0:02 / 18:14
ESAT DC daily News Wed 12 Oct 2016

I am writing to you today as citizen concerned about the present political situation in Ethiopia. Needless to say, I do not belong to any organized political group, nor do I subscribe to the ideology of any such group. If I have to express political views in my letter, it is not in any capacity as a political commentator. I leave that privileged position to the increasing number of experts that take to various stages especially in recent times. I rather write to you as a humble citizen who tries to stay as informed as possible on matters concerning his country.

I have known you for a long time now – from our time at the Law School through your time at Mekelle University and now as a politician. I have always admired you intellect, wit, sense of humor and social skills. In no less measure is your command of English admirable in a country where language proficiency is considered to be one of two major yardsticks of knowledgeability – the other one being political power. I know many others have different views about you based on your alleged lack of ‘seriousness’ when you were at the University, your outgoing behavior and, most importantly, your comments as a politician.

When you were embroiled in a war of words over your comment that the demonstrators in the Oromia region were having difficulty ‘reigning in the devil they invited’ (yeterutin gannen mekotater akatachew) some months ago, I recall you stated that anybody who knows you would stand witness to the fact that you would not insult a people as gannen. If nobody has come out before me on the matter, let me be the first to testify publicly that you are a person who has neither the ignorance nor the disposition to insult a people – much less to call the great Oromo people gannen teri. The Getachew I know is a respectful, understanding and sensible fellow who has proven capability to make friends with people of different social and cultural origins. It is just that you chose the wrong words in describing what was a really serious situation.

However, I do not think I can say the same about many other comments you have made over the period of your tenure as a politician. First of all, your comments should be put in proper perspective. You speak from the vantage point of party position rather than your individual opinion. You essentially execute what your party decides. Furthermore, you are a Communication Minister whose job is to communicate the decisions of your government to the public in a way that best promotes its political agenda. This is not to say that your individual opinion does not matter because the decisions of your party/government result from the debates and discussions you would have before you go out to communicate the outcome. Consequently, it is to be assumed that there are views or party positions that you would express even if you do not personally believe in them (recall the observation of the late Prime Minister that he executed the decision of the party to go to war with Eritrea even if he did not believe in it). However, you are most probably the author of many of the words you use in articulating and communicating the positions.

If you have to be evaluated as an individual politician or as a person, you are to be judged based on the views and positions you stood for during internal (party) debates, which the public has no way of knowing. On the other hand, your evaluation as a politician can logically be based on how well you articulated and defended your party’s/government’s position. You cannot expect the public to walk the fine line between the two roles, i.e., to differentiate your party position from your individual opinion, and judge you accordingly. It is also in the nature of your position as a politician to be in the spotlight of public opinion.

I have seen and listened to you so many times speaking in defense of your government/party in a variety of delicate issues, including on the effect of the CSO law in narrowing the space for civil society in the country, the usage of the anti-terrorism law against journalists and political critics, the fairness of the ruling party’s 100 per cent control of the parliamentary seats, the alleged interference of government in religious affairs, and, more recently, on the protests in the Oromia and Amhara regions. I have always seen the different views from the perspectives of party political positions and the generally polarized nature of political debates in our country. I must say that you play your ‘supposed’ role quite well in these contexts. When I would assume that Getachew as an individual would take a totally different view or surely would struggle to control his mirth, you took the government position to a new level of seriousness (e.g., advocating for the escalation of Government measures against civil society and dissident groups with “secret” agenda, defending the 100 per cent control of parliament as a result of free and fair elections, rejecting every critical human rights report as baseless and biased etc.). You join the chorus of labeling all dissident voices as power mongers, terrorists and agents of foreign elements who want to counter the democratic and development gains of the country under your party.

The above is all to be expected from a typical party politician. I must admit, however, that when you first appeared at the national political stage in a turn of events that remains enigmatic to me, I somehow expected that you were going to be a ‘friendly’ face of the regime whose top officials remained aloof, particularly from the (independent) elite that they called by different names such as (petty-) bourgeoisies, narrow nationalists, chauvinists etc. I honestly assumed you and the other ‘new generation’ politicians were going to let go the animosity reminiscent of the politics of the 70s, to which many of our old guard politicians belonged, and create an interface between the government and the broader politically concerned elite, which reasonably felt excluded. However, that was not to be. Especially with the recent rounds of protests in the country, you have plaid a typical regime politician’s role, perfecting the arts of dismissal, labeling and fear-mongering that we have seen  many governments in the same situation put to use. I watched you many times being put in the difficult positions of defending the democratic credentials of your government and, more particularly, justifying the admittedly disproportionate measures of the security forces. You never disappointed.

The rounds of statements you and your colleagues made on the demonstrations in the Oromia and the Amhara regions have not helped calm the situation down a bit. You rather came out as an undeservedly controversial figure. While I stood with you on the “gannen” comment and understood your party/government position statements, I was dumbstruck by your recent comment on the demonstrations in Oromia and Amhara. After singing from your government’s hymen sheet of blaming some, externalizing the problems and labeling the causes as narrow nationalism (Oromia) and chauvinism or timkihtegninet (Amhara), you went on to lament the “weakness” of the government in not doing enough to avoid the eventuality of the demonstrators in the two regions standing for the causes you described. You labeled them, or their unidentified organizers, “separatists and unifying forces which should never have supported each other’s causes”, i.e., one group asking government to hear the voice of the other, “if the government did its job well”. You added that there is no way the Government negotiates with such groups.

Considering the immediate causes, overall issues raised and the apparent absence of coordination among the demonstrations, one would find their depiction as some sort of solid groups with identifiable characteristics and objectives to be quite strange. Even if the name-calling was a result of established political strategy or connections created with forces such as the Oromo Liberation Front and Ginbot 7, I found it hard to understand the logic of a responsible government official in playing the game of division between two people who happen to be out in demonstrations that broke out for reasons which are not necessarily related to one another. If at all there are common reasons, they somehow relate to the Government’s overall handling of politics and governance in the country which would require considered, nuanced and steady responses. However, your comment portrayed a (spontaneous-sounding) response that strangely seemed to suggest that it could have been possible to avoid such demonstrations, i.e., the simultaneity and support to each other’s causes, by fomenting animosity and conflict between the two groups of people, or by fueling the supposed historical tension between the two ethnic groups.

The forgoing understanding of your comments fed very well into the views of many critics that the regime has been promoting division (rather than unity within diversity) in the country for so many years. I think all reasonable minds agree that, when the ruling party came to power, there was an issues of cultural hegemony that had taken elite political ramifications, which needed to be addressed. The possibility of being able to be served, administered, adjudged and go to school in ones’ own language is one big and irreversible achievement of the incumbent regime, which any group with a serious political agenda cannot hope to change or re-negotiate. Nevertheless, many would also agree that this is something that has been achieved (maximum) in the first 4 years of this regime’s reign. Since then, ethnicity has taken center-stage in political, social and even economic life within the country.

We went on to have our ethnicity written on our identification card – in disregard of mixed heritage and in a way that makes our Rwandan friends drop their jaw. Political parties are organized around ethnicity to the extent that a non-ethnic or national political organization has come to be considered a camouflage to a unifying agenda that rolls back “the gains of ethnic nationalism”. The political power contest among the tiny number of political elites is expressed in terms of usurped or assumed ethnic constituency. In a manner that defies any logic, we have come to hear of the “thinking” or political position of an ethnic group – like ye Amara or ye Tigre astesaseb. Meanwhile, the millions of people with mixed ethnic heritage either felt completely abandoned by, or had to align themselves to the demands of, the favored political architecture.

While no one ethnic group can obviously claim monopoly or superiority of competence, political and civil service appointments followed ethnic and party lines sometimes at the cost of merits (recall the often quoted remark of the late Prime Minister to the effect that political allegiance matters more than merit). This further opened the door to nepotism wide open – leading to realities and beliefs of ethnic favoritism. Ethnicity went even into academics and business – academic institutions took ethnic names, whereas anybody would tell you which bank belongs to which ethnic group. You may have heard from practicing lawyers in the country that even Chinese and Indian businessmen who happen to have court cases ask one’s ethnicity as part of the discussion to decide whether he/she will actually be their lawyer. There are also stereotypes building around this. When a person becomes rich in a short period of time or gets a high-level public service appointment, the number of people who try to assume his/her ethnicity are definitely not small. I am sure these are all not hidden to you. Obviously, they do not come from nowhere.

You proudly state that the regime/ruling party has been promoting democratic (ethnic) nationalism. However, while the ethnic question continued to be overplayed, many would agree that the promise of genuine self-government in the regional states remained elusive and the political space narrowed particularly in the periods after 1993 and 1997 E.C. In the last decade, organized political opposition has been practically decimated by the barrage of laws and actions (in what is called “rule by law”) – leaving the ruling party in the precarious position of claiming 100 per cent of parliament and having no viable partner for negotiation on the current political predicament. Under these circumstances, what you are left with is the promotion of ethnic nationalism as the only viable result of the revolutionary democracy political agenda. The yearly “Day of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” has been celebrated under mottos such as “our difference is our strength”. I first thought the word “difference” (liyyunet) was a slip of pen for “diversity” (bizuhinet), but to the misplacement of my hope I saw the motto being used repeatedly and in different parts of the country. This is not semantics, because there is clear danger in accentuating dissimilarity and/or disagreement (this is the meaning of difference) in a context where there have been much inter-ethnic relationships and less unifying political institutions and factors. Be it designed or incidental, the lack of an organizing or common agenda could also be the reason why the present protests are framed or described in ethnic terms.

Some have considered the politicization of the Muslim protests that broke out in 2011 as a spin-off from the ethnic/group politics promoted by the ruling party. It is no coincidence that the late Prime Minister’s first public address on the protests, which at that stage were essentially about the alleged interference of government into the management of religious affairs, depicted it as an issue of political representation as well. If you begin the lines of group political participation, anybody who has closely looked at our political history would logically consider our Muslim citizens as a possible political constituency. This would challenge the ethnic-based political agenda of the ruling party because its distinction of group political entities is religious blind and also because the dividing lines of ethnicity would be diluted by religion, which could either unit or divide ethnic groups.

