The Ethiopian Ordeal in the Middle East: How can we end it?

By Fekade Shewakena

In Ethiopia we have a habit , I am not sure if I can call it a culture, of going through an agonizing massive problem and forgetting about it once we get the feeling that we are through it. We simply hope the problem will go away and not come back again. We don’t seem to have a “never again” collective mentality as many other people do after going through horrifying ordeals following natural or manmade disasters. We often leave it to God or government and refuse to investigate why something bad happened to us in the first place and find ways to stop it from happening again. Consider the famines we went though in the past. After having gone through a devastating famine and the arrival of aid or the next rains, life seems to turn to “normal”. We refuse to go back and examine how it could have been prevented, learn from the experience, and make adjustments for the future. The result is often another famine down the line that is even more devastating. I lost count of how many large scale regional famines we have had let alone the more localized ones that occur more frequently. At present it seems we have succeeded in distributing the regional famines into geographic ubiquity and in the process succeeded in hiding it. We keep eluding ourselves that we have controlled it but people continue to suffer. What is even more disturbing is, whenever we cared to solve the problem, we often prescribe the problem itself as the solution. International food aid and invitation of charitable NGOs are the major solutions we still seek. In the process we produced a culture of dependency on aid and charity at the cost of innovating our way out of the problem. As a result our food insecurity problem keeps persisting. Consider also another devastating experience we have in Ethiopia that we simply refuse to learn from and make changes. Throughout our history we go through destructive internal conflicts to solve political problems. Moments after one is solved, often militarily, the ground is set for another round of conflict. At the end of the conflicts we don’t do the needed deliberations and plans that will pull us together to build a conflict free society. When we do, as the TPLF/EPRDF tried to do at the end of the derg era in 1991, it was exclusionary and self serving. We all remember so much talk about ending wars. We were told we ended the Ethio-Eritrean war once and for all. But look what we have done only seven years later. There was talk about solving the problem of “nations and nationalities” in Ethiopia. What we see now is a compounded problem of ethnic hostility and conflicts of various levels perhaps more than any other time in the recent past history of the country. I am afraid we are going to do the same thing with the current problem of massive labor migration, better be called slave trade, of Ethiopians to the Middle East and the harrowing ordeal Ethiopians face in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

There may be enough blame to go around for the current problems. Ultimately we Ethiopians own this problem and each one of us have some responsibility to share. If we fail to realize this fact, the problem is not going to be solved both in the short and long term. We Ethiopians should understand that the Saudis did not create the problem. It is foolish to expect them to solve it for us. They are solving their own problem the way they know how – through a barbaric way. We may even thank them for paying for the cost of returning many of our citizens and helping the incompetent rulers of Ethiopia cope with this massive problem.

It is also good that we stop lying to ourselves. The suffering we witnessed in Saudi Arabia is only the peak in an ongoing suffering that we Ethiopians including officials of the government were watching for years with willful blindness. The real culprits in this problem are we Ethiopians particularly the Ethiopian authorities who allowed this slave trade to go on for more than a decade. The officials were more concerned about the remittance these slaves send back than the humans themselves. Let’s stop pretending that we don’t know about the magnitude of the problem Ethiopians go through in the Middle East. We do know. Who hasn’t heard of an Ethiopian maid throwing herself from a high-rise building or the widespread rape of Ethiopian maid servants or the many on whose faces was thrown boiling water or oil by their masters, the mentally disturbed returnees, maids who were denied of their wages and those who committed suicide to end their ordeals. Painful reminders like the dragging of Alem Dechaasa in front of the Ethiopian Embassy in Beirut and her tragic suicide happened not in the distant past. There are books written about this problem and I remember seeing a movie about the problem of Ethiopian maid servants in the Middle East made about a decade ago. We know about the problem full well.

Yes, Ethiopians around the world are rightly outraged at the horrendous crime perpetrated by the Saudi Arabian government and its vigilantes against Ethiopians. The savage killings the gang rape of helpless Ethiopians by the Saudi Shabab, and the savage beating are hard to bear for a once proud people. I am only surprised that nobody hasn’t burnt down the Saudi embassy in Addis Ababa or harm any of their many economic interests elsewhere in the country. Perhaps it takes a decent and cultured people not to have done that; or is it that we have completely forgotten how to be angry? Saudi Arabia may have a 21st century wealth and economy thanks to their fossil oil, but this is a country where backward institutions of medieval culture still operate. There are many people there who operate on a 15th century mindset and with very little sense of human rights or human dignity. This is a country where people are still punished by stoning. We should not forget that this is also the country and a culture that supplied most of the beasts that flew airplanes carrying innocent travelers on to buildings packed by innocent people in New York. The Saudis, and to a large extent, most middle Easterners have a visceral hatred towards Ethiopians as anyone who has experienced living with them would tell you. A lot of it is racism. We know they have all kinds of derogatory pejoratives with which they refer Ethiopia and Ethiopians. We now know that they were doing anti Ethiopian propaganda on their media prior to the carnage in Riyadh. Some of it has to do with the fact that Ethiopia is a predominantly Christian country living at peace with its large Islamic population. That in part explains why the violence of the Saudi police and the youth vigilante was targeted against Ethiopians more than the immigrants from many other countries. I sincerely doubt that they do this because of commitment to their religion as some would claim. The Saudis did not discriminate between Muslim and Christian Ethiopians when harming them. If it had to do with their religion, I would think that they would have been reminded of the words of the Prophet Mohammad about the story of the First Hegira and the respect for Ethiopians in the Koran before they lay their hands on a single Ethiopian.

Can this Misery be turned into an Opportunity?
The tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia can be turned into an opportunity to work through a solution and avoid a larger scale problem. Why not? Some of the greatest achieving countries around the world are those that have taken misfortunes as opportunity for rethinking and changing their reality. I challenge all Ethiopians, particularly the educated elite and the officials of the government to organize conferences to discuss this serious problem and come up with measurable recommendations over time and mechanisms to implement solutions. The regime, if it is not willing should be pressured to do so. Anger and feelings of shame are good in as long as they lead toward solving problems. I for one am sick and tired of listening to these painful and shameful stories over and over again.

There is no question that the Ethiopian authorities who have tolerated and, in many instances, oversaw and supervised this massive slave trade have the most to account for this crime. Their response to this massive tragedy is also disgraceful and disrespectful to a once proud people and country. Ethiopia is the only place where Ethiopians were unable to demonstrate and express their anger at the way their fellow Ethiopians were treated in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps that may be the reason why the Saudis were emboldened to do their crime on Ethiopians with a sense of impunity. If there was even a semblance of democracy in Ethiopia there could have been a lot of officials that could be fired from their jobs for incompetence and insensitivity. A parliament of a democratic Ethiopia would have grilled these officials before firing them and would have set up a fact finding commission to find out details. But this is Ethiopia where the government never makes mistakes, you know. But at the end of the day, this does not exonerate the rest of us, the Ethiopian elite in particular, and all of us born in this unfortunate country, from responsibility. Let’s not forget that we are also responsible for owning this kind of regime that has little respect for the survival, dignity and pride of its people. There is some truth to what some political scientists say – “people deserve the governments they have”. We own the Woyane as much as we own these terrible problems. We cannot end this and other problems only through blaming. It is possible that we may have a solution that the government may refuse to impermanent. I think it is better to have some idea of the solution even if it is not implemented.

Let’s begin by asking these tough questions:

Let’s use these national conferences to ask some serious questions and work hard to find answers. How did we come to this disgrace in less than a generation? Why are young people making life and death decisions looking for work elsewhere including in hostile societies even when they have the information that it is full of high risk gamble? What can we do to stop it? What is leading families to send their teenage daughters and sons to slave in the Middle East? Is it poverty? Hasn’t Ethiopia been always poor? What kind of poverty does lead people to shade their sense of dignity and pride? What has changed in Ethiopia that should not have changed? Why were Ethiopians studying abroad eager to return back to their country at the end of their studies until the 1980s? Why wasn’t better life a lure then? Why are our best and brightest people leaving the country in mass? How much is the country losing monetarily through losing its educated manpower? Can we stop outmigration? How can we use it to the benefit of Ethiopia and Ethiopians if we cannot stop it? How did some poor countries keep their best and brightest from going to the West? Why have we become number one in the world in terms of losing its educated people through labor migration to the West? Is Ethiopia incapable of carrying its growing population? Should we reexamine the land holding system in the country? Does the current landholding system have anything to do with the problem and the solution? What are we doing in the education area? Are we educating our youth for a better future for themselves and the country? What real and latent resources do we have to make full employment of the population? What about the ethnic federalism? Why is the problem of the returnees from the Middle East different from the unemployed still living in the country? What has this problem to do with the lack of democratic culture? Why are other countries with poor population and serious economic problems not opting to leave their countries in massive numbers and migrate to other countries? What should we open up? What should we close? What is the role of religious institutions in helping our society? What is the private sector employing a minuscule proportion of the population? What is unique in Ethiopia that disproportionately leads its young to become so hopeless in their own country? When did the word “sidetegna” stop being an insult to an Ethiopian? I am sure you can add more tougher questions to this list. I know these questions are easy asked than answered. But we have no alternative than face them.

The Ethiopian authorities should stop covering their rear end by coaching traumatized returnees at Bole airport to give testimony about their work and the “life saving work” of their despicable embassy in Saudi Arabia on television. It could have been laughable if it was not painful to watch these traumatized people being coached and used by the government media for this silly purpose. Currently the government is trying to do some quick fixes and some lip service to chase the problem from the public arena.

Those of us who spend energy demonstrating at Saudi Embassies around the world should spend some energy to pressurize the officials ruling Ethiopia to respond to our demands for both the short term and lasting solutions. I suggest that we demand the government set up an independent commission to examine what happened to Ethiopians in the Middle East, to find out the number of people that died, those that are hurt and the many that are missing and languishing in the prisons of countries in the Middle East. There should be a comprehensive and lasting solution to this problem. Keep protesting and demanding and don’t go back home without getting the end of this misery in sight. How much is the life of an Ethiopian worth? Shouldn’t it be better than that of dogs?

