by Prof Alemayehu G. Mariam
 
These perpetual little panics of the French – which all arise from fear of the moment when they will really have to learn the truth – give one a much better idea of the Reign of Terror. We think of this as the reign of people who inspire terror; on the contrary, it is the reign of people who are themselves terrified. Terror consists mostly of useless cruelties perpetrated by frightened people in order to reassure themselves.”
 
Karl Marx in a letter  to Friedrich Engles during the Paris Commune (1870).
 
____________  *** ___________
 
…You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police … yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts: words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar out thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind; but how are they to quell the natural promptings of human nature of the human mind… Dictatorship- the fetish of worship of one man- is a passing phase. A state of society where men may not speak their minds, where children denounce their parents to the police, where a businessman or small shop ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinions; such a state cannot long endure if brought in contact with the healthy outside world…

Winston Churchill, October 17, 1938;  Broadcast to America. (It could have been broadcast to Ethiopia today!)

____________  *** ___________

In my commentary last week, I sought to provide an explanation on what the T-TPLF wants and do now that it has declared a “state of emergency” for itself.  (Ethiopians have been under a T-TPLF state of emergency for the last 25 years! Ho-hum!)

In this commentary, I explore what “WE” want and DO now.

Aaah! But only if I knew who “WE” are.

To be perfectly honest, I do not know who “WE” are. Who are “WE”?!

I know only one thing about who “WE” are. “WE” are they who want to see the end of the scourge of the T-TPLF in Ethiopia.

Beyond that, I do not know who “WE” are. How ironic that I should ask a simple question about what “WE” want and do now.

The pronoun “WE” has many connotations and denotations in the context of Ethiopian politics.

“WE” are Oromos, Amharas, Tigreans, Gurages, Anuaks…

“WE” are Christians, Muslims.

“WE” are the  “nations, nationalities and peoples”.

“WE” are the Diaspora.

“WE” are the young and old; the men and women; the rich and poor…

How I long for Michael Jackson who taught us, “We are the world”:

We are the world./ There comes a time when we heed a certain call/When the world must come together as one/ There are people dying/And it’s time to lend a hand to life/The greatest gift of all…/  Let’s realize that a change can only come/ When we stand together as one.

Yes! When “WE” stand together as one! As Ethiopians.

If only someone could teach us, our people are dying; we must come together as one; and that lasting change can come only when we stand together as one and sing out, “WE are Ethiopia”.  If “WE” could only heed that certain call.

Just the fantasy of a utopian Ethiopian.

Is there a reason why I am insisting that “WE” must know who “WE” are before we can talk about what we want and do?

I am afraid most of us would rather avoid the “WE” question. To paraphrase Marx, the “perpetual little panic of Ethiopians arises from fear of the moment when “WE”  learn (face) the truth about who “WE” are.

But I will excuse myself for having raised an academic or abstract question.

For the last 25 years, “WE” have been defined, re-defined, identified and misidentified by the T-TPLF.

The T-TPLF has tagged and bagged us into ethnic identities and corralled us like cattle into kililis (Bantustan homelands) to facilitate its tyrannical rule and predatory exploitation.

“WE” have been, to paraphrase Malcom X, took, hoodwinked, bamboozled and led astray by the T-TPLF.

“WE” have been so “took” that we have accepted the T-TPLF ethnic classifications and kilils as immutable historical facts and irrefutable political realities.

“WE” have lost the most elementary awareness that “WE” are not who the T-TPLF says “WE” are.

“WE” have lost the most elementary awareness that it is a crime against humanity to reduce a person to an ethnic identity. I have never met a person who chose his/her racial, ethnic or gender identity. I do not know anyone who chose to be an Oromo, Amhara, Tigres… These are accidents of birth and circumstances.

But the T-TPLF insists that every Ethiopian must be tagged and bagged as a member of an ethnic group.

In Ethiopia, the T-TPLF officially requires, under penalty of “law”, that every citizen declare his/her ethnicity on the official identification card. It is illegal to report “Ethiopian” as an identity!

I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to carefully study and scrutinize the official identity card issued by the T-TPLF to every Ethiopian.  It is much worse than the dreaded and infamous “Passbook” of apartheid South Africa. (See discussion below.)

So, the reality is that “WE” are who the T-TPLF says “WE” are.

“WE” are the people who live in 9 T-TPLF created Bantustans called “kilils” in a territory known as “Ethiopia”.

In much the same way as the European colonial masters carved out boundaries in Africa and the white minority apartheid regime carved out Bantustans in South Africa, the T-TPLF has carved out ethno-linguistic boundaries in Ethiopia.

Like the colonial masters who declared African countries (empires or kingdoms) did not exist before their colonial rule, the T-TPLF also says Ethiopia is a political invention barely one hundred years old. The T-TPLF says there is no such thing as “Ethiopian people” because Ethiopia is itself a geographical fiction, merely a juridical (legal) abstraction.  There are “nations, nationalities and peoples” in the fictional country of Ethiopia, but no such thing as “Ethiopia”. (See my May 2016 commentary, “Does Ethiopia Need a Constitution?”)

But “THEY” know who “THEY” are!

Everyday, “THEY” tell us who “THEY” are and how great “THEY” are.

“THEY” are the bold, fearless and heroic fighters who defeated the mighty Derg army and seized power.

“THEY” are the ones who taunt us every day, “Fight your way to power just like we did. Otherwise, go to hell.” (No, thanks. “WE” are already in hell under T-TPLF rule.)

“THEY” are the most intelligent, shrewd, clever, skillful, resourceful and slickest dudes on the African continent. “THEY” are born to rule, for a thousand years.

Only “THEY” know what no one else knows.

“THEY” know who “THEY” are because “WE” do not know who “WE” are. That is the sad truth!

The power of “WE”

There is no word in the human language that is more powerful than “WE”.

The greatest and most powerful country in recorded human history was established by a constitution which began with the word “We”. “We, the people of the United States…” (“We the people” now have a choice of electing a certified sexual predator, a dirty old man, as President of the United States. The surest sign of the decline and fall of the U.S.A? See my commentary last week, “Donald (“The Octopus”) Trump: Sexual-Predator (Groper) -in-Chief?”)

Barack Obama was hearkening to the creation of the American Republic when he declared at the Democratic National Convention in 2004: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”

That is who “We, the people of the United States” are.

In Xhosa culture (South Africa) the word “Ubuntu” means “I am because we are”.

Nelson Mandela rendered the concept of Ubuntu in terms of “community empowerment” and whether “you are going to enable the community around you, and enable it to improve”. It simply means, “We can do it!”

Archbishop Tutu defined “Ubuntu” as an expression of “My humanity is inextricably bound up in yours. We belong in a bundle of life.” It simply means we are one in our humanity.

If “WE” think and act as “WE”, then we will have our Ubuntu moment.

WE” will begin to experience the joy of one is the joy of all. The sorrow of one is the sorrow of all. The pain and suffering of one is the pain and suffering of all. When the blood of our Oromo, Amhara, Anuak, Ogadeni… is shed, “WE” feel as though our blood is shed. To paraphrase John Donne, “WE” begin to believe that every man and woman is a piece of Ethiopia,/ a part of the main. If a clod be washed by the sea, Ethiopia is the less.” That is the power of “WE”.

In 1963, Martin Luther King in his “I have a dream” speech showed us the power of “WE” when he expressed his boundless hope and faith in the future:

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

His last words were, “Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

The word “We” reveals itself to me in the ten fingers of the hand.

There are five fingers on each hand. As long as the five fingers on each hand are stretched separately from each other, they are pretty ineffective to the point of being useless.

But if the ten fingers are pulled together in a clenched fist, they become a formidable weapon of good or evil.

Five fingers grappling a pencil, a paint brush or tapping a keyboard produce great art, science, literature and music.

If ten fingers are clasped and make a fist, they store extraordinary kinetic energy.

But if a single finger is lifted from each hand, a lot of the power in the fist is lost.

If a second finger is lifted, all of the power in the fist is gone.

Ethiopia today is a country of 9 separate fingers (kilils). Weak. Fragile. Anemic. Ineffective.

The word “WE” also signifies community spirit to me. That is comm-unity (a group of people living together and working for a common purpose). It is about You-nity (you and I working in unity for a common purpose). It is about huminity (unity in our humanity) and national unity (as in “WE” are building a nation of diverse communities).

Ultimately, the word “WE” means “WE” are inextricably bound together in bonds of freedom, dignity, justice, equality and “WE” stand as ONE against   tyranny, corruption and abuse of power.

I often ask myself this one question: How is it that Ethiopia is the only country in Africa (arguably with the exception of Liberia) that not only remained independent for millennia but actually decisively defeated a major European colonial power not once  but twice?

“WE” — Oromos, Amharas, Tigreans, Gurages… — came together and made a formidable fist and knocked out flat the Italian colonial aggressor.

The historical lesson is simple and manifest: What is good for the Italian aggressor is good for the T-TPLF!

So, what do “WE” do we want and do now?

Go back to square 1?!

I. Understand the true nature of the struggle against the T-TPLF

The struggle in Ethiopia is against a black apartheid regime. Period!

I have argued and demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt (without any counter arguments) that the T-TPLF is merely a gentler and kinder version of white minority apartheid regime in Ethiopia. (See e.g., my May 2016  commentary, The “Law” as State Terrorism in Apartheid Ethiopia” and my April 2016 commentary, “The Bantustanization (kililistanization) of Ethiopia).

The T-TPLF has used its kilil system to create 9 homelands (and extensive land grabs) in Ethiopia that are virtual replications of apartheid’s Bantustans. The T-TPLF has used its so-called anti-terrorism law (and its “state of emergency decree”) in virtually the same way as the South African apartheid regime has used its anti-terrorism laws and state of emergency decrees.

I am convinced that unless “WE” understand, analyze and act as an anti-apartheid movement and struggle, the T-TPLF will hang around for some time to come. “WE” must then develop and apply the most effective techniques used in defeating apartheid.

“WE” could learn a lot from South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle and apply the most effective techniques used in that struggle. In apartheid South Africa, activists, leaderless youth movements and grassroots organizations built a loose network of associations “”leaderless movement”) capable of future transformation into an inclusive multi-ethnic organizational form to lead a national democratic struggle.

The central aim of the broad-based anti-apartheid struggle was to make South Africa ungovernable by the apartheid regime.

Specifically, the grassroots groups and the African National Congress and other organizations loosely cooperated to make apartheid institutions unworkable and concentrated their efforts on the most vulnerable links of the apartheid regime.

They completely rejected the Bantustanization of South Africa. They rejected and struggled against the apartheid collaborators and administration. They pressured the “black stooges” of the apartheid regime to choose between the people and their apartheid masters.  They boycotted apartheid businesses. When the apartheid regime proposed “reforms”, they demanded a non-racial democratic government to govern the people. They demanded the immediate release of political prisoners. They mobilized and  coordinating actions by students, industrial and domestic workers, women, clerics and others in the community to engage in various nonviolent resistance actions. They understood that the apartheid regime could  stand and thrive ONLY because it got the support of the U.S., the U.K., France and then West Germany. The U.S. adopted the so-called “constructive engagement with the apartheid regime rather than exerting sanctions and other pressure.

On the other hand, Diaspora South Africans and their friends developed a system of international support and pressure that produced a distinct effect on the apartheid regime. They mobilized for punitive sanctions  and implemented a successful divestment campaign unplugging the capital lifeline to the apartheid regime. By increasing the pressure on the apartheid regime from within and without, they made it clear the days of apartheid in South Africa were numbered.

The apartheid regime fought tooth and nail to cling to power. It passed a state of emergency decrees which  formalized a police state where they criminalized the freedoms of expression, access to information,  association, peaceful demonstrations  and all other personal, political freedoms and human rights. By trying to  control and dictate every aspect of life for Black South Africans, the apartheid regime believed it could ensure white supremacy and white minority rule forever. But the protracted nonviolent grassroots struggle combined with the worldwide divestment campaign  and sanctions regime finally broke the apartheid camel’s back. In the end, apartheid leaders had to choose between peaceful transition to democracy (a governable society) or total economic, political and social implosion possibly culminating in a race war.

I see some strong historical parallels to South Africa in what is happening in Ethiopia today. We have observed an accelerated trend in making Ethiopia ungovernable by the T-TPLF. The spontaneous uprisings throughout Ethiopia mostly led by a leaderless youth movement[1] is taking deep root. The people have taken the fight directly to the T-TPLF. They have engaged in a variety of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience actions to confront and pressure the T-TPLF. They have engaged in boycotts and taken a variety of economic actions including not patronizing T-TPLF-related businesses. They have demonstrated that the T-TPLF and its cronies will neither enjoy their stolen loot or govern until they respect the human rights of the people.

The T-TPLF declared a state of emergency to prevent this movement from transforming into a nationwide organization. The T-TPLF has outlawed all personal freedoms. The T-TPLF is promising all sorts of reforms to “expand our democracy”. (By the way, the “LF” in TPLF stands for Lie Factory.)

In the end, the T-TPLF apartheid regime will have the same fate as its historical South African “twin”. (See my commentary, “The “End of the Story” for the T-TPLF in Ethiopia.”)

“WE” must continue the struggle against the T-TPLF as an anti-apartheid struggle.

II. Change the way “WE” think and relate to each other

Real change and progress can come to Ethiopia only when there is change in thinking and attitude of the Ethiopian people and their political, social, intellectual, spiritual and community leaders.