The reason why I go at a little bit of length on the matter of ethnic division is to show how your comment could be interpreted as falling perfectly into a prevalent divisive mode of thinking. I understand that part of the ‘ethnicization’ of life in Ethiopia is not something on which the government may have taken clear position, but any politician would be hard-pressed to have been oblivious about the stated eventualities and the danger in this trajectory. We have heard a lot about how ethnic politics and/or federalism saved the country from disintegration. That might be true, but how has overplaying ethnic politics in the way the regime did solve ethnic-based questions in the country? Many regions still have ethnic-based dissident, and often armed, groups. Most of all, the turbulence in which part of the country is currently caught up is essentially ethnic. While the strategy that the government has promoted for far too long has not helped avoid this, it is puzzling that the response to the upheavals and demonstrations now occurring is still to categorize, divide and call names. It has now become the punchline of the government-controlled media to refer to three categories of people in the description of the present political conundrum, namely, “narrow nationalists” (mainly in relation to the demonstration in Oromia), “chauvinists” (regarding the Amhara demonstrations) and “targets of ethnic-based hatred” (in reference mainly to the Tigreans). Where it is felt important to describe the nature and causes of the protests more generally, words such as “backwardness” and “rent-collection” come into the picture.

It is as clear as day to everybody by now that the problems are real. Under this circumstances, one finds it difficult to understand the political or any other importance of labeling the demonstrations in the above ways. As could be seen from the position statements of the various party meetings and orchestrated interviews with high-level members of the ruling party and ‘independent’ political commentators, the government seems to be reckoning with some of its problems – going a little bit beyond its monotonous claim that it has problems of implementation (bureaucratic bottlenecks) rather than policy. I do not see how one reconciles this with the description of the ethnic-based (may be incidentally) demonstrations in terms that sound like there is interest in pitting one against another, or creating or widening rifts among different groups. How is that different from the often irresponsible social media, television and other web-based political comments that essentially foment division and hatred? What is the point of associating some instances and views of hatred by a limited number of individuals to the mass pretests happening in certain regions – following the logic of a “people’s thinking”?

Coming back to your comments, I am not sure if the government/ruling party has seen how dangerous your depiction of the demonstrations could be or if it has come to know how it was generally received. By the way, I should mention here that I have heard views of differing levels of negativity about your comments from acquaintances hailing from different parts of the country, including the small village where I grew up. Going by the frequency with which you appear on television windows these days, you seem to have been informally sidelined since the comment in question. In the one instance I watched you speaking about the work of government in responding to the people’s demands, you appeared to be trying to mellow. In any case, Ato Getachew, understanding the party political context within which you operate, I want to ask you just two questions:

1. If you really think there is democracy in the way politics is done in the country – a system in which broadly held and aired voices are heard – there should be consequences to the views that have unfortunately as well as reasonably been developed about you based on your comments over time, particularly the above-mentioned divisive-sounding comment. I am talking about views held locally, not in the diaspora or outside the country. I suppose you are not oblivious to them. Considering the importance of public office you hold and the impact of the views you express, the most logical way is for you to publicly resign. Ideally that resignation would require public apology for comments on which you have been misunderstood or you committed gaffes. Depending on your political outlook and ambition, you may find my suggestion naïve or even offensive, but trust me, your resignation would not only respond to widespread views, it will also have unparalleled symbolic significance as I do not know of a high-level politician who resigned by will in our recent history. This may help the Government as it attempts to change its face.
2. You can use the intellect of Getachew as an individual to curb the tendency to utilize divisive and disparaging language in the responses of the government/ruling party to what are understandable upheavals that are expressed in ethnic terms, which the government has acknowledged to some extent. As the government is reckoning with the nature, magnitude and seriousness of the problems, I hope it will be wise to take more appropriate measure to address them. The country is at cross-roads. The Irreechaa and sebbataa incidents are veritable signs of how things are going out of control. What we do now may define the fate of a generation. It is clear by now that externalizing the causes, meeting demonstrations by force or taking cosmetic measures such as changing heads of political parties would not suffice. Where the declaration of state of emergency takes us is anybody’s guess. Nonetheless, the objective of my letter is not to discuss possible solutions. There are different proposals from different angles, some of which challenge the polarization of our political debate in substantive terms. I would rather like to ask you to fight within your party/government against the divisive and name-calling rhetoric that has been used in the characterization of the demonstrations and the accompanying threats. I understand that ethnic questions require ethnic response, but as any responsible citizen would do, I am seriously concerned about the danger of putting a divisive spin on the problems on top of the already overplayed ethnic politics in the country.

Sincerely yours,

Tilahun Megersa (Ph.D)

The six hours of conversation  by the Ethiopian People Revolutionary Party/EPRP aged/wised leaders, Iyasu Alemayehu and Fasika Belete, with Ethiopians will all take us back in time to shed light to the crisis in Ethiopia now. It seems nothing has changed except some of us are getting older/wiser. Some get richer and arrogant !!!!

ESAT Radio 30min Oct 13 2016

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi denied on Thursday Ethiopian accusations that his country was supporting the opposition after a wave of violent protests that left hundreds dead.

Ethiopia accused “elements” in Eritrea, Egypt and elsewhere on Monday of being behind protests over land grabs and human rights that prompted the government to declare a state of emergency.

The unrest has cast a shadow over Ethiopia, where a state-led industrial drive has created one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies, but whose government also faces criticism at home and abroad over its authoritarian approach.

Ethiopia’s government spokesman said Egypt, which is embroiled in a row with Addis Ababa over sharing Nile waters, was a source of backing for armed gangs though that backing may not come from state actors.

Sisi denied those accusations.

“Egypt does not conspire against anyone,” he said in a speech to the military.

“I want to assure the brothers in Ethiopia that Egypt has never ever offered any support to the opposition and will not carry out any conspiratorial action against Ethiopia.”

The construction of Ethiopia’s 6,000-megawatt Grand Renaissance Dam has become a bone of contention between Ethiopia and Egypt, which lies downstream and relies on the Nile River for agricultural, industrial and domestic water use.

(Reporting by Ali Abdelatti, Writing Lin Noueihed; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

Jill Craig

NAIROBI —  Insisting the demonstrations in Ethiopia’s Oromia region during the past year are a mass movement, not just two or three protest groups, Merera Gudina, the chairman of Ethiopia’s opposition Oromo Federalist Congress, is calling for the government to listen to the people’s demands.

“Our struggle, until a democratic state is created in the country, a political system that accommodates for all the citizens in the country, is created, we continue our struggle,” said Gudina. “Whatever the cost may be.”

He says the government has been using “carrot and stick” tactics. Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn has promised political reforms, which Gudina says are “too little, too late.” Desalegn also announced a six-month national state of emergency to restore order.

Recent violent protests have targeted mostly foreign-owned businesses, burning and damaging almost a dozen factories and flower farms, and an estimated 60 vehicles across the Oromia region. An American researcher was killed near Addis Ababa when her car was attacked.

Rights groups such as Amnesty International have accused security forces of using excessive force to put down the protests.

Men walk past a bus that was torched during protests in the town of Sebeta, Oromia region, Ethiopia, Oct. 8, 2016.

During the recent thanksgiving celebration in early October at least 55 people were killed in a stampede when police fired tear gas and shots into the air. In August, protests in the Oromia and Amhara regions left dozens dead and hundreds injured after Ethiopian security forces allegedly opened fire on unarmed anti-government protesters.

Several requests by VOA for a response from the Ethiopian communications minister were not answered.

Disagreement on credibility

Rashid Abdi, Horn of Africa analyst for the International Crisis Group, says violence is counterproductive to the protest movement.

“Yes, I think, in these kind of protests, you know, more militant elements tend to take actions necessary without the interests of others, and I think the turn of events in probably the last three weeks, has really dented the image of the protest movement and undermined their credibility,” said Abdi.

Gudina disagrees.

“I don’t think that it is losing credibility. It is probably the fabrication of the government and some Western media. Otherwise, really, it is a popular movement; across the country people are refusing to be ruled in the old way,” said Gudina. “I don’t think it is losing any credibility in the eyes of the people of Ethiopia.”

FILE – Ethiopian opposition leader Merera Gudina (L), seen here in a July 2015, photo, says claims that violent protests cause his movement to lose credibility losing credibility are “probably the fabrication of the government and some Western media.”

Elise Dufief is the research and monitoring manager at transparency group Publish What You Fund, who did her PhD work on Ethiopia. Dufief said political and opposition parties have a role to play in turning frustrations into a constructive political force.

“Because whenever violence occurs in that way, it gives another reason to the government to say, ‘You see, these are distracting forces. We cannot really have a discussion or a dialogue with them. We cannot have a constructive discussion to see how we can identify the way forward. All we can do is reassert our authority and make sure that these people do not have a voice in the political sphere of the country.’ So that is not helping their case,” said Dufief.

Dufief added the protesters are trying these different tactics in an attempt to make their voices heard.

But regardless of tactics, Gudina said protesters know what they want in the end.

“Now people want real change, you know, real change on the ground, real change in the tangible things, but not empty promises,” said Gudina.

The protests began in November 2015 over a government plan to expand the boundaries of the capital, Addis Ababa. Issues have since expanded to include human rights, political representation, and political participation.

By D. K. Bimrew
 

Ever since it came to power by way of armed struggle in 1991, the Government of Ethiopia had been implementing agricultural led industrialization (ADLI) development policy.The government repeatedly declared achievements of its policy in the reduction of poverty are much better than any previous rulers of the country and any government in the sub-Sahara region. The government is not alone in this declaration. Its bravados are endorsed by international organizations. What makes the endorsements by these organizations unreliable is that they are based on the data provided by the government of Ethiopia which is manipulated and doctored to fit its self-serving interest. Development in Ethiopia is not only belonged to an economic realm rather it an ideology to justify authoritarian rule. Therefore, development datas are cooked to suit official narratives of of continued “double digit growth”.
 