(The writer can be reached at Fekadeshewakena@yahoo.com)

What happened in Saudi Arabia “the truth”

By YohannesY
Last week the Saudi Arabian's government unleashed an attack on innocent Ethiopians. We were all surprised by the magnitude of the attack and also the mentality of the Saudi’s. There is no justification for this kind of act. Even the Ethiopian government caught by surprised because there is no war between these two nations. This shows the Saudi Arabian’s authorities incompetence and that they are extremely irresponsible; they do not have the basic values for human lives.

Most of these people were cleaning their trash, building their homes and taking care of their babies. They drive their school bus and yet those unarmed people were attacked for some vague reason. They were treated by the Saudi Arabian’s government very cruelly. They also said that it was against all the immigrants, but that was not true; it was targeted Ethiopian immigrants in particular. They were hunting Ethiopians like a rabid dogs.

First, we must know and understand that this act is not random. They were talking about a new Saudi law that they gave 7 month of registration and that amnesty period was expired on Nov 3, 2013 and all these craps are just cover up to attack Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia. Besides that the government of Saudi Arabia negotiated with the government of Ethiopia to take every month 40,000 people, read why suddenly change? You have to remember what Spike Milligan said I shook hands with a friendly Arab. I still have my right arm to prove it. You cannot trust them. The rumored said that the Eritreans and some unnamed Ethiopian opposition were involved in certain meetings in Saudi Arabia.
Unconfirmed Report
There was a discussion among the Saudi officials with Eritreans counter parts and unnamed Ethiopian oppositions. The discussions is about the Ethiopian renaissance dam. The Saudi Arabians security officer who is assigned for this job want to get some more feedback about the Ethiopian effort and he said one of Arab brotherly country will be in grave danger. Saudi diplomats and Egyptian counterparts are giving their best effort to stop the financier group and becoming successful. International banks denied Ethiopia to get a loan.

However, that did not stop Ethiopia’s construction of the dam. The Saudi's were baffled: where is the money coming from? Their effort to destabilize Ethiopia with all sorts of reason including supporting the armed group and their effort to involve religious matters failed. The Sudanese are taking sides and supporting Ethiopia and even though it is a member of Arab league, Somalia is more influenced by the IGAD countries than Arabs. The Arab countries have little influence in Somalia, so the Ethiopian government is much stronger than they are anticipated.

They consulted Eritrea and some unnamed Ethiopian oppositions and the Eritrean diplomats literally praising the diaspora for their effort to stop "woyanne" in their effort to stop financing Ethiopian Dam. He said they could not be able to stop Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia and other mid-east countries, the Ethiopian government raises unknown amount of money on this part of the world plus a lot of remittance. Even Saudi government agent said the number of Ethiopian lives in Saudi, does not know the exact number.
The unnamed Ethiopian opposition agent put gas onto the fire and said we had never agreed with this construction. He said Ethiopians did not agree with this construction and this is Woaynes effort to divert Ethiopian’s attention from the real issue. The Saudi agent shakes his head with surprise: how can this be? The unnamed Ethiopian oppositions literally said that the Ethiopians are forced to do that.

This poorly advised Saudi agent arranged an appointment with these two groups in order to consult to the government authorities in Saudi Arabia; then at the next meeting the Saudi agent told them that they are going to expel Ethiopians because there are too many people illegally in their country anyway. That became a defined moment for the Ethiopians who live in Saudi Arabia legally or illegally.

The Eritrean agent happily left the meeting, but the unnamed Ethiopians oppositions returned confused. After a few months of this discussion the Saudi acted as they said to expel Ethiopians and some Ethiopians were killed, raped, and also rubbed and deported back to Ethiopia inhumanly fashion.

Freedom is a most precious possession. Every creature desires and enjoys its freedom. Place a worm or an insect in a jar and it will work to get free. Put a dog on a leash and restrain him in one place and he will howl and bark to be set free. Put a bird in cage they will make noises till you put them free, we humans are no different. We do not want our liberties tampered with some ruthless dictators. That is what happen in Saudi Arabia. Ethiopians become outrageous in this ruthless act and our freedom was tampered and violated more than word can explain it.

You travel any part of the world, you will find at least one Ethiopian, a few years back someone told me that we are like a Jewish and we are scattered all over the world thanks for our dictators at home however wherever we are, we Ethiopians are peace loving people we do not really bothered others, but always people will tampered our freedom but as they said our main problem is poverty, it is our number one enemy. Our Ethiopian politicians are correct on that…..

ETHIOPIA AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE BLUE NILE Tecola W. Hagos

PART ONE: DEVELOPMENT AND SOVEREINTY

I. Introduction

In General: The events of the last four weeks may as well have determined the future course of Ethiopia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On October 7, 2013 Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn made some remarks in a Press Conference that will resonate for years and make or break his political future, as well as the future of Ethiopian partisan politics. What I heard on video of the News Conference of October 7, 2013, is the most incredulous statement by Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn so far. He announced that he will welcome the participation of Egypt and Sudan in the construction of the Renaissance Dam and that his government and he consider the Dam to be “jointly owned” by Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt.

To make this type of statement at this early stage of the controversy by a Head of Government is unconscionable and the worst form of negotiation strategy I have ever witnessed or read about in our long history. Such fast retreat of leadership in front of a national controversy is unheard of in Ethiopia’s long political life. However, to be fair to all concerned, let us examine the situation surrounding this sudden reversal of historic position, carefully and dispassionately. Mind you that there is no serious threat by anybody against Ethiopia except some habitual bullying by Egypt, and a few months ago by an errant Prince from Saudi Arabia (who was promptly removed from office) that the Prime Minister of the Ethiopian Government should be trembling with fear and trepidation and recapitulate so easily. Even if there is real military threat against the sovereignty and integrity of Ethiopia, is the statement by the Prime Minister within acceptable discretionary power of his office? I think not. The Prime Minister has far exceeded his duty and power circumscribed by the provisions of the 1995 Ethiopia’s Constitution: Article 55 (2) (a); 55 (17); Article 74 (6); Article 86, when he spoke of creating some kind of joint ownership of an Ethiopian asset that borders of surrendering sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ethiopian State..

As a simple strategy of negotiation one does not show the hand that one holds at the initial stage of confrontation with a historically ever belligerent foreign national government. Egypt and the Arabs in general have been the relentless enemies of Ethiopia for centuries to this day. They have sought the destruction of Ethiopia despite admonishment of the Prophet Mohammad since the eighth century. They never heeded the words of their own Prophet. At this very moment they are busy mobilizing to halt the development effort of Ethiopia by throwing obstructionist threats. A type of prescription I have for my fellow Ethiopians is that when we seek peace and development we need get ready for war.

The construction of the Great Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile within Ethiopian territory is indisputably an act of Ethiopia’s Sovereign power. Whether such construction was premature, too ambitious, problematic due to lack of technical expertise et cetera are issues that should not be confused with competence or sovereignty. Ethiopian successive Governments for almost a hundred years have openly stated their desire to take into account the national interests of both Egypt and Sudan in the effort to create an equitable use of the waters of the Nile and its Basin for all riparian states. Egypt has refused to recognize the fundamental sovereign rights of riparian states to use the waters of the Nile some of such states being originating/source countries. Currently, the Ethiopian Government seems to be committed in its effort to bring about fairness and equitable use of the Nile waters among riparian states to the extent of offering the Great Renaissance Dam in joint ownership to Egypt and Sudan. As I stated earlier, I am not convinced such generosity on the part of Ethiopia will help solve the greed of Egypt.

Issues to consider: Even though such unbelievably generous offer by the Government of Ethiopia may be applauded by some, I am much concerned not only with the future of the Dam itself but also with the continued existence of Ethiopia. Some of the most pressing issues are as follows: What is the meaning of “joint ownership”? What are the risks for Ethiopia sharing ownership of its natural resource with foreign sovereign countries and their governments? Are there legal regimes and/or political modalities to insure the Sovereign right of Ethiopia on the Dam and the Water resource of the Blue Nile and its basin at all times? What effect would such “joint ownership” have on other riparian States of the Nile River? What is the need for secrecy (lack of transparency) of the Ethiopian Government?

II. A. The Development Imperative and Sovereignty

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, in Article 47 states that “nothing in the present Convention shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.” Ethiopia ratified the Covenant on 11 June 1993, and Egypt signed twenty five years earlier on August 4, 1967 and ratified the document on 14 January 1982; Sudan ratified the Covenant 18 March 1986. As of May 2013, the Covenant had 74 signatories and 167 parties.

This section of the Covenant is what is claimed to be the basis of the concept of “permanent Sovereignty” on natural resources by members States of the United Nations. To me that concept has become part of the customary international norm and principle as customary international law. Thus, when we are discussing sovereignty over the resources of a country, we are not simply dealing with historical reality but also recognizing concepts in international law and relationships of States. Of course, the concept “permanent Sovereignty” over resources has undergone modifications and its own exceptional development, such as the idea of equitable use of shared resources, the new Sovereign Wealth Funds and State- Owned Enterprises et cetera.

World population prediction for 2050, i.e., in a mere thirty five years from the present time, draws a grim and alarming reality for Ethiopia. The estimate listed here under seems to be on the conservative side, for a fact we know the 2015 prediction for Ethiopia is too low since Ethiopia’s population for 2013 exceeds by almost ten million people the United Nations estimate for 2015. I believe the estimate for 2050 would be about 200 million for Ethiopia. We have now in our hands an ongoing population explosion—a disaster in the making unless we implement some creative and daring developmental programs. The harnessing of the power of the Blue Nile is one out of very many concerted steps to be taken by all states in the region. The increase in population means dramatic increase in the demands for services, food supplies, housing, schools, universities, infrastructure, et cetera. Putting to good use our natural resources is a matter of duty/right of acute necessity and not a luxury. One must take into account the enormity of population growth in all the nations of the world in order to understand our precarious existence in the next fifty years.