George Bernard Shaw wisely observed, “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

What I see all around (including myself) is a whole lot of folks who want to change Ethiopia without changing  themselves.

“WE” are frozen in outdated and outmoded thinking and stuck in tribal mentality. “WE” seethe in ethnic and sectarian bigotry.

“WE” relate to each other on a tribal basis. “WE” articulate tribal grievances and tribal ambitions.

I know more than a few people whose thinking has been frozen since the 1970s.  Listening to some of them talk is like taking a stroll down the memory lane of our youth; it is the equivalent of experiencing a virtual time travel into the past.

“WE” have let our thinking fossilize and “WE” refuse to change our minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence and facts contrary to our opinions. “WE” do not acknowledge that we have shut close our minds.

“WE” stubbornly hold to ideas and opinions that have long been discredited or are proven wrong.

“WE” feel it is shame to admit being wrong and stubbornly cling to opinions and beliefs we know to be wrong.  (I was recently amazed to watch a youtube video entitled, “The First Man to Apologize in Ethiopia.”)  It takes a lot of strength and willpower to either admit to being wrong or allowing progress to occur with a change of mind or a change of heart.

My view is that one must change one’s mind as the facts and evidence dictate. It is a fact that “WE” live in a globalized world where geographic boundaries have become almost meaningless and a significant percentage of (young) people have instant access to information and ideas and can link to each other instantaneously through social media.

There is no place for tribal thinking in an ever globalizing world.

I believe “ethnicity” and “tribalism” are outdated ideologies kept alive by those whose sole ambition is to build a power base so that they can personally benefit.

Ethnicity and tribalism are nothing more than power games played by those who have seized power and their opponents who want to dislodge them and seize power for themselves until they are themselves dislodged setting an endless cycle of conflict and strife.

That has been the T-TPLF “ethnic/tribal federalism” zero-sum game in Ethiopia for the past 25 years.

The essence and foundation of T-TPLF rule in Ethiopia is tribalism.  To be fair, it is not only the T-TPLF that is fastened to tribal mentality. “WE” confirm and validate the T-TPLF’s tribal mentality every time “WE” speak the T-TPLF’s language of tribalism and play their zero-sum game of ethnic politics.

I believe “WE” must not only reject but also transcend the tribal mentality the T-TPLF has imposed upon us and sought to indoctrinate us with for the past 25 years.

“WE” must unplug ourselves from tribal thought forms. “WE” must transform our tribal minds into rational (national) minds.

I find the fierce resistance to openly examine our tribal mentality to be “one of the perpetual little panics” of  Ethiopians, the fear of finding out that tribe and ethnicity are nothing but a power game of divide and rule for those in power and the war cry of those out of power to get into power.

My belief and reasoned opinion is that the salience of tribal and ethnic identity is rapidly declining as young people worldwide opt to take national, regional and even universal identities. I think that is the inexorable march of human history.

As I interact with young people at the university level (admittedly an “elite” group and not representative of the vast majority of  youth) and examine studies on the impact of study social media and networking on youth globally, I wonder if Francis Fukuyama’s controversial proposition about the end of history or the  “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government” may not be true. What was the yearning of the young Egyptians, Tunisians in the Arab Spring? What were the young people in Tiananmen  Square hungering and thirsting?

My unshakeable belief in the march of history from bondage and serfdom to freedom and emancipation is rooted in the paramount values of individual liberty and human rights and the rule of law.

I believe that if human beings are free to think without fear, communicate without fear and if their minds and spirits are free from fear, they would more likely than not do the right things consistent with the principles of fairness and act and order their lives in a manner that enhances the lives of others. In other words, they would follow the Golden Rule.  (Not to be misunderstood with the T-TPLF’s golden rule. Those who own the gold from Lega Dembi and Adola rule!)

The politics of ethnicity and tribalism need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

There is a major lesson Ethiopians can learn from Americans on the question of ethnicity and tribe (race).

Everyone knows America is a land of immigrants. People from every corner of the earth, of all races and ethnicities make up the American nation.

Americans of all stripes may identify themselves by referring to their ethnicity, but the vast majority of Americans put their nationality before their ethnicity.

For instance, I believe United States Army Captain Humayun Khan did just that. Captain Khan was a Pakistani-American, a Muslim and born in the United Arab Emirates and came to the U.S. when he was 2 years old. Nasty Don Trump tried to humiliate Captain Khan’s parents. (Quick question: Is Trump a jackass by choice or was he born that way?) Anyway, Captain Khan was inspecting a guard post in Iraq when a suspicious taxicab began approaching quickly. He ordered his soldiers to take cover and ran toward the vehicle and was killed when the bomb in the cab exploded. He saved not only the lives of his soldiers at the post but also hundreds of  others in a nearby mess hall.

Captain Khan did not see himself as a Punjabi, a Muslim or Pakistani. He saw himself as an American. I have a dream one day that Ethiopians will not think  of themselves as Oromo, Amhara, Tigre… Christian, Muslim… but as Ethiopians and then as members of whatever group they wish.

Obama is right when he said, “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”

“WE” must escape from the tribal mental and physical (kilil) prisons in which the T-TPLF has confined us.

My escape plan from T-TPLF kilil prison is  simple: “WE” need to invest in “New Political Thinking” for the “New (post-T-TPLF) Ethiopia”.

The “New Thinking” must build on a common national identity (and abandon ethnic/ tribal identity). It must aim for the establishment of a national community based on the rule of law and interdependence and interconnectedness. It must inspire the creation of a new and creative national constitutional process (while scrapping the T-TPLF constitution into the dustbin of history) which ensures that no one group could dominate the political process and necessitate a multiparty system and coalition-building to form a functional government (even at the risk of gridlock). It must chart the course that will ensure the safeguarding of basic human and political rights and guarantee an independent judiciary. The New Thinking must help devise a system of clear division of powers between the national and sub-national governments (not some bogus game of “ethnic federalism”) and guarantee economic freedom and secure property rights of individuals.

There is a hard lesson to be learned from a post-apartheid South African governments which seized power without new thinking.

Few doubt South Africa today is in a hot mess. The democratic transition in 1994 anticipated only the transfer of power, not implementation of new ideas and thinking for a new South Africa.

President Jacob Zuma has faced numerous corruption charges since the late 1990s. Two months ago, a South African court ruled Zuma as sitting president should face  corruption charges.  South African Finance Minister under Zuma Pravin Gordhan is also facing corruption charges. (Quick question: How corrupt is the African national Congress? Answer: How corrupt is the T-TPLF?)

If present trends continue, South Africa will implode in less than a half-dozen years because the country and particularly the ruling ANC lacks new thinking.

Julius Malema (and his generation), the former expelled African National Congress Youth League president and leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters [EFF] (revolutionary socialist party) may be the one coming with the “new thinking” for South Africa in the next few years.

Malema formed his EFF in 2013; and the EFF is today the third-largest party in both houses of the South African parliament!!!

Malema’s and EFF’s “new thinking” are based on three pillars: 1) expropriation of land for redistribution among  the masses; 2) nationalization of mines and banks for the benefit of the people, and 3) free education and health care for all.

Malem a is not just thinking outside the box; he is thinking about breaking the whole damn box.

“WE” need new thinking that is not only outside the ethnic, tribal and religious box, but also one that accommodates these old boxes in a larger national constitutional box.

But to get to the new thinking, I say “WE” must all sing Bob Marley’s “Redemption Song”:  Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery (of tribalism and ethnicity);/ None but ourselves can free our minds…/

III. “WE” are not struggling for ourselves but our children

Most of my readers know that I am one hundred percent in the corner of Ethiopia’s youth.

My regular readers are familiar with my commentaries on the Cheetah Generation and what “WE” must do to help them achieve their greatest potentials while avoiding the mistakes ‘WE” have committed.

I believe the struggle is for the future of Ethiopia’s youth. I believe the youth are the future of Ethiopia for the very same reasons Nelson Mandela believed in the South Africa’s youth .

In a 1996 speech, Mandela said:

I admire young people who are concerned with the affairs of their community and nation, perhaps because I also became involved in struggle whilst I was still at school. With such youth we can be sure that the ideals we celebrate today will never be extinguished. Young people care capable, when aroused, of bringing down the towers of oppression and raising the banners of freedom.

In South Africa the youth played a pivotal role in our liberation. They braved bullets with stones. Some sacrificed their youth and dedicated their entire life to the struggle. Now they are harnessing their own energies and creativity as fighters for reconstruction and development. They are nurturing the skills and talents which will make them the leaders of tomorrow and the producers of our nation’s wealth.

It is such youth, and youth such as yourselves, that will shoulder the destiny of mankind into the next century.

I am boundlessly optimistic about the future of Ethiopia because I believe they will shoulder the destiny of Ethiopia into the next century.

The naysayers and doomsday seers say  Ethiopia’s youth have too many problems to provide hope of redemption for Ethiopia. They say Ethiopia’s youth are largely jobless, skillless, ambitionless, directionless, faithless, feckless, careless and hopeless.

I have even heard some Ethiopian Hippos (older generation) say the youth are only interested in making a fast birr (buck) and not concerned about their people or country.

I give no credibility to such cynical and defeatist talk.

There is great hope for the future in Ethiopia’s youth. Who is doing the heavy lifting, the dying and going to jail in the current massive country-wide uprising?  Who is leading the nonviolent struggle in Ethiopia today? What have Ethiopian Hippos done for Ethiopia lately (or at any time for that matter)?  I rest my case!

But I am very hopeful for other reasons.

Over 70 percent of the Ethiopian population is under the age of 35.  I am very encouraged that this population in the main does not carry or care much about the tribal and ethnic luggage “WE” lug around.  This population will in the foreseeable future transcend the regressive burdens of tribal mentality and affirm its allegiance to the broader national community and humanity at large. I am most encouraged by the fact that the youth are more  concerned with bad governance, lack of opportunity and denial of human rights than pointless issues of tribe and ethnicity. I believe the leaderless youth movement and youth activism in general will continue to be widespread and decentralized and coalesce in grassroots nonviolent resistance.

But I also see a grave danger looming on the horizon.

There is a youth bulge in Ethiopia; a demographic ticking bomb waiting to go off. As events in North Africa [the Arab Spring] have shown, lack of employment and educational opportunities have created an easy recruitment environment for terrorists.

As my long time readers know, for years I have been complaining about the fact that T-TPLF is squandering Ethiopia’s greatest treasures, its youth.

The facts of life for Ethiopia’s youth are disheartening. The T-TPLF has been a total failure on youth issues.

According to a 2011 report of the African Population and Health Research Center, “Ethiopia is one of the countries with the lowest primary school enrollment rates in the world… [L]ow quality of school and a high dropout rate, as well as gender and rural-urban disparities remain the major challenges of the country” Those who manage to finish high school have vastly diminished opportunities for higher education or gainful employment.

According to a 2012 USAID study, “Ethiopia has one of the highest urban youth unemployment rates at 50 percent and there is a high rate of youth under­employment in rural areas, where nearly 85 percent of the population resides.”

According to a 2012 study of youth unemployment by the International Growth Center reported that the “current 5 year [Ethiopian] development plan 2010/11-2014/5, the [ruling regime’s] Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), does not directly address the issue of youth unemployment…” That study found “in 2011, 38 percent of youth were employed in the informal sector” which “often provides low quality, low paying jobs.”

There is a substantial segment of the youth population that is not only unemployed but also unemployable because they lack basic skills. Youth access to public sector jobs requiring training and skills depends not so much on merit or competition but political and social connections and party membership. Every young person in Ethiopia knows that a card verifying membership in the ruling party is more important than an honestly earned university diploma. Moreover, rural youth landlessness has contributed significantly to the chaotic and ever increasing pattern of youth urban migration, joblessness and hopelessness.

The risks faced by Ethiopia’s youth cover the gamut of social maladies.

According to a 2010 T-TPLF report, there are 150,000 children living on the streets, some 60,000 of them in the capital. The average age at which children first find themselves homeless is between the age of 10 and 11 years. Health risks for youth from HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are on the increase. Large numbers of young people who lack opportunities are involved in drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution and other criminal activities. Without job or educational opportunities in the urban areas, large numbers of youth are rendered jobless, homeless, helpless and hopeless.

In 2004, the T-TPLF issued its “National Youth Policy” and in its assessment reported that “44% of the population is below the absolute poverty line. Under this situation of poverty, the youth is the hardest hit segment of society… The fact that the majority of the unemployed youth constitute females indicates the magnitude to which young women are the main victims of the problem.”  The policy directs that the “Government shall have the responsibility to direct, coordinate, integrate and build the capacity for the implementation of this policy.”

Yet, as a 2012 International Growth Center study showed, the “current 5 year [Ethiopian] development plan 2010/11-2014/5, the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), does not directly address the issue of youth unemployment.”  Taken as a whole, the so-called National Youth Policy was nothing more than a blueprint for T-TPLF youth recruitment and window dressing for the international poverty pimps.

A 2014 report documents how rural Ethiopian youth are using internal migration to escape rural poverty.

What is incredible is the fact that the T-TPLF has been window dressing youth issues for over two decades.

In 2005, the T-TPLF established the “Ministry of Youth and Sports” (how sad to think of youth and games! A youth ministry that does not even have a website?!). Within a few years, it became the “Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture” and for the past five years or so it has been the “Ministry of Women, Youth and Children’s Affairs”.