 
However, to the contrary international studies and the reality on the ground showed the agriculture-led-industrialization policy cannot bring real development and reduce poverty. As a result, after a quarter of its implementations Ethiopia remains one of the world’s poorest country. More than 12 million people are chronically, if not periodically food insecure. According to the World Bank 2012 report, population below national poverty line in Ethiopia is 38.9%. The poverty gap index is estimated to be 7.8% while it is 8.0% for rural areas and 6.9% for urban areas.

Agricultural production, which is the source of livelihood for eight out of ten Ethiopians, is extremely vulnerable to climatic conditions. The causes of rural poverty are many including wide fluctuations in agricultural production as a result of drought, ineffective and inefficient agricultural marketing system, underdeveloped transport and communication networks, underdeveloped production technologies, limited access of rural households to support services, environmental degradation and lack of participation by rural poor people in decision making that affect their livelihoods.

Despite huge potential, Amhara region remains the poorest region in Ethiopia. It is mainly caused by the regime’s deliberate discriminatory economic policy towards Amhara people. Amhara is one of the regions significantly affected by worst and  often recurrent drought. poverty level  in the region is among the highest by most social and human development indicators. Many studies showed that highest food poverty is found in Amhara region. As land belonged to the state it is subject to redistribution or appropriation by the government. Therefore, farmers do not have tenure security that would give an incentive for more production. Second by redistributing land the Government creates a fragmented farmland that are not viable livelihood. The authoritarian rule in Ethiopia has further worsen the food insecurity by creating a clientele network of the party officials that would political administers the rural communities.

To assess the extent and geographic dimension of poverty in Amhara region, the researcher used GIS and Small Area Estimation techniques.

1. Small Area Estimation Method

Various methods have been used to construct geographically disaggregated indicators of poverty (Davis, 2003). The most common is the small area estimation technique, developed in a series of World Bank researches and now applied to a number of countries, such as Ecuador, South Africa, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Kenya, and Uganda. The small area estimation (SAE) offers a powerful approach to produce statistically reliable poverty estimates for small areas and is the most widespread method for mapping on national scales (WB et al. 2009) cited in (Valerie, 2012). The method combines detailed household survey information with population census data. The idea is to use survey data to create a predictive model for a dependent variable that is available in the survey but not in the census. The independent variables included in the model are common to both the survey and the census data.

The small area estimation technique uses regression models to predict the welfare indicators for all households covered by the census. The methodology (Elbers, 2003) contains three stages: zero, first and second. In the zero stage variables common to the survey and census are identified, and the two data sets are generally examined for comparability, sampling strategies, etc. In a first stage, regression parameters are estimated based on the variables that are common to both the survey and the census. In the second stage these parameter estimates are taken to the census data to predict the chosen welfare measure for each population of interest.

2. Spatial Dimension of poverty in Amhara region

Amhara region is the poorest region in Ethiopia.The extent of poverty varies from district to district in the region. Lacks of equity in the access to productive resources and basic services and their consequential benefits as well as lack of access to opportunities to develop skills and human capabilities have impeded the socio-economic development of the poor in this region. That absences of the means by which the poor can address their problems and enhance their active participation in decision-making have hindered their attempts to move out of the state of deprivation.

The spatial dimension of poverty in Amhara region was investigated by combining GIS and Small Area Estimation techniques. The data used are the 2007 Population and Housing Census and the 2010/11 HICE survey.

Despite the ruling party denial, this research disclosed that poverty headcount in Amhara region ranges between 30- 45%. The dimension of poverty in this region is not the same. It varies significantly from place to place (Map1).The Extreme poverty is mainly found in the Northern and Northeastern parts of Amhara region. Relatively speaking, extent of poverty is low in the Southern and Southwestern parts of the region. As this study disclosed the 2015/2016 food shortage and drought highly affected the aforementioned poorest parts of Amhara region. If the government gives attention to what independent studies like shows, the catastrophe caused by this drought might be significantly minimized. However, the regime in power continued to suppress information that they thought to have adverse impact on their politics. The rural poor are doomed to suffer from deliberate discrimination and economic marginalization.. It is part of a strategy to perpetuate Tigrian ethnic dominations over the Amharas which they consider as their immediate thereat to be reduced to insignificant. Therefore, unless there is no change of government the trend will continue. Development under authoritative rule are uneven and discriminatory. In my opinion, the background causes of the current uprising and social unrest in Amhara region is mainly caused by deep rooted poverty and huge income disparity which are the results of the 25 years of ethnic based economic and political marginalization by the ruling party. The roots of current crisis and the Amhara predicament are attributable to above facts.

This is an excerpt from my MA thesis, entitled “Spatial Dimension of Poverty in Rural Amhara Region, NW Ethiopia: Application of GIS and Small Area Estimation”and it has been modified and updated to incorporate current information.

1. K. Bimrew, Toronto, Canada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 06, 2016
Irreecha Massacre on Bloody Sunday
 
On Sunday October 2, 2016, the Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF) controlled regime committed one of the worst massacres in a day even by its deplorable standards. The victims are mainly Oromo Ethiopians who went to Bishoftu, 29 miles outside of Addis Ababa, to celebrate the annual Thanksgiving holiday of the Oromo people known as Irreecha. Recovering and counting the dead and disappeared is not completed yet. But, according to reports from the Oromo National Congress, so far 678 are confirmed dead and thousands injured and unaccounted for.
 
Ethiopia Advocacy Network (EAN) strongly condemns this act of brutality against civilians including children and women. We send our deep felt sympathy to the families who lost loved ones by the brutal security forces of a despised regime.

Eyewitness accounts, audio and video evidence indicate that the violence was planned by a regime determined to inflict maximum casualty. First, to hide the carnage from the world, it warned foreigners against attending this hugely important cultural and religious event. Second, knowing that there were over 2,000,000 people, angry with its misrule, in a narrow space surrounded by a lake, deep ditches and hills, it sent gunship helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles and heavily armed soldiers to intimidate the people. Third, most of the special security forces it sent do not even speak the local language and hence unable to communicate effectively. Fourth, it sent the soldiers with powerful rifles, grenades, and toxic tear gas. Finally, it stopped people from rescuing each other by physically blocking them from helping each other.

EAN believes that the responsibility for the loss of life, injury, and disappearances fully and firmly sits at the door of the TPLF led brutal minority regime.

We stand with the people of Ethiopia against the state-sponsored terrorism and as they pursue their historic struggle to reclaim and rebuild a more peaceful, inclusive, and secure country for all Ethiopians.

May God protect Ethiopia and its people!

FORT BEND COUNTY, Texas — A young boy may be the only one who knows what led up to a fatal shooting that killed three in Fort Bend County.
The 8-year-old ran to a neighbor’s house as the shots rang out just before 9 p.m. Monday, and is now in the care of his relatives.
VIDEO: Family friend describes man, wife and son who died

ESAT News (October 13, 2016)
An armed opposition group operating in north Gondar has reportedly killed dozens of Ethiopian regime soldiers in a battle on Wednesday night.

A source told ESAT on the phone that the fifth regiment of the army in the area sustained a serious damage as the freedom fighters repulsed a surprise attack by the forces killing at least fifty-five.

Thirty-one others were injured and fifteen have surrendered, the source said. The injured were taken to Soroka Camp.

This was not the first time an armed attack resulted in the death of government soldiers in northern Ethiopia where people have raised arms to fight back a brutal regime.

Two fighters including the leader of the armed group, Abera Gobaw were killed in the fight.

There has been a spike in defections in the Ethiopian army as the rank and file have become subjects to the commanders and top brass officers who hail from the ruling Tigrian minority.

Gondar has seen deadly protests since this summer and security forces killed over a hundred protester who demanded an end to the TPLF rule.

Professor Adugnaw Worku’s Advice A Humble Advice To TPLF

By Getahun Assefa G/Yesus

“A chicken that will grow into a cock can be spotted the very day it hatches”, African proverb; African wisdom.

This article argues against Dr Tedros Adhanom’s candidacy to the top post of the World Health Organization. The tenet of the argument is that the criteria to nominate head of global institutions such as the WHO should include sound or relevant professionalism, proven leadership skills, good governance and good government practices. Governments that are riddled with brut dictatorship, cronyism, rot corruption, ethnocentrism and overall maladministration should not file candidacy to top posts in global governance structures. Failed states such as Ethiopia will advance their candidature based on characteristic features that define them. In other words, potential candidates for top posts in international organizations such as the WHO, need specific leadership skills, relevant profession and proven technical qualities. Such skills should go beyond political acumen but include proven capacity to strategically think to mobilize global action to realize the vision and mission of international organizations. Ability to think strategically, proven technical capability, professionalism, excellence in leadership and specific risk management or problem solving skills should be part of the composite criteria to determine the right candidates for the top post in global institutions.  Candidates that lack the trust and confidence of their own people and the international community at large will dismally fail, if given open cart to lead organizations such as the WHO.

The article has five parts: Part I responds to a question: why will Adhanom be a bad omen to the WHO if nominated? This is a timely question, given that the organization needs public trust and confidence more today than ever before. This part will also compare arguments with relevant provisions and principles contained in the WHO constitution that established the global health body in 1948.  Part II discusses the underlying reasons for arguments against Tedros Adhanom’s candidacy to the WHO’s top post. Part III deals with the moral authority (or moral bankruptcy) of the developed countries should they allow Adhanom- the spin-doctor and henchman of the Ethiopian regime known for its brut dictatorship – to head global institutions. This part will also reflect on the wider implications of the behavior of some developed countries and their philanthropies in rallying behind dictators to head global institutions. Their tacit node or support to megalomaniac dictators and authoritarians will damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the international community, particularly the Ethiopian people and the WHO. Part IV exposes how the Ethiopian regime,  spin-doctored by Adhanom,  uses “starvation as  mass weapon of war” against the Ethiopian people for its political expediency and how this contravenes the WHO constitution and its basic documents.  Finally, part V reflects on glaring professional failures of Tedros Adhanom and his government in pushing the Ethiopian people into perilous social and economic hardships in all areas of available indicators. This part also provides concluding elements and addresses why Tedros Adhanom should not be elected/ or selected to the post of Director General of the World Health Organization. The arguments are based on evidence and they are free from hate or malice.

