Hiber Radio Interview: The impact of Social Media with Nebyu Sirak, Eshetu Homa Keno and Muluneh Yohannes

Voice of Amhara Daily News December 18, 2016

Ethiopia has officially opened the Gibe 3 hydroelectric dam, which is among the biggest in Africa, despite concerns by environmentalists about its impact downstream and upon neighboring countries

Dec. 17, 2016, at 12:35 p.m.

Task Force for Human Rights and Justice in Ethiopia – Europe
 
Petition condemning the vicious and malicious attack against EMP Ana Maria Gomes by Surrogates of the brutal regime in Ethiopia.
 
Following a litany of gross violation of human rights and political repression for over 25 years, Ethiopians have been protesting since November 2015 for their human dignity, constitutional rights and against economic and political marginalisation. The brutal repressive regime responded using brute force killing thousands and sent over 11, 000 innocent citizens to various prisons around the country^[1].

On October 9^th 2016 the regime, which has lost its legitimacy to rule, declared a six-month country wide state of emergency to inculcate fear among citizens. The state of emergency has effectively put the country under TPLF military rule have shut down mobile Internet service, blocked social media and prohibited public gatherings. The despised minority regime keeps committing crimes against humanity as it fights for its survival.

On December 1^st,   2016 Dr. Merara Gudina, Chairman of the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) was arrested upon his return to Ethiopia from Brussels after attending a hearing on the political situation in Ethiopia. Ms Ana Maria Gomes wrote to Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Vice President of the Commission^[2], to take strong measures against the Ethiopian government which has absolute disregard for the respect of human rights, namely freedom of speech.

In an absolute travesty of events, the brutal regime has mobilized its surrogates who were granted political asylum under false pretence of fleeing from persecution in Ethiopia and living in Europe in freedom; to launch a petition campaign against the European Parliament and Ms. Ana Maria Gomes for demanding that Ethiopia respect international human rights norms that it is bound to uphold under the Cotonou Agreement.

We the undersigned and the European Task Force for Human Rights and Justice in Ethiopia fully support the request of Ms Ana Maria Gomes, calling for the European Parliament to take a strong action against the repressive regime in Ethiopia and demanding the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Merara Gudina.

We strongly condemn the malicious smear campaign against a highly respected member of an EU Parliamentarian by the brutal minority regime of Ethiopia. Ms Ana Maria Gomes is an ardent defender of human rights, freedom and democracy speaking against repression and injustice in Ethiopia. As the distinguished statesman Edmund Burke once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”.

Download (PDF, 383KB)

Ethiopian Protesters in Frankfurt, Germany- December 17, 2016

Author’s Note: In what I expect will be periodic commentaries on U.S. policy in Africa, I aim to offer unorthodox, paradigm changing, thought-provoking and controversial policy recommendations and prescriptions to the Trump Administration in its Africa, and particularly Ethiopia, policy. I expect to develop the core theses herein at great lengths in my future commentaries. As Dean Acheson, Harry Truman’s Secretary of State once said,  “Controversial proposals, once accepted, soon become hallowed.”

Of course, I do not expect the Trump Administration to pay attention to my analyses or policy recommendations on Africa. But that does not matter to me particularly in light of the fact that the man I and many other Ethiopian Americans helped elect president of the United States in 2008 ignored and scorned our pleas and petitions. To add insult to injury, Barack Obama had the audacity to insult the intelligence of all Ethiopians and Africans in July 2015 by calling the ruling Thugtatorship of the Tigrean People’s Liberation Front (T-TPLF) in Ethiopia “a democratically elected government”.

The T-TPLF took Obama’s unqualified and preposterous endorsement as the green light to unleash a campaign of massacres and mass detentions in Ethiopia. In October 2016, Obama’s T-TPLF declared a state of emergency, and by its own admission, has jailed 11,607 people. Of course, the actual number is much more than the T-TPLF figure.

In my August 2015 commentary, “Barack Obama! Tell the Truth About Ethiopia!”, I prophesied, “Barack Obama has become Death, the destroyer of Ethiopia!” That I believe to be true today. Behold the death and destruction wrought by the T-TPLF in Ethiopia today!

Obama did not tell the truth about Ethiopia, but the truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored, overlooked or scorned. The courage to tell the truth does not depend upon the cowardice of the listener.

As I reflect on the Obama Administration’s Africa policy (admittedly with a great deal of bitterness), I agonize over Obama’s betrayal of his promise of hope and “Yes, we can!” which vanished in his abysmal hypocrisy. When Obama called the T-TPLF thugs “democratically elected”, he opened a momentary window to his soul for me. I saw the real Obama for a fleeting moment, a principle-less man and a stranger to truth.

I have wondered many times whether Barack Obama, Sr., who suffered so much at the hands of the tyrant in Kenya because he stood for the truth would have felt hearing his son lie about something so important that it had the potential to determine the fate of a nation. Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father, “After [Jomo] Kenyatta fired my father he was blacklisted in Kenya, found it impossible to get work, and his life deteriorated into drinking and poverty.” Obama Sr. got into trouble with Jomo Kenyatta because “he would tell people that tribalism was going to ruin the country and that unqualified men were taking the best jobs.”

Would Obama Sr. have been proud of President Obama’s endorsement of a regime that is founded and solely dedicated to tribalism and black apartheid rule complete with “kilils” (Bantustans) in Ethiopia?