Only in a government of ignorant thugs can one justify lumping together the enormously complicated, diverse and challenging issues of youth, women and children.

The mind-boggling fact is that the T-TPLF has no youth agenda today!

The only youth agenda the T-TPLF has for the youth is its “Vagrancy Control Proclamation No. 384/2004”, which effectively criminalizes being young and cracks down on young people by defining as vagrancy activities such as “loitering or prowling at a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for a law-abiding citizen.”

Perhaps I should restate myself. The T-TPLF not only has an agenda, but they actually have a Master Plan for Ethiopia’s Youth.

The T-TPLF Youth Master Plan is to keep the majority of Ethiopia’s youth uneducated, ignorant, benighted, unschooled and impoverished while they educate their youth and groom them as their successors so that it will be T-TPLF today, T-TPLF tomorrow and T-TPLF forever.

Their Youth Master Plan is to ensure that there will NEVER be a strong youth counter-force to challenge the T-TPLF’s new crop of youth leaders, entrepreneurs and bosses. The T-TPLF’s Master Plan is to create a disempowered and perpetually dependent non-T-TPLF youth on the generosity, goodwill, charity and benevolence of T-TPLF youth-cum-leaders.  Is it not true that for any young person to get employment in the T-TPLF state, access educational opportunities, start a business and enjoy minimal levels of economic freedom that they must be  T-TPLF party members?

The ultimate aim of the T-TPLF youth Master Plan is to create a nation of non-T-TPLF ignoramuses who will serve their successors.

The fact of the matter is that the T-TPLF’s Grand Master Plan is to destroy Ethiopia by destroying Ethiopia’s youth. A frustrated, embittered, impoverished, resentful, discontented, discouraged and hopeless youth population in any country is a self-destructive, pessimistic and desperate population. That is the truth about Ethiopia’s youth under the T-TPLF. But it is what it is!

So much for the future of Ethiopia under T-TPLF rule.

In January 2016, The Economist magazine asked a question that has been on my mind for years. The question hit me like a thunderbolt when I read it: “What if Ethiopians were really set free?”

The real question to me is, “What if Ethiopia’s youth were really set free?”

The Economist answered its own question: “If the government let [the Ethiopian] people breathe, they might fly.”

If Ethiopia’s young people were allowed to fly, they would be the wings of Ethiopia.

Nelson Mandela observed, “Our children are our greatest treasure. They are our future. Those who abuse them tear at the fabric of our society and weaken our nation.”

That is what the T-TPLF is doing today, tearing the fabric of Ethiopian society by killing, jailing and torturing Ethiopia’s youth.

IV. Apartheid “Passbooks” and T-TPLF “identity cards”

The single most important factor in the struggle against apartheid regime in South Africa was the popular outrage against the “passbooks” Black South Africans were forced to carry and produce on order of any apartheid regime official.

The single most important tool in the South African apartheid regime’s control of the majority African population was the implementation of various “pass laws”.

In 1923, the pre-apartheid white minority regime passed the “Natives (Urban Areas) Act” instituting an internal passport system called “passes” and declaring  all urban areas in South Africa as “white”. Anyone without a pass would be arrested and sent to the rural areas.

In 1945, the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act was passed to impose “influx control” on black South Africans and established  “qualification” to reside legally in white urban areas.

In 1952, the Black (Natives) Laws Amendment Act prohibited stay for a black person in an urban area for more than 72 hours and required   all black people over the age of 16 to carry passes.  The Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act of 1952   instituted one nationwide pass law, which made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry the “pass book” at all times within white areas.

The resistance to the “Pass Law” led to the massacre of dozens of Black South Africans in Sharpeville in March 1960 and imprisonment of tens of thousands. Resistance to pass laws increased throughout the 1970s and 1980s at great cost to life for Black South Africans.

I can confidently say that very, very few people know or understand the insidious nature of the T-TPLF identification card system in Ethiopia.

Indeed, I argue that the apartheid South African pass laws were relatively harmless compared to the T-TPLF identification card or what I would call silent pass book.

The South African apartheid passbook contained minimal amounts  of information on the bearer. The passbook required  the bearer’s photograph, full  name, place and date of birth, tribe, employment bureau, employer’s name and address, tax, homeland tax and other “particulars.  (To compare apartheid “passbook” and T-TPLF identity card/silent pass book,  click HERE .)

The T-TPLF identity card (silent passbook) however collects incredibly massive amounts of personal information which has NO other purpose but to facilitate total control and surveillance of each citizen.

The T-TPLF silent pass book requires information including the 1) person’s name, 2) mother’s name, 3) date and year of birth, 4) place of birth, 5) designated kilil area, 6) district (wereda), 7) kebele(sub-district),  8) gender, 9) ethnicity (be-her), 10) current residence, 11) kilil of current residence, 12) district (wereda) of current residence, 13) kebele (sub-district) of current residence, 14) house number, 15) profession, 16) employer, 17) telephone number, 15) emergency contact name, 16) contact’s district, 17) contact’s kebele, 18) contact’s house number, 19) contact’s telephone number, 20) contact’s date identity card issued, 21) authority who issued identity card, 22) valid date of card and 23) a photograph.

Why would the T-TPLF require such extraordinarily detailed information on each citizen? Simple. For no other reason but to control, monitor, regulate, restrict, manipulate, register, document, regiment, dominate, subjugate, and rule with an iron fist.

There is no reason or rhyme to collecting such detailed information on citizens unless there is an evil plan behind it all.  I will defer extensive discussion of this issue for a later time.  But see my February 2013 commentary, “Ethiopia: The Prototype Police State”, and March 2014 commentary , “‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’” in 2014 Ethiopiana”, among others.)

When I say the T-TPLF runs a police state, some people suggest I am exaggerating and saying things  because I do not like the T-TPLF.

The fact of the matter is that there is NO country in the world that collects or requires citizens to provide such detailed information about themselves. NONE!

The T-TPLF runs a police state in Ethiopia.

The T-TPLF identity card (silent passbook) is a “hand grenade” carried by every Ethiopian whose trigger pin can be pulled by any T-TPLF authority.

Again, some may say I exaggerate when I say the T-TPLF is the apotheoses of evil, the deification of evil on earth.

As we say in the legal profession, “res ipsa loquitur” (“the thing (evidence) speaks for itself”). The silent pass book speaks for itself.

Now, the truth about the T-TPLF’s silent passbook is out what should “WE” do about it?

To be continued next week…

[1] I use the phrase “leaderless youth movement” to indicate the widespread use of nonviolent resistance  and civil disobedience by loosely organized and coordinated independent groups who broadly share the same objectives without an identifiable command and control structure).

PETITION TO THE THIRD COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CHAIRWOMAN H.E. MS. MARÍA EMMA MEJÍA REQUESTING AN URGENT CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE ONGOING AND WIDESPREAD KILLINGS AND EGREGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN ETHIOPIA.

We, the undersigned Ethiopian civic and political organizations, on this day, October 24, 2016 call on the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to press urgently the call for an independent investigation into the widespread, persistent and systematic killings and egregious violation of human rights that are being perpetrated by the Government of Ethiopia against its own people.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the African Commission for People’s and Human Rights, the European Union and many others have previously issued calls for an independent investigation and for accountability, calls which the Government of Ethiopia has outright rejected.
On October 8, 2016 Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on the Ethiopian government to allow an independent, international investigation to determine how scores of people were killed at the country’s Irreecha festival on October 2, 2016.
The Ethiopian government has a well documented history of persistent and consistent record of carrying out extra-judicial killings against different ethnic groups. In 2003 424 Anuaks in Gambella were massacred by security forces. Thousands of ethnic Somalis in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia have also been killed by government troops and the Liyu Police, a rogue group, similar to the Sudanese Janjaweed militia.

The decision we are urging the Third Committee to take is crucial in light of the brutal campaign of systematic and widespread killings, imprisonment, torture and forced disappearances underway in Ethiopia. It can help to limit and bring to an end these crimes against the people of Ethiopia, particularly Oromos and Amharas that the government has single-handedly targeted.

The draconian State of Emergency that the government declared on October 9, 2016 has put most of the country under military rule, subject to a dusk to dawn curfew. It has authorized arbitrary arrests, shut down internet access, made political protests, accessing social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and listening to independent radio and TV broadcasts crimes punishable by up-to five years of imprisonment.

The decree also prohibits all public employees, including members of the military and security services, from taking annual leave or resigning from their jobs and private businesses from closing down their shops. It even restricts foreign diplomats from travelling 25 miles outside of Addis Ababa without permission from the military command post.

According to Muthoni Wanyeki, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes, “these emergency measures are extremely severe and so broad that they threaten basic human rights that must not be curtailed even under a state of emergency”

In the same statement issued on October 18, 2016 Amnesty asserts that “it is the government’s failure to constructively engage with the protesters that continues to fuel these protests. It must now change course.”

The rejection by the Government of Ethiopia to heed all international calls and address the legitimate demands of the Ethiopian people and its decision to intensify the violent and often lethal crackdown to suppress peaceful protests has not only endangered the lives of millions of Ethiopians but it has also jeopardized regional peace and security.

Silence in the face of these horrific crimes is tantamount to complicity. The launching of an independent investigation is an urgent first step to stop further crimes and to ensure accountability.

Thank you.

Cc:
H.E. Ban Ki-moon , United Nations Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki Moon
Email: sgcentral@un.org
Twitter: UN Secretary-General @secgen
H.E. Peter Thomson, President of the 71st session of the UN General Assembly
Twitter: UN GA President @UN_PGA
H.E. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein UN High Commissioner for Human Rights zraad@ohchr.org

Ethiopian Advocacy Network (EAN)
Ethiopiawinet: Council for the Defense of Citizen Rights (E-CDCR)
Global Alliance for the Rights of Ethiopians
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Leaders
Ethiopian Muslim Religion Leaders (First Hijrah)
Ethiopian Protestant Religion Leaders
United Ethiopian Muslims Peaceful Movement Support Group
Patriotic Ginbot 7
Oromo Democratic Front (ODF)
Afar People’s Party (APP)
Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP)
United Oromo Liberation Front
All Amhara People’s Organization
Moresh Wegene Amhara Organization
Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia
DC Area Ethiopian Community Joint Task Force
Ethiopian Constitutional Monarchy
Ethiopian National Transitional Council
Center for the Rights of Ethiopian Women
International Ethiopian Women Organization
Solidarity Committee for Ethiopian Political Prisoners
Former Ethiopian Defense and Police Force Veterans Association
Netsanet Radio, Washington DC
Mahebere Ethiopia for Freedom and Justice
Ethiopian Community
Oromo Community , MN
Gambella Community , MN
Ogaden Community , MN
Oromo-American Citizens Council (OACC)
Oromo Federalist Congress – International Support Group (OFC-ISG)
Minnesota Peace Project (MPP)
Ethiopian Dialogue Forum
DFW Ethiopian Human Rights Task Force
Ethiopian-American Coalition
Ethiopian Forum in Seattle
Selam Le Ethiopia Newspaper, Seattle, WA
Andenet TV, Seattle, WA
St. Teklhaimanot Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Ottawa
Ethiopian Canadian Task Force for Democracy, Ottawa
.

October 24, 2016

Ethiopia stands at a crossroads, once again. But this time the prospects facing it are much more starkly contrasting than during past instances of change. If it is put on one course of change, achieving a final breakthrough to a common democratic future looks distinctly promising. If such a course is blocked or not pursued by the stakeholders, on the other hand, the breakdown of order appears threateningly possible. The time to put the country on the right course is now. Unless a country-wide consensus is forged for doing so today, the country will continue its steady slide towards the abyss.

As things stand now, the worrying scenario mentioned above appears more plausible than the former. Are we exaggerating and being alarmist when we draw this pessimistic conclusion? If we are alarmist, we are justified to be so because the time to take corrective measures is now before the country has gone over the cliff and reached a point of no return. There are important reasons why all concerned should worry about Ethiopia’s future.

The ongoing debate of the deaf in Ethiopia is just one of these reasons. Parties are talking past each other instead of conversing with each other. No one is genuinely paying attention to the pain and grievances or perspective of the other. As during many past periods in the country’s history, the choices currently confronting it are, once again, posed in a binary either/or manner. Even though the Oromo is at the forefront of the struggle to bring fundamental change in Ethiopia, some continue to sidestep core Oromo demands and talk as if the choices are either defending the present order or restoring the unitary state of yesteryears. Unless prominence is given to the more forward looking alternatives espoused by the Oromo, Ethiopia’s continued existence as a polity is questionable and we may all be condemned to live under a condition of sustained instability.

The present rulers of Ethiopia are absolutely convinced that there is no alternative to their style of administration. Even when admitting the need for some reform, however cosmetic, they can only think of reforming themselves. While endangering the country with its intransigence and refusal to make a shift in course, they shed crocodile tears for the country’s possible implosion if they are toppled. Consequently, they are determined to permanently preserve the status quo. However, societal rejection of their administration has been steadily growing and has now reached fever pitch.

The opposite stand, espoused by a very vocal sector, recognizes nothing valuable in how the present rulers structured Ethiopia and have ruled it for a quarter of a century. In this perspective, the present rulers put Ethiopia on a completely disastrous course from the outset by structuring Ethiopia into a federation curved along ethno-linguistic bases. Proponents of this stand see no alternative to dumping the present administrative system lock, stock and barrel.