The main objective of the article is to expose the professional incompetency and political wrongdoings of Tedors Adhanom and the Ethiopian regime spin-doctored by him. The candidacy of Adhanom to head the WHO will be disastrous to the organization, given the crime he has been committing against the Ethiopian people and the dismal professional records he carries on his back. Ethiopians of all walks of life and diverse ethnic backgrounds should join hands and exert pressure to prevent Adhanom from pursing his interest of greed, this time, at the international level. If the Ethiopian government intends to file candidates for any global top posts such candidates should be free from the politics of the government. Their nomination should be solely based on proven leadership capacities, ability to strategically think, technical capability, professionalism and managerial skills to lead institutionally complex, financially robust and operationally intricate global institutions such as the WHO.

The key messages from the five-series of the article area: (a) Tedros Adhanom abused, misused and mismanaged public funds disbursed by the Global Fund to improve the deplorable health conditions of the people of Ethiopia during his reign as Minister of Health (see details and concrete examples further  below); (b) he has no relevant and proven expertise in key technical and operational areas within the mandates of the WHO; (c) WHO’s field, regional and global operations will pose significant challenges to Adhanom whose experience was only to briefly head the Ethiopian Ministry of Health, which itself is underfunded and was not capable of preventing health crisis in the country. For instance, in 2011 when Adhanom was the minister of health (Minister of Death), 75% of the land and 60% of the population is exposed to malaria in Ethiopia. The audit report by the Global Fund heavily criticized the administration of Adhanom (the then Minister of Health) that “none of the medical doctors and clinical nurses in the health facilities visited was trained in malaria case management as per national guidelines”. Moreover, the main infectious diseases that are top killers in Ethiopia are: respiratory infection (10%), Diarrheal Diseases (8%), HIV/AIDS (7%), Tuberculosis (7%), Stroke (7%), Cancer (6%), Ischemic Heart Disease (4%), and Preterm Birth Complications (3%).  (d) Ethiopia’s regime, spine-doctored by Adhanom is among the most corrupt regimes in Africa. The recent report released by Global Financial Intelligence in January (2016) revealed that $26 billion left the country unlawfully in many forms between 2004 and 2013 “with Ethiopia continuing to bleed an average of $2 billion every year”. And finally,  (e) Tedros Adhanom is the spine-doctor, external  face and protector of the government of Ethiopia riddled by arch dictatorship, totalitarianism, nepotism, lawlessness and all attributes of bad governance- all of which are in sharp contradiction with the constitution and ideals of the WHO.

Part I

The candidacy of Dr. Tedros Adhanom of Ethiopia to the top post of the world’s body on global health is viewed by many as contempt to the international institutions. For Ethiopians particularly in the country’s Diaspora community, the audacity of Adhanom is considered as a travesty of justice. Still for academics, experts and intellectuals in the public health arena   his candidacy is projected as a self- inflicted wound or simply suicidal idiocy. Ignorance of the regime has been tolerated for long. This time, however, such an idiocy and ignorance stand side by side with necked arrogance and ineptitude.

Adhanom, a biology student, turned malaria expert has no medical background nor has he proven expertise in public health. While his candidature tantamount to an insult to the intelligence of the global community, his mischievous behavior will be perilous to the World Health Organization if nominated. The Organization has already become lame duck in dealing with public health crisis. In the recent years, the Geneva-based health body is totally marginalized and riddled with crisis of public confidence. It has been under scathing attacks for its sluggish response to the crises over the recent Ebola epidemic in West Africa.  Independent panel of world class experts concluded that “WHO doesn’t have a robust emergency operations capacity or culture”

(http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/23/health-experts-who-egregious-failure-on-ebola.html). Only a year earlier the Organization had been under scrutiny and series of investigations for the alleged wrongdoings with regard to H1N1 vaccine. The key accusations leveled against the Organization were linked to: (1)the apparent conflict of interest in its dealings with the virus,  (2) exaggerating the danger of the virus and thereby  (3) boosting the profits of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of public health. The organization was accused of “overplaying the severity of the illness-even announcing a fake pandemic and thereby boosting the fortunes of the pharmaceutical industry” (for details see www.dw.com/en/who-examines-claimes-over-exaggerateing.swine-flu).

For experts and close observers of the work of the WHO, this is the time when the organization needs specific and technically and professionally proven leadership skills. Such skills should go beyond political acumen but build on the culture of transparent and accountable governance, democratic principles and overall good governance as well as good government practices. Such qualities should also comprise the capacity to strategically think in realizing the vision and mission of the organization. Ability to think strategically combined with proven capacity to mobilize global action for the cause as well as specific risk management (and problem solving skills) should be important traits of global leadership qualities. Only such qualities can save the global body in the field of public health and reverse its perpetual decline and perils. Political acumen without proven and internationally recognized leadership qualities will not help to pull the WHO out of the quagmire in which it finds itself.  Experts agree that, if nominated (although there is an overall consensus that this would less likely be the case), Tedros Adhanom will be a disaster to lead the WHO and to turnaround the Organization to its fame and expertise in global public health issues, which is fast-fading.

Furthermore, the World Health Organization is one of the most complex, intricate and globally important (vital) organizations in the field of public health. It has an annual budget of nearly US$ 4.5 billion of which Country Offices account for 40 per cent, Regional Offices 23 per cent and Headquarters Operation 37 per cent. Simply put, the total budget of the Organization is equivalent to 10 per cent of the Ethiopian Gross Domestic Product or GDP (US$46 billion in 2015) and 15 times bigger than the country’s total healthcare budget. For the concluded biennium (20014-2015), the healthcare budget of Ethiopia was about US$ 600, 0000, 0000 (about US$ 300million a year)  of which 21 per cent comes from direct government allocations, 39 per cent from bilateral and multilateral sources, 37 per cent from households and the remaining,  3 per cent, from remittances and philanthropic sources (note to the readers: even household healthcare contributions are by far larger than the government’s direct expenditure on healthcare). For more details please see the government’s own document on (https://www.hfgproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Ethiopia-NHA-Findings-Briefing-Notes.pdf)

The same document describes Ethiopia as one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita healthcare “spending of US$16.10 in 2007/08 (Ethiopian Calendar) which is well below the $34 per capita health expenditure that the World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Macroeconomics and Health recommended should be spent in low-income countries to deliver essential health care services in 2001, an amount that has been revised upward to US$60 by 2015″.

Tedros Adhanom’s era as Minister of Health was castigated for abuse, mismanagement and misuse of Global Fund Grants to Ethiopia. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) that audited the use of Global Fund Grants in Ethiopia published a damning report on 20 April 2012 when Tedros Adhanom was a Minister of Health. The report reveals serious abuse, misuse and mismanagement of funds meant to improve the health condition of the Ethiopian people. According to the report, allocations for Round 4 HIV interventions, in the amount of  ” USD 5.5 million was not used for the intended purposes and was still outstanding or unaccounted for by February 2011, although the grant expired in August 2010″. Similarly, “an advance of USD 6.3 million of major healthcare operations was still outstanding or unaccounted for in November 2010, after the grant period expired”.  The most disturbing evidences which the report uncovers relate to the fact that significant amounts of funds were “wrongly included in statements of expenditure reported by the Ministry of Health” during the year when Mr. Adhanom was a minister of Health. This includes “an amount of USD 11 million, which was transferred to implementing departments but that had not yet been liquidated or accounted for”. Another amount with the magnitude of “USD 4.7 million of VAT was included in construction payments”, despite the fact that Grants are exempt from Value Added Tax (VAT). Further shocking revelations by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) relate to the newly constructed Health Centers (HC) with Grants from Global Fund. The report states that “the OIG visited 77 sites of newly constructed HCs and observed significant deficiencies, 71% of the sites visited did not have access to water; 32% did not have functioning toilet facilities; 53% had major cracks in the floors; and 19% had leaking roofs”. Overall the report recommended series of urgent actions to remedy the glaring abuse, misuse and mismanagement of public resources in Ethiopia. The recommendations include that the “Global Fund recovers from the Government of Ethiopia a total of USD 7, 026, 929 which was reported as ineligible and or unaccounted for during the audit period”. Therefore, Tedros Adhanom is corrupt and incapable (with no proven experience) of leading institutionally complex, financially robust and operationally intricate international institutions. Being a minster in one of the poorest countries and poorly funded institutions should not be taken as a yardstick to assume leadership positions in globally vital institutions such as the WHO.  (Note to the readers: The report of the Office of the Inspector General, titled as “Audit Reports and Diagnostic Review issued by the Global Fund’s Office of the Inspector General on 20 April 2012 on Ethiopia” has now been removed from the web. However, the I have the pdf version of  said report for anyone interested to consult).

• ty (GFI), a Washington-based research and advocacy think-thank, “corruption, kickbacks and bribery are on the rise in Ethiopia”. The recently published report of the GFI reveals that illicit financial flows out of Ethiopia ( one of the poorest African nations) nearly doubled to US$3.26 Billion in 2009 over the previous year with corruption, kickbacks and bribery accounting for the vast majority of that increase. The findings of the think- thank are more troubling  that “Ethiopia, which has a per-capita GDP of just US$365, lost US$11.7 billion to illicit financial outflows between 2000 and 2009”.  http://www.gfintegrity.org/press-release/illicit-financial-outflows-ethiopia-nearly-doubled-2009-us3-26-bln-says-new-gfi-report/. The most recent report released by Global Financial Intelligence last January (2016) revealed that $26 billion left the country unlawfully in many forms  between 2004 and 2013  “with Ethiopia continuing to bleed an average of $2 billion every year”. The main culprits and offenders are the ruling party (TPLF) owned parastatals that are run by unhinged dictators in Addis Ababa where Adhanom is spin-doctor and henchman.

