electricity for itself and its neighbors including newcomer South Sudan. “ Ethiopia plans to build four additional dams, “together, 20 dams either built or planned– the largest number in Africa.” Concerns include the environment and the political and diplomatic fallout that could ensue. “Egypt and North Sudan have expressed concern that the mega dam project could seriously reduce the downstream water flow of the Nile River to their countries. “ As worrisome is the lack of a proper environmental and social assessment by the Ethiopian government. In my mind, the Ethiopian government did not consider smaller irrigation and hydroelectric dams that are more cost effective and less costly to maintain. Further, the government initiated these mammoth projects at a time when it is granting millions of hectares of irrigable farmlands to foreign investors from 36 foreign countries. 7/

Is there a way out?

In my view, the most sensible way forward is to accommodate the needs and aspirations of all riparian nations in a fair, equitable and balanced manner. The World Bank, the Canadian Development Agency (CIDA) and the UNDP tried to promote shared, fair and equitable use of the Nile through the auspices of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). It is clear that no single state should have monopoly over the Nile. Article 5 of the UN General Assembly Convention A/51/869, 1997 on the Law of Non-navigational uses of International watercourses recognizes the need for “equitable and reasonable utilization and participation” explicitly. “Watercourse states shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner,” with the intent of serving their social, economic, hydraulic, ecological, conservation, and development needs. NBI is consistent with this UN mandate. This first multilateral initiative provides a solid framework for the 11 riparian states: Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, North Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda representing more than 300 million people that depend on the Nile to pursue a shared vision and set of programs along the following lines:

• “Develop the Nile in a sustainable and equitable manner to ensure prosperity, security, and peace for all its peoples;
• “Ensure cooperation and joint action between riparian countries seeking win-win gains;
• “Target poverty eradication and promote economic integration; and
• “Ensure the program results in a move from planning to action.” 8/

These objectives are noble but require political will. Many years after NBI, there are yet no clear commitments and or political will to advance a cooperative approach. The current impasse on the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) curtailed by Egypt and North Sudan has not been helpful in moving from rhetoric to action. My own view is that it is tantamount to madness for anyone to use force or the threat of force against any African state that assets its right to use its waters to dam, irrigate and feed its starving population. The Egyptian position “We want historical use of the Nile water to be recognized by other Nile Basin countries because this is the only source of water we have,” before it would sign the agreement is irresponsible and restrains MBI. Egypt insists on the three preconditions:

1) Maintain its share of 55.5 billion m3 of water” per the 1959 Treaty;
2) Prior notification by upstream states before they can construct hydroelectric and other projects; and
3) Basin decisions to be mad by consensus not majority vote” giving Egypt veto power. 9/

These three preconditions prevent an otherwise promising agreement from bearing fruit. The spring 2011 high level Egyptian delegation to Ethiopia mirrors the emerging reality on the Nile that requires compromise rather than confrontation. All sides must recognize that fair and equitable allocation of the waters of the Nile is here to stay. Although controversial, the proposed Millennium Dam has galvanized a cross-section of the Ethiopian population. Ethiopia is going ahead with this mammoth project without prior notification thereby reinforcing its sovereignty over waters within its own borders. This is a position many Ethiopian experts defend. Ethiopians may disagree on many political and ideological issues. Disagreement concerning the legitimate right of Ethiopia to use its water resources for the betterment of its people and for its national security should not be among them. 10/

I should like to conclude this article with an optimistic note that riparian nations can derive substantial benefits from a cooperative rather than from unilateral approaches in the use of the Nile River. I am convinced that meaningful dialogue, negotiation and confidence-building rather than destructive and costly confrontation should usher in a new era of cooperative development and shared benefits for the populations of member countries. Within this spirit, governments have an obligation to their respective people to draw upon the state of the art technical, hydraulic, environmental and water resource knowledge and experience that will ensure sustainability and peace, avail waters, protect long-term security, reduce un-necessary sedimentation and loss and promote greater regional economic integration. This is the only legacy that makes sense. It is natural that Ethiopians admire the Egyptian people’s revolution on its own merit. They cannot afford to ignore the adversarial and contentious relations between the two countries that predate Egypt’s Pharos and the Aksumite Empire.