The rancorous debate between these two opposing sides, hence, offers nothing new about the future. The present rulers are determined to preserve the status quo that has been rejected by most Ethiopians. Their vocal opponents look back to the time when the country was conceived as a unitary state with ethnic homogenization through assimilation as a strategy to forge a unitary nation and wish to restore it. But that conception of Ethiopia was militarily challenged by an increasing number of armed groups culminating in its replacement by the present structure. Hence, Ethiopian society is being offered the choice of either enduring the present failed approach to governance or the one preceding it, which has also disastrously failed. It is the stalemate between these two proposals, lacking any forward looking element, which worries us about the future of Ethiopia.

We wish to state one of our convictions up front. Structuring Ethiopia as a multinational state is a move in the right direction. And this move is due to neither the diabolical nor noble intensions of the present rulers. It was a historical necessity that was insurmountable at the time the military regime collapsed and the current rulers were catapulted to power. Consequently, the present rulers deserve neither commendation nor condemnation for embracing the principle of multinational federalism in Ethiopia. Structuring Ethiopia as a multinational state was as an unavoidable as was the Dergue’s Land Reform Proclamation of 4 March 1975. Both of these constructive developments in Ethiopia’s recent history were however ultimately abused to serve negative purposes not because they were wrong but because those ruling the country are/were averse to democracy in both instances.

The fundamental aim of this Proposal is articulating an alternative to the two proposals discussed above. Its core intention is recognizing and preserving what is positive in the status quo as well as the one preceding it. This stems from our conviction that some progress has been registered during each of the previous two incidents of change. When posed in this manner, the intention of this Proposal is undeniably reformist. Even at this eleventh hour of a popular revolution precipitated by the regime’s refusal to implement the minimum of reforms in its core policies and basic modus operandi, we believe reform and reformism offers the best route out of the country’s malaise. It aspires to build on positive developments during these instances of change instead of aspiring to totally scrap them.

All stakeholders must admit one fact. The only thing unchangeable in human history is the inevitability of change. Hence, it is better to anticipate the inevitably coming change and plan for it than to be overwhelmed by its unexpected consequences after it has occurred.

What constitutes the litmus test for evaluating the preferred direction of the coming change? We believe the answer lies in Martin Luther King’s now well-known observation that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Thus, the next process of change in Ethiopia should position the country “on the arc of the moral universe … bending toward justice.” Morality demands the search for justice for all.

Seeking justice for all is the fundamental aim of this Proposal. Because what is considered as just by one set of actors is often denounced as unjust by another group of actors, even the term “justice” could be controversial in the Ethiopian context just like so many other concepts.

What principle can help close the gulf separating these kinds of contrasting stands concerning justice? We propose that if the exercise of any right does not unjustly infringe on another’s ability to freely exercise their rights, then justice for all would be realized.

This Proposal is deliberately written in a concise form for a reason. The more is stated, the more detractors would find reasons to argue against it. We are not afraid of debate but wish to avoid the hair-splitting type of exchanges that so bedevil political discourse in Ethiopia. We are also not directly addressing the issues that are subjects of ongoing controversies in the country. Instead, we are dealing with the premises, traditions and mentalities—worldviews—lurking behind the positions currently confronting each other.  Unless these underlying assumptions are seriously interrogated and their hindrance to charting a better future is unearthed, we are condemned to relive our past and dismal present.  To prevent Ethiopia from sliding into further chaos, many, including some from the international community, are calling for dialogue between Ethiopia’s contending stakeholders to resolve the impasse.  Dialogue is the only alternative.  However, no dialogue can tackle the impasse without meaningfully addressing the mindsets that underlie the ongoing conflict. This Proposal is prepared with this in mind.

1. THE MEANS DETERMINES THE END

Political movements in Ethiopia disagree on almost all issues except one. And that exception is democracy. Not a single Ethiopian movement is opposed to democracy. All movements agree that the installation of a democratic order should be the aim of the ongoing struggle. This common aspiration, hence, constitutes the factor potentially uniting the country’s gravely divided movements. Hence, this is an asset that is worth cherishing, preserving and promoting. A potential area of contention is perhaps the undue focus on outcomes rather than the process of democracy and the quality—their impartiality, professionalism, and openness—of the institutions that serve as the pillars of genuinely democratic society.

The controversial question is how the struggle for democracy should be conducted. Specifically, what means of struggle is likely to lead to democracy and what is not? The answer can be found by revisiting the recent history of Ethiopia. On several occasions during the last half century, Ethiopian movements have employed armed/violent struggle as the means to achieve democracy. They have fallen far short of their intended aspiration in each instance. The experiences of numerous other countries corroborate this tragic end result of armed struggle.

At this stage, asking the following provocative question appears pertinent: What is insanity? The equally provocative answer is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Consequently, if democracy is truly our common aspiration, we should reconsider our attitude regarding armed struggle. Armed struggle has not culminated in democracy in the past and is not likely to do so in the future.

The reason for this tragic consequence of armed struggle is quite simple if we are willing to stop and think. Any group employing armed means can prevail over the incumbent dictatorship only under one condition. And that is excelling the incumbent in precisely those behaviours that are inimical to democracy: secretiveness, unquestioning obedience top-down diktats, and intolerance of differing opinion. Because of the need to excel in these undemocratic behaviours in order to defeat the incumbent dictatorship, democracy becomes the first casualty of armed struggle within the movement conducting it. And a movement that itself is undemocratic cannot be expected to become a democratizing agency. No one can practice democracy in the external arena while internally suppressing it. And no internally democratic movement has ever succeeded in successfully conducting the protracted armed struggle that overcoming tyranny entail. Even established democracies are forced to significantly curtail civil freedoms during times of war and serious security threats.

Armed struggle, hence, is ineffective in ushering in democracy and effective only in replacing one form of dictatorship with an even more repressive alternative. Breaking out of this vicious cycle is possible only by dispensing with the common practice of blaming the incumbent for forcing armed means on those seeking democracy. A dictatorship obviously fears and hates democracy more than anything else. As the result, it prefers to manoeuvre its opponents into engaging it on the undemocratic plane, where it has the upper hand. Those genuinely seeking democracy should consciously avoid struggling in the manner preferred by the incumbent dictatorship.

As the country gradually inches day by day into an armed struggle as a default and unavoidable option, it is hard to argue against an oppressed people’s right to defend itself against violent repression by the ruling party. The temptation to avenge our killers and defend against the onslaught of our oppressors is a natural human reaction. Self-defence, by all means in one’s disposal, is an inviolable right. However, we still need to stop and think seriously about where this slippery slope lands us: into the arms of another tyranny.

Even if armed struggle is proven to be unavoidable due to the sheer brutality of the ongoing repression on the civilian population, its negative consequences and how to limit its negative repercussions need to be looked at closely and dispassionately—even if doing so at a time when sections of the country are being turned into bloodbath is seen as ivory-tower intellectual conceit.

The reason why armed struggle replaces one form of dictatorship with an even more repressive alternative has been stated. The dictatorship that captures power by armed means has another complicating nature. It becomes imbued with a high degree of self-righteousness even as the struggle is underway. This is due to the fact that the leadership overseeing the struggle invokes democracy to motivate its followers to pay the highest sacrifice. Such a leadership ultimately assumes that it alone epitomizes democracy. Any criticism of such a leadership runs the risk of being portrayed as opposing democracy and mercilessly suppressed.

After coming to power, such a dictatorship also loves to invoke the memory of the martyrs who died in the struggle as the current regime does ad nauseam. It harangues the public non-stop that it owes a debt to the martyrs and does not state when this debt is paid up. Hence, the dead ends up indefinitely dominating the living. And all sorts of crimes are likely to be committed in the name of those who no more are in a position to express their opinion.

Moreover, the ownership of armed struggle steadily narrows during the struggle ultimately being monopolized by the secretive conspiratorial top leaders or even the top leading personality opening the way for the cult of personality. This appears to be innate to armed struggle and has repeatedly recurred in world history.

The ownership of non-violent struggle, on the contrary, has to continuously expand to embrace all participants. In fact, the only way non-violent struggles can succeed is through widespread public ownership and their active and creative participation in it. The aim and strategies of non-violent struggle are openly declared in order to attract a widespread participation. Once owned by the public in this manner, the path to narrowing the ownership of the struggle is blocked forever. Over all, the ultimate aim of non-violent struggle is openly declared and pursued—imbuing it with a high degree of internal democracy; and can thus culminate in the installation of a democratic order.

Sacrificing one’s life is sadly inevitable in the conduct of both non-violent and armed struggles. But the leaders of armed struggle often end up considering human life as just one of the many resources expended during its conduct. They ultimately draw a balance sheet of the deaths they inflict on the enemy and their own casualties. This cavalier attitude towards human life ultimately devalues it. Combatants are discouraged from openly expressing their grief about the death of their own comrades, to say nothing about that of the opposing force.

Both non-violent and armed struggle require a high degree of selflessness, including the willingness to lay down one’s precious life. However, participants in armed struggle are more nonchalant about taking the life of the opponent—precisely because they are selfless enough to put their own life on the line. On the contrary, non-violent struggle is premised on making the loss of any life unnecessary.  And regrettable, when it happens. Those engaged in non-violent struggle do not aim to t life but to give their own if necessary. Participants in non-violent struggle value their own life as much as they value that of their persecutors. And when any life is lost during the non-violent struggle, the public turns out to mourn and celebrate the life of the martyr.

Armed and non-violent struggle have contrasting impacts on the internal solidarity of the incumbent dictatorship. Armed struggle tends to approach the incumbent as a monolithic entity and aspires to demolish it by force. This external threat plays into the hand of the top leadership of the dictatorship who portrays any threat against it as a threat to anyone sharing anything with it. The rhetoric of the armed opponent may give more prominence to denouncing the top leadership of the dictatorship. But in practice, this denunciation runs the risk of steadily expanding to include the society that spawned the top leadership of the dictatorship. This top leadership would also do everything to fuel this fear of the society that spawned it.

On the contrary, non-violent struggle has the potential of driving a wedge among factions and interest groups within the camp of the dictatorship. Non-violent struggle does not approach the dictatorship as a monolithic entity but a collection of human beings. It does not dismiss outright the existence of individuals with conscience even within the camp of the dictatorship. Non-violent struggle deploys moral arguments in order to impact the conscience of all involved. Some, even in the camp of the dictatorship, are liable to be impacted by this form of persuasion. Hence, non-violent struggle has the potential of drawing a wedge between moderates and the extremist core of the dictatorship.

2. THE DIVISIVE ROLE OF ETHIOPIAN HISTORY

The preceding section cited Ethiopia’s history of the last half a century in order to evaluate the efficacy of armed struggle in charting a common democratic future. Hence, imagining and working for the realization of a common democratic future inevitably involves looking back at the past. But this does not appear promising in the Ethiopian context. Reading and interpreting history tend to be very divisive. The heroes of one set of actors happen to be the villains of another. And one group’s history is considered as fiction by another. What is seen as the Golden Age of one group is portrayed as the dawn of the Dark Age for another. Even the depth of Ethiopian history is just as controversial. Does the history of contemporary Ethiopia uninterruptedly stretch back for several millennia or is it only a little over a century long?

Why is the history of other African countries rarely as controversial? Perhaps this could be due to the fact that the powers that created the other African countries packed up and left after independence. In Ethiopia, however, the state was created by indigenous actors and the society from which the creators of the contemporary state were home-grown and have had nowhere else to go. And, as in any other processes of state formation, armed conquest was involved in bringing present-day Ethiopia into existence. But unlike other democratic countries, where the initial act of coercion by force was ultimately replaced by voluntary consent, force still remains the factor holding Ethiopia’s disparate cultural/linguistic societies together. As the result, when and how Ethiopia was put together still remains the subject of an emotive debate. The politicization of the reading and interpretation and re-interpretation of Ethiopian history thus still rubs raw nerves. This has the implication of rendering the historicization of politics in Ethiopia inevitable. Consequently, political stands tend to be backed with a specific interpretation of past history. When politics should rather be about solving problems facing today’s and tomorrow’s generations! Unless a way is found around this mutual politicization of history and the historicization of politics, imagining and realizing a common democratic future will thus remain unattainable.

Finding a way around this burden of Ethiopian history that stands in the way of imagining and articulating a common democratic future is way beyond the scope of this very brief writing. Instead, what will be attempted is proposing a few approaches on how to stem the obstacle posed by differing readings and interpretations of Ethiopia’s history. Even this modest attempt has a lot of dangerous, risky and controversial implications.

First, is it perhaps possible to agree that there is no such thing as the clinical and absolutely objective writing of history? Hence, the work of even the most refined professional historians is inevitably influenced by their biased preferences of some data, reading or perspective over others. Even research in such supposedly clinical subjects as physics, chemistry and other physical sciences is affected by preferential tapping of data and paradigms. This results from the fact that understanding any objective reality involves some degree of abstraction. A society’s means of understanding its past does not stand still: it continues to evolve, on account of the advent of new technology, and changes in philosophical perspectives and social tastes and sensitivities, necessitating a rereading and re-interpretation of the past. In addition, the archival material normally cited by historians is itself produced by contemporary chroniclers with their own biases—some selected in and many others left out. Hence, treating any history as Gospel truth should be approached with the utmost care.