• According to the World Bank’s Development Indicators (WBI), Ethiopia is among the the worst performers in literacy rate (with  only 29% literate out of 95 million population), life expectancy (52 for men and 56 for women) and 68% infant mortality rate out of 1000 live births. In a country riddled with massive corruption such a dismal social performance is inevitable.

• According to the WHO’S Africa office (WHO-AFRO), in 2011 when Adhanom was the minister of health (Minister of Death),  75% of the land and 60% of the population is exposed to malaria in Ethiopia, although malaria admissions and deaths  marginally fell in the recent years (afro.who.int/en/ethiopia/country-programmes/topics/480-ethiopia-malaria.html)

• The National Malaria Guideline (3rd Edition) prepared b the Ministry of Health of Ethiopia in 2012, before the departure of Adhanom to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, states that “52 million people (68%) live in Malaria-risk areas”. The document further reveals that “Ethiopia is one of the most malaria- prone countries in Africa, with rates of morbidity and mortality increasing dramatically (i.e. 3.5 fold) during epidemics” (page 15) (for details see malariaconsortium.org. The same document alleges serious policy failures of the Government of Adhanom who was the Minister of Health (Minster of Death) until 2013. It argues “Ethiopia faces many challenges related to human resources for healthcare, including the shortage of skilled health workers, high turnover and lack of retention of health professionals” (page 64). In addition to these challenges, the National Malaria Guideline stresses once again, “serious problems in coordinating health interventions and implementing partners” (page 65)

• Another document, assessing the country’s malaria epidemic, prepared by Aynalem Adugna accessible on EthioDemographyAndHealth.org reveals that “malaria is the number one health problem in Ethiopia with an average of 5 million cases a year and 9.5 million cases per year during 2001-2005 period”. The document further indicates that “the disease causes 70,000 deaths each year and accounts for 17% of outpatient visits, 15% of admissions and 29% of inpatient deaths” (page 3).

• Center for Disease Control (CDC) of the USA claims that the main infectious diseases that are top killers in Ethiopia are: lower respirator infection (10%), Diarrheal Diseases (8%), HIV/AIDS (7%), Tuberculosis (7%), Stroke (7%), Cancer (6%) , Ischemic Heart Disease (4%), and Preterm Birth Complications (3%)  (http://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/countries/ethiopia/. The remainder percentage of people are killed by  either by the regime or by injuries  and accidents including car accident where Ethiopia is ranked number one in the world.

From the above publicly recorded evidence and revelations by respected institutions, it is difficult to find out as to why Adhanom should be nominated to head the World Health Organizations. Where are the results which Mr Adhanom and his Government claim  as have been recorded in Ethiopia over the past 25 years? Why is he gambling to assume global offices at the cost of public health disasters in Ethiopia? Why is he using the suffering of the Ethiopian people as a springboard to assuming the post of Director-General of the World Health Body? When will the mockery and idiocy of such individuals stop?  The authoritarian government of Ethiopia and Africa’s arch dictators such as Robert Mugabe or Idris Deby should provide justifications why they think that Adhanom is the man to represent Ethiopia and Africa as head of the World Health Organizations.

Meanwhile, Ethiopians at home and aboard should brace-up to consistently campaign against the nomination of Tedors Adhanom to the post of Director-General of WHO. Their spilled blood, suffering, mass starvation, destitution and depravation should not be used as springboard to assume higher authorities in the global governance structure. Adhanom should be told in unambiguous terms that he should not be allowed to escape justices for the injustice and atrocities he and his government have been committing against the Ethiopian population for the last 25 years. The Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom whose nationals have been languishing in the Ethiopian prisons under the regime spin-doctored by Adhanom bear huge burden of ethical and moral responsibility in undoing Adhanom’s campaign to the top post in WHO.

ESAT DC Daily News Fri 14 Oct 2016

guardian
by Laura Secorun
Friday 14 October 2016
 
Ethiopia’s staple grain is the latest superfood, but there are fears about impact of rising exports on local people who rely on it as their staple food
Is big business a force for good for African farmers? Send in your questions for our live
 
Ethiopians have been planting teff – the base of their renowned injera bread – for more than 3,000 years. Photograph: Alamy[/caption
 
There are two inescapable foods in Ethiopia, coffee and teff. While Ethiopian coffee is famous worldwide, the country’s staple grain is still a stranger to western palates. But food entrepreneurs hope teff will soon be as ubiquitous in British supermarkets as it is in Addis Ababa’s kitchens.
 
Ethiopians have been planting teff – the base of their renowned injera bread – for more than 3,000 years. Yet for businessmen like Aleem Ahmed, this gluten-free grain, packed with amino acids, has the potential to become a lucrative superfood. Companies like Ahmed’s Love Grain in the US or Tobia Teff in the UK want to provide westerners with a healthier alternative to wheat while helping Ethiopian farmers thrive.
A big caveat: exports of teff from Ethiopia were banned for almost a decade. In 2006, the government outlawed international sales of the grain for fear of suffering the same fate as Bolivia during the recent “quinoa fever”. After being branded a superfood, demand for this Andean grain skyrocketed, increasing its price tenfold between 2009 and 2013, with some claiming this affected food security in the Andes.
Get a taste for teff, the Ethiopian superfood
 
In Ethiopia, where one in ten people were in need of food assistance this year, a similar spike in teff prices could have serious humanitarian consequences. Khalid Bomba, the head of the Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA), said that the Ethiopian government had been following the developments in Bolivia and Peru very closely. “What happened with quinoa will not happen with teff. We just won’t let it,” he says.

But these fears are subsiding. Teff yields have increased by 50% in the last five years, according to the ATA, and prices have remained steady, prompting the government to partially lift the export ban.

In the past year, export licenses have been granted to 48 commercial farmers. None of them were planting teff before, which is meant to ensure that their sales won’t diminish domestic production. “We are just starting but we think teff certainly has the potential to become the next superfood,” says Bomba.

If this trial project is successful, ATA’s goal is to open it up to cooperatives of smallholder farmers who are already planting teff.

Teff
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
The most important part of an Ethiopian meal is the Injerra, a sort of pancake made from teff. Photograph: Alamy
The global market for teff is growing by the day. Gluten-free products are a £3.7bn industry globally with demand estimated to grow 10% each year between 2015 and 2020. Like quinoa, teff’s low-glycemic index makes it suitable for diabetics – but the Ethiopian grain has twice the iron and three times more calcium than its Bolivian competitor.

Based in north London, Tobia Teff has been selling teff products since 2007 and providing the National Health Service with flour and bread for patients suffering from gluten intolerance. Founded by a couple of Ethiopian origin, the company has been buying its teff from a producer in southern Spain, but recently applied to become an Ethiopian importer. “Ethiopians should be the ones benefiting from their staple crop,” says co-owner Sophie Sirak-Kebede, “it’s their right, it’s their history.”
‘Crazy milk of the desert’ transforming the lives of Senegal’s dairy farmers

In California, Ahmed and his team at Love Grain are trying to cook teff into American staples, from pancake mix to power bars. “The key to teff going mainstream is incorporating it into products people already know,” says the MIT graduate who previously worked in Ethiopia helping teff farmers increase their yields. Early next year, the startup is launching its first line of chips made using Ethiopian teff, featuring flavors like barbecue and cheese and onion.

Increased exports could be a boon to many of the country’s 6.2 million teff farmers because international market prices are often double local ones. “Working for exporters allows us to earn more and have consistent business,” says Bedlu Mengistu, a 38-year-old who grows teff in the Oromia region. His main client is Mama Fresh, a company that sells injera to countries like Canada and Sweden.

Still, some worry that other countries will corner the teff market before Ethiopia is ready to export at a large scale. Most teff found in health food stores today comes from South Africa, Canada or India. “I am really worried Ethiopia will miss the boat,” says Jyothi Gaddam, whose company Neha International is one of the few allowed to sell teff abroad.

The main roadblock to Ethiopia increasing its surplus of teff for export is a lack of mechanisation. Most of the planting, harvesting and processing of the grain is still done manually and while the ATA says it’s promoting best practices and developing teff-specific machinery, farmers complain implementation has been slow.

Exports may actually help speed up the modernisation of teff farming, says Bomba. Increased demand would encourage research while the promise of a better income could incentivise farmers to streamline their methods and invest in machinery. As for the other countries selling teff, Sirak-Kebede is not worried. “Ethiopian teff will be known for its quality, just like coffee,” says the British entrepreneur. “You can find similar weather somewhere else, but it’s the soil that makes the difference. And you can’t replace the soil.”

Researches recognized that many change agendas fail not because of resistance to change. It is due to wrong responses to resistances. Many people tend to think that all resistances are one and the same. And hence, they use the same response to all resistances. To give you a quick background, experts in the field agree that there are three major levels of resistances to change. People resist at Level 1 since they don’t understand the change at all. Those who resist at Level 2, they capture the change agenda very well but they don’t like the change. People who resist at Level 3 do grasp the change and also like it but they don’t like the change implementers (or who they represent).

These different levels of resistances require different kinds of responses. Giving more data, statistics, examples, stories, and so on may be appropriate to people that resist change at Level 1 so as to assist them comprehend it. Helping overcome fear and doubts, and showing them the benefits they may gain personally and/or collectively from the change, and so on are the right responses at Level 2. Level 3 resistances demand a different kind of response, and they are the most difficult ones to overcome. Such resistances are due to lack of trust, most of the time. Sadly, trust cannot be generated over night.