Someone once said, “When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.” So much for now about Barack Obama and his Africa policy.

One inconvenient truth is that Donald Trump will be President of the United States on January 20, 2017; and that is an immutable fact of political life. So, I have stoically adopted the practical attitude that “It’s not about the cards you’re dealt, but how you play the hand.” To borrow another metaphor from card games with a pun, I should like to “turn up trumps” with Trump in his Africa policy. When the going gets tough, the tough gotta get going!

To be sure, I expect absolutely nothing from Trump by way of improvements in the current Africa policy, which is based on aid welfare mentality. That also means there is no chance that I could be disappointed by the Trump Administration’s failure to do the right thing in Africa. I fully expect President Trump, just like President Obama, to watch Africa mired in corruption, human rights violations, bad governance, wars, conflicts and violence with indifference and nonchalance. If I am proven wrong in the slightest, I “shall eat crow”, the ultimate blasphemy a vegan could possibly commit. Despite my pessimism, I should like to think (wishful thinking, that is) there is a glimmer of opportunity, hitherto unavailable, for those seriously interested in influencing U.S. policy in Africa.

The traditional organs and agencies of U.S. foreign policy are currently undergoing Sturm und Drang (trials and tribulations) just thinking about Trump at the helm. When Trump recently spoke with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen by phone of Taiwan, he did not even extend the courtesy of touching base with Secretary of State John Kerry. It appears Trump (“I alone can do it.”) is likely to do his own thing or seek advice and counsel from sources other than the establishment bureaucratic cartel that has had a chokehold on U.S. foreign policy for as long as anyone living can remember. It is likely that unconventional and unorthodox views could resonate with Trump and his crew. Again, this is just pure speculation and wishful thinking on my part. But I can safely say that the era of Susan Rice, Gayle Smith, Wendy Sherman and the rest of their crew is, thankfully, over.  Suffice it to say that what is an existential crisis for some could be a windfall opportunity for others.

In the twilight of the Obama Administration, I have taken a karmic attitude. Those who defended and supported the thugs and dictators in Africa and turned a blind eye, deaf ears and muted lips as they watched poor Africans suffer and die have finally faced karmic justice, poetic justice. They thought they could outsmart everyone and continue playing their games with African dictators and thugtators. Well, game over for them! So I relish the saying: “No need for revenge. Just sit back and wait. Those who hurt you will eventually screw up themselves and if you are lucky God will let you watch.” Well, I have a front-row center seat!

======================

U.S. out of…

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump strongly intimated  the U.S. should get out of NATO because “NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share…   [W]e don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money…” He also accused  certain NATO members of failing to “fulfill their obligations to us”.

Trump also signaled during the campaign that the U.S. should get out of Northeast Asia and issued a warning  to Japan and South Korea: “Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea”,  and “We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself … they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.” Trump said he would put a chokehold on China to change its ways. “They suck the blood out of us and we owe them money.” But “We have tremendous economic power over China. And that’s the power of trade.” He promised to “bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO [World Trade Organization].

In the Middle East, Trump doubted whether the U.S. should continue to support Saudi Arabia.  “If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around.”  He said he would scrap the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran nuclear deal): “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”

Trump has been talking isolationism throughout the campaign though he does not like the word. He said he is “not isolationist, but I am America First. I like the expression.”

Trump promised  a complete overhaul in the way the U.S. deals with the rest of the world. “I am proposing a new foreign policy focused on advancing America’s core national interests, promoting regional stability, and producing an easing of tensions in the world. This will require rethinking the failed policies of the past.” He also promised to renegotiate existing trade deals that “get a better deal for our workers. Trump has said virtually nothing about Africa, although there is a lot of fake news about the derogatory things he has supposedly said about Africans.

Does Trump’s “isolationism” or “America first-ism” rhetoric portend the U.S. will be out of Africa leaving the continent to sink or swim on its own? Is it possible there could be major policy changes in U.S. policy towards Africa?

U.S. out of Africa?

Is it likely President Trump may decide to get the U.S. out of Africa?

There are those biting their nails over the possibility that the election of Donald Trump could endanger the “strong bipartisan consensus in Congress that has been the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward the continent for the last three administrations.” They fear Trump could “weaken and overturn” such legislation such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) allowing duty-free imports to the U.S. from eligible sub-Saharan countries, the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and  Power Africa Act.

Trump’s predecessors have approached Africa with consternation, muted impatience and private frustration. They were ultimately resigned to the fact that Africa will amount to nothing more than an object of perpetual charity and a continent perpetually racked by violence, hunger and disease.

In 2003, George Bush’s speech in Senegal gave insight into his views on Africa: “Against the waste and violence of civil war, we will stand together for peace. Against the merciless terrorists who threaten every nation, we will wage an unrelenting campaign of justice. Confronted with desperate hunger, we will answer with human compassion and the tools of human technology. In the face of spreading disease, we will join with you in turning the tide against AIDS in Africa.” Bush’s Africa policy sought to end civil wars in Sudan, Congo, Angola, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. In his second term, Bush focused on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment and malaria eradication.  Bush is said to have given more assistance to Africa than any other president.