Second, can we agree that the notion of “people without history” is not only wrong and unjust but also serves as the rationale for the commission of injustice? Every society has a past although maybe its ancestors did not have a literate culture to document it in writing. Hence, the history of the world should ideally be the sum total of the histories of all humans. Likewise, the history of a particular country should be the sum total of the histories of all sectors of its population.

Third, the literature which serves as the source for writing history is often assembled by individuals belonging to the dominant sector. This, hence, stamps history with a bias favouring the victor when documenting a particular process of state formation. History speaks in the commanding voice of the victor and mutes out the faint voices of the vanquished. The situation and suffering of the victim is rarely even mentioned. This has an inevitable implication. History written based on such a biased documentation ends up humiliating the descendants of those victims. Such was the history of Ethiopia that motivated some groups to develop a thirst for a kind of history differing from the one officially taught in schools. The end result was the politicization of Ethiopian history mentioned above. If we really want to end this, the state and state organs ought to favour the history of Ethiopia that reflects the role of all communities, which history should be taught in schools. This requires accepting that all communities have played a role in shaping contemporary Ethiopia.

Fourth, can we agree that there is no such thing as a completely blameless society? Every society has committed aggression against one or another of its neighbours at some times while finding itself at the receiving end of aggression by one or another of its neighbours at another time.

Finally, none of us chose the family/society into which we were born nor the particular locality or country where we were born. As individuals, we have the choice of moving to another country and of changing our citizenship. The society into which we were born, however, cannot exercise this option. Its only option is finding a way to peacefully live with its dignity upheld with the other societies thrown together to shape the population of the country. The focus of the effort of Ethiopia’s political movements should be working out the terms that allow such a dignified and peaceful coexistence among all the cultural/linguistic communities composing the Ethiopian population.

Proposal: Hence, can we agree to live with differing readings and interpretations of Ethiopia’s history on one condition? That it should not permanently demonize and criminalize a particular sector of the Ethiopian population, exclude any other from being part of the state, or deny that injustice was ever committed. Otherwise, our divergent reading and interpretation of Ethiopian history would permanently stand in the way of realizing a common democratic future.

3. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION 

One of the most controversial and unavoidable issues in jointly seeking and charting a common democratic future concerns the invocation of the right of self-determination by marginalized groups, including the Oromo, who otherwise make up close to half of the country’s population. Returning to the debate surrounding this issue is not promising because contrasting stands have congealed. Instead, we should focus on the right to self-identification, without which self-determination or any other political project is impossible. Hence we start by addressing the controversial nature of self-identification because it is another matter standing in the way of forging a common democratic future in Ethiopia. This is yet another factor that sets apart Ethiopian politics from that of other countries, at least in Africa. This kind of controversy is almost non-existent elsewhere in Africa where individuals freely identify themselves either as members of their ethnic community or citizens of their country depending on the context. In Ethiopia, however, controversy rages over whether individuals first and foremost refer to themselves as Oromo, Amhara, Sidama, Afar, Guraghe, Somali, Tigrean, Anyuak, etc. or strictly as Ethiopians.

Delving into this topic runs the risk of just contributing to the presently raging controversy instead of defusing it. A volume can be written on the topic and yet fail to suggest a way around it. The aim of this brief writing is to suggest a number of simple principles that could point to a way to how to defuse this raging controversy.

First, can we agree that the right to self-identification is a fundamental human right that belongs to the self concerned and to no one else? Stripping individuals of this right amounts to violating their humanity. It is like treating them as objects instead of conscious subjects. Whoever says to individuals “you are allowed to call yourself only A and not B” is exercising supremacy. Such a designator is also asserting ownership of the designated. Those exercising this type of supremacy by appropriating the others’ right to self-identification are in the position to also change their mind and say “from now on you can only identify yourself as X and not Y.” As the result, those whose right to self-identification has been appropriated in this manner are forced to lead a precarious life always questioning how they will be designated next.

Second, can we agree that the right to self-identification is a fundamental democratic right in the absence of which it is impossible to organize for any common purpose: political, social, cultural, religious, etc.? Individuals have to identify themselves as workers, women, members of cultural/linguistic community, etc. in order to organize to pursue a common objective. Restricting this right in any manner would ultimately lead to curtailing the right to assembly and organization. After all, the human being is fundamentally a social creature.

Third, can we agree that self-identification can be invoked in a multiple and contextual manner? Individuals can identify themselves as workers in one context. And as women at other times. And as women workers in yet another context, in which self-identification both as worker and woman is invoked. Likewise, why is it not possible for individuals to identify themselves as Oromo in one situation and as Oromo Ethiopians under another?

The answer is quite simple. Until recently being an Oromo was officially portrayed as antithetical to being an Ethiopian. This mentality is still reflected in the discourse of a vocal sector of Ethiopia’s elite. It is this mentality that drove some Oromo activists to articulate being an Oromo as antithetical to being an Ethiopian. Rejecting those who reject you is a natural human reaction. If at some time the dominant system denied Oromo identity as part of Ethiopian identity or tried to eliminate its traditions or discourage the use of its language through various means, one should not be surprised if those at the other end thought the same, and tried to assert the right denied. The only way to resolve this problem is by accepting that being an Oromo and an Ethiopian is not mutually exclusive and is indeed possible.

Fourth, can we agree that the right to self-identification can be invoked to serve constructive or destructive purposes? When this right is invoked to attack and belittle others, it definitely serves a destructive purpose. When it is invoked to seek justice for oneself as human beings, however, it plays a constructive role. Struggling for justice for the self should not amount to denying justice to others. And when it does, a red line has been crossed and should be corrected. Only when such a red line is crossed is the right to self-identification serving a negative purpose.

4. HOW TO INSTITUTE INCLUSIVE CHANGE

Ethiopia has undergone several incidents of tumultuous change during the past half century. There is one thing common to all these incidents of change. A particular group or even an individual ultimately monopolized the political space subsequent to the change that unfolded. Some of these changes started with widespread societal participation. This was the case especially with the process that brought the imperial era to an end. But soon after the imperial regime was unseated, various rival groups fought each other with the aim of monopolizing Ethiopia’s political space. This rivalry pitted against each other several nascent parties that claimed Marxism-Leninism as their ideology, and pioneered the practice of the “Red Terror” in order to self-righteously liquidate members of their opponents. The military clique simply appropriated this practice and employed it to demolish the rival civilian parties. Meanwhile, several processes of liquidation occurred within the junta at the end of which one officer managed to monopolize the political space.

When the military regime was overthrown in May 1991, the incoming EPRDF signalled its willingness to share political space with other movements by inviting them to join the Transitional Government. Within a few months, however, more and more of these non-EPRDF organizations were either systematically eased out or left the Transitional Government out of frustration. The course was set thereafter ultimately culminating in the monopolization of the political space in Ethiopia by the EPRDF. In the course of the following decade, the same process unfolded within the EPRDF, and one person eventually monopolized the political space, until his natural death.

We cannot change how these previous processes of change unfolded. But we can, and have to, identify and deal with the mentality that made the monopolization of political space inevitable in both instances. Otherwise, we will remain stuck in the vicious cycle of witnessing groups and individuals replacing each other as the monopoly holders of the political space. In undemocratic systems, monopolizing political space enables monopolizing the economic and other spheres as well.

First, these recurrent monopolizations of political space resulted from the mentality of “winners take all.” Not only that, the winning party is determined to indefinitely keep its gains. This means that losers lose everything and permanently. As the result, the losers have no stake whatsoever in the incumbent order. This drives the opposition not to acknowledge anything worthwhile in the policies and practices of the incumbent ruler. Neither does the incumbent acknowledge anything positive in the policy proposals of the opposition. In fact those in power view opposition to the regime as criminal. Change stemming from these mutually confrontational stands can have no other outcome but zero-sum.

Second, the feeling of self-righteousness slips in to further complicate this already complicated political contest. Each party portrays an absolute conviction that its stand, and only its stand, can serve the interest of the country or the people which it purports to represent. This often extends to the effort of trying to make the rule of the incumbent coterminous with that of not only the administration but also the Ethiopian state. As the result, successive rulers have done everything possible to wrap the state around themselves in order to signal that any threat directed against them is also a threat to the survival of the Ethiopian state itself. The country is currently on the verge of a frightening possibility due to this mentality.

Third, differentiating the state and government, which has never happened in Ethiopia to date, becomes well-nigh impossible so long as this mentality prevails. The bureaucracy, the military, police, the judicial system, etc. are believed to belong to the incumbent and to promote strictly its interests under this dispensation. Even the Constitution is believed to be an instrument tailored to reflect and enforce the vision and interests of strictly the incumbent ruler. Consequently, all these pillars of state institutions have undergone significant overhauls after each incident of change to date.

Demolishing these institutions and starting all over again after each incident of change is a very expensive undertaking in a country as impoverished as Ethiopia. It is also wrong because all forms of administration have positive and negative aspects. And positive aspects can be preserved and refined while removing the obviously negative ones. This requires both the incumbent and opposition agreeing on a couple of matters. The incumbent rulers should acknowledge that their policies and practices are not perfect by admitting that they are fallible human beings. The opposition should likewise acknowledge that not all the policies and practices of the incumbent stem from its diabolical intentions but also from burning question at the time it rose to power. And any policies and structures instituted by the incumbent to accommodate historically-rooted demands need to be preserved. So long as this kind of mentality replaces the one prevailing until now, both the defenders of the status quo and agents of change will have something in common.

Our proposal, hence, is a simple one: Those wanting to preserve the status quo can and should acknowledge that accepting some changes may serve such a purpose. And those seeking change should similarly acknowledge that preserving the positive aspects of the status quo could ease such a process.

5. SYSTEMIC CHALLENGES

We, members of the opposition, love to hold the ruling party responsible for all of Ethiopia’s predicaments. Doing so may be politic but we should not mislead ourselves by our own rhetoric. This does not mean to exonerate the ruling party from its responsibility for the current crisis and debacle in which its security forces are turning the country into a bloodbath and one huge prison. There are undoubtedly problems introduced by the present rulers. There are others that they inherited and exacerbated instead of defusing. And there are still others that are beyond the control of the present rulers regardless of their claim to be fully in control.

For example, climate change is truly becoming a problem defying even the most powerful countries. And in the Ethiopian context, this challenge is further compounded by the simultaneous depletion and pollution of natural resources and galloping population growth. This makes the prioritization of poverty alleviation higher than any other pursuit. The present rulers should be commended for putting development at the top of their priorities although whether they are genuinely and fairly implementing it could be debated. And any incoming regime must be prepared to refine and build on their efforts.

6. TECHNICAL MATTERS

This Proposal has not addressed such technical issues of caretaker government and other transitional arrangements. These issues will be addressed in a separate proposal, to be shared with different stakeholders and developed collaboratively. This decision stems from our conviction that such matters are less controversial than the attitudinal and traditional mind-sets that stand in the way of imagining and realizing a common democratic future.

Crackdown on social media follows a bloody campaign by the state

by PETER DOERRIE
 

The regime has placed a special emphasis on limiting the flow of information out of the country. Want to post an opinion about what is going on in Ethiopia on Facebook? If you do so within the country, you could face a three-to-five year jail sentence.

The Ethiopian government has also restricted all foreign diplomats to the capital and its immediate environs, limiting one of the most important ways to observe the development of the often violent crisis, which erupted one year ago as protesters demanded reform to the country’s one-party rule.

Foreign media has been restricted from covering the protests from the beginning, and the author’s visa request was recently denied by Ethiopia without comment, as were similar requests by a number of colleagues.

The government has also seemed to severely restrict access to the Internet. Statistics provided by Google show that traffic to YouTube (a Google property) fell off a cliff in early October. These harsh new laws are not a good sign for those who hoped that tensions and violence in Ethiopia would subside.

The Ethiopian regime is facing its greatest challenge since it took power in 1991.

Twenty-five years ago, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front swept into power — and was popular — as it replaced thoroughly brutal and corrupt Marxist regime that reduced Africa’s only uncolonized nation to famine and poverty.

The EPRDF implemented a federalist constitution and a parliamentary democracy. But while allowing a greater space to the political opposition and strengthening human rights, the ruling party never risked giving up its control over the state.

While the EPRDF is officially a coalition of several ethnic political parties, its Tigrayan members — who were instrumental to the insurgency that brought it power — have long dominated the party.

Over time, the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front further strengthened its control over the coalition and the state’s political institutions. It further took control of the military — a key U.S. ally and one of the better equipped and trained forces on the continent.

The protests that erupted in November 2015 can be traced to the perceived dominance of Tigray politicians, businessmen and officers over Ethiopian affairs. Since those protests began, Ethiopia’s security forces have killed more than 500 people.

Originally the protests were staged largely by Oromo youths, but Amhara protesters have since joined them — uniting the country’s two largest ethnic groups. They share demands for greater participation in the political process, and the devolution of resources and rights to Ethiopia’s ethnic-based federal states.

The protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, with no organized and violent anti-state movement being apparent. The regime could acquiesce to the protesters’ demands and open a dialogue about the future of Ethiopia’s political system. However, the state of emergency and its draconian rules make clear that this won’t be happening any time soon.

Instead, it is likely that the new legal instruments, and reduced scrutiny from abroad, will give the regime license to increase the level of violence against its opponents.