Let me ask you. What happens if someone keeps barraging you with more data while you are resisting the change as you don’t like it or you don’t trust him/her (or who they represent)? I’m sure, rather than endorsing the change, you may display one or more of these signs. You may get madder, frustrated, and/or question whether the person has respect toward your intelligence. The more they push you with the wrong responses, the more you resist. You got the point.

For your information, Level 1 resistances are at intellectual level while Level 2 are emotional, and Level 3 resistances are at heart level. It takes your awareness and picking the suitable response to a resistance in gaining buy-in from the people who resist your change agenda. One thing you should pay closer attention is that many people may not be aware at what level they are resisting, or unable to articulate their resistance at the right level. And consequently, it looks like they are resisting at Level 1 while they may be resisting at one of the higher levels. Besides, it is hard for some people to come out and be vulnerable to say that they’re scared of the change. It may be embarrassing for some to admit that they are resisting the change (your proposal) due to the fact that they may lose control or become irrelevant once the change is implemented. Some people may not have the courage to tell you straight to your face that they don’t trust you or what you represent. Hence, it is your responsibility to dig deeper and pinpointing the nature of resistance you are facing. This is your obligation to figure out at what level people are resisting, and most importantly, responding at the right level if your desire is to transform resisters into allies.

Once you have got the background, let me confess why I decided to write this quick article. In recent days, social media and the mainstream diaspora media outlets have been swamped with responses to the idea of Oromo activists, community leaders, and politicians meeting in Atlanta in November to deliberate on the future of Oromo people. As a change management expert, I’ve been following this issue very closely without being emotionally attached to it. I’ve read articles written by advocates of unity, and also listened to the responses of some of the organizers of the event. It seems that both camps have some difficulties to understand the level of resistances they are experiencing from the other camp, and most importantly, they are unable to articulate their responses appropriately.

First, let me start with proponents of unity. It looks like you haven’t completely comprehended yet the concerns of Oromos about their future in the post TPLF Ethiopia. I cannot speak to all Oromos (though I’ve a little bit of Oromo blood in my veins). Nonetheless, I bet that they understand the importance of unity. I’m also sure that they love other Ethiopians from other ethnic groups. Do go far to figure that out. In recent months and weeks, Oromos around the country demonstrated solidarity with their Ethiopian brothers and sisters in Amhara and other regions. What is more? Some of the Oromo leaders publicly declared that the people of Oromo would love to live together with their brothers and sisters from other ethnic groups. I presume that the fear many Oromos express is at Level 3. They are wondering whether they would achieve self-governance and treated as equal citizens in the new Ethiopia or not. In short, Oromos are being cautious, that is all. And, we (I’m in the unity camp) shouldn’t be surprised considering our past. I know you may have so many ‘responses’ in your head as you read this section. You may say, well, these aren’t the Oromos alone who were mistreated in the past, and so on. Put these responses aside for a while. Oromos have heard most of your arguments. You cannot change their mind and cause them to drop their guards by bombarding them again and again with the same data. Do you remember what I said earlier? Many people treat all resistances as Level 1 and respond accordingly, and that is why many change agendas and partnerships fail? Well, we who vouch for a different kind of Ethiopia that treats its people including Oromos the same and equally need to reexamine our responses. We need to come up with appropriate responses to give the people of Oromo genuine and authentic assurances if we want them to buy into our unity agenda.

Unfortunately, so far, many in the unity camp barrage Oromos with Level 1 and 2 responses. Is it helping? No. What Oromos are expecting, whether they express it explicitly or not, is trust. They are (consciously or unconsciously) asking, “Are those who promote unity trustworthy?” “Will Oromos have a different experience and destiny in the future Ethiopia that is unlike the past?” These are fair questions that require proper responses. Otherwise, how can they be sure that we have taken their genuine concerns seriously if we keep shelling them with the same arguments till they bleed to death? Remember, the more you do this, the more you harden their heart and the more they question your motive and trustworthiness. We cannot address these kinds of resistances at intellectual or emotional levels by telling Oromos the importance of unity and/or what Oromos might enjoy from unity thousands of times. The question is how can leaders in the unity camp connect with their counterparts from the Oromo community at heart level, and generate trust? The challenge is that trust cannot be generated with more data, emotional appeals, begging, or pressuring, manipulating, threatening, or even by appeasing, and so on. Let me share with you a story that may shed some light on how responding at the right level may help to break deadlocks.

I won’t tell you the organization that arranged the event, nor its leader. I can tell you, nonetheless, that the occasion brought some of Ethiopia’s best children from diverse backgrounds into one room. Some of the participants wouldn’t have come that close if it were not because of the person who organized the session. Many of these individuals have thousands of followers and have their own unique brand. They’re smart and completely recognized the importance of the occasion. They also liked the idea and the person who invited them. The organizer tried his/her best to create a consensus and hoped the group would deliver something at the end of the brain storming session. Time ran out and it seemed impossible to reach consensus. Most importantly, it looked like this group consisted of high profile Ethiopian leaders in the diaspora wouldn’t be able to use that critical moment to issue a strong message of solidarity.

I was invited to this event as an attendee. I was closely observing some of the resistances from the backside of the room. When the session was on its last legs, the host of the event asked me if I might come forward to lead the brainstorming session. To be honest, though I’m a trainer and speaker and don’t have stage fright, it was quite frightening to stand in front of leaders I admire and respect a lot without preparing myself, especially while it looked like things were going south. Fortunately, my trainer, coach, and consultant instinct kicked in and I thought on my feet on how to break the deadlock. Coincidently, I was preparing to lead a change management workshop the following week, and the materials were fresh in my mind. I quickly recognized that these people don’t need further data or argument from me to understand the timeliness of the occasion and the need to deliver what the host expected of them right there. I decided to be influenced, and thus, allowed them to have control over the outcome of the meeting. I said, “If you guys don’t want to do it, fine, let’s call it quit. Or, you are already here, and you understand the importance and the urgency of the matter, and therefore, take 15 minutes and prepare yourself to say whatever you want.” The room was quite for a while, and it felt forever. I didn’t know what to expect. Within those few seconds, some thoughts crossed my mind though. I wondered what the host would think of me if they take the first option, and walk away from that room after he spent days and days in preparation and investing hundreds of dollars? Would he forgive me for giving them a way out if they take it? Well, that is the power of trust. When they knew that they had control and could walk away without any pressure, it generated trust and they were willing to deliver what they were asked right away. I’m not sharing this to brag about it. I didn’t do anything except tapping into a principle that works. When you face Level 3 resistances, allow yourself to be influenced. And, when people see that, they most probably buy into your change agenda (proposal).

Of course, I admit that breaking the deadlock between the Oromos and unity camps may not be as easy as facilitating a brain storming session among less that two dozens of leaders under one roof. Yet, it’s not a rocket science. It’s possible if the two camps reconsider the ways they are expressing their concerns, and most importantly, the approaches they are using to respond toward resistances from the other camp.

The question to advocates of unity is how can we generate trust? How can we allow ourselves to be influenced by Oromos who already understand the importance of unity, and its advantages toward the people of Oromo? I don’t want to prescribe any approach here. I’m sure that there are many smart leaders in the unity camp who could come up with smart ideas and approaches. What I’d say is that this is high time to understand the genuine quest of Oromos, and to build a strong bridge between the two camps based on trust. Let’s stop pressuring, and twisting hands. It doesn’t create a win-win partnership between Oromos and the rest of ethnic groups in Ethiopia, especially with Amaharas. What I’m saying is that Oromos quest to have self-governance and equal rights in the post TPLF Ethiopia has been met with the same responses that delivered nothing except more resistances. It is time champions of unity to change their approaches.

Coming to the leaders of Oromos, as much as you want the people who push for unity remain trustworthy, you should also proof that you’re trustworthy too. Rather than responding at level 1 or 2 for the resistances you face from supporters of unity, find ways and approaches to generate trust by responding at Level 3. I’m sure that people like myself who promote unity understand your quest. They just don’t know how to express their concerns about your quest at the right level though it seems as if they are resisting at the lower levels. Otherwise, I never met any proponent of unity who doesn’t want to see Oromos are treated fairly and equally in the new Ethiopia. I presume that many in the unity camp love Oromos. For that matter, many from this camp either they have Oromo blood in their veins (like myself) and/or knotted with Oromos in marriage and/or have relatives who are Oromos and/or do business with Oromos. Even if they may not have any direct relationship with Oromos, many understand that Oromos are the largest ethnic group and one of the most significant parts of Ethiopia. As some of the activists in the unity camp expressed it so many times, without Oromos and their contributions to Ethiopia, the history of Ethiopia is incomplete. Not only that, the future and destiny of Ethiopia and the people of Oromo is inseparable. By the way, not just the people I talked to, Ethiopians from other ethnic groups clearly understand this truth. A simple proof is the recent protests. Protesters in Amahara region, for instance, expressed their love and solidarity to the people of Oromo and their leaders who are in jail.

That being said, I cannot speak for millions of proponents of unity. However, I bet that they are concerned about the future of other ethnic groups in the new Oromia. This concern has some merits. Though TPLF played a key role for ethnic violence and tension, some people got murdered and hurt in some parts of Oromia. Within the fake federalism designed by TPLF, many non-Oromos in the region have been disfranchised and unable to lead a decent living because they are not Oromos or unable to speak Oromifa (this is also true in other regions, not unique within Oromia). Of course, we’ve already heard from many leaders of Oromos who are vouching that something like these won’t happen if Oroms get self-governance. (Let’s be on the same page here. When I say self-governance, I’m not talking about cessation here. Why the largest ethnic group leaves a union? It doesn’t give sense. I’m talking about the self-governance of Oromos within the new Ethiopia.) Though these promises are great, they couldn’t generate trust by themselves. The problem is that Oromo leaders couldn’t be able to demonstrate adequately how Oromos self-governance won‘t squash the rights of individuals within Oromia. So far, you have given all kinds of explanations at the lower level (Level 1 and 2) in an attempt to convince protagonists of unity that your quest is fair and equitable. However, it’s not enough.