1950 2000 2015 2025 2050
Ethiopia 18,434 62,908 89,765 113,418 186,452
Egypt 21,834 67,884 84,425 94,777 113,840
Sudan 9,190 31,095 42,433 49,556 63,530

[Source: United Nations Population Division]

How is Ethiopia going to feed that many people (almost two hundred million people) with its existing economic system and limited programs of farming and industrial involvements? Ethiopia has no choice in the matter but to develop its hydropower as a cheap source of energy in order to develop its agriculture, industry, education, democratic governance, and good relationship with its neighbors and the world at-large. A poor and devastated Ethiopia is a real danger and threat to the region. By contrast, a prosperous and engaged Ethiopia is the dynamo for the region’s much needed development and stability.

There seems to be a degree of confusion between source of power/right and the scope of that power/right in regard to Ethiopia’s position on the waters of the Nile River and the Blue Nile and its Basin. There is also a tendency to lump all riparian states of the Nile River in the same cast of characteristics. Very many distinguished Ethiopians, such as Zewde Gebre-selassie, Daniel Kendie, Gebretsadik Degefu, Tesfay Tafesse, et cetera have devoted time and energy tackling several questions dealing with Ethiopia’s natural resources and on the development of such resources and the modality of the proprietary rights thereof.

A recent addition to such distinguished Ethiopians tackling the historic problem of sharing the waters of the Nile/Blue Nile and the Basin thereof is Fasil Amdetsion. Fasil Amdetsion is a rising star in international (law) jurisprudence and a highly capable lawyer. His long academic journal article on the Nile/Blue Nile controversy is an excellent read. [Fasil Amdetsion, Scrutinizing “The Scorpion Problematique”…, 44 Tex Int’L J (2008)] One reservation I have on that article is that Fasil seems to overlap Ethiopia’s source of power on the waters of the Blue Nile and its Basin with the scope of that power. For example, he asserts that Ethiopia’s position of absolute “Sovereignty” on the Blue Nile River is untenable under international law. My criticism of such position is a rhetorical one by arguing that in the same way Egypt has based the source of its claim on treaties and cite provisions from those same treaties to assert the scope of its proprietary/use rights on the waters of the Nile, Ethiopia uses “Sovereignty” as a source for its proprietary rights but not as an absolute, for Ethiopia has always promoted the idea of “equitable” use of the waters of the Nile/Blue Nile among all riparian States. There are situations in the past, under extreme provocation and in the face of belligerency of Egypt and Sudan, whereby Ethiopia as a matter of rhetorical argument might have stated that it has the ultimate sovereign power over its natural resources and territorial integrity and threatened to dam the Blue Nile. Such statements must not be taken as Ethiopia’s foreign policy position, but for what they are—just rhetorical statements.

The provisions of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that was established in 1999 reflect far more accurately Ethiopia’s position as an active member of NBI. The NBI clearly shows that the derive is to replace the 1929 (later amended in 1959) colonial treaty that divided the entire Nile water between Egypt (75%) and Sudan (25%), completely ignoring the riparian rights of ten States including Ethiopia from whose highlands 86 % of the Nile water flows from. Not all riparian States of the Nile River are “Scorpions,” as Fasil would label them in his academic article, but most are victims of the greed of Egypt, the only “scorpion” in that group of riparian states of the Nile. The irony of it all is that Egypt does not contribute even a single drop of water to the Nile River, but is monopolizing its use to the tune of over 80% in absolute terms.

II. B. Claims by Egypt and the Polarizing United States Military Assistance

The Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1902 is an important Treaty that shows clearly how a colonial power forced its hand on a sovereign independent nation’s natural resource. The 1902 Treaty is seldom mentioned by Ethiopian scholars and by Ethiopians in general. Even though there are serious conflicting provisions between the Amharic and the English versions of the Treaty, the Treaty overall shows the coercive colonial power of Great Britain in getting unconscionable concessions from a relatively weak Emperor of Ethiopia. The Treaty arguably either forbid the construction of any work without agreement with Britain that “arrest the flow” (English version) or “completely block” (Amharic version) the waters of the Blue Nile, Sobat, or Lake Tana. There is also problem of interpretation as to the identity of a “third party” or Ethiopia acting for her own self-interest.

Nevertheless, Egypt has been consistent in its claims as a “historic user” not as a “sovereign” on the waters of the Nile. Egypt has never claimed any form of direct ownership or sovereign right on the waters of the Blue Nile or on any of the head waters of the tributaries of the Nile River. What Egypt has claimed in the past and what it is claiming now was the “historic use” of the waters of the Nile based on treaties as well as history. Ethiopia and other riparian countries claim that the standard must be the “equitable use” of water and not “historic use” of water that lopsidedly favors Egypt completely over other riparian countries including those countries that are headwater (source) countries.

If Egypt has its way, it wants to maintain its share of the yearly quota allocation of over 55 billion cubic meter water under the 1959 agreement it entered with Sudan. This has nothing to do with Ethiopia for Ethiopia is not signatory to such agreement. In fact, Ethiopia has repeatedly officially through diplomatic channels let it be known that it is not bound by agreement of third parties and would maintain is sovereign right on its natural resources including rivers, lakes, and territorial waters. Moreover, one must examine to what use is the water of the Nile is being used in Egypt.

The Ethiopian Government officials have failed to organize and disseminate factual/statistical data on Egyptian use of the water of the Nile detailing the types of abusive use of precious water. We still do not have a detailed water use profile and statistical data on Egypt’s use of the water of the Nile. For example, we have no idea how much water is being used in Egypt on frivolous schemes, such as watering golf courses in resort areas, feeding swimming pools, et cetera while in Ethiopia millions of Ethiopians are experiencing famine, poverty, lacking clean drinking water et cetera.

After the press Conference of October 7, 2013 Egypt has issued its new expectations and how far it is interested in safeguarding its national security and economic interest, through an official, who chose to remain anonymous, on October 16,

“The government has prepared a new paper to negotiate with Ethiopia regarding the Renaissance Dam. Technical and legal teams have been tasked with studying the Egyptian [negotiating] items, which are expected to be presented to the Ethiopian side at the next meeting. … The Egyptian offer includes full participation in the construction, management and operation of the dam, by dispatching Egyptian engineers who specialize in the field of dam construction; the signing of an agreement with the Ethiopian side on sending [to Ethiopia] a permanent Egyptian water mission [that will be stationed] at the dam; and [Egypt’s] participation in the funding and working as an intermediary to obtain aid and international loans and grants to finance dam construction.” [Ayah Aman, Al-Monitor, October 23, 2013]

One serious problem facing Ethiopia, which is in the background of most conflicts that threaten the survival of Ethiopia, is the military assistance of the United States to Egypt to the tune of a couple of billion dollars every year for the last two decades. Such polarizing assistance to Egypt seems to add to the arrogance and inflexibility of the Egyptian Government. The United States Government either must stop such outrage or provide Ethiopia also with as much military assistance as it does to Egypt. Egypt did not help the United States in its global effort to squash Al-Qaida terrorist members. Some of the leaders of such anti American groups are Egyptian citizens. By contrast, the Ethiopian Government is fully engaged in the fight against terrorism with the United States as a partner for peace and security. Why is the United States always undermining Ethiopia’s interest at crucial moments in our history for the last one hundred years of relationship with the United States?

PART TWO : JOINT OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES

III. Joint Ownership

The current concept of “joint ownership” has its root in Roman Law as “dominium” and “condominium.” However, the literature shows that form of ownership/possession was not popular nor an accepted form of ownership and even of possession between states. “Sovereignty” is a very jealous mistress and would not allow any other Sovereign power to share in its domain. From hundreds of dams constructions around the world only a handful are jointly owned by two or three Sates. Even those very limited jointly owned dams are not free from great conflicts and most often on the verge of complete breakdown and possible war. For Ethiopia, as well as, for Egypt and Sudan, this idea of “joint ownership” of an Ethiopian natural resource is extremely dangerous in creating another flash point between the three countries and their supporters.

“Co-ownership refers to legal relationships that entitle two or more entities to equal rights to the use and enjoyment of property. Although it most often arises in the context of real property, co-ownership may apply to any type of property. Co-ownership also takes numerous legal forms…. In each case, the central economic and legal problem is how conflicting preferences and actions of the co-owners can be coordinated. In the absence of such coordination, owners may overindulge in activities that impose costs on their co-owners and under invest in projects or activities whose benefits are shared with co-owners. The legal mechanisms used to cope with these externality problems range from doctrines that impose liability on co-owners for engaging in inefficient activities (such as the law of waste), to legally mandated common decision-making (as in compulsory unitization statutes), to forced termination of the co-ownership relationship (partition). In addition, successful coordination and decision-making in co-ownership situations often depend on social sanctions and norms outside the domain of law.” [Marshall E. Tracht, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW: co-ownership and condominium.]

III. A. Joint Ownership of Ethiopian Asset

What is the meaning of “joint ownership”? What is the legal and political significance of “joint ownership” of Ethiopian national asset and natural resource by Egypt and Sudan? In international law the idea of Joint ownership is not something new, in fact, it goes by an old name from Roman legal concept of “condominium,” which in our days is often used to identify individual apartments run by jointly owned system. However, the legal literature that is of record that includes the United Nations’ International Court of Justice as well as the decisions of arbitration tribunals is very limited almost to a point of non-extant. The ICJ had decided only on one case in controversy in the last sixty years. In other words, joint ownership by Sovereign entities is not a popular process at all.

The pronouncement of the Prime Minister on October 7, 2013 Press Conference is like a lightning strike in broad daylight—something that has no legal or historic precedence. The Ethiopian Government can minimize the premature statement by the Prime Minister in the following two steps:

1) by censoring or rebuking the Prime Minister that he had exceeded his authority in making such sweeping statement that affects the Sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation and instructing him to withdraw his statement of October 7, 2013 [1995 Constitution: Article 55 (2) (a); 55 (17); Article 74 (6); Article 86];

2) by creating a structure that will prevent either Egypt or Sudan any direct ownership in rem the Dam and/or the Blue Nile and its Basin. One way of doing that is to create a public utility corporation that will be owned jointly by Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan. This joint ownership of the public corporation may be extended to all Riparian States of the Nile.