The opposition, meanwhile, has little hope of resisting such a coordinated effort from the state. The regime has successfully undermined opposition groups in recent years, leaving the protesters without a national platform or individuals to organize around.

A continuation of the crisis will severely harm Ethiopia’s economy. Some investors are already pulling out, throwing one of Africa’s few economic success stories into jeopardy. But the regime might decide that the risk is worth it, hoping to come out of the conflict with even stronger control over the country.

Currently, there is only one strategy that would almost certainly force the government to change course — a coordinated withdrawal of international development assistance.

Ethiopia received more than $3.5 billion in development assistance in 2014. In 2011, official development assistance amounted to more than 100 percent of central government spending.

But international donors are exceedingly unlikely to pull the plug. German chancellor Angela Merkel visited Ethiopia in October 2016 to — yes, you’re reading this correctly — inaugurate the African Union’s new headquarters for peace and security operations.

While she criticized Ethiopia’s democratic deficits, she made no threat to withdraw resources. On the contrary, Merkel proposed to support the training of Ethiopian security forces “so that protests won’t result in so many deaths.”

Merkel, at least, took the time to meet with some representatives of the opposition. U.S. president Barack Obama refused to do so last year, instead calling the Ethiopian government “democratically elected.”

This statement came to the consternation of human rights organizations, which pointed out that the ruling party currently holds 100 percent of the seats in Ethiopia’s parliament.

The reason for this blatant refusal to take action is simple — faced with the threat of terrorism in Ethiopia’s neighbor Somalia, and several civil wars in the region, Western powers are betting on the Ethiopian regime to pull through this crisis and provide the region with an “anchor of stability,” in Merkel’s words.

For European countries, this primarily means holding back refugees who would otherwise make their way across the Mediterranean, potentially further destabilizing the political landscape in the European Union — already battered by the Brexit and a surge of right-wing populist movements.

It’s a risky gamble. While the Ethiopian regime is unlikely to falter in the short term, further entrenching its control over the Ethiopian state and military will be practically impossible to reverse at a later point.

No regime lasts forever, and if the events of the Arab Spring are any guide, the most “stable” regimes also create the biggest messes.

ESAT Radio 30 Minute Mon Oct 24 2017

Abdur Rahman Alfa Shaban

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Ethiopia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs has officially responded to Human Rights Watch (HRW) over its series of reportage in the country.

According to the top diplomat, HRW through its senior researcher for Ethiopia and Eritrea, Felix Horne, was stoking anti-government protests through its false and negative reportage of the situation in the country.

In an article titled, ‘Human Rights Watch encourages opposition violence in Ethiopia,’ Dr Tedros slammed HRW and opposition groups in the diaspora for misrepresentations that were worsening protests leading to the imposition of a state of emergency.

‘‘The suggestion that there were hundreds killed originally came from members of opposition groups in the Diaspora who even claimed that hundreds were shot by helicopter gunships.

‘‘This was a palpable invention, but Human Rights Watch was quick to claim: “an unknown number of people, possibly hundreds, died during a stampede after security forces used teargas and gunfire.”

‘‘One result of this, and similarly invented claims immediately after the tragedy, was an outburst of further demonstrations and attacks on property as well as a number of deaths in various parts of the Oromo regional state.

‘‘It is very clear this happened because of the statements of Human Rights Watch and of the Diaspora opposition encouraging and feeding rumors,’‘ he said.

He further accused the rights body of ‘‘making considerable efforts to push the European Union to use its role as Ethiopia’s main development cooperation partner to force Ethiopia to accept an international investigation.’‘

Dr Tedros accused the HRW researcher of writing articles on the Ethiopia protests without having the requisite information, giving interviews to Reuters and, last week, addressing the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights with inadequate information.

‘‘In all of these, in order to support his demands, he has deliberately given impressions and made claims he knows to be false about recent events, notably the Ireecha tragedy on October 2,’‘ he stated.

Ethiopia’s top diplomat also deplored the manner in which Human Rights Watch has increasingly failed to disclose the sources of their information in the country. He said the group continued to peddle false information despite proof to the contrary.

He was particularly displeased at reports that the security had fired live ammunition at protesters during the Ireecha festival. He insisted that the cause of the deaths were a result of tragic drowning and crushing of persons during the stampede.

‘‘There is, in fact, no evidence (though there are a multitude of allegations made over social media) of any more deaths than the official figures of 55 who died, all from being tragically drowned or crushed in the stampede.

‘‘None of those who died were killed by gunshots, despite Mr. Horne’s claims, as has been confirmed by reports from the hospitals in Bishoftu,’‘ he added.

The government recently imposed a state of emergency to quell a wave of anti-government protests in the Oromia region.

Opposition groups and western diplomats in the country have decried the the government’s decision to impose the state of emergency. The move has been described as a measure to continue with increased repression of opponents.

The government however blames the violence on “anti-peace forces” and “foreign enemies,” specifically Egypt and Eritrea, even though Egyptian president Al Sisi denied any involvement in the protests.

Ethiopia has since November last year suffered a series of protests in two main regions – Amhara and Oromia. The attendant security clampdown has led to the arrests of over 2000 people and death of hundreds of protesters.

AFP, MogadishuSunday,

Fighters from the Al-Qaeda-linked Shabaab group said on Sunday they had retaken control of a town in central Somalia after hundreds of Ethiopian troops serving with the African Union’s AMISOM force withdrew.

It was the third time this month that the Islamist group moved into a town in the region after the departure of Ethiopian forces.

Al-Shabaab said on the smartphone app Telegram that their fighters had “stormed the town (of Halgan) soon after the enemy pulled out” on Sunday.

After leaving Halgan together with Somali army soldiers, situated at a key junction on the road to the capital Mogadishu, the Ethiopian troops headed towards the provincial capital, Beledweyne, according to several sources.

The Shabaab was forced out of the capital, Mogadishu, five years ago but continues to carry out regular attacks on military, government and civilian targets in its battle to overthrow the internationally-backed administration.

The fall of Halgan is likely to increase pressure and attacks on AMISOM forces in Buloburde, which is the second largest town in the central Hiran region.

No explanation has been given by the Ethiopian military or AMISOM.

Ato Achamyeleh Tamiru’s (from Amhara Resistance) presentation at Vision Ethiopia Conference under the theme “Roadmap for transition and constitution making in Ethiopia”. The conference was held on October 22-23, 2016 in Washington DC. (ESAT broadcasted the conference live).

A position paper of Shengo
 
24 October 2016
 
It has been some time now since Ethiopia has plunged into a political crisis. This follows the recent popular protest of Ethiopian Muslims, the uprisings in different parts of the Oromo region and the North West provinces of Gonder and Gojam in the Amhara region. During this period, the ruling TPLF-led regime (EPRDF) is employing the same old tactics that it has used for 25 years to crush the popular uprising and to stay in power. Despite the regimes ongoing use of brute force however, the popular resistance is growing and gaining momentum both in its intensity and scale.
 
This new reality requires a new political approach. Thus, Ethiopia should urgently embark on formulating an all-inclusive political process or risk a wide spread resistance, that could engender more catastrophic consequences and could veer off to unforeseen directions. Sadly, so far the very nature of the autocratic rulers deny them to have an insight of the reality and do not have the political will to relent to the popular demand for overhaul change.

The wide spread repression

The national election in 2005 marked a major watershed for the ruling party. Its disguise of having popular support was unravelled. It clearly showed that it was unwilling to yield power to the /popular/ will of the people. The regime’s crackdown demonstrated how far the regime would go to suppress independent opposition and dissent. As part of that crackdown, thousands were imprisoned, hundreds killed and thousands forced to flee the country.

Since then, through relentless repression, the regime has weakened the capacity of the opposition, the free press and effectively eliminated the independent civic society by introducing 3 anti-constitutional laws – relating to the media, civil society and the anti-terrorism law to suppress dissidents.

One of the major developments in the Ethiopian political arena after 2005 is the fact that the regime has dropped the pretentious facade of foisting multiparty democracy. Since then, the ruling TPLF-led regime has been openly very critical of liberal democracy and continued to justify its monopoly of power through its ideology of ‘Revolutionary Democracy” under the cover of “Developmental State”. This has increasingly made both the opposition and the public at large to conclude that the ruling TPLF/EPRDF would not yield political power peacefully increasing the likelihood of armed conflict. Tragically, signs of such activities are beginning to appear in various parts of the country.

Wide spread dissatisfaction

Despite the regime’s attempt to down play the issue, there are multiple political, economic, and social factors that contributed to the tremendous dissatisfaction and anger demonstrated by a wide spectrum of the Ethiopian population at this point. Here are a few

• Cumulative effect of 25 years of relentless and brutal suppression, political killings, disappearances and mass incarcerations etc.;
• Total lack of faith on the ruling TPLF led regime that it will allow any form of meaningful exercise of human and democratic rights;
• Frustration arising out of the regime’s complete disregard to the citizens basic rights to safety and security of their own habitat. This includes eviction of citizens from their land with little or no compensation, forced takeover of their businesses and properties, throwing people out of their job with little explanation or compensation etc.;
• The absence of rule of law has caused citizens immense frustration and wide spread feeling of vulnerability;
• The systemic ethnic discrimination, and the establishment of hegemony and special privilege to members and supporters of the ruling group over all other individuals and groups;
• Lack of employment opportunities and lack of economic mobility to the young generation both in urban and rural parts of the country
• The relentless labelling, demonization, belittling and attack on different ethnic or cultural groups (i.e. Amharas and Oromos), religious groups (both Orthodox Christians and Muslims) as Chauvinists, narrow nationalists, extremists etc.
• The misguided, ill-advised and politically motivated redrawing and imposition of internal administrative boundaries without the consent of the residents (i.e. Welkait Tsegedie, Tselemt, Raya, Konso etc.) and the discontent and open conflict related to the above
• The limitless corruption within the ruling group and glaring embezzlement of the country’s coffer with little or no consequence.

Rage, growing Public Resistance and dissent from within the EPRDF

The increased repression over the last 25 years did not result in the complete annihilation of dissent, as the ruling group would have wanted it. On the contrary, what has surfaced is a more determined more vigorous, more informed grass root resistance. The resistance is now wide spread involving cross-sections of age groups, geographic, ethnic and religious groups etc.

Sub-cultural groups that the regime once thought will be its “loyal supporters”, including the youth, the farmers, the Oromo’s, the Muslims, the people in Southern Ethiopia etc.… are now in open revolt. Clearly, the regime’s support is narrowing and diminishing rapidly. Out of clear desperation it has now decided to declare a state of emergency. This changing dynamic is resulting in a very fragile security environment across the country.

The Resistance is gaining momentum and stamina

In the past, an open display of resistance in Ethiopia has been met by a crushing blow /repression/ and therefore has been a short-lived phenomenon.  However, at this point, the resistance in the Oromiya region has been taking place since November 2015, the open resistance by members of the Muslim community is now more than four years old, the most recent resistance in the northern regions of Gonder and Gojam has now continued for over four months. Using different forms of peaceful civil disobediences the resistance in the Northern provinces is showing some maturity in scope and nature becoming more dynamic and more organized.

It appears the relentless nature of the resistance could provide a galvanizing opportunity to the movement and a much-needed time to consolidate leadership, solidify its support, expand its reach and articulate a broader common vision.

There are also a number of unique characteristics that contributed to the dynamic features of the resistance today. These include:

• In the past, including in 2005, the resistance was confined to major cities i.e. Addis Abeba, Awassa, Dessie etc., it was active mainly in big urban centres or locations. Now it is spread out over the entire country, across different regions, including small towns, i.e. over 200 locations in the Oromia region, almost the entire regions of Gonder and Gojam, part of Wello in north east Konso in the south, and different other locations.
• The resistance in the past was mainly directed by the leadership of the legally registered political organizations i.e. Kinijit, UEDF, MEDREK, Andent, Blue Party etc. In a way, one could say that it was a top down movement. The regime was then able to paralyze these resistances by locking up the top leaders of the political parties. However, the current resistance is developing from both ends; it is as much bottom-up as it is top-down. This has made it more dynamic and very difficult for the regime to suppress.
• The issues why people are rallying are grounded on challenges the people see and face on a day-to-day basis i.e. eviction from their lands, issues of identity, poverty, insecurity, corruption, absence of justice and rule of law. Therefore, the public’s determination to fight for the issues raised at this time is much stronger. The political agendas raised at this point are more appealing to a larger audience.
• In the past, the ruling party faced the fury of the people as one, undivided and unified party. But currently, the division within the ruling EPRDF is more evident. Members of the ruling party, mid level and in some cases from the upper leadership, in Oromo and Amhara regions are increasingly siding with the resistance.
• In the past, ethnic and religious divisions have helped the ruling party to weaken the resistance. However, currently, the Orthodox Church in Exile as well as the movement of the Ethiopian Muslims (both inside and outside the country) are on the same side, they both are against the regime’s unabated interference in their religious affairs and against the ruling party’s desire to control the leadership of both religions. The Orthodox Church within Ethiopia is also becoming more vocal against the detention and killings of citizens.
• Currently, there is increasing solidarity and interdependence between the Oromo and Amhara based resistances.
• The psychological barrier of fear and reprisal has been shattered. As observed in Oromya, Gonder, Gojam etc. Ethiopians are no more afraid to speak out their disapproval of the ruling TPLF/EPRDF.
• The killings at the Irrecha celebration has now galvanized unprecedented level of open defiance against the ruling group

All of these factors show that it is highly likely that the resistance will continue gaining increased strength as time goes on.