Reference notes
One/ Firew, M. Seifu, Abay: Fengie yekebere wuha. Daraku Publishing Inc. Boston, 2009. The author presents a penetrating notion that, left unaddressed, the Abay River contains the ingredients of a massive “bomb buried in water” and waiting to explode. The Amharic symbolism is not academic. The current famine in the Ogaden and persistent hunger among the Ethiopian population suggest that the demand on the government to respond will be far greater in the future, than it has been over the past 3,000 years of Ethiopian history.
Two/ Haggai, Erlic, the Cross-and the River: Ethiopia, Egypt, and the Nile. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder. 2012. Haggai brings to the debate on the Nile a feature often ignored by most experts on the Nile, namely, the broader cultural, historical, religious, and other relationships between Egypt and Ethiopia that reveal commonalities. One commonality is the Coptic faith. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country with strong links to the Egyptian population that belongs to the Coptic faith. This long tradition in the evolution of this faith and Ethiopia’s capacity to accommodate all three major faiths: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam portend potential for mutuality that both sides must explore and strengthen.
Three/ US Bureau of Reclamation, Land and Water Resources of the Blue Nile. Addis Ababa. July 1964. The Bureau identified that Ethiopia possessed ample irrigable land to meet food self-sufficiency and security for decades to come. Ethiopia would have avoided hunger and would have managed famines on its own if it translated these projects into action.
Four/ The World Bank, “The World Bank, Ethiopia and the Nile: a strategy for Ethiopia.” Washington, DC. 1998. Internal draft document. While the Bank endorses Ethiopia’s fundamental rights in the development of the Nile to meet growing demand, it has refrained from financing major hydroelectric and irrigation dam projects. In fact, it role in agricultural development has been disappointing. The Bank continues to present analytical and policy pieces without backing them with real resources.
Five/ Rahman, A. Majeed, the Geopolitics of Water in the Nile Basin. Global Research. July 24, 2011. Rahman points out the danger of war in the event that a win-win solution that will serve all parties cannot be reached. In my view, the NBI provides a good framework for further negotiator.
Six /Tafesse, Tesfaye. Water conflict resolution and institution building in the Nile Basin. Monograph 178. Institute for Security Studies.
Seven/Than, Ken. Ethiopia: why a massive dam on Nile? National Geography News. July 14, 2011.
Eight/International Roundtable: the Nile: sharing experiences, sharing visions. Berlin. 2002
Nine/ Wolde Giorgis, Hailu. Le Abay Wuha Mugit. Addis Ababa University Press. 2001.
Ten/Ibid.

Ethiopia: Starve the Beast, Feed the People!

By Alemayehu G. Mariam

Americans fed up with uncontrolled deficit government spending are often heard invoking a familiar battle cry: “Starve the Beast!” In other words, no more taxpayer dollars for wasteful government spending.
I say we stand up to the to Western donors and loaners who continue to support the criminal regime of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia and declare: “Starve the Beast, Feed the People!” No more aid to a regime that clings to power by digging its fingers into the ribs of starving children. No more aid to torturers and human rights violators. No aid to election thieves. No aid to those who roll out a feast to feed their supporters and watch their opponents starve to death. Let’s shout in a collective voice to the West -- America, England, Germany, the European Union, the IMF, World Bank and the rest of them--: “Starve the bloated beast feeding on the Ethiopian body politics, and help feed the starving people.”

Least Developed Countries showed that Ethiopia is a top exporter of illicit capital at USD$8.4 billion.

read more

Isssias Girl Sophia Tesfamariam strike again

The other day, I was talking to an Ethiopian friend of mine
who found himself apologizing for the minority regime’s latest diplomatic faux
pas. He was referring to the latest
Ethiopian “diplomatic” charade at the UN Security Council. He was having a hard
time understanding how any Ethiopian would stop so low as to deprive Eritreans
of the right to development. No apologies necessary. I told him that Eritreans
know full well that the people of Ethiopia
never harbored such evil and willful thoughts about Eritrea or Eritreans. I explained
to him that the “crab mentality” was unique to the minority regime in Ethiopia and
its ignominious leaders.