The “Public Corporation” thus instituted leases the Dam from the Ethiopian Government that is the sole and only owner and the only Sovereign power over the Dam and the Blue Nile and its Basin. The public corporation will not have any ownership right of the Dam; It has a lease contract renewable every twenty five years for a maximum lease period not exceeding one hundred years. The public corporation will run the Dam as a business enterprise; it will control the flow of water, the distribution and sale of electric power, manage all administrative work, undertake all ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the Dam, and provide annual report to the “Share Holders” of the corporation. The Ethiopian Government will receive royalty for leasing the Dam to the corporation and for the use of the Blue Nile water resource. Since the Ethiopian Government is the majority share holder in that corporation, it will also be entitled to the percentage share of the profit of the corporation. Here is where Egypt and Sudan exert their control/influence in the day to day administration of the corporation thus created.

III. B. Slippery Slop: military engagement with Egypt and Sudan

For the time being Egypt may not sound as aggressive as it was at the start of the controversy in 2011 and even more so a few months ago in 2013. However, Egypt will increase its demand as time goes by with the increased pressure to complete the Dam in reasonable time. In fact, Egypt will demand that a contingent of its military force be stationed near the Dam in Ethiopia or across the border in Sudan in order to ensure the safety and security of the Renaissance Dam that it now owns jointly with Ethiopia and Sudan. Such deployment of security forces will pause a permanent threat to the security and sovereignty of Ethiopia. If there is any form of civil strive, the Egyptian forces would have clear excuses to occupy the Dam area within Ethiopia in order to protect Egypt’s joint ownership of the Renaissance Dam.

We must also ask about the ramification of such joint ownership on the other Riparian States such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and South Sudan. The recent activity and pronouncement in press conferences by the Leaders of the Ethiopian Government have already casted Ethiopia as an unreliable partner in any form of controversial relationship with Egypt and the Arab world in general. I do not believe the Ethiopian Government has consulted with the other Riparian States (NBI members) on the idea of “joint ownership” of the Renaissance Dam. This form of sporadic, crises-based reactionary actions, secrecy, et cetera by the Leaders of the current Ethiopian Government will undermine the legitimacy and authority of the Government itself.

III. C. Joint Ownership of Aswan Dam and the Suez Canal by Ethiopia

The Ethiopian position as stated by the Prime Minister on October 7, 2013 seems to upgrade the claims of Egypt of unlimited use the water of the Nile to a level of ownership of the Blue Nile and all the waters of the basin itself. This is a windfall for Egypt and the Sudan. Now Egypt and Sudan are going to have a proprietary right that will eventually be casted in the form of sovereigns’ rights of foreign nations with all international implications and consequences. We had experienced one horrible incident when Italy sneaked into our Sovereign power by buying from a private owner Rubattino Shipping Company some land bought earlier [1869] from a local tribal chief as trading post (real estate) on the Red Sea coast. Even though there is a distinct difference at law between “sovereignty’ and “property” that distinction is just academic when the owner of that property is a “Sovereign” entity. The dispute in such conflicts between two sovereigns claiming sovereign power over a single property becomes quite murky and vague allowing for all kinds of legal maneuvering.

If we go down that route, which I do not favor at all, may be we could borrow from principle of Comity and also from the concept of parity to counter the full impact of the slippery slop of losing Ethiopian sovereignty due to the joint ownership of the Renaissance Dam. It is far more justifiable for Ethiopia to claim joint ownership of Merowe Dam in Sudan, and Aswan Dam in Egypt than the suggested Sudan and Egypt’s joint ownership of the Renaissance Dam and by extension the Waters of the Blue Nile. After all, the fertile highland soil of Ethiopia carried down by the Blue Nile for thousands of years gave life to Egypt itself. If we go that far, it will only be fair that Ethiopia jointly with Egypt own the Suez Canal too. If we allow the current Ethiopian Government logic, then we should also have joint ownership of Egypt itself. If we go that far, why not form one whole country made up of Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Well, while we are at it, we can add Somalia, Kenya, Uganda may be all the way to South Africa in this form of new fraternity of African States. We might as well create the “United States of Africa.”

IV. Unchartered legal minefield

The literature on joint ownership of dams is quite limited. From about three thousand treaties and agreements dealing with the navigation and non-navigation use of waterways and international rivers, only a handful deal with dams. Even then, the record of the legal and political problems surrounding such jointly owned dams ought to raise a red flag for Ethiopia. Even within African nations involved in joint ownership of dams there are some serious conflicts of equitable sharing of both water and generated hydropower. In South America all of the jointly owned Dams are the sources of serious conflicts. The same types of conflicting interests of joint owners of dams in Africa are also similar causes of conflicts as is the case with their counterparts in South America.

One must study carefully the cases of joint ownerships of dams indicated here in below, before jumping into a minefield of legal controversies by creating a joint ownership of the Great Renaissance Dam and the Blue Nile and its Basin.
1. Senegal/Gambia Dams – contentious relationship a far cry from a harmonious state cooperation.

2. Cahora Bassa Dam, Mozambique/South Africa –
3. The Kariba Dam, Zambia/Zembabwe
4. Salto Grande – Argentina and Uruguay
5. Yacireta Dam – Argentina and Paraguay
6. Itaipu – Brazil shared with Paraguay
7. Narva Reservoir (Russia shared with Estonia)

Ethiopia is very new in the construction of mega dam buildings. Joint ownership of dams and other sovereign assets is a very complex and risky processes. One must learn from the experiences of other states that have traveled down that risky road. Thus, Ethiopia must develop its own expertise and avoid the continued dependence on foreign advisers and experts. This is a task that takes up time, but can be accelerated by mobilizing capable and well qualified Ethiopians in the Diaspora. Even more lacking is old fashioned Ethiopian patriotism and nationalism. I am quite certain about the extent of my own commitment to Ethiopia, I am not sure that I see the type of patriotic commitment in most of the political leaders both in the Diaspora or back home in Ethiopia. What I witnessed so far is divisive and ethnic based fractured leadership that is eating the very core of our continued survival.

V. On Ethiopian Patriotism and National Security

I do not know to what extent the current Ethiopian Government officials are patriotic or nationalist in the context of the current crisis surrounding the construction of the Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. However, I can point out that their recent dance with wolves does not show much of patriotic zeal. I cannot discount also the fact that they have very well learned advisors surrounding them. However, despite my goodwill and favorable disposition to the new Ethiopian Government, I do not feel comfortable in entrusting such monumental task dealing with Ethiopian Sovereignty and territorial integrity to any of them. The shadow of Meles Zenawi still seems to eclipse the new Ethiopian Leaders impeding their independence and the full commitment to Ethiopia’s Sovereignty and territorial integrity. In short, I need more reassurance with clear policy that enshrines the Sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. This is one time, despite my previous sever criticism of Emperor Tewodros, that I longed for a Tewodros to come to our rescue.

Nevertheless, it will be a mistake to equate intelligence with patriotism or nationalism. Meles Zenawi left us with a legacy that truly had undermined Ethiopian patriotism and Ethiopian nationalism. The “pragmatism” he expounded had always bordered treason when it relates to boundary disputes, national security et cetera. We saw it happen early in his leadership signing away Eritrea and the Ethiopian coastal territories, and signing up an arbitration agreement under defunct colonial treaties resurrected to give life to an independent “Eritrea.” It was during his watch that Ethiopia became landlocked without a coast or coastal waters. To this day, we do not know what arrangements and territorial concessions he had made with the Sudan to get their cooperation on the construction of the Renaissance Dam. Whatever it is, we must have paid too steep a price. Soon enough we will find out the extent and scope of our loss in our Sovereignty and territorial integrity.

One other legacy of Meles Zenawi is the fanatical steps he took to hide what he had done in his bid for international recognition that affected Ethiopian sovereignty and territorial integrity. No one knows much about the agreements Ethiopian officials signed that are the basis of our relationships with foreign states such as China, Egypt, Kenya, Sudan et cetera. There are no timely press releases about negotiations or draft agreements before the signing of such agreements by the Ethiopian Government officials. There is no set mechanism for public debate on issues of international agreements or relations with foreign governments. The people of Ethiopia have no access to read treaties entered by the Government of Ethiopia. There is no official publication devoted to inform the people of Ethiopia the types of international duties and obligations the Ethiopian State is entering into.

This essay was not meant to be this long. It was meant just to raise some critical issues and open a forum for discourse and sharing of views. The issues and historical background are very complex and extensive. I hope that readers would see this article as prompt rather than a definitive and exhaustive treatment of the subject matter. Thank you all. Long Live Ethiopia.

Tecola W. Hagos
Washington DC
November 1, 2013

The deal with Egypt should not be an extension of the colonial “agreements”, of the 1929 and 1955.

October, 24/201
By W.Yilma

There are rumors coming from Cairo that Egypt is willing to negotiate with Ethiopia regarding the Grand Renaissance Dam (GRD). Even some media outlets, including Ethiopian are disseminating the news that Egyptians are ready to cooperate in the construction process of the dam. This idea is not new. Since the beginning of the GRD construction, Egypt and the Sudan were invited to participate by investing to this huge dam. However, it was Egypt which is not only rejects the idea but also venomously opposed the starting of this project in the first place. Openly and secretly Egyptians started spreading psychological warfare aginst Ethiopia. With unknown reasons, Egyptians turn 360 Degree and show willingness to participate. We have to be optimistic about their new shift from their “historical stance”. This is the first time the Egyptian show an interest to discuss specifically the Nile water issue in which they sabotaging and rejecting for century. However time will tell us whether or not this move is a real or a preposterous diplomatic showdown. We have to know diplomacy is a high and dangerous art! In any case, Ethiopia should take this step as a good gesture to start credible negotiation with Egypt. Diplomatic negotiation should get priority and should be exhausted to avoid un necessary conflicts.