The government’s rigid and sterile approach

Despite the wide spread and open uprising, the regime continues to go back to its old tactic of brutal /forceful/ suppression, widespread imprisonment, offering empty promises of reform, blaming others  and endless meetings etc. Furthermore, despite repeated calls by the opposition to engage in dialogue to address this national emergency, the regime has continued to refuse talking with the opposition.  Instead, the regime has deployed thousands of armed forces, both in Amhara and Oromo regions, and engaged in wide spread mass arrests, killings etc. In Oromiya region, an estimated 1200 (some sources put the estimate to be 5500) peaceful demonstrators have been killed by the security forces and in the Amhara region of Gonder and Gojam the numbers of people killed is estimated to be about the same.

However, unlike in the past, this time around, it appears the social uprisings springing up across the country appear to be more organized and bold with a clandestine organizational and tactical plan of sustainability.  This shows the maturity, character and scope of these movements cannot be crushed by the regime, as was the case in the past.  There is also ever increasing concern that even if the regime dares to crush the resistance, the cost of such approach in human life could be immeasurable. Moreover, there is a worry that such repression would very likely give rise to extremism and radicalization of the youth. Hence, political analysts and observers warn, if the government does not start a dialogue with the opposition in very short order, armed groups could mushroom around the country, making the country completely unsafe and ungovernable.

The way forward

The complex political situation in Ethiopia requires a comprehensive solution that addresses the immediate safety and security concern within the country as well as addressing the root causes and demands of the popular discontent.

This will require a sober, give and take process that includes the fundamentals of trust building, inclusion, justice, fairness, mutual gain, forgiveness and a meaningful process to address long-standing grievances. Comprehensive and lasting peace is not to be achieved by just freezing the current conflict or attempting to go back to the pre-crisis status through one means or another. Doing so would only aggravate the situation.

Ethiopia is located in a region that is mired by conflict and fragile state. The deteriorating political unrest within the country will only add to the already exiting instability both within Ethiopia and the region. As such, resolving outstanding issues in Ethiopia is an urgent task for regional and global peace and security.

We believe that resolving the current situation in the country requires a three-step approach

1.       Creating STABILITY by initiating a genuine, safe and inclusive political process acceptable to all stake holders;

2. Addressing the root causes of the crisis through an all inclusive NATIONAL DIALOGUE and the establishment of all inclusive transitional process
3. Putting in place a well-grounded process for ON-GOING CHANGE, DEMOCRATIZATION and prevention of similar crisis in the future.

The following are key principles that need to inform the solution framework:

Non violent transition

The current situation in Ethiopia requires a non- violent transition that leads towards more inclusive, more democratic and accountable political order. Ethiopians are clearly expressing their rejection of TPLF/EPDRF’s one-party rule. On the other hand, the ruling group is involved in an irresponsible and unsustainable path of delusion and denial of observable facts. The regimes view as such is seeing itself as the only  “change agent who could fix the problems”.  This demonstrates the ruling party’s profound detachment from the reality on the ground. Delaying the inevitable and much needed change will lead to a more violent confrontation, creating an environment of uncertainty and instability in the country. This ultimately will have a major ripple effect on the economy and social dislocation, spiralling Ethiopia in to a vicious cycle of violence.

Transparent and all-inclusive transition

At this point, bringing stability in Ethiopia requires transitioning into a government that has credibility and respect of the people. EPRDF has lost the peoples’ trust and respect.

In today’s Ethiopia, there is no single political party or group that garners the trust of most citizens. No political party or other form of organization has an overall control or influence in what is happening throughout the country. Certain groups might be influential in certain parts of the county and some others may be influential in other parts of the country. As such, there is no one or two political parties that could be considered as representatives of the resistance in all parts of the country.

As such, resolving the current crisis requires bringing together all stakeholders so that together, they all own the process as well as the solutions.

Before the situation reaches a point of no return and events on the ground get out of control leading to the violent downfall of the regime, there is an opportunity to show willingness towards a smooth political transition. During this transition, political power should rest in the hand of a government of national unity made up of representatives of diverse political views, including the ruling TPLF/EPRDF. This process should reflect the unity and diversity of the Ethiopian society by having a representation from cross section of the country such as ethnic, religious and gender diversity.  We propose that this government should adopt a hybrid model and include both representatives of political parties who are participants in the transitional process as well as technocrats, politically neutral   (none political affiliated) prominent individuals with high qualification and positive reputation as role models and consensus builders within the Ethiopian society. Members of the government (cabinet, heads of corporations, commissions and government enterprises) must be conferred by the consensus of the participants of the transitional process.

The security forces, the judiciary etc. should be freed from direct or indirect control of any political party and be answerable to the Transitional Government and the Transitional Assembly.

In addition to the government, Transitional Assembly of National Unity representing political parties, civic organizations, different regions etc. should be established with a mandate to act as a legislative body until the transition to an elected parliament/assembly is completed. It will work to encourage positive democratic engagement, development, sovereignty and national unity of Ethiopia and to approve budget as well as approve the activities of the transitional government.

The transitional process should be tasked with

• Administering the country until such time (maximum 3 years) that an elected government assumed power
• Repealing the current undemocratic and repressive constitution and replace it by a Transitional Charter agreed upon by participants of the transition. Establish a constitutional commission that will undertake the responsibility of drafting a new constitution with full participation of all Ethiopians, Ratifying the new constitution through open and transparent referendum.
• Introducing legislation to facilitate free and fair democratic election in the country. Replacing the current election board by a competent non-partisan election commission.
• Initiating a peace and social reconciliation process and taking appropriate legal steps to bring to justice those who have committed atrocities and crimes.

Legislative guarantee to respect human and democratic rights

A corner stone of the transition should be full respect of human and democratic rights including the right to organize, to freedom of expression etc. A clear demonstration to the pubic that the country is moving forward in the right direction will be the immediate release of all political prisoners, ending the state of emergency, ending the repression of free press, and legalizing all political parties.

Commitment to equality, self-rule and unity of the country

In Ethiopia, there is a contested national identity and concern about the unity of the country. While most outstanding issues need to be addressed through a national dialogue process, given the distrust and the prevailing identity politics, it is imperative to provide a framework that could be a starting point for collectively deciding what kind of administrative structure best would fit the country and its people moving forward. We propose that the transitional process and organization involved in this process commit themselves to the principles of equality, devolution of power, self-rule and unity of the country.

Commitment to social reconciliation

The need for social and political reconciliation is one of the most pressing issues in the country. Ethiopia faces a number of outstanding historical as well as recent grievances. For a long time, these historical and recent grievances have been left building layers of trauma.  Addressing these grievances and creating a long terms process of healing these wounds requires dealing with those real or perceived outstanding issues in a respectful, generous, truthful and transparent way. This could be achieved through engagement in national reconciliation and a healing process sanctioned by all stakeholders. The transition process needs to initiate this process.

Lessons from the past

Ethiopia has passed through two political, economic and social experiments transitions, in1974 after the overthrow of Emperor Haile Selassie and in 1991 after the overthrow of the Military regime.

Both transitions were non-inclusive, insular and decided mainly by narrowly defined interests. Neither of the two produced inclusive democratic governance. The results of both processes were disenfranchisement, the rise of dictatorships, bitter confrontation between the regimes and opposition forces and political instability and recurring violence.

In this context, the proposed transition at this point should take a lesson from those two failed processes. Exclusion will yield sense of alienation and perpetuation of conflict.

The other factors that contributed to the failure of the 1991 transition were the following:

• The lack of transparent process. Most decisions on key issues were made behind closed doors with little or no transparency.
• Making rushed decisions that went way beyond the mandate and scope of a transitional (provisional) government on issues that should have been left for permanent government with mandate from the people;
• Imposing TPLF’s political program as the transitional charter of the country;

These are issues that should not be allowed to be repeated again.

Untangling Eritrea out of Ethiopian politics

The separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia and the role of the EPLF led government in Asmara in Ethiopian affair is one of the most contentious political issues. This further complicated the political landscape of the country and injected additional dimension to the problem.

Entangling the Ethio-Eritrean Boarder issue or any other outstanding issues with the current internal crisis in Ethiopia is therefore unnecessary and unhelpful. It will only aggravate the already complicated situation. Therefore addressing one issue at a time is the most logical approach. The relation between the two should be determined after a legitimate and mandated government is established in Ethiopia.

Facilitating a peaceful political change in Ethiopia: a shengo perspective

By Ewnetu Sime
October 25, 2016
Ethiopians residing in New York metropolitan area, human rights advocates groups and, others concerned individuals held a panel discussion on October 24, 2015 at New York Ethical Society hall in New York City. The forum was intended to critically examine the prevailing historic series of anti-government peaceful protests, inhumane government reactions and its great deception tactics to cover up crime against humanity. The event was organized by Amnesty international New York group (AINYG), and with support organizations such as Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia, Ethiopian Community Mutual Assistance Association Inc. for NY, NJ&CT and others. The AINYG invited human right advocates, academia and showed a short documentary of the civil uprising in Ethiopia. The panelist were Dr. Aklog Birara, Mr. Obang Metho, Dr. Begna Dugassa, and Dr. Semahagn Abebe.

AINYG moderated the event and presented the overall objective of the panel discussion. The forum objective was to promote dialogue on the current crises in Ethiopia.  Peaceful protestors were killed, savagely beaten up, jailed and several fled. The panelist addressed several issues including the ethno-centric TPLF’s dictatorial terror, atrocities, great deception, corrupt practices, the ongoing gross human rights violations and, the root cause of current uprising.  The panelists have encouraged the attendees to engage in denouncing the human rights violation by TPLF’s regime, and to support in any way they can the ongoing peaceful protest through this type of panel discussion or by other effective means. The overall presentation by panelist work as synergic team in raising awareness.

As reported on several mainstream medias, since November 2015 the people of Ethiopia, in several regions of the country, have taken extreme and dramatic measure and peacefully protested to express their discontent.  Hundreds of thousands of people marched in Amhara region made Gonder and Bahir Dar ghost cities by sitting in strike.  In Oromia region the people carried out several demonstration in all most all localities, zones, woredas, and kebeles.   The protest is still on going in various places in these two big Kilils.  These protests are one of the largest and earth shaking mass protests in the country since TPLF dictatorial regime seize the power. As usual, the response by TPLF dictatorial and corrupt regime has been harsh. The Federal Agazi troop’s opened fire on peaceful protestors and committed horrendous crime.  To cite what the Voice of America radio program reported and posted on ECADF forum website in Western Wolloga. “The regime troop killed youth, the mother of dead said: “They killed my son, and they forced me to sit on dead body while they were beating me”’. The regime has indeed violated the cherished principle of the democratic and human right of its own people.

Ethiopians are saddened by the recent ethno-centric TPLF’S troops shooting on peaceful protestors. The regime committed outright murder. These tragic incidences are clearly the result of TPLF’s tribalism policy and divide and conquer tactics in governing the country. We read countless articles, news, social media posts exposing the regime brutality. The brutality caused incalculable killing and inflicted lasting psychological damage. The regime deception to hide its killing of peaceful protestors is unbelieve. The most dramatic of deception come from regime communication minister, Getachew Reda denied that the protesters had been killed. Mr. Reda accused them they are “armed protestors” of trying to kill the police. But on the contrary, the video posted on social media showed the protestors were mowed down by the security forces. Mr. Reda deny this disturbing facts. The crackdown of the protestors has continuing in rounding up villagers in Oromo, Amhara, and other regions in Ethiopia. The regime taking killing, arbitrary arrest, torture, using excessive and unnecessary lethal force as the solution to stop the uprising is delusion.  This delusion will never able to quell the people protests.

The ethno-centric TPLF dictatorial rule compounded with rising number corrupt party officials and cronies involved in illicit business, illegally owning luxury apartments, etc. simply demonstrated that they are corrupt, discredited and hated by majority of Ethiopian people. These reckless behaviors will not allow them to have serious discussion with ordinary folks or opposing parties to solve the political problems. They have no intention to combat corruption or relinquish the power in peaceful manner. There is no prospect of political victory for them either. The ethno-centric TPLF dictatorial rule taking the country into a quagmire of failed state. They chose to continue to spin on its media to cover its heinous crimes. We hear from them familiar deception statements, accusation foreign hirelings, terrorist, frequent tactic to pity one ethnic to other. All these are prove to be cover up for their evil deeds. In fact it is laughable and outdated tactics. The problem is big like a dark cloud over. There is no solution in sight for them.  Multiple crisis confronted the TPLF leaders.  The lack of rule of law, continuing grave human violation, misuse of the anti-terrorism proclamation, arresting activists, bloggers have intensified the crisis. Observing these simply facts, it will not be hard to prove that TPLF is dictatorial rule with an iron fist is not capable of resolving current crisis. Also, the protest seems to have reached a point of no return.

Most Diaspora are deeply sympathetic with Ethiopians people uprising and has shown full solidarity. The diaspora community staged events across the world in many America and Europe capitals. They have condemned the TPLF archaic regime killing of innocent people and demanded immediate release all peaceful protests. On the other hand, there are passive diaspora group who are critical of the regime in small group setting, but who do not come out openly denouncing the regime action. Clearly, there some diaspora are fearful and silent and submission to regime’s eternal deceptions. Many puzzled why this passive group took this stand as they lived far away from home. Unless this passive group are a part of “land grabers” scheme or tied with other material interest/incentives, they have a moral obligation to join one of civic organizations of their choice that advocate democratic system and uphold human rights principles.