President Bill Clinton’s Africa policy was notable for two monumental failures. In Somalia, he expanded his predecessor’s humanitarian intervention to “stop one of the great human tragedies of this time”. Clinton justified U.S. involvement to save Africans from war and starvation arguing,  “A third of a million people had died of starvation and disease. Twice that many more were at risk of dying. Meanwhile, tons of relief supplies piled up in the capital of Mogadishu because a small number of Somalis stopped food from reaching their own countrymen.” That “peacekeeping” effort ended in disaster in October 1993 in the Battle of Mogadishu.

In Rwanda, Clinton failed to engage in humanitarian intervention to stop one of the greatest tragedies at the end of the twentieth century, later regretting that “if we had gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives [300,000] that were lost.” The person singularly responsible for turning a blind eye to the Rwandan Genocide was none other Susan E. Rice, Obama’s National Security Advisor. As I documented (with declassified materials) in my December 2012 commentary, “Susan Rice and Africa’s Unholy Trinity,” Rice was more concerned about  election fallout than the genocide taking place in Rwanda under her watch.  In a monument to utter moral depravity and conscience-bending callous indifference, Rice casually inquired of her colleagues, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ [in Rwanda] and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”

Susan Rice is President Barack Obama’s “brain” on Africa policy. Obama launched his engagement in Africa in 2009 by making a clarion to African leaders that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions”.  He cautioned them not to be “on the wrong side of history”.  In July 2015, he joined and fully embraced those on the “wrong side of history” when he declared the ruling T-TPLF party in Ethiopia, which claimed to have won 100 percent of the seats in parliament and has been criticized as one of the most repressive regimes in Africa, a “democratically elected  government”.  When Rice was asked if the T-TPLF was democratically elected, she responded: “I think the Prime Minister of Ethiopia was just elected with 100 percent of the vote… [It was] absolutely, 100 percent [a democratic election].” She then busted out laughing. For the Obama Administration, elections in Africa are a joke.

Obama presumably pursued a strategy of constructive engagement in Africa aimed at strengthening  democratic institutions, spurring  economic growth, increasing trade and facilitating collaboration on security and counterterrorism issues. As part of his charm offensive, Obama wined and dined in 2013, he proposed  a $7 billion Power Africa initiative with the aim of providing electricity to at least 20 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.

Obama talked about spreading American values in Africa and condemned torture and crimes against humanity. In August 2014, Obama wined and dined at the White House the finest practitioners of torture, corruption experts and master criminals against humanity from Africa to talk business and American investments (not human rights or American values). He even had Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya who was on trial at the International Criminal Court on several counts of crimes against humanity.

Obama has been Pollyannaish on Africa. In July 2015, Obama said, “Africa’s middle class is projected to grow to more than one billion consumers. With hundreds of millions of mobile phones, surging access to the Internet, Africans are beginning to leapfrog old technologies into new prosperity.  Africa is on the move, a new Africa is emerging.”

The facts speak otherwise. Internet users in Africa in 2016 constituted only 9.3 percent, compared to 54 percent for the rest of the world. Obama’s facts on the  middle class are also questionable. In 2015, The Economist observed, “Africans are mainly rich or poor, but not middle class. Yet step beyond the air-conditioned malls that are popping up like meerkats across the continent, and it is clear how thin this emerging middle class is.”

Will Trump write-off Africa as a lost cause?

Some have suggested Trump “should make Africa a foreign policy priority”.  Others have advised Trump to continue  the policies of his predecessors and maintain  Africa’s “fragile economic progress” and reconcile U.S. “national security interests with democracy objectives”.

Continuing business as usual in Africa would be a wasted opportunity for President Trump.

President Trump’s Africa policy should be guided by three considerations: Reduced aid, increased accountability and countering Chinese neocolonial hegemony on the continent.

Reduced Aid

In 1961, President John Kennedy pledged “our best efforts” to help “peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery for whatever period is required–not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.” Perhaps in 1961 when most African countries were overthrowing the yoke of colonialism and becoming independent such an aspirational declaration may have been appropriate. After six decades and tens of billions of dollars in aid and loans from the U.S. and other Western countries, Africa remains the “beggar continent” fatally addicted to handouts and alms.

Zambian international economist Dambissa Moyo has persuasively argued that foreign aid in Africa increases corruption and bad governance. “Aid flows destined to help the average African end up supporting bloated bureaucracies in the form of the poor-country governments and donor-funded non-governmental organizations… International donors were apparently turning a blind eye to the simple fact that aid money was inadvertently fueling graft.” Indeed, the “insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment.”

Ghanaian economist George Ayittey argues that aid is not exactly aid nor is it free. “There are a couple of misconceptions about aid that we need to clear up. First of all, aid, foreign aid, is not free. It is a very soft loan, which is given to a government at concessional rates. Now, the second thing about aid is that aid is tied. Eighty percent of U.S. aid to Africa is spent right here in America — on American contractors.

There is substantial empirical literature  which demonstrates “that foreign aid exhibits a zero effect on growth or any other indicators of poverty.”  American economist William Easterly argues  that “$568 billion in today’s dollars flowed into Africa over the past 42 years, yet per capita growth of the median African nation has been close to zero.” Easterly further argues that “With little or no feedback from the poor, there is little information as to which aid programs are working. Nor is there much incentive for the aid agency to find out what works when there is little accountability”.  Simply stated, free aid money only serves to fatten the bank accounts of the dictators who seek only power and wealth.