The Nile water is a geo-political issue. Therefore many countries are involved with the absence of credible agreements. Because of this we do not know what is going on behind the door on the side of Egypt politicians. What need to be clear here is that, there are groups who are praying day and night to see confrontation, and war between Ethiopia and Egypt. As we know our country does not have reliable friends, and not all are happy to see our economic developments. There are special interest international organizations in the name of environmental protection, human right, indigenous people right group, international rivers, etc.. disguising themselves with different names and venomously opposing the construction of dam both on Nile and Omo rivers. The same as they are concerned for Turkana people, they too will show sympathy to Egyptian than ours developments endeavors. Some even are considering Ethiopian development as a threat to their national security and geo- political interest. Therefore in dealing with both the Egyptian and the Sudan, the Ethiopian government should be ready in all fronts, because of the following reasons:

1. We have to be very cautious about the Egyptian drastic shift at eleven hours to sit down for negotiations. Although the move should be appreciated, its repercussion should be scrutinized carefully. It is clear Egypt is not in a good political, economic, and diplomatic position at this time. This is because the GRD completed almost 30% and Ethiopian stance is un flinched in this case. Beside this, Egypt does not have a ground to justify a military threat or diplomatic pressure without engaging in dialogue with Ethiopia. Therefore her drastic shift could be a preparation for one of these moves.



2. The other strategy Egypt might want to put pressure on Ethiopia is by asking an involvement of third party, to settle or facilitate a new agreement between the two countries that could favor Egypt’s demand. Ethiopia should categorically oppose any involvement of the third party. Because this kind of proposals could handicap Ethiopia and put her in difficult diplomatic positions. Obviously, the third party could be an Egyptian geo-political strategic partner from the big powers.



3. The Egyptian decision could be a strategy to slow dawn the ongoing dam construction, so that to get time to prepare and effectively to execute her hidden agendas. We should know in politics, especially when it comes to geo-political interest like this, there are no constant and credible friends. Leave alone Egypt a small country with no human, economic, and natural resources Eritrea in the name of border issue, launch a war against us. Already we are at war with Eritrea, and they are ready to exploit this situation. What should be clear here is that even Sudan and Kenya could turn their back if the rule of the game inclined to the other side. The enemy within also could be a challenge if there is no consensus to ease down the political tensions prevailing in the country. The threat of others secessionist, together with the radical Islam movement (Al-itahad, Al-shibab) in our region also should be taken into considerations.

Beside what has been said above, the Egyptians are in the process of intensive diplomatic maneuvers, especially in Eastern African countries. They are trying to influence the South Sudan both in diplomatic, military, and financial aid. No one knows the outcomes all these new move by the Egyptian.



4. The Egyptian decision could be to control the construction of the dam, and by doing so to reduce its capacity. As many media outlets are posted the Egyptian stand, they are willing to negotiate if only they have a direct involvement and say in GRD construction process. This means theirs so called “experts” will start from the scratch to study the technicality of the dam as well as the environmental impacts of the dam to downstream countries. They also want to assign their “experts” permanently in the site. All these new proposals by Egyptians and especially the former two terms (technicality as well as environmental impacts studies) are very vague and complex issues to deal with the party which have neither interest nor good will. Especially, with Egyptian “water experts “it will be extremely difficult and challenging process to conduct intellectual discussions .They lack intellectual honesty and intentionally committed fallacies with regard Nile River issues. To me if these proposals rose by Egyptian as a precondition, they are not better than a colonial agreement of the 1929 and 1955.

Last, such a huge and expensive dam construction which cost considerable amount of investment, and man powers, should technically reliable, stable, and environmentally friendly both to up and down streams countries. The Ethiopian government should strive to entertain the Egyptian concerns (mainly on those recommendations proposed by the international experts panels), if they are sincere and have a good gesture to work together for the benefits of the two countries. Other than this caution should be taken not to open loopholes that could drag the speedy of the project.

Long Live Ethiopia

Ethiopia: Meles Zenawi's selected speech: completing the story

By Hindessa Abdul

It has been a year since long time Ethiopian ruler Meles Zenawi died of unestablished causes in a Belgian hospital somewhere between June and August of 2012. The Government hasn’t come out clearly about the cause of his death.

During the last several weeks the state run media were preoccupied portraying a person akin to a saint. The praises showered upon him were more than needed to canonize him. 21-gun salute was fired; millions of trees planted; fellow leaders of neighbouring countries were at hand to give pomp to the event; scores of parks renamed after him, and the list goes on and on.

University professors, army generals, cabinet members, and party operatives were paraded to give testimony about the deeds of his excellency. They said he was an intellectual, a military strategist, a farmers’s best friend, and man of the people.

ETV even took a page from North Korean manual on cult of personality. They took us to his office showing the working area displaying a document he allegedly was working on; Koreans already did that telling the story of Kim Il-sung (the senior Kim). If that is any indication, everything Meles touched may be preserved as historical relic.

For those whose thirst about Meles’ myth were not quenched, the Sunday shows came up with the selected speeches that tried to make an entertainer out of the chief priest of “revolutionary democracy.”

Meles had all the answers for every question under the sun; he was talking to the rubber stamp parliament ready to giggle at every phrase uttered; he was addressing the youth, the business men, the revelers at a millennium party, you name it.

HIStory

While the nation propaganda machine wants to paint a demigod, it is only fair to complete the story. As they say, journalism is “the first rough draft of history.” Here are some of his pronouncements that were willingly left out:

In April 1990 a year before Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) controlled Addis Ababa, Meles had an interview with the late CIA and National Security specialist Paul B. Henze in the TPLF’s Washington office. “We can no longer have Amhara domination,” Meles told him. While it was no secret that Henze sympathized with TPLF, he still confronted the rebel leader to which Meles tried to soften a bit: “ When we talk about Amhara domination, we mean the Amhara of Shoa, and the habit of Shoan supremacy that became established in Addis Abeba during the last hundred years.”

In a visit to the Tigray region shorty after his ascendance to power the then Ethiopian President played to the emotions of the public somewhat in the line of Hitler’s rhetoric about the Aryan race: “We are proud to be born out of you...we are proud to be gotten out of you.” ( Enkwae abhatkum tefetirna...enkwae abhatkum terehibna )_ That part of the speech is always left out when ETV takes sound bytes from that “historical” speech, not to offend the “nations and nationalities.”

In August 1994 (some say it was October 1995), Meles Zenawi visits the U.S. and confers with members of Ethiopian community in Washington D.C. Flanked by his yes-men like Seyoum Mesfin, Berhane G.Kristos, Dr Tekeda Alemu and other TPLF top brass, Meles was entertaining questions from the audience. A lady asks him what his vision was for Ethiopia ten years from then. Meles responded his vision was to make sure the people eat three times a day._ Decade after the promised era, Ethiopians scavenge for left overs at restaurants or in city waste disposal sites.

In an interview with Professor Donald Levine - a renowned U.S. sociologist and professor of Ethiopian studies - the late premier retorted: “The Tigreans had Axum, but what could that mean to the Gurague! The Agew had Lalibela, but what could that mean to the Oromo! The Gonderes had castles, but what could that mean to the Wolaita?”

That comment was to haunt him on the eve of the 2005 general elections where he was afraid to face any opposition politician for debate. In his last appearance prior to the vote, Meles explained that gaffe saying it was taken out of context. But he implied that the Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture (then Ambassador to France) Teshome Toga who hails from Wolaita Zone was put in charge to counter the perception his words created. Teshome eventually oversaw the return of the Axum Obelisk in April 2005.

When history is written by historians rather than victors, those speeches and comments hopefully will get their rightful place in the interest of posterity.

Al-Qaeda’s ‘Christian’ Dictator Funder

As unlikely as it may seem, a U.N. report says that Al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate, al-Shabaab, is being financed by the “Christian” dictator of Eritrea, Isaisas Afewerki. The report also implicates the regime in a massive bomb plot against the African Union in Ethiopia in January. Al-Shabaab has proven frighteningly effective in recruiting Americans, and any regime helping it must be immediately placed on the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

The danger of Eritrea’s support for terrorism was laid bare in the U.N.’s report exposing that the regime attempted “mass casualty attacks against civilian targets” in January. The mayhem was to begin with the detonation of a car bomb at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. At the same time, the largest market in Africa would be bombed, and the area between the Ethiopian Prime Minister’s office and the Sheraton Hotel where the African Union leaders stay would come under attack. One of the participants said he was told by his Eritrean superiors to make “Addis Ababa like Baghdad.”

All but one of the aspiring attackers was trained and supervised by Eritrean officials. One of them was in communication with the Oromo Liberation Front, an Eritrean-backed group fighting the Ethiopian government. They were discovered with C4 explosives, detonators, a sniper rifle and other equipment for carrying out the attacks. The need to confront Afewerki’s desire to commit acts of spectacular terrorism is especially pressing in light of his regime’s support for terrorist groups including al-Shabaab and friendship with the Iranian regime.

The Afewerki regime gives al-Shabaab about $75,000 every single month through its embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. In August 2009, Secretary of State Clinton publicly condemned Eritrea for arming the Al-Qaeda affiliate. In December 2009, the U.N. punished Eritrea with sanctions that included freezing the assets of some complicit officials and a travel ban. Al-Shabaab hasn’t participated in a plot to attack the U.S. homeland yet, but it is an integral part of Al-Qaeda’s infrastructure and is a major contributor to homegrown radicalization.

At least 14 Americans have been indicted for their role in al-Shabaab’s American network. In February 2010, an associate of al-Shabaab was arrested in Virginia after illegally smuggling 270 Somalis into the country through Mexico. House Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King’s third hearing on homegrown extremism covered this problem, and revealed that 40 Americans and 20 Canadians are known to have joined al-Shabaab’s ranks in Somalia. Of these, 15 Americans and three Canadians were killed, including the first American suicide bomber. Twenty-one Americans remain unaccounted for. Eritrea’s involvement with this group and the aggressive inclinations of the regime are a recipe for disaster.