The country’s political and economic problems shall start by dismantling TPLF’s tribal based leadership. The regime is proved to be incapable of resolving all political or economic problems. Ethnic based rule is a serious error and it is like driving wedge among multiethnic Ethiopia society. The past 25 years we became ethnic based rules experiment and the outcome is grim.  TPLF’s is prescribing the out-of-date ideology and must be rejected on the basis of its practical application, else the oppression will be repeated in another form of ethnic rule. As is well known, the cause of current political crisis is a lack of democracy rule. Unless democratic rule is established the unrelenting confrontation against the TPLF regime will continue. There is no doubt if oppositions parties and ethnics organizations chart minimum and maximum common programs under one Ethiopia doctrine will accelerate in liquidation of TPLF ethnic centric dictatorship. The establishment all-inclusive democratic rule will prevail.

This panel discussion is part of overall struggle for democracy rule. It exposed the TPLF’s terror, atrocities and deceptions. It set stage to disseminate information. It gives the attendees to have better understanding of human right violation by TPLF’s tyrannical regime. Last but not least, it build a foundation of collaboration for stronger community.
Ethiopia will prevail! The powerful would be vanquished!

ESAT Radio Tue 25 Oct 2016

Vision Ethiopia, an independent and nonpartisan network of Ethiopian academics and professionals, in collaboration with the Ethiopian Satellite Television and Radio (ESAT), organized a two-day conference entitled “Roadmap for Transition and Constitution Making in Post-Conflict Ethiopia”, on October 22 and 23, 2016. The Conference was convened at Georgetown Marriot Hotel and Renaissance Hotel, Washington D.C., and was graced by the presence of several Ethiopians of all backgrounds, including, experts on constitution making, conflict resolution and peace building, political scientists, scholars, former diplomats, and leaders of religious and civic organizations. The event was live streamed throughout the world. –—Read more——

An Ethiopian English-language magazine which has been critical of the government has ceased publishing its print edition saying restrictions imposed when emergency rule was declared early this month made it “impossible” to continue.

The Horn of Africa country introduced a state of emergency on Oct. 9 after a wave of protests over land grabs and political rights, which resulted in violent clashes and attacks on both local and foreign businesses.

The emergency measures introduced for six months granted security forces more powers to make searches and arrests, and imposed curbs on the “preparation and distribution of publications that could incite conflicts”.

Tsedale Lemma, editor and founder of the Addis Standard monthly, told Reuters that printers had refused to publish the magazine unless an authority set up to oversee the implementation of the new regulations gave them permission.

“(It is) a proposal we have vehemently refused because it will subject us to submitting our editorial to voluntary censorship by a military command post,” Tsedale said, without saying what the monthly print run was.

Vendors and supermarkets have also pulled the magazine from newsstands in the wake of the announcement, she said.

The magazine continued to publish articles on its website, she added.

The United States and other major donors have raised fears about the measures, saying they may infringe on constitutional rights. Rights groups say the government has long muzzled the media, and say the latest moves make this worse.

Addis Ababa has rejected those concerns saying security efforts had now “restored peace nationwide”.

Ethiopian and foreign rights groups say more than 500 people have been killed in violence triggered by protests in the Oromiya region.

Demonstrations were initially sparked by a development scheme for the capital that opponents said would to lead to land seizures, even after the government scrapped the plan.

Protests have increasingly broadened to include demands for more political rights and unrest has spread to other areas, including parts of the Amhara region north of Addis Ababa.

(Reporting by Aaron Maasho; Editing by Edmund Blair and Richard Balmforth)

Malware Attack Highlights Troubling Outbreak of State-Sponsored Digital Spying

Washington, D.C.—Ethiopia must be held accountable in the United States for an illegal malware and digital spying attack on an American citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal appeals court today in a case where a foreign government claims it is immune from liability for wiretapping a man’s Skype calls.

Malicious digital surveillance and malware attacks against perceived political opponents, dissidents, and journalists have become all-too-common tactics used by governments with poor human rights records, such as Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam. When foreign governments carry out these digital attacks on Americans in their homes, violating our wiretapping and privacy laws, their victims must be allowed to take them to court, EFF and its co-counsels said in a filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

EFF, Robins Kaplan LLP, and Guernica 37: International Justice Chambers represent a Maryland man whose home computer was infected by state-sponsored malware known as FinSpy. The program recorded his private Skype calls, monitored his web searches and emails, and tracked his family’s use of the computer for weeks. Forensic analysis showed the information was surreptitiously sent to a secret server located in Ethiopia and controlled by the Ethiopian government. EFF’s client is an Ethiopian by birth who is a U.S. citizen and has worked with other members of the Ethiopian diaspora. The courts have allowed him to use the pseudonym Mr. Kidane to protect himself and his family from retaliation.

The spying program unleashed on Mr. Kidane was contained in an attachment to a Microsoft Word document that Mr. Kidane inadvertently opened. A government agent in Ethiopia planted the malware on the Word document, but the program to wiretap his conversations resided on his computer in Maryland and automatically began recording, with no one in Ethiopia having to pull the trigger.

The Ethiopian government, which hasn’t denied it wiretapped Mr. Kidane, won dismissal of a 2014 lawsuit after claiming it has immunity because the malware attack was initiated in Ethiopia and thus outside the reach of U.S. courts. It has made the absurd assertion that spyware—marketed to repressive regimes by companies like Gamma International and Hacking Team—gives countries the ability to invade Americans’ homes, wiretap their conversations, violate their privacy, and face no consequences.

“The court’s decision is out of step with the times and completely ignores how other laws treat computer attacks, allowing a prosecution or lawsuit to be brought where the attacked computer is. The appeals court should overturn this ruling and let Mr. Kidane have his day in court,” said EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn, “Cybersecurity is one of the most important issues of our time, and when foreign governments invade Americans’ privacy, just as with foreign-based criminals, our laws must let victims like Mr. Kidane go to court to hold them accountable.”

If a foreign state’s agent had placed a recording device in Mr. Kidane’s home or on his telephone line, Mr. Kidane could indisputably sue the government in U.S. courts, said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo. The fact that Ethiopia used software instead of a person to launch a wiretap attack against Kidane in no way allows the country to evade legal liability.

“Today, all governments have to do to illegally spy on people is purchase the right software,’’ said Cardozo. “The D.C. Circuit should recognize that the malware in this case took the place of a human spy, and reinstate Mr. Kidane’s lawsuit.”

“Giving Ethiopia immunity for state-sponsored hacking would strip away one of the few protections Americans have against cyberattacks by foreign powers,” said Scott Gilmore, counsel at Guernica 37. “The invasion of our client’s home, through his computer, could happen to any of us. We all should have the right to seek justice.”

For the brief:
https://www.eff.org/document/opening-brief-appellant-kidane-v-ethiopia

For more on Kidane v. Ethiopia:
https://www.eff.org/cases/kidane-v-ethiopia

Contact:

Cindy

Cohn

Executive Director

cindy@eff.org

Nate

Cardozo

Senior Staff Attorney

nate@eff.org

Related Cases

Kidane v. Ethiopia

By Sally Hayden

Calais — Deep in the Calais “Jungle” migrant camp in northern France, hundreds of Oromo Ethiopians set up their own school.

An Irish volunteer came to teach classes during the day, but at other times groups of Oromo men, and a few women, gathered to discuss the news from Ethiopia: this month’s announcement of a state of emergency, or the rising death toll in protests.

On the sides of makeshift wooden shelters they painted the crossed arms protest symbol of the Oromo struggle, publicised by Ethiopian marathon runner Feyisa Lilesa at the summer Olympics.

“Feyisa never give up,” was written on one wall, and “Stop killing Oromo students” was scrawled on another.

People from Oromiya, a region at the heart of Ethiopia’s industrialisation efforts, accuse the state of seizing their land and offering tiny compensation, before selling it on to companies, often foreign investors, at inflated prices.

“When we went to demonstrations they killed many people, they arrested many people, they put in jail many people. So we had to escape from the country,” said Solan, a 26-year-old from Addis Ababa.

The former science student left Ethiopia in 2014 after his family was forcibly evicted from the land they had lived on for generations, he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Now Solan and hundreds of his fellow Oromo in the Jungle face eviction once again.

On Monday, French authorities began clearing the sprawling, ramshackle camp outside the port town of Calais, in preparation for the demolition of the shanty-town that has become a symbol of Europe’s struggle to respond to an influx of migrants fleeing war and poverty.

Hundreds of migrants carrying suitcases lined up outside a hangar to be resettled in reception centres across France.

But most migrants in the camp have made their way to Calais because they want to reach Britain, and make regular attempts to sneak aboard trucks or trains bound for the UK.

Groups like the Oromo say they have a particular reason for doing so. They are worried France won’t grant them asylum because it doesn’t recognise them as persecuted, based on the experience of others who have been rejected.

ASYLUM

The U.N. refugee agency UNHCR said everyone in the Calais camp would be offered the chance to be transferred to a reception centre where they could apply for asylum.

“There will be no blanket decisions for certain nationalities,” spokeswoman Laura Padoan said.

French asylum chief Pascal Brice recently visited the Jungle and offered reassurances to the migrants and refugees, including the Oromo group, said Solan.

Brice was not available for comment when the Thomson Reuters Foundation contacted his office on Monday.

“If they accept us we want to stay here (in France),” said Solan, who did not want to give his full name. “We are not searching for a better country, we are here (in Calais) because England accepts Oromo people.”

The latest unrest broke out last year in Oromiya, as people took to the streets accusing the state of seizing their land and handing it over to investors with minimal compensation.

Unrest spread to other areas, including parts of Amhara region north of the capital, over land rights and wider complaints over political freedoms.

Ethiopian authorities said on Thursday they had detained 1,645 people since declaring the state of emergency in a bid to quell mass protests and violence.

Rights groups report more than 500 have been killed in protests in Oromiya since last year, but the government denies using excessive force and says the death toll is exaggerated.

Solan has been moving back and forth between Calais and a makeshift migrant camp in Paris for the past year, he said. In that time many other Oromo have come and gone from Calais – some as young as 12 or as old as 65. Many lose hope of reaching Britain and instead go to the Netherlands or Germany, he said.

“I am asking for everybody to stay with us, to support us, to save our children, to save our home, to save our story, to save our land,” he said.

Editing by Ros Russell

T&T s disscussion on Oromo charter, Oromo transitional government and Oromo army

Marthe van der Wolf

ADDIS ABABA — Ethiopia’s government has ruled out holding new nationwide elections to address the grievances behind nearly a year of deadly protests. But the opposition says the changes the government is undertaking are not good enough.

Government spokesman Getachew Reda says Ethiopia will not call for an early vote. The next regional and nationwide elections are scheduled for 2020.

“What we are trying to do is to follow the election cycle,” said Reda. “This government does not have the slightest of intention to all of sudden change the law and call for a vote based on a changed law. We are here for the long haul.”

Reda said Wednesday parliament will instead convene to endorse a proposal from the prime minister to reorganize the Cabinet. That is expected in the next week, though Reda did not give an exact date.

Opposition leader Merera Gudina of the Oromo People’s Congress told VOA this crisis can only be solved with new elections.

“They are still playing their own game with the reshuffling of their own personnel which for us it is nothing when people are asking fundamental basic change of policies and in fact the resignation of the ruling party, and demanding for new elections,” said Gudina.

During protests in the past year, hundreds have died, thousands have been arrested, and the government has imposed a six-month state of emergency restricting movement and independent media.

FILE – Ethiopian soldiers try to stop protesters in Bishoftu, in the Oromia region of Ethiopia.

Oromia protests

Students began demonstrating in the central Oromia region in November of last year over an urban expansion plan for the capital city. But the movement has widened to take on a host of concerns.

Since 1991, the country has been run by the same political coalition, led by the Tigrayan ethnic minority.

Earlier this week, the Oromia regional government appointed new leadership. But those appointments were from within the same party. The regional government remains led by an ethnic Oromo faction within the ruling coalition, the Oromo People’s Democratic Organization, OPDO.

Fekadu Tesemma, spokesman for the Oromia regional government, says they agree they have not responded to the development needs of the Oromo people in the appropriate manner and speed. But he says that they did not come to the conclusion that the OPDO cannot lead and administer the Oromo people.

Rights abuses

Human rights organizations have often criticized Ethiopia for its lack of human rights and political freedom. In the last elections in 2015, the ruling party won all the parliament seats.

The government has suggested adjusting the electoral law so opposition parties could take more seats.

Solomon Tessema of the Blue Party says changes to one law are not enough at a time when people are demanding freedom.

“We need to have even other compromises, both within the party and outside the party,” said Tessema. “We are working to end the ERPDFs monopoly, in every policy and in every activity that has been going on for the last 25 years.”

The international community has called for an inclusive dialogue to address grievances and has called for security forces to show restraint.

After I have carefully watched his invalid rant here on Facebook, I have come to agree with most of you that the least known Doctor Gudisa Muleta is trying to make some sort of fame or name for himself, out of the ongoing ordeal.
He doesn’t give a damn thing for all the sacrifices, which those youngsters ultimately paid, in the name of unity.