For those who don’t know about “crab mentality” is, it’s an
attitude that afflicts those, such as the regime in Ethiopia and its Tigrayan leaders, who
suffer from inferiority complex. The
term “crab mentality” is used to describe a kind of selfish, short-sighted
thinking which runs along the lines of “if I can't have it, neither can you.”
This term refers to people who pull other people down, denigrating them rather
than letting them get ahead or pursue their dreams. The regime’s delusions of
grandeur prevent it from facing the facts on the ground and for facing its own
inadequacies.

This concept references an interesting phenomenon which
occurs in buckets of crabs. If one crab attempts to escape from a
bucket of live crabs, the other crabs will pull it back down, rather than
allowing it to get free. Sometimes, the crabs seem almost malicious, waiting
until the crab has almost escaped before yanking it back into the
pot. All of the crabs are undoubtedly aware of the fact that their fate is
probably not going to be very pleasurable, so people are led to wonder why they
pull each other back into the bucket, instead of congratulating the clever
escape artist.

For the last 10 years, the minority regime in Ethiopia and its mercenaries have undermined Eritrea’s
development and food security policies. It ridiculed Eritrea’s National Service program,
the Warsay Yikaalo program for development and labeled it “slavery”. Today,
instead of learning from Eritrea, which has managed to develop its war torn
economic infrastructures using its own human and material resources, built
hospitals, clinics and schools to improve the quality of life for its citizens,
and built the necessary agricultural infrastructures to ensure food security
for its people, the regime, in what has to be the ugliest forms of jealousy, is
now trying to strangulate Eritrea’s economy and prevent it from reaching its
potentials. Inflicted with this “crab mentality”, the minority regime is hell
bent on destroying Eritrea
and if need be, taking all of the Horn of Africa down with it.

As an Ethiopian, he was embarrassed by the regime’s attitude
towards Eritrea
and its people. He recounted the time in 1998-2000, when the bigoted minority
regime expelled over 80,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin because
Meles Zenawi did not like the “color of their eyes”. He mentioned the terror
experienced by Eritrean fathers, mothers and children when they were awoken by
security officers in the wee hours of the morning, yanked out of their beds and
thrown out of their homes, to be rounded up and deported across mine filled
borders. He recounted the agony and fear experienced by Eritrean children who
were left to fend for themselves, breastfeeding infants abandoned in empty
homes. Some Ethiopians tried to help their neighbors, but many watched
helplessly as the ruthless genocidal regime abused and tortured Eritreans
living in Ethiopia.

Today, Ethiopians are once again watching helplessly as the
ruling junta in Ethiopia
commits genocides in the Gambela, Ogaden and Oromia regions of Ethiopia.
They watch helplessly as their fellow Ethiopians starve as Ethiopia’s fertile lands are
“rented out” to feed populations in other countries, and as the regime begs for
food aid on the hand while buying weapons with the other. Ethiopians watch
helplessly as young Ethiopian men are used as cannon fodder and minesweepers in
the regime’s destructive and deadly wars of aggression and invasion of
neighboring states and beyond. Ethiopians watch helplessly as US lawmakers send billions of dollars of US tax
monies to the regime through various schemes, and watch as the regime diverts
aid to buy deadly arsenal to be used against its own people, to suppress their
voices and cower them into submission. Meles Zenawi might very well be the
darling of the West, but he is the cancer that is bleeding Ethiopia and the Horn.

Having failed to convince African leaders to sanction Eritrea
at its behest, the minority regime sent its cadres to the Security Council to
try to convince Africans on the Council to sponsor an anti-Eritrea Resolution
on its behalf. After getting US support to pass a sanction Resolution against Eritrea in 2009 which included an arms embargo,
the regime is now seeking economic sanctions against Eritrea. It also wants to sanction
the Eritrean Diaspora and prevent it from supporting development programs in Eritrea, and also wants to kill Eritrea’s
budding mining industry. In short, it wants the diplomatic, financial, military
and political isolation and crippling of Eritrea. It wants to use the UN
system to advance its regime change policy for Eritrea.