Al-Shabaab isn’t the only Islamic terrorist group that the Eritrean regime is abetting. Hizbul Islam, another group in Somalia that merged with al-Shabaab in December 2010, received extensive aid from Eritrea. The government of Djibouti accused Afewerki of training and arming it, and the President of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government said the regime gave Hizbul Islam operational guidance. In May 2009, its leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Awyers, admitted, “Eritrea supports us and Ethiopia is our enemy.”

The regime actively supports a range of other militant groups in Africa. The U.N. says that the same officers involved with the African Union bomb plot give financial and logistical assistance to groups in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Sudan and possibly Uganda. In September 2010, the Ethiopian authorities captured members of the Ogaden National Liberation Front with weapons from Eritrea. The militants said that they were trained there, and then dispatched to Ethiopia through Somaliland. Some of the money for these operations is raised from Eritrean-Americans, specifically in Oakland, C.A. The regime pressures its nationals living outside the country to pay it a two percent income tax, bringing in tens of millions of dollars, which then goes to such nefarious purposes.

The Eritrean opposition claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is active in the country. The IRGC is reported to have trained members of the radical Shiite Houthi rebels in Eritrea in 2009 when they were fighting the Yemeni and Saudi governments. Weapons for the Houthis were said to have arrived from Eritrea’s Asab harbor, forcing the Saudis to launch a naval blockade to intercept them. If true, this cooperation manifested from a tightening relationship between the Iranian and Eritrean regimes. In May 2008, Afewerki met with Ahmadinejad, and an Iranian opposition group has alleged that the Iranians have a military presence in the Asab region. There are unconfirmed reports of a large buildup, including submarines, arms stockpiles and ballistic missiles. The Eritrean regime gave Gulf News access to the sites that were linked to Iran and camps said to be used to train militants, and found no incriminating evidence. Of course, the regime may simply have cleansed the sites. Significantly, the regime denied access to the U.N.

Eritrea’s alliance with Al-Shabaab and Iran also has strategic ramifications. Its geographic position allows enemies of the West to threaten the Bab-al Mandeb Strait, which connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. It also allows a threat to be posed to the western side of the Arabian Peninsula, specifically Yemen and Saudi Arabia, which are enemies of both Iran and Al-Qaeda.

Ethiopia is leading a group of East African countries in pushing for U.N. sanctions on Eritrea. The U.S. is supporting such measures, which will target Eritrea’s mining industry and ban the two percent income tax that the regime pressures Eritreans who have left the country to pay. Last July, Rep. Ed Royce of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade wrote a letter to Secretary of State Clinton requesting that Eritrea be added to the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. This designation is long overdue.

The Afewerki dictatorship is allied to Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. It has tried to carry out dramatic acts of terrorism and supports al-Shabaab, an affiliate of Al-Qaeda that is radicalizing Americans. What will it take for Eritrea to be added to the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism?

source

Wrong to favor Egypt in water rift

By TOM CAMPBELL / Register Columnist

Egypt's sense of nationhood is tied up in control of the Nile. So is energy self sufficiency for Ethiopia. The clash between these two realities can have deadly consequences. America will be tempted to intervene – on the wrong side.

The issue is a major dam proposed by Ethiopia on the Blue Nile River, the source of over 80 percent of the water that eventually enters the Nile River system. The Blue Nile starts in Lake Tana in Ethiopia, and flows through tall, narrow chasms to the Sudan border. Within Sudan, the Blue Nile meets the White Nile in Khartoum, and from there flows into Egypt.

For many years, all the Nile's water has been divided between Sudan and Egypt; any other country that dared to touch the Nile was met with stern threats from Egypt and its protectors: first England, then America. When Ethiopia sought World Bank financing for this dam more than 20 years ago, the U.S. leaned on the bank to say no. Egypt was at peace with Israel at America's request, and Egypt demanded America's help with the Nile question (and $2 billion a year) in return. The calculus was clear: Ethiopia brought us nothing, Egypt, under Mubarak, brought peace with Israel. So we did Egypt's bidding with the World Bank.

The last several years, however, have brought Ethiopia into a partnership with the U.S. in attacking al-Qaida and similar groups in Somalia. Meantime, Egypt deposed longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, and we were not enthusiastic about his replacement, Mohamed Morsi. Trying to stir up nationalist sentiment, Morsi focused on Ethiopia's announcement that it would start to divert the Blue Nile so dam construction could begin. He said, "We will defend each drop of Nile water with our blood if necessary," and summoned leaders of the Islamic parties to discuss Egypt's likely responses. Infamously, a leader of one of those parties, not knowing the meeting was being broadcast, said on live television that the "real enemies" were America and Israel. Talk included a military strike.

Morsi is gone. Secretary of State John Kerry has embraced the new military government. The danger is that the U.S., in its effort to prop up the Egyptian military successors to Morsi, will try to give them a victory over the dam issue.

When has the U.S. managed to play the internal politics of another country with any success? It is so much more likely that, if we go down this route, we will alienate our ally in the fight against extremism in Somalia, and do nothing to appease the widely held belief in Egypt, voiced at that televised meeting, that somehow all wrongs are due to America. We'll choose the wrong side – once again.

Why do we need to take sides at all? We can't stop Ethiopia by cutting off its financing: Ethiopia has come up with the funding for this project from the sale of bonds, and loans from China. The dam, once finished, will produce tremendous amounts of electricity that can be sold to neighboring countries to retire the bonds.

And if the new Egyptian regime wants to show it is at least as nationalistic as the deposed Morsi government, and threatens to bomb the dam, will we be proud to be associated with that?

If we do take sides, the dam is the right thing to do for environmental and humanitarian reasons. Ethiopia will become a net energy exporter in a part of the world chronically lacking in electricity. The stored water can alleviate the droughts that occur every seven years, filling world newspapers with horrifying pictures of starvation in Sudan and Ethiopia. Once the reservoir is filled, the flow of the Nile won't be diminished. The time to fill the reservoir can be during the wet seasons, and spread out over many years.

There are many ways for America to signal its support of the new regime in Egypt. Shutting down Ethiopia's dam, or looking the other way while Egypt does so, is not one of them.

Tom Campbell is dean of the School of Law at Chapman University and a former U.S. congressman, serving on the Africa Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee. These views are his own.


WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com. Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published). Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

Woyanne’s Anti-Ethiopianism and the Italo-Ethiopian War

Selam Beyene | July 27th, 2013
The history of Ethiopia is replete with contradictions and paradoxes. There are accounts galore of heroism and meekness, patriotism and treachery, devotion and apathy, and, above all, fear of God and acts of brutality in that ancient country. These chronicles may help provide clues about the root causes of the Woyane anti-Ethiopia schema and the appropriate plan of action needed to deracinate them.

By anti-Ethiopianism we purport the systematic and government-sanctioned weakening of the national fabric by pitting one ethnic group against another, as was witnessed recently in such areas as Benishangul-Gumuz and Gura Ferda zones. Anti-Ethiopianism is the appalling government policy of dislocating natives from their ancestral lands and transferring national wealth to foreigners at dirt cheap prices. It is anti-Ethiopianism to frame a constitution whose central object is to promote the disintegration and land-lockedness of the country. Most importantly, anti-Ethiopianism implies the deviant system of government under which all major economic, political and military institutions are controlled by the minority Woyane group, and through which fundamental human rights are suppressed and the people are denied their basic rights to participate in free and fair elections.

Confucius sagaciously advised: “Study the past if you would define the future.” Accordingly, when we consider the current predicaments of the country, which are characterized by ethnocentrism, totalitarianism, corruption, nepotism and absence of a feeling of Ethiopian patriotism amongst the rulers; and, most importantly, when we search for a viable solution to them, we should go no further for clues and explanations than the recent past events, beginning with the invasion of Italy in 1935-1940.

Much has been documented about the infamous Fascist aggression by notable Ethiopian and Western historians, journalists and novelists, as well as other writers who had taken active parts in the actual war. While well-researched history books and journal articles may serve as the ultimate sources for academic exercise, there is considerable information that may be gleaned from anecdotal accounts narrated by individuals based on their personal experiences. In this regard, we are fortunate to have at our disposal now the writings of three foreigners who had the opportunity to witness firsthand the savagery of the Fascist aggression, the heroism of the Ethiopian fighters, and the betrayal by local collaborators.

The three foreigners, whose paths had crossed several times in the battles of Tembien, Maichew and other fronts, had fought on the side of Ethiopia under the leaderships of such eminent Ethiopians as Ras Kassa Hailu Darge, Ras Seyoum Mengesha and Ras Mulugeta Yiggezu, the War Minister. In so doing, they were able to record considerable historical data and to leave behind intriguing accounts of bravery and treachery that could inform present and future researchers seeking answers to some of the most complex questions about present-day Ethiopia. Most importantly, they provide critical insights into the underlying reasons for the anti-Ethiopian agenda Zenawi and his Woyane entourage successfully exploited to catapult themselves to power; the continued damage to the long-term viability of the country that is caused by the misguided fiscal, economic, educational and military policies implemented by the TPLF-led regime; and the institutionalization of ethnic-based governance that is portentously promoted to nurture inter-ethnic animosity among brothers and sisters who have lived in relative harmony for many centuries.

Recently, the works of two of the foreigners were made accessible to Amharic readers. The first, ቀይ አንበሳ (Alpha, 2003) was translated by Tesfaye M. Bayileyegn from the original narration of Colonel Alejandro del Valle1. The second book, የሃበሻ ጀብዱ (AAU Press, 2010), is a translation by Techane J. Mekonnen based on Adolf Parlesack’s memoir in Czech entitled Habesska Odyssea (Praha : Panorama, 1989). The third, and most controversial, memoir was written by Colonel Feodor Konovalov, a Russian military adviser to Ras Seyoum Mengesha and other leaders. While there is no accessible Amharic translation of Konovalov’s writings, relevant excerpts are available in various sources (see, e.g., Clarke III, 2008 2).