As I have previously argued in my March 2011 commentary, “The Moral Hazard of U.S. Policy in Africa”, U.S. aid policy has created a moral hazard  in Africa, and is partially responsible for the spawning of failed states on the continent. By shifting the risk of economic mismanagement, incompetence and corruption to the U.S. and other Western donors, and because these donors impose no penalty or disincentive for poor governance, inefficiency, corruption and repression, African regimes are able to cling to power for decades abusing the human rights of their citizens and stealing elections. The U.S. has continued to bail out failed African states for one major reason. African dictators  can guarantee them stability so that they can maintain their strategic interests. A few billions of aid dollars given every year to guarantee “stability” in African countries is more cost effective than helping to nurture genuinely democratic self-sustaining societies in Africa. The moral hazard in U.S. aid policy comes not just from the fact that it provides fail-safe insurance to repressive regimes in Africa but also from the rewards of increasing amounts of aid and loans to buffer them from a tsunami of democratic popular uprising.

Such is precisely the case of U.S. aid in Ethiopia today. The Obama administration has buffered the T-TPLF from the pressures of internal democratic forces. The T-TPLF sees no need to change because their Uncle Sam will write out a big check every year to keep them going. The Obama administration is the T-TPLF’s underwriter providing comprehensive insurance against any internal uprising, challenge, rebellion, dissent or resistance.

The Trump Administration should significantly curtail its aid and budget support programs which have served to prop up corrupt and repressive African regimes.

The best way America can help Africa is by letting Africa help itself, and by making sure the culture of panhandling on the continent is permanently ended.  The Trump administration should provide aid to African regimes only if they meet stringent conditions of accountability and transparency.

The era of U.S. foreign policy of aid handouts and alms giving to Africa generously supported by American taxpayers, without accountability, must end or significantly curtailed!

Increased accountability

During the campaign, Trump promised to have a bonfire of federal agencies and departments. He said he would eliminate or significantly scale back the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education and Energy.

I say Trump should start with USAID by completely restructuring that agency or preferably abolishing it. USAID controls an annual largesse  of nearly $23 billion.  USAID’s philosophy is based on ending  “extreme poverty” by alms and handouts. In 2012, the USAID handed out  nearly $12 billion in official development assistance to African countries.

But USAID has significant accountability issues. Last year, I registered my strong opposition to the nomination of Gayle Smith to head USAID.

USAID’s accountability problems are deep-rooted and endemic. In 1991, CNN broadcasted  [p. 7] a report documenting “gross mismanagement of money” by aid recipients and exposing USAID officials “accused of receiving kickbacks from programs.” At the time, the USAID deputy inspector general was quoted  as saying, “Our crime rate is essentially higher than virtually any other agency of the government and higher than most major cities in the United States.”

A 2010 report by the USAID Inspector General concluded that “because of weaknesses in the mission’s performance management and reporting system,” auditors “could not determine whether the results reported in USAID/Ethiopia’s performance plan and report were valid.”  The Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in 2013 found that USAID’s  lack of effective oversight and monitoring placed hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars “at risk of waste, fraud and abuse.” A 2013 Wall Street Journal investigation  revealed that  a significant amount of the nearly $10 billion spent by the U.S. in Africa between 2002 and 2012  on various health projects, including malaria and HIV control, “has been partly hijacked by organized networks that steal large quantities of donated malaria drugs and ship them from East to West Africa, where they end up for sale at street markets.” In 2016, the Inspector General of USAID reported “significant deficiencies” in financial accounting including issues related to “complying with Federal accounting standards for reimbursable agreements, maintaining adequate records of property, plant, and equipment, and promptly investigating and resolving potential funds control violations.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that USAID has become a rogue agency unaccountable to anyone.

There is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify a complete restructuring of USAID so that it no longer serves as a mechanism for laundering American tax dollars to African and other tin pot dictators throughout the world. President Trump should demand strict accountability from USAID officials doling out American tax dollars in Africa and the African regimes pocketing the aid money and stashing it in off shore accounts.

Indeed, there is no reason why the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) cannot take over the functions of USAID in its entirety. Established by Congress in 2004 as an independent agency, the MCC is founded on the principle that U.S. aid should not be given out as political largess, but rather on the recipient country’s strong commitment to good governance and sound economic and social policies which aim to promote economic growth and reduce poverty.

In theory at least, the MCC approach to aid ensures American taxpayers get the maximum bang for their buck by investing only in those countries that invest in their people and their economies and are willing to be held to transparent standards of fiscal accountability monitored by an independent agency. Although the MCC has had a few “significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting  for the FY year ending September 30, 2016”, the “MCC effect” nevertheless  holds great promise for a new and innovative way of delivering U.S. aid to Africa in a way that is resistant to the usual corruption, fraud, waste and abuse that is part of the aid delivered by USAID.

Accountability for corruption control and human rights violations

During the campaign, Trump railed against corruption at home. In his Convention speech, Trump said, “I know that corruption has reached a level like never ever before in our country… I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens.” If Trump is serious about corruption at home, he should be just as serious with corruption wherever American tax dollars are given out in the name of the American people and exposed to fraud, abuse and waste.