And therefore, these are my two cents for Oromo leaders: a) Articulate why you resist the appeal of the people in the unity camp. Do you remember earlier? Many people have difficulties to express their Level 2 and 3 resistances. To wipe out confusions, you may need to sit down and articulate your concerns. Explicitly indicate that your resistances are at Level 3. People in the unity camp should be clear that you’re not resisting at Level 1 and 2. To do that, why don’t you unmistakably express that you understand the importance of unity, and its benefits to the people of Oromo using unequivocal terms? It doesn’t hurt to admit that unity is strength and the people of Oromo would be better of if they unity with other ethnic groups in Ethiopia. You might have said it before but it hasn’t clicked to many of the people in the unity camp. Let me give you a quick eye opener. Have you noticed? Most journalists ask Oromo activists questions that are coined to get clarifications as if their resistances to the idea of unity is at Level 1 and 2. Of course, there are a few activists who are promoting cessation. I’m not talking about them. They have the right to express their views. I’m talking about those Oromo leaders who believe in unity as far as the new Ethiopia respects the full rights of Oromos. Hence, I suggest for Oromo leaders who believe in a win-win unity to spell out your Level 3 concerns in clear terms. b) Prepare your responses to the people who resist the quest of Oromos at Level 3. You should clearly demonstrate that people who resist your quest understand your aspirations. You should also recognize that these people love to see you be happy and satisfied within the new union. Most of the resistances you face from unity camp may seem at Level 1 and/or Level 2. They may consider my suggestions and be able to articulate their concerns at Level 3. That is their homework. From your end, change your approaches to clarify that your resistances aren’t at Level 1 and 2 but rather they are Level 3 concerns. And most importantly, prepare to respond at Level 3 for those that are in the unity camp who have genuine concerns. Remember these: consciously or unconsciously, many from unity camp are asking, “Are those who promote the self-governance of Oromos trustworthy?” “Would other ethnic groups within Oromia have a safe and equitable future in the new Oromia?” How can people in the unity camp be sure that you have taken their genuine concerns seriously if you keep responding at lower levels? Let me stop it here. Hope, my two cents are helpful to break the deadlock, and in turn lead toward the two camps forging a strong force that brings lasting, equitable, and just changes in Ethiopia…

[1] Dr. Assegid Habtewold is a leadership expert at Success Pathways, LLC. Assegid can be reached at ahabtewold@yahoo.com

“Ethiopian Government  ” declared today at 08:00 PM  that   Opening   FACEBOOK, Listening  Voice of America and German Radio, Watching  Aljazeera TV,  ESAT TV, OMN  and accessing and opening  Social media  is a crime in the country. As  broadcasted today , Militray command post  will  take action for those seeing and watching these media outlets.This is very shame for Obama administration  because  Obama had made statement to the “Ethiopian parliament”

“I don’t bite my tongue too much when it comes to these issues. We are opposed to any group that is promoting the violent overthrow of a government, including the government of Ethiopia, that has been democratically elected. We are very mindful of Ethiopia’s history – the hardships that this country has gone through. It has been relatively recently in which the constitution that was formed and the elections put forward a democratically elected government. U.S. President Barack Obama, Press conference in Addis Ababa 27 July 2015“.

 This is an empty talk of Obama. How this leader is  leading America? Why they are helping this rogue regime in Ethiopia? Is there any change from America, German and UK  about the  definition of freedom and Democracy in Horn  of Africa? There is  a famous Ethiopian proverb,”
Don’t catch a leopard by the tail, but if you do, don’t let it go.” We  young generation will not cease our struggle until we get our freedom. Freedom!Freedom! Freedom!Freedom!Freedom!Freedom!Freedom!Freedom!Freedom!Freedom!

Tefera Dinberu
ethiopiakiberi@gmail.com
 
Currently I read some articles written on “Oromo Charter” and “Oromo Transitional State”. This has thrown many genuine thinking Ethiopians into skeptics. When people of Gondar are saying loud that Oromo people are their brothers and Bekele Gerba is their leader, Oromo politicians should think as to whether the charter and related issues develop cleavages or unity. It is not clear why Juhar and his associates are articulating such peripheral outlooks. These concepts help Weyane much more than Oromo folks. Such ideas were sown by Weyane over thirty years ago and are may be bearing fruits for them as they are testing our unity against them. Weyane by itself does not have any dream of building an Ethiopian state. It acts like an internal colonialist occupier with the vision to reside on divided people and the grave yards of Ethiopia. For Weyane, political organizations associated with peoples of Oromo, Amhara, Sidama, Wolaiyta, Gambella, Silte, Afar, Adare, Somali, etc. are tools used as a stepping ground to advance national questions and fan such sentiments in Ethiopia. Weyane never wants to solve any such problems but would like to create and fan them so that Ethiopians would have unabated or recurring conflicts. So, are Oromo intellectuals still following the ethnic divide of the Weyane scheme, or going away from it? Are they dreaming of Oromia as an African nation or Ethiopia in which Oromo and other ethnic groups enjoy equality, justice and prosperity in a true federal democratic system of state government?
 
There is no surprise that some of our folks abhored the Ethiopian tricolor flag and the name Ethiopia itself. There should not be denying the fact that oppressive regimes used the Ethiopian tricolor and religion to oppress their subjects. However, there is no sin in the tricolor itself; we should use it as a symbol of Ethiopia that consists of our diversities; because it is these diversities working together that can have the power of all the peoples; it is these diversities standing together that can build democracy since democracy is all about managing differences where all parties work for equal opportunities.

Although nationality questions revolved around marginalized or minority sectors in some parts of the world, especially where repression and backwardness claimed lives of the people, as happened in Ethiopia, sectarian politics have never been a means of development but a means to satisfy the lust of individual or group power mongers. The issue of nationalism in a nation where over 80 nationalities that lived together, shared common histories and cultural values, fought common enemies and survived to date would not have any vision of advancing economic, political, and social equality and justice. It would rather be a means of conflicts and anarchy. Ideas behind preparing a charter for Oromia at this time will rather delay a possible consolidation of opposition organizations for a common national goal. What is rather expected is a charter that makes all different political organizations work together on common national issues. It is only dictators that inherently hate democracy and the peoples voices from all corners. We cannot live in peace unless we can manage our differences; we cannot achieve true federalism unless we are prepared to live with other Ethiopians and their differences.

It is futile and outdated to make issues of nationality questions on this 21st century. On this 21st century, an educated person is supposed to understand that no one can stop social relationships by using racial cleavage; any people has the right to speak, write and read in its own language or any other language; any people have the right to choose what to worship and where to live, who to marry, where and how to earn one’s living. By the same token, any educated person or rational person is supposed to understand that a nation like Ethiopia should have a national language, or as few national languages as possible since any language has the purpose of being a medium of communication but nothing else. It is logical to ask Oromo language to be added to the Ethiopian language. However, a 21st century personality is supposed to know that no language can either be ethnically inherited or racially be identified. Everybody should have known that Amharic was not made a national language by a decree but came to being so by evolution from centuries of development. Although the people residing in the present day Menz, Yifat, Gojjam, Gondar, Wollo, etc, spoke Amharic since time immemorial, they had other indigenous languages; Geez, Saba, Agew, Afar (Adal), Hebrew, Arab,.Omotic, Nilotic, Cushitic (including Oromo language) and other many languages played their roles in making the Amharic language. Neither Ethiopian leaders nor the Amhara people chose Amharic to be their language but they were called Amhara because social interactions that created the language made them speak the language. Yet, the Amharic language did not lift up the standard of living of poor Gondere’s, Gojjames, Menzes, Bulges, and Welloyes. These people predominantly speak Amharic but remain the poorest people in the country.

If any mature person cannot see the difference between the past ruling Amharic speaking elites and the ever oppressed Amharic speaking people, then one has to start learning the ABC of our society. In like manner Oromo immigrants that occupied first Bale; destroyed kingdoms of Damot, Ganz, Bizama, Janjero, Sharka, Fatagar, Dawaro, Angota, etc., by using a gada military campaign, and spread to the whole country as far as Wellega and celebrated Tulu Welel as the symbol of their settlement, established Gibe kingdoms (Jimma, LimmuEnarya, Gumma, Gomma, and Gera in 1800-1830 where the Mecha Oromoo tribe was dominant), had forced the indigenous people not only to speak Afan Oromo but to be Oromos through assimilation processes known as moogassa, Gudifecha, meedhicha, and harmoahodha. The tenanted people were forced to make a covenant with the occupiers – to like what the Oromoos liked, to hate what Oromoos hated, to protect the interest of Oromoos, to believe in what they believe in, and to speak Afaan Oromoo. Oromization took place in the west, south, east, center, and north (Wallo) and previous inhabitants were persuaded or forced to accept Oromoo culture and even Oromoo names. One can read a more intensive “Comment that I made on misinterpreted and misleading Oromo History written by Melbaa Gadaa”.

While the Amara language development was evolutionary, the Oromo language expansion was comparatively done in shorter and recent times on the indigenous Ethiopians who lost most of their identities to the Oromo expansionists through gada system that was more of a military campaign administration that phased out or been replaced by religious and other rules when Ghibe states were created and migrant Oromos started settlements in the early 19th century.

However, although personalities that introduced Kubee to Oromo people could not see that ge’ez was spoken in Oromo courts of Ethiopia over 2000 years ago, adding Affan Oromo to the Ethiopian national language can save the unity of the nation. Because we are one people speaking different languages. We need to be proud of our diversity since our country is rich. This riches continues and grows when we keep on our interdependence. By thinking separately we may dream to satisfy individual interests but peoples’ interests can be jeopardized when think separately; our peoples’ interests can be met only when we stand together now and forever through democratic ideals that moderate our diversities.