Excepting a few and infrequent inconsistencies among the renditions of the three foreigners about shared events that they had jointly witnessed, there is a remarkable degree of consistency in their accounts of the breathtaking gallantry of Ethiopian fighters, as well as the distressingly heartrending treachery of domestic collaborators, especially from Tigray, Rayya, and Azebo regions, in the early days of the war.

Although Konovalov was generally silent on the contribution of the traitors to the defeat of Ethiopia, he was in remarkable concord with the other two in expressing awe and admiration at the inimitable valor and fearlessness of the Ethiopian army in the face of an infinitely better armed enemy. Quoting a Western diplomat, Konovalov was unhesitant to affirm: “… the Ethiopian soldier, well-taught and well-led, had no equal anywhere in the world.” The memoirs of all three abound with their eyewitness accounts of how, defying all odds against them, waves of primitively armed Ethiopian fighters, composed of men and women from every ethnic group, religious persuasion and social ladder, stormed, time and again, well fortified Italian positions, sending terror and confusion among the enemy. As one reads about the surreal exploits of those brave fighters, the knowledge of belonging to a people of such valiance and heroism fills one’s heart with a sense of immense pride. In one instance, for example, del Valle tells of a story in which the Ethiopians ferociously and unstoppably climbed up a hill to engage the enemy that was assailing them from above with automatic weapons and mustard gas. In summarizing his amazement at the extraordinary scene he was witnessing, he wrote: “The efforts of the invaders to try to stop those brave Ethiopians, who were charging uphill over the bodies of their fallen compatriots, was like firing bullets from machine guns to futilely slow down the gushing of water downhill.”

The foreigners also documented heroic accomplishments of ordinary citizens, whose names never made it to the history books, but who had demonstrated unimaginable bravery on the battlefields. Among such stories eloquently told by Parlesack, none is probably as fascinating as that of a young Oromo boy from the Sellale region by the name of Abichou. Parlesack describes with a Homeric touch the valiance of the boy as he terrorized the Fascist aggressors, chased to their deaths many of the traitors, coordinated a multi-ethnic army from Hamassen, Tigray, Gojjam and Sellale, and scored countless victories against the invading army.

Parlesack and del Valle were also unreserved in their expression of disgust at the degree of betrayal and treachery perpetrated by some members of the Tigray, Rayya and Azebo regions that made the campaigns of the great armies of Ras Seyoum, Ras Kassa and Ras Mulugetta immeasurably arduous. Parlesack even hinted that the balance of power at the battle of Maichew was tipped in favor of the invaders, thanks in great part to the sabotage of the traitors from Rayya and Azebo, who inflicted considerable damage on the advancing Ethiopian army coming from behind at critical moments.

Among the most notorious traitors of the era was Dejazmach Haile Sellasie Gugsa, a great grandson of Emperor Yohannis IV, who gave his allegiance to Benito Mussolini in the early days of the war. This traitor facilitated the invasion of Mekelle in November of 1935, and later joined the invading army that marched on Addis Ababa in April of 1936. Throughout the occupation, he provided invaluable service as a trusted adviser to both Rodolfo Graziani and the Duke of Aosta. Remarkably, his first demonstration of treachery was to raise the Italian flag in Mekelle, desecrating the Ethiopian tri-colors. Over six decades later, another traitor, the late Meles Zenawi, would defile that same flag.

Indeed, in the face of the well-known anti-Ethiopian sentiment unabashedly exhibited by Zenawi, and now aggressively implemented by his successors, it is not beyond the realm of rational proclivity to wonder whether the turncoats of the Italo-Ethiopian war did not influence the imprudent minds of the current traitors.

Much has been disclosed about the dubious family tree of the late dictator and the backgrounds of some of those in the Woyane leadership. Regarding the notorious heritage of Zenawi, Gebremedhin Araya, a one-time TPLF fighter and an accomplished authority on the late dictator’s family history, has given gripping testimonials, in a series of ESAT interviews, how the dictator’s mind might have been poisoned while growing up in a family that had always betrayed the land they lived in. There are also troubling accounts of the backgrounds of most of the Woyane leaders, including the notorious Bereket Simon, Sibhat Negga and several others.

At a time when there is a lot of confusion among some sectors of the Ethiopian community about the true nature of the Woyane regime and its hidden agenda, it is absolutely critical to see the treachery of the rulers through the prism of their treasonous forefathers. This is especially indispensable in any effort to raise the awareness of the people of Tigray in whose name these traitors are causing immeasurable damage. Although there were several traitors who, like Haile Sellasie Gugsa, sided with the enemy and fought against the Ethiopian army, there were also exemplary patriots from the same region who valiantly fought and died in defense of their motherland against Fascist invasion. Similarly, despite the common perception that many Tigreans today are backers of the evil dictatorship, it should be incontrovertibly affirmed that there is a large proportion of Tigreans who abhor the destructive and anti-Ethiopian path followed by the Woyane regime.

The late dictator and his party have always projected themselves as saviors of the people from the tyrannical rule of the Derg. Unfortunately, many genuine Ethiopians have overlooked the fact that the Woyane regime is not only a most vicious authoritarian system, as the Derg was, but also an atrocious organization whose ultimate objective is the destruction of Ethiopia as a nation. In actual fact, no rational government in history has unilaterally advocated the dismemberment of the country it rules, made attempts to justify its isolation through land-lockedness, parceled out precious lands to foreigners at dirt cheap prices, or systematically used ethnicity, famine, illiteracy and disease as instruments to enslave the people it governs, to the extent the Woyane rulers have done so. It is therefore vitally important to effectively establish the anti-Ethiopian identity of the regime, and to reignite the patriotism of those members of the society who have been hoodwinked by the pervasive propaganda campaign that the regime has successfully, but spitefully, launched to portray itself as a better alternative to the brutal Derg dictatorship.

A major weakness of the pro-democracy movement thus far has been its hopeless ineptitude to articulate precisely why the Woyane philosophy is anti-Ethiopian, and how dangerous that philosophy is to the long-term viability of the country. The suppression of basic human rights, the codification of ethnocentrism in the constitution, the irresponsible policy of land grabs, the pitting of one ethnic group against another, and the unfettered corruption among the leaders of the regime have not been effectively communicated to the people as manifestations of this general scheme of anti-Ethiopianism that the Woyane leadership has perfected over the past several decades.

Indubitably, the only realistic strategy that would guarantee the certain destruction of the Woyane regime is one that successfully establishes and communicates to the people of Ethiopia this abhorrent nature of the regime. Without a thorough understanding of the TPLF as a perfidious organization by the people of Ethiopia in general, and those of Tigray in particular, there cannot be a unified front that is a prerequisite for a successful outcome of the struggle to save the country, liberate the oppressed, and establish a democratic system where individual freedoms would flourish and the long-term survival of Ethiopia would be guaranteed. As they have heroically demonstrated to the world before, during and after the Italo-Ethiopian war, there is nothing that unifies and arouses the fighting spirit of the people of Ethiopia more than a sense of direct threat to their heritage and independence either by foreign aggressors or domestic connivers. Pro-democracy forces, Websites, and other groups and individuals, therefore, have the moral imperative to reignite the ardor of the people to defend their country by raising their awareness as to the true nature of the treasonous organization that is Woyane.
_______________
[1]In “Un hombre blanco en el infierno negro por el Coronel Alejandro del Valle” as told to Arturo Alfonso Roselló (Havana: Impreso en los Talleres Tipograficos, 1937)).
[2] Clarke III, JV, “Feodor Konovalov and the Italo-Ethiopian War (Part I), World War II Quarterly, 2008; 5:4-37

The writer may be reached at beyene50@gmail.com

Ethiopia's Fragmented Elites: Origins and Syndromes

By Messay Kebede

One question that regularly and intensely consumes the mind of many Ethiopians is the question of knowing why Ethiopian elites are unable to work together. Especially those opposing the TPLF regime, even though they are well aware that the regime is their common enemy, invariably prove unable to agree on a common political agenda, let alone to act in concert to remove their common foe. Is the failure to act jointly due to irrational forces or is it the outcome of definite causes that are susceptible of a rational explanation? This paper is an attempt to rationally comprehend the failure, with the hope that some such comprehension will have a liberating impact, obvious as it is that the conscious awareness of the forces of division is liable to significantly reduce their grip on the mind of Ethiopian elites.

The first answer that springs to mind to the question why Ethiopian elites are unable to work together is, of course, the lack of unity. But the latter is more of a question than an answer. For, why is there such a deficiency of unity? Why are elites, despite their enduring frustration toward the regime, nay their recurring conviction that the regime is leading the country to chaos, incapable of overcoming their divisions?

The seriousness of the matter forces us to look for causes transcending the immediate preoccupations of Ethiopian elites, the very ones having to do with historical reasons. I submit that the most compelling causes are historical in that the lack of unity is a product of the ideological and political struggles since the dawn of the Ethiopian process of modernization. Let me explain.

Socio-Historical Causes

The appearance of a centralized and oppressive government and its ever-tightening grip over the country as essential ingredients of the Ethiopian process of modernization have entailed a growing rivalry over the control of power and wealth among old and emerging elites. As the progress of modernization modified the Ethiopian social fabric, the rivalry intensified. It reached its peak in the 60s when the conflict between the old nobility and the imperial state on the one hand and the various modern sectors (students, intellectuals, the emerging bourgeoisie, the bureaucratic and military elites, etc.) on the other hand increasingly took a political and ideological form.

Where there is no enough wealth, state power becomes the privileged instrument to exclude competitors. The need to exclude generates, in turn, radical ideologies either in the form of hardened conservatism or extreme revolutionarism. The function of radical ideologies is to justify the political exclusion of opponents. Thus, to the conservatism of the nobility and the imperial state in the 60s and early 70s, students and intellectuals opposed socialism and ethnonationalism. The ideology of socialism allows elites to claim that they are the sole representatives of the working people, thereby depriving other competing elites of the right to represent the overwhelming majority of the people. As to ethnonationalism, it restricts the right to represent a given ethnic group to native elites, and so denies all political legitimacy to non-kin elites. Unsurprisingly, both ideologies justify absolute power as necessary to effect the exclusion.