Corruption is the principal cause of poor governance and state failure in Africa. According to the African Union, an “estimate[d] 25 per cent of the continent’s GDP (nearly 150 billion dollars) is lost due to corruption.” In 2013, Global Financial Integrity reported  [p.3] between $1.2 trillion and $1.3 trillion has left Africa in illicit financial flows between 1980 and 2009”,  roughly equal [p.4] to Africa’s gross domestic product for 2014. As of March of 2014, the top 20 most indebted countries in Africa carried foreign  debt of nearly $390 billion.  A 2016 UNECA report  [p. xii] indicated that one of the major factors in the increasing levels of corruption in Africa has to do with the “the blind eye often turned to corruptors by western countries.”  The report argued that the “international dimension of corruption in Africa” is “an intrinsic part of the  policy landscape in many African countries since it comes through conditionality frameworks, which is often tied to official development assistance (ODA) packages.”

In 2010, the Obama Administration put on a road show and sent U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to meet Africa’s greatest kleptocrats in Uganda where Holder delivered a stunning message : “The U.S. Department of Justice is launching a new Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative aimed at combating large-scale foreign official corruption and recovering public funds for their intended – and proper – use: for the people of our nations. We’re assembling a team of prosecutors who will focus exclusively on this work and build upon efforts already underway to deter corruption, hold offenders accountable, and protect public resources.”

Like other elements of Obama’s Africa policy, nothing came of this project although I lauded it in my November 2011 commentary, “To Catch Africa’s Biggest Thieves Hiding in America!” To date, as far as I know, there has been only one civil forfeiture action filed by the U.S. Justice Department against the son of the corrupt dictator of Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang.

The Trump Administration should go after the assets of African dictators, their families and cronies and supporters in the United States. If such efforts were undertaken, I am sure there will be hundreds of witnesses to point fingers at those “sleepers” of African dictators in America.

Obama talked about African “strongmen” and “the wrong side of history” when dealing with the issue of human rights in Africa. There are those who say Trump does not give a damn about human rights.  There is substantial evidence in the form of statements Trump has made over the last three decades which supports the view that he does not care about civil liberties, civil rights and human rights.

The Washington Post’s view is that dictators around the world are betting Trump will abandon America’s role as a promoter of freedom and let them do whatever they want without criticism or censure. Trump takes a dim view of the press and he has waged a Twitter war on the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post. His position on expressive freedoms seems closer to African dictators than Thomas Jefferson who said, “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.” Trump said, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws.”

One cannot expect much from someone who has little knowledge of constitutional and civil rights law. But truth be told, Barack Obama, constitutional law professor, did not give a hoot about constitutional civil or and human rights either.

Containing China’s neocolonialism in Africa

Trump has taken a strong stand against China’s impact in the United States. He said China is “using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China.” He accused China of stealing jobs from Americans, for devaluing its currency and for engaging in state-sponsored cyber-hacking. He claimed climate change is “a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.” He even said, “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country, and that’s what they’re doing.”

By the same token, is China also “raping” Africa?

I know the chic thing to say is that China is economically transforming Africa and all that.  But how is China “transforming Africa”?

Indeed, much of what Trump says about China’s role in the American economy is visible in the African economies amplified many more times.

In 2015, China’s trade with African states approached nearly $300 billion, a tenfold increase over the last decade. China imports crude oil, minerals and agricultural commodities from Africa. “China is Africa’s main export market and also its largest source of imports.”  Between 2000 and 2014, the Chinese government, banks and contractors extended USD$86.3 billion worth of loans to African government and state-owned enterprises. The Chinese built a USD$4 billion dollar ghost city in Angola called Kilamba using Angola’s credit line. In 2012, China announced it would provide $20 billion in new loans to Africa. China uses “debt relief to obtain exclusive rights to a nation’s natural resources and build military bases”.

U.S. exports of goods to Africa in 2013 were nearly $24 billion, an increase of $8.8 billion since 2009. For the past decade, the U.S. has been nonchalant and complacent about China’s systematic economic penetration and predation in Africa. It was a complacency born of a combination of underestimation, miscalculation, hubris and dismissive thinking.

In 2012, China’s “gift” to Africa was a brand new USD$200 million African Union headquarters built by the China State Construction Engineering Corporation. Then AU chairperson, Equatorial Guinea’s three-decade plus dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema, praised the “generosity of the Chinese government”, and described the building as marking “a qualitative leap in the relations between China and Africa”. He raved about the building as “a reflection of the new Africa, and the future we want for Africa”.

I said, beware of Chinese bearing gifts. Beware of the Trojan Horse in Dragon’s costume.

In 2014, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang defensively denied any Chinese neocolonial designs: “I wish to assure our African friends, in all seriousness, that China will never pursue a colonialist path like some countries did or allow colonialism, which belonged to the past, to reappear in Africa.”

The question is whether China is transforming Africa as its new neocolonial master.  That which some call “transformation” by any other name would smell as neocolonialism.