Response from Ethiopian government

Last night, 4th August, BBC Newsnight broadcast a 17-minute film making allegations of human rights abuses against the Ethiopian government. The timing of this report is guaranteed to inflict maximum damage on those who are suffering from the worst drought for sixty years in our region. It was difficult to respond to allegations in the few minutes given to our Deputy Head of Mission, Ambassador Abdirashid Dulane, after the film was aired, when we had not been permitted to see the film in advance. We are issuing this statement to put the record straight.

The most serious allegations in the film, which the government utterly refutes, were voiced by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). Ethiopia’s parliament has designated the ONLF and OLF as terrorist groups. The two groups are affiliated to Al Shabab and Al Qaeda. None of this was mentioned in the film.

The ONLF admitted to killing 74 Ethiopian citizens and Chinese workers at the Abole oil installation in April 2007. Its UK spokesman openly boasted about this on Al Jazeera Television’s English and Arabic services the following day. Despite assurances from the Newsnight producer, these facts were not included in the Newsnight film. The vast majority of the people of the region do not support the ONLF because it has a well-known policy of destroying development infrastructure and attacking communities that do not support it. The voices of this majority were not heard.

Newsnight repeatedly claimed that their film was made ‘clandestinely’ as the film-makers would ‘not have been allowed to film in Ethiopia’ if they had applied for visas. But dozens of film crews visit Ethiopia every month. The BBC’s own correspondent Mike Wooldridge was in Ethiopia three weeks ago for a week covering the drought in the Ogaden region itself and was issued a visa instantly. Newsnight were made aware of this but, again, chose not to tell its viewers.

It is regrettable that the BBC failed to consider the context – the wide array of rights that the majority of Ethiopian people now have to education, healthcare, clean water, increased agricultural output, which the British government and people have generously supported and continue to support, and micro-credit schemes to start up small and medium sized businesses, to mention but a few.

The Ethiopian government refutes absolutely the allegation that there is a policy or practice of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrest and routine torture by the police, prison officers and other members of the security services and the military. The Ethiopian National Defence Force (ENDF) fully understands the importance of serving the cause of the people. It has won the hearts and minds of people in the Ogaden region as it always ensures that its actions against spoilers in the region do not in any way disrupt the peaceful lives of the people of the region. The army’s professional integrity and discipline is not limited to its activities within Ethiopia. This has also been repeatedly demonstrated in the numerous peace-keeping operations in which it has taken part, in various part of the continent. It is unheard of for countries to agree to the deployment of an entire brigade from a neighbouring country in a peacekeeping mission, but the reputation of the ENDF is such that both South and North Sudan have unequivocally agreed to its recent deployment.

The Ethiopian police and other security services are equally well trained and disciplined and there is no evidence, apart from the noisy allegations of the ONLF and some international NGOs of questionable motives, to suggest that torture and other inhumane treatment are systematically used to extract confessions.

Newsnight’s claim that aid is being denied to supporters of the opposition has been strongly refuted, not just by the Ethiopian government but by the Donors’ Assistance Group (DAG), a consortium of 26 donor governments and international organizations such as the World Bank, based in Addis Ababa, after it had made thorough investigations.

Ethiopia has an independent judiciary that is respected throughout the African continent and beyond. Defendants are treated in accordance with the law and due process is observed. Ethiopian prisons undergo regular inspections by independent bodies. The ICRC gives regular training to prison staff and prisons have become rehabilitation centres so that those serving time can learn skills thus easily reintegrate into society.

The BBC’s Addis Ababa correspondents have largely made an effort to come up with well-informed, balanced and fair coverage. We feel that on this occasion the BBC has abandoned all attempt at fairness and produced a polemical and deeply damaging film that does not reflect the lives of Ethiopia’s 82 million people, but relies on the testimony only of those who are engaged in terrorism in the region and of a few Diaspora-based rejectionist politicians. We reiterate our views that last night’s programme presented an unbalanced story about the Horn of Africa drought crisis, using it as a pretext to make allegations based on unsubstantiated facts. We urge BBC Newsnight to offer the Ethiopian people a right to reply worthy of the name and look forward to its response.