The characteristics of a state whose function is to exclude rivals are quite different from a democratic state. In the latter, not only conflicts are recognized, but they are also provided with the means of reaching an accommodation based on the verdict of the people. The provision of accommodation prevents the recourse to violence to settle disputes. By contrast, the excluding state rejects all form of accommodation, leaving to opponents no other choice than the overthrow of the state by violent means.

This politics of exclusion foments a culture of confrontation pursuing a zero-sum game. The fact that winners take all, in addition to exasperating the conflicts between elites, inaugurates an endless cycle of violent confrontations during which one group overthrows the ruling elite until it is itself overthrown by another group and so on. The intensification of conflicts undermines the unity of the country and, most of all, weakens the ability of elites to work together by fostering a culture of mutual animosity and mistrust. As a result, the effort to generate a democratic state is repeatedly foiled. Clearly, these characteristics trace an accurate portrait of the Ethiopian state and elites.

The main drawback of a state practicing exclusion is the lack of legitimacy. One group subduing other groups by means of force does not mean that the subdued groups recognize the authority of the state and are willing to obey. On the contrary, the groups are in a state of permanent rebellion and are just waiting for the opportunity to reverse the situation in their favor. However, their expectation makes victims of the lack of legitimacy of the state by nurturing an anarchic idea of entitlement to power. Indeed, where the state lacks legitimacy, many individuals feel entitled to aspire for the ownership of power. This aspiration stands in the way of the effort to create a collaborative spirit among elites by ignite mistrust and rivalry.

A pertinent illustration of fragmentation is the tendency to create parties revolving around individuals rather than being based on ideas and goals. Nothing better confirms the truth of this analysis than the anarchic proliferation of parties in Ethiopia whose number is estimated to be more than eighty. Worse yet, these parties have the tendency to split into smaller parties because disagreements cannot be managed democratically. Given that influential individuals consider political parties as their private possession, they are apt to create a splinter party by walking away with their followers each time internal disputes arise.

Extraverted Psyche

One must not forget that the flourishing of radical ideologies in Ethiopia is a direct consequence of modern education. Insofar as a system of education alien to the country’s history and culture has shaped modern Ethiopian elites, it has greatly facilitated the absorption of imported ideologies. The main outcome of Western education is not only to undermine the inherited common culture, but it is also to inculcate the paradigm of modernity versus tradition. The weakening of the common culture lessens unity while the paradigm of modernity values imitativeness by advocating the rejection of whatever is traditional as uncivilized, backward and by painting Western countries as the model to follow.

This copyism or extraverted psyche is one of the reasons why the modern educated sector of Ethiopian society easily adopted Marxism-Leninism, which was the dominant ideology in the 60s and early 70s. The Marxist-Leninist definition of political struggle as a resolute elimination of rivals, as opposed to the accommodative stand of democracy, became the rule for Ethiopian elites, while ideological radicalization further exasperated their conflicts to the point where they were perceived as irreconcilable. The high point of these antagonistic relationships was none other than the insidious proliferation of ethnonationalism among the educated elites.

The Lack of Galvanizing Ideas

The progressive decline of the fascination with Marxism-Leninism as a result of repeated economic and political failures of socialist countries and the prevalence of liberal democracy constitute an additional reason for the fragmentation of elites. The undeniable power of Marxism-Leninism was that it was a galvanizing ideology in that it identified the interests of elites with the liberation and empowerment of the working masses. The identification provided a nationalist vision investing elites, especially students and intellectuals, with the electrifying mission of becoming the liberators of the masses from oppression and exploitation and of their country from imperialism. Liberalism offers none of the excitements associated with revolutionary goals.

True, liberalism can inspire a fervent defense of freedom that can be as revolutionary as the idea of socialism. But we must see it in the context of Ethiopia, that is, of a mentality not yet emancipated from the totalitarian doctrine of the 60s. Such a mentality could not but amalgamate liberalism with Leninism, the outcome of which is the confusion of liberalism with individualism. The attempt to combine ethnonationalism with liberal principles, as sadly exemplified by the ruling ideology of the TPLF, is the worst form of the confusion.

The amalgam tries to apply liberalism while suppressing freedom in all its manifestations because of the Leninist remnant of politics defined as exclusion of opponents. Together with the caricature of liberalism by those who control power, there spreads among elites the interpretation of liberalism in the direction of selfish individualism. For this distorted liberalism, individuals should not be concerned about other people; their only worry should be their own interests so that all pursuit of grand causes is devalued. Clearly, where egoistic individualism becomes the norm, unity of purpose among elites is difficult to achieve.

In Ethiopia, the unity of purpose has been seriously hindered both by the proliferation of ethnonationalist ideologies and by the inability to find a matching or counter ideology against ethnonationalism. The choice is reduced to being either a supporter, an opponent, or a resigned tolerant of ethnonationalism. The perversion of Ethiopia with ethnonationalist ideologies is a stumbling block to the formation of a common purpose if only because the threat to the integrity of the nation deprives competitors of a common cause. Since elites rejecting the Ethiopian nationhood aspire either to secede or to become dominant, they cannot work together with those who defend the unity of the nation, still less can they accept an all-embracing ideology.

Divide-and-Rule Strategy and the Politics of Fear

Given that the fragmentation of Ethiopian elites along ethnic lines is the work of the TPLF, it follows that the main culprit for the lack of unity is the TPLF regime itself. It is important to note here that the TPLF did not only divide Ethiopia along ethnic states, but it also opted for a terrorist method of government, the essential function of which is the inculcation of fear. Government by fear has a paralyzing effect: though the overwhelming majority of elites is set against the regime, it cannot act in concert to get rid of the regime because of the paralyzing effect of fear. Instead of action, resignation takes the lead with the consequence that the dislike of the regime never transcends the subjective realm of feelings so as to translate into political action.

Be it noted that one of the effects of fear is the propensity to justify the postponement of political action. Indeed, fear provides justification for not acting together by enhancing little differences to the level of a fundamental disagreement. To the question of why opponents do not act together to remove the regime, the ready answer is the absence of agreement. Magnifying minor differences is how fear camouflaged itself into a valid reason for not acting, thereby avoiding the risks and dangers implied in political action. Not only does fear paralyze, but it also inspires fragmentation as a way of deferring political action. It is because dictatorial governments know that elites broken by fear cannot act in concert that they resort to systematic campaigns designed to spread fear.

In default of promoting action, fear encourages wishful thinking. Terror induces hope but in the form of magic or fantasy. Evidence of this is the recurrent predication of an imminent collapse of the regime by many opponents. By underestimating the strength and survival capacity of the regime, they tell us that it is on its last legs, though nothing is being done to turn the hope into reality. This kind of magical faith is another way of avoiding the risks and sacrifices necessary to actually remove the regime. There is some consolation in doing nothing when it is believed that magical forces are bound to intervene in our favor.

Beyond the Humiliated Generation

All the defects hampering rival elites pertain to a generation that has gone through the bitter experience of defeat and humiliation. The dreams of the generation of the 60s and early 70s have been squashed by the victory of the Derg whose dictatorial rule decimated its morale and that of their offspring. Both were offered nothing but the humiliation of a massive exodus. Whether they stayed in the country or left, all experienced another cycle of humiliating events when they witnessed, powerless, the defeat of the Ethiopian army, the invasion of the country by an ethnic army, and the secession of Eritrea. It is hard not to infer from these events a severe damage to Ethiopian nationalism and an erosion of self-confidence such that the generation’s belief in its ability to accomplish great things has received a deadly blow. Without self-confidence, the readiness to unite for a great cause is also likely to suffer gravely.

Defeat and humiliation entail leadership crisis. Just as a defeated army questions the competence of its commanding officers, so too a vanquished generation loses faith in leadership. Once leadership is distrusted, the willingness to unite in an organization is drastically reduced. No less than the need to accomplish great goals, confidence in leaders is a requirement of unity. Without exaggeration, leadership crisis is one of the crucial setbacks of post-revolutionary Ethiopia, all the more so as the Ethiopian culture is prone to the cult of heroes, as witnessed by the fact that its past history shows that the death or the exceptional courage of leaders often determined the fate of wars.

It would be naive to expect from a wounded generation the solutions to Ethiopia’s numerous problems. What was ruined by one generation cannot be fixed by the same generation. True change requires, above all, culture change, which takes time because it is a matter of creativity and growth. In short, real change is a generational issue. The TPLF, secessionist groups, and their opponents are all products of the dominant culture of the 60s. Their collaborations and conflicts show that society follows a determined path until it sees a precipice. The generation that takes the precipice as a precipice, and not as a redress of a vile social order, is the one called upon to change the direction. It sees an impasse in what other characterize as positive or negative developments.

When things go wrong, the culprits and their opponents are the two poles of the same reality. To the extent that the thinking of the one is just the opposite of the other, they are one and the same, as they remain tied to each other by their very contradiction. Thus, as action and reaction, the Derg and the TPLF are one and the same. That is why many of the actions of the TPLF often give us the impression of a déjà vu. That is why also, just as the Derg, the TPLF is unable to solve the problems of Ethiopia.

The generation that is free of the thinking uniting the Derg and the TPLF is alone able to bring real change to Ethiopia. However, the condition of its emancipation grows from the previous opposition, the development of which draws the limit beyond which the precipice lies. Reaching the limit clears the ground for the new, for “where danger is, also grows the saving power,” as says Heidegger. Whether such a generation is in sight is hard to tell. One thing is sure, though: the best that the defeated generation and perhaps their immediate descendant can do is to take a hard critical look at themselves and exchange their ambition to remain makers of history for the much more subdued role of midwife of the coming repaired generation.