The facts about the Chinese invasion of Africa are clear and incontrovertible. Howard French argues, “For all of China’s denials that its overseas ambitions could be compared to those of Europeans or Americans, … what I was witnessing in Africa is the higgledy-piggledy cobbling together of a new Chinese realm of interest. Here were the beginnings of a new empire.” China is gobbling up iron ore, copper, and timber across the continent with trade agreements in which Chinese government-owned companies are granted rights to huge tracts of land for timber or exclusive access to copper and iron ore mines.” The so-called Chinese investments in Africa ultimately benefit Chinese enterprises which are notorious for importing cheap Chinese labor to sustain their construction projects. There is little benefit to upgrading the mass of unskilled African labor from the so-called Chinese infrastructure development in Africa. For instance, Chinese companies have invested some $2 billion in Zambia but the current President called salaries at Chinese operated Zambian mines “slave wages.”  Chinese state-owned enterprises in Africa are criticized for poor working conditions, low wages, poor environmental practices and corrupt business dealings. It is said that the all-Chinese paid iconic Africa Union building in Addis Ababa was “constructed by the China State Construction Engineering Corporation with over 90 percent Chinese labour.” As of 2014, there are an estimated 1 million Chinese living and working in Africa. They are building a “new empire” for China in Africa.

U.S. policy in Africa has, at least rhetorically,  promoted economic liberalization and good governance along with structural reform and improvement transparency, human rights and the rule of law. The structural adjustments programs of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have had a harmful impact by tying loans and debts to reductions in public spending to meet basic human needs.

Part of the problem is that American businesses do not want to engage in business in Africa, and not entirely unreasonably. They are turned off by the endless political instability, brazen corruption, inadequate and unreliable power supplies, poor infrastructure and the limited African markets.

The Trump Administration should level the playing field for American businesses in Africa competing with Chinese enterprises. Just as China subsidizes its enterprises in a variety of ways, the U.S. should do the same such as strengthening the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM). For instance, between 2009-2014, the EXIM bank supported less than $7 billion in transactions throughout sub-Saharan Africa. In 2012, China announced it would provide $20 billion in new loans to Africa. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency has provided just $90 million to facilitate American investments in Africa since 1981, an average of less than $3 million per year. That Agency claims its support has “resulted in over $1 billion in U.S. exports related to partnerships between African project sponsors and U.S. firms.”

The bottom line is that the Trump Administration should vigorously challenge Chinese economic hegemony and neocolonialism in Africa.

Is it possible…?

After all is said and done, is it possible that Trump might simply write-off Africa as a lost cause and decide the continent could benefit from a prolonged period of benign neglect?

My credo remains the same as always. The best way America can help Africa is by letting Africa help itself, and by making sure the culture of panhandling on the continent is permanently ended.

To be continued…

‘An apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality leads us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office’

Lucy Pasha-Robinson

Three leading professors of psychiatry have written to Barack Obama to express their “grave concern” over Donald Trump’s mental stability.

In the letter addressed to the US president, doctors from Harvard Medical School and the University of California have urged him to order a “full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation” before the President-elect takes office in January.

The group said it could not speculate on a diagnosis, but Mr Trump’s “grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to criticism” led them to believe he was unfit for office.

“Professional standards do not permit us to venture a diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally,” the letter signed by Judith Herman, Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher, and published by the Huffington Post, reads.

“Nevertheless, his widely reported symptoms of mental instability — including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality — lead us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office.”

In August, President Obama questioned Mr Trump’s judgement and temperament and called him “unfit to serve as president.”

“I said so last week and he keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that had made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job,” he said.

“There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world because a lot of people depend on the White House getting stuff right.”

According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), there are nine criteria for “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” – with a diagnosis being offered if an individual has five or more of the listed qualities.

The APA summarise the condition as: “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.”

This is not the first time mental health professionals have weighed in on Mr Trump’s suitability for office.

In June, Atlantic published a psychologist’s findings that Mr Trump suffered from “narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity”.

Mr Trump’s well-documented “no-holds-barred” approach to the US presidency has led many to question his diplomatic suitability.

The real-estate mogul regularly takes to Twitter to post provocative statements aimed at his rivals, often breaking with long-established foreign policy protocol.

On Saturday, he accused China of “stealing” in a tweet that caused an immediate backlash from Beijing.

Initially misspelling “unprecedented,” Mr Trump tweeted: “China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters – rips it out of water and takes it to China in unpresidented act.”

He later deleted and then reposted the tweet to correct the spelling.

In response, China accused Washington of “hyping up” the issue.

APA protocol means medical professionals should not diagnose individuals they have not personally treated.

The so-called “Goldwater Rule” was brought in after Barry Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in the 1960’s sued Fact magazine for libel after it asked 12,000 psychiatrists whether he was “psychologically fit” to be president –  1,189 answered “no”.

ESAT Radio Mon 19 Dec 2016

ESAT News (December 19, 2016)

Three police officers and a prisoner have reportedly been killed in a shootout between the federal police and prison police in a dispute to take custody of Colonel Demeke Zewdu, the leader of the movement in the Amhara region.
The Amhara region has been hit by anti-government protests since this summer after an uprising ensued the arrest of a committee that spearheads the demands of the people of Wolkait, Tsegede and Telemt. They are demanding to reclaim their land that was illegally incorporated into Tigray region when the Tigrayan-led regime took power 25 years ago.
The Colonel is at the Angereb prison in Gondar since July after he killed two TPLF operatives who came from Tigray to put him under their custody without a court warrant.
The federal police have been trying to take custody of Col. Demeke Zewdu for the last three days but the local police have refused resulting in a shootout between the two forces, according to ESAT’s sources.
Repeated attempts by the federal forces to put him under solitary confinement failed due to prisoners revolt against the move. One prisoner has reportedly been killed over the weekend.
The federal prosecutor in Addis Ababa on Wednesday brought charges against Col Demeke and et al accusing them of terrorism.
The charge accuses the plaintiffs were responsible for the loss of lives and property in the protests in the Amhara region which was sparked by the arrest of members of the committee that spearheads the demand by the people of Wolkait, Tsegede and Telemt.