Proponents of nationalism either try to go on the old way of power mongering that emanate from tribal identification of a people or lack genuineness rather than helping to come up to political solutions. Such outlooks fan nationalism, by denying coherence in diversity and deter political organizations to come to common terms on common issues. So, intellectuals of the 21st century are supposed to be internationalist, humanist, and pragmatists with the vision of seeing Ethiopians in the pace of the whole planet.

I would like to point out that local skirmishes used to take place anywhere in our society. Some took place due to material interests, but cultural differences had never become a measure problem anywhere in Ethiopia. Since Ethiopia is one of the oldest countries in the whole world, it is very rich in the history of internal conflicts and external wars, too. Out of this centuries old history, all peoples have many good and bad things to recite. However, as our late African leader, Nelson Mandela, said, we should not worry about the past but about the future. We cannot live in the past; so instead of developing one or another type of condemnation of past deeds, leaving all the past to history, we need to think and rethink about what our peoples need. If current politicians condemn chauvinism, discrimination, bigotry, inequality, and injustices, and all types of repression, are they working to eradicate these and enshrine these peoples with equality and justice? Or are they planting newer types of discrimination, inequality, injustice, chauvinism?

If our politicians are genuine, they should understand that no people essentially hate any other people, nor their languages; any people would like to live in peace and harmony with any other people in its neighbors and would rather like to advance all aspects of its standard of living. However, when there is poverty and poor government, even the same people in small villages fight against each other over springs, water wells, grazing grass or farmlands, and so on. So, if the common problem is poverty and lack of good governance, the objective of genuine politicians should have been to come together and make alliances in order to combat and resolve these problems. However, personality cult in which people are persuaded to adore personalities due to racial or ethnic backgrounds can end up in dictatorship. So, democracy cannot be not built on strong politicians but strong popular organizations.

The incumbent dictatorship existed for over 25 years because the political organizations did not understand that Weyane’s life has been based on their division; most of whom have become demagogues trying to stubbornly adhere to their absurd old dreams of getting chairs somewhere in the state structure, others dream of authority in an Utopian ideal Platonic state. Because, mature politicians do not indulge themselves in ideas that are interesting but would remain dreams. It is not like the “German Wall” would be dismantled and then the repressive state would fall down by itself overnight simply because we wish it did not exist. I contest the concept that Weyane stands for any morality, ethics, or values. It does not care to qualify any qualities or standards of state leadership since it does not have any national interest; it orchestrates conflicts and terrorism on the people it claims to administer. It kept on cheating the Ethiopian peoples and the international public. It usurped the nation’s resources and foreign aid for over 25 years and remains still unsatisfied in its greed. It is the shortsightedness of our politicians that helped the brutal regime to stay on state power for so long. We need to contest such persistence of poverty of philosophy.

Therefore, instead of preparing controversial issues that can later flare up into greater civil conflicts, opposition parties should be able to demonstrate to the people that they can jointly lead them in the struggle to topple the system; that in turn demonstrates a projection of peace and harmony among them. Harmony among opposition groups during the struggle entices harmony of the people that can be realized under federalism tomorrow. No one would like an Amara chauvinism, if it exists at all today, to be replaced by a Tigray, Oromo or other chauvinism. As the saying goes, “የማያጠግብ እንጀራ ከምጣዱ ያስታውቃል ”, a political organization that does not work in harmony with other Ethiopian opposition organizations for common objectives cannot demonstrate to the people that it can be part of a federal system of state leadership in the future and hence cannot get support not only among other groups but even from the people it claims to represent. In other words a party that does not respect other major or minor groups cannot be free either from sectarianism or from chauvinism and hence from neo-hegemony or dictatorship both of which ae obstacle to peaceful relationships. We should learn from South Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and other countries to avoid any chaos and rather build a “United States of Ethiopia”. All groups need to reveal their agendas and come up to common terms. As the Oromo saying goes, “Afaanin dubbatan malee geraan nama akka gerba itii nama sodaachisaa”. There must be a defined alliance among opposition groups to achieve a defined objective so that every party would be motivated to achieving the common goal. That will avoid possible future conflicts. Otherwise as the Amharic saying goes ,“ አለባብሰው ቢያርሱ ባረም ይመለሱ, it will be letting problems remain hidden as embryos to grow later. It is also premature to see that people could follow up such projects that cannot show their bright destinies in the future Ethiopia. So, in order to get the support of Ethiopians and popular organizations, it is the most important part of the struggle to create a well formulated alliance today. When such an alliance is realized on the ground, it will force Weyane to start packing to leave.

Ethiopia imposed curbs on its opposition, travel restrictions on diplomats, and a dusk-to-dawn curfew around major projects in new measures announced on Sunday that follow the declaration of a six-month, nationwide state of emergency.

Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn declared the state of emergency earlier this month, saying months of unrest threatened the Horn of Africa nation’s stability.

More than 500 people have been killed in protests in the Oromiya region surrounding the capital Addis Ababa and other areas since last year, after anger over a development scheme for the capital sparked broader anti-government demonstrations over politics and human rights abuses.

The state of emergency was effective from Oct. 8.

In a directive released on Sunday, opposition parties were barred from issuing statements deemed to pose a threat to the “sovereignty, security and the constitutional order of the country” to both domestic and foreign press.

The raft of measures include granting security services powers to stop and search suspects, and search homes without court authorization. Contacting opposition groups branded “terrorist movements” has been forbidden. Ethiopia has designated five groups, including two armed secessionist movements, as terrorists.

The violence in Oromiya, Ethiopia’s largest and most populous region, and to a lesser extent in Amhara province, has overshadowed the success story of one of Africa’s fastest growing economies.

The latest flare-up in Oromiya followed a stampede on Oct. 2 in which at least 55 people were killed after police fired teargas and shots into the air to disperse protesters during a crowded annual festival in the town of Bishoftu.

The unrest has sparked attacks on businesses, many of them foreign-owned, including farms growing flowers for export.

The new measures include a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew on access to “economic installations, infrastructure and agricultural development projects, factories and others” for anyone apart from authorized employees.

Diplomats are also restricted from traveling beyond a 40 km (25 mile) radius of the capital.

(Reporting by Aaron Maasho; Editing by Katharine Houreld and Ros Russell)

By a concerned patriotic Ethiopian
 
Kidist Mariam Orthodox Church of Atlanta is one of the oldest and largest Ethiopian churches in the US.   In a letter posted on Ethiomedia on October 14, 2016, I read that a leadership crisis that was methodically installed by Woyanne/TPLF in the Church a while ago, has now reached a breaking point.  This letter was written by concerned members of the Church who expressed to have witnessed first-hand the usual malicious “divide and rule” tactic of Woyanne at work.  They reported that violating the established rules of the Church, some members of the administrative board in their recent meeting decided to unlawfully remove the legitimately appointed bishop, His Holiness Abune Yaekob, from his leadership position to pave the way to work in cooperation with the illegal Holy Synod in Ethiopia, most likely under the new leadership of the outspoken conspirator Aba Haile Michael.  As a follower and interested person in the affairs of this Church, prior to reading the letter posted on Ethiomedia, I have also observed some alarming signals from other members of the Church with whom I have personal relationships.  From what I have been able to gather from various sources, the expressed concern about the problem in Atlanta’s Kidist Mariam Church was/is real and legitimate.  In this crisis, what matters most for me is not the internal struggle in the church per se, but the involvement of Woyanne and the inclination of some members to let this happen.  This tendency becomes more obvious given the unfailing dedication of Abune Yaekob to the words of God and standing firm in defense of the defenseless, irrespective of Woyanne politics, and the hidden agendas of some members of the Church to bow to the will of Woyanne.

As a responsible and devoted man of God, His Holiness Abune Yaekob has served the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for more than four decades both in Ethiopia and abroad.  He has been in exile for a long time, mostly in leadership positions, with utmost dedication to the original guiding principles of the Church unadulterated by divisive politics mired with sinful acts against the teachings of Christ and, for that matter, any other known religion.  Abune Yaekob is highly conscious and in opposition of what is going on in Ethiopia under the tyrannical rule of Woyanne.  On several occasions, I have personally seen His Holiness condemning publicly the fascistic acts of the regime against its own people who have done nothing but only peacefully expressing/demanding their God-given rights.  Accordingly, he does not shy away from expressing his views, among others, against ethnic and institutional fracturing, corruptions and killings of innocent citizens carried out and actively promoted by the Ethiopian government.  His teachings and messages in the Kidist Mariam Church I occasionally attend and in gatherings of Ethiopians elsewhere are thoughtful and highly inspirational and healing.  He is a well-received father by anyone who has good intentions for his/her personal life, institutions, community and country.  The speeches and blessings he delivered in the Ethiopian Community Day and Food Festival held in Atlanta on September 3 and October 8, 2016 can be mentioned as testimony for his beliefs and devotion to serve God and mankind (these speeches are available on the Internet).

At this very critical and difficult time of our Ethiopian history, we need leaders like Abune Yaekob in our churches and community everywhere.  It is a sheer act of ignorance, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, self-interest, as well as “un-Ethiopian” on the part of some board/church members of Kidist Mariam to remove him from his position of leadership, in preparation to submit the Church to Woyanne and subject it to its subsequent destruction, along with the supporting community.  I hope the concerned members of the Church (both the board and ordinary members) will come to this realization and reverse the decision made with regarding to the change of leadership direction for the good of all.  At this very moment, Woyanne and the Ethiopian people are in clash more than ever and the entire free world is aware of this, largely being sympathetic to the cause of the people.  As the people are determined to remove this evil regime from power, its leaders are getting more and more desperate with time and some of them are even reported to be on the run more than ever.  It is, therefore, high time to focus on the bigger picture of our Ethiopian problem and contribute to the process of regime change by being on the side of the people and history.  Tilting towards Woyanne at this defining moment is an inexcusable mistake, not only by the Ethiopian people, but also by the Almighty Himself, in my humble opinion.

Unity and fairness are the way to go.

Long live Ethiopia, the birthplace of mankind on planet earth.