Teshome Gebremariam Bokan, a prominent corporate lawyer, has passed away on Friday, December 16, 2016, at the age of 86. He passed away on his birthday while away on a business trip to Namibia, according to people close to his family.

One of perhaps two remaining in a generation of western educated intellectuals right after the Second World War, Teshome was a revered lawyer and legal scholar. He was also instrumental during the formation of the Organization of African Union (OAU), in Addis Abeba, back in the early 1960s. He had served as an attorney general as well as deputy minister and state minister for Mines & Energy during the time of Emperor Hailesellasie. He was also detained for many years during the reign of the Marxist Military government.

Teshome’s remain is expected to arrive from Namibia on Tuesday and funeral is scheduled the following day, according to people close to the family. He has survived by his wife, daughter and a grand daughter.

PUBLISHED ON DEC 19,2016 –  Addis Fortune

The head of the Middle East Centre for Strategic and Legal Studies, Anwar Eshki, has denied media reports claiming that Saudi Arabia intends to finance the construction of Ethiopia’s Renaissance Dam.

Retired General Eshki told Misr Al-Arabia news channel that the aim of the visit to the dam by the senior adviser to the Saudi royal court and board chairman of the Saudi Fund for Development, Ahmed al-Khatib, was to discuss bilateral relations and economic projects between the two countries. He denied reports claiming that Al-Khatib’s visit to Ethiopia was retaliation for Egypt’s recent support of the Syrian regime of President Bashar Al-Assad, whom the kingdom opposes.

State-owned Ethiopian television reported that the Saudi adviser met with Prime Minister Haile Mariam Dessalines on Friday. During the visit, Dessalines asked the Saudis to contribute towards the cost of the dam project. He stressed his country’s desire to cooperate with Saudi Arabia in the fields of energy, infrastructure, electricity and agriculture, as well as tourism.

Eshki insisted that Saudi Arabia would not consider anything that could harm Egypt. The government in Riyadh, he added, agreed to fund several investment projects in Ethiopia ten years ago, but circumstances changed, to the detriment of investors.

Middle East Monitor

MEE staff
Topics: EgyptTurmoil
Tags: egypt, GCC, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, ethiopia, GERD

Egyptian media lashed out at Saudi Arabia over a high-level Saudi delegation visit to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) during a short trip to Ethiopia on Friday. Experts said the decision to visit the GERD was an act of revenge against Egypt that could deepen tensions between the two countries.

Ahmed al-Khateeb, a senior adviser at the Saudi royal court and board chairman of the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD), visited the site and met Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and other officials to discuss GERD’s construction project.

Khateeb’s trip came after the Saudi agriculture minister visited Ethiopia last week, making it the second visit by a Saudi official to Addis Ababa in less than a week.

‘You will soon hear that we have the capacity to intervene in the Gulf region’s affairs and provide support for the royals who oppose current Saudi policies’

– Tarek Fahmy, Egyptian professor

On Saturday, Egyptian news commentator Mohamed Ali Khayr called on Riyadh to “review its policies before it can only blame itself for what ensues”.

“Egypt is not obliged to continue to contain its reactions towards Saudi Arabia… any interference [by Saudi Arabia] in the GERD project implies a direct threat to Egypt’s national security,” he said on Egyptian TV.

Khayr went as far as accusing Saudi policy makers of being “amateurs” that have caused bilateral relations between the two countries to completely break down as a result of this visit.

On Saturday, Ahmed Moussa, another journalist, threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that if they were to invest in Ethiopia, their investment would be lost in the Nile.

Workers build the Grand Renaissance Dam near the Sudanese-Ethiopian border (AFP)

Moussa continued to condemn the visit over his talk show on Sada al-Balad, an Egyptian satellite TV channel.

“The GERD will not last forever, a volcano might erupt at any moment. So for those looking to invest billions [of dollars] in this project, your money might as well be going to waste,” said Moussa.

‘Egypt has many cards’

Egyptian media personalities were joined in their denunciation of the Saudi visit by several academics who voiced strong criticisms against the Gulf state for its policy.

“You will soon hear that we [Egypt] have the capacity to intervene in the Gulf region’s affairs and provide support for the royals who oppose current Saudi policies,” Tarek Fahmy, a lecturer at the American University in Cairo, told viewers of Sada al-Balad on Saturday.

Fahmy warned Saudi Arabia that Egypt’s patience is waning and that Cairo will no longer accept actions that threaten its national security.

“Egypt has many cards to pressure Saudi Arabia, which we have yet to use,” Fahmy said.

However, he added that Cairo wanted to continue its friendly relations with its “siblings in the Gulf”.

Meanwhile, Egyptian political science professor Hassan Nafaa told Daily News Egypt on Sunday that the visit was an indirect message from Saudi Arabia that it could align itself with anyone if Egypt does not comply with Saudi foreign policy.

Nafaa said the visit will likely increase tensions in Saudi-Egyptian relations, saying that Cairo would not be tolerating Saudi’s implicit support for the GERD.

Many Eyptians fear that the waters of the Nile will drop with the opening of the Ethiopia dam (AFP)

The 6,000-megawatt GERD, which is not yet 70 percent complete, is situated close to Ethiopia’s border with Sudan. While Ethiopia hopes it will be able to export energy generated by the dam, Egypt has long expressed concerns that the dam might reduce the amount of Nile water it receives, thus affecting its main source of irrigation water.

Relations between Cairo and Riyadh have soured since Egypt voted in favour of a UN Security Council draft resolution by Russia regarding the Syrian civil war.

Egypt took an opposing position to Saudi Arabia by choosing to support the Syrian government and army against rebel fighters – Saudi’s envoy to the UN described Egypt’s vote as “painful”.

Since the vote, the Saudi ministry of petroleum said that Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company, has suspended its oil aid to Egypt but that the five-year agreement is still in effect.

Egyptian officials, including President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and foreign minister Sameh Shoukry, have repeatedly denied any tension with Saudi Arabia.

Qatari-Egyptian relations shaken

As Egypt’s alliance with Saudi Arabia continues to deteriorate, bilateral relations with Qatar have also been tested in a new series of obstacles.

Tensions grew after a Qatari national wrote on Twitter that Qatar will no longer be issuing work permits for Egyptians.

“Qatar has been extremely patient in regard to Egypt’s ‘dirty’ policies. It is now time for payback,” he added in the tweet.

After the tweet was mistakenly ascribed to deputy Qatari minister of trade Sultan bin Rashed al-Khater, news of Qatar’s “new policies” spread across Egyptian media platforms with Egyptian commentators condemning the alleged move as an official decision to deny Egyptians entry into the Gulf state.

‘Circulating information without verifying it has resulted in disastrous ramifications’

– Jaber al-Qarmouty, Egyptian commentator

Spokesperson for the Egyptian prime ministry, Ashraf Sultan, issued a statement denying that Egyptian labourers had been expelled from Saudi Arabia and Qatar and confirming that the news was only a rumour.

In a television interview on Egyptian satellite TV channel Alassema 2, Sultan said: “We are completely transparent when it comes to information we receive. Any changes would be communicated directly to you all.”

Sultan said citizens should verify information before circulating it to avoid the spread of rumours such as this, it was reported by Elwehda news website.

At the same time, the minister of manpower, Mohamed Saafan, denied reports that Qatar had decided to reject applications by Egyptians for work permits, adding that there were 150,000 Egyptians working in Qatar at the moment.

Saafan said he met with the Qatari minister of labour on Thursday to discuss the rights of Egyptian workers in Qatar, highlighting that Egyptian-Qatari relations continue to be fully respectful.

Meanwhile, Egyptian commentator Jaber al-Qarmouty condemned the Egyptian media for circulating the tweet and building false reports upon it.

“Circulating information without verifying it has resulted in disastrous ramifications, which in this case can only be considered a slap in the face of Egyptian media personalities,” Elwehda news website quoted Qarmouty as saying.

Relations between Qatar and Egypt have been shaken since Doha showed support for former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi – who was ousted in a military coup led by then General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Qatar has also voiced support for Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, which was outlawed by Cairo.

Egypt has accused Qatar of using state-funded Al Jazeera news network to tint the image of Egypt’s military by publishing news and documentaries that show the army in a negative light.

Voice of Amara Radio – 19 Dec 2016

by Muluken Gebeyew
 
After 25 years of brutal ruling, TPLF has been severely shaken by the new generation peaceful struggle launched in the last one year. The youth, mostly born and brought up in the last 25 years have rebelled against TPLF’s ideology, policy and oppressive regime.

The youth in Gonder demonstration cracked the strong wall, the famous TPLF’s “divide and rule policy” when they said “Stop killing our Oromo brothers”, “Oromo’s blood is my blood”. This galvanised the existing Oromo youth’s peaceful struggle. The country was caught by spirit of change and the whole Ethiopia was “on fire”. TPLF tried every means to quash the struggle but failed. TPLF forced to launch “State of Emergency”.

Sadly, some vocal Diaspora political activists poured cold water on the struggle of the domestic youth by immersing themselves and actively engaging pro-TPLF activities. Instead of learning from the past 25 years weakness, once again the Diaspora politicians who consider themselves as “the leader” instead of “supporter” prepared to eat the fruits of the youth’s revolution before it ripe. Instead of working in partnership and uniting the opposition force against TPLF, some went far to be in the TPLF casino to play the age old games. Some declared how to disjoint Ethiopia; some others called conferences of single ethnic group as if the rest of Ethiopian nationals are “foreign” or not oppressed by TPLF led regime. Even those who are known for their Ethiopian agenda shamefully goes to micro division in ethnicity. Some launched war against ESAT, the most important alternative voice of Ethiopian people.

ESAT has been dong great job in fighting the TPLF propaganda and being the voice of the voiceless. ESAT can have its weakness but to launch war against ESAT is betrayal against the Ethiopian people and prolonging TPLF rule.

TPLF survived from death bed by this Diaspora based political activists betrayal of the domestic youth revolution. The strong wall of “divide and rule ” policy which was cracked by the domestic youths unfortunately well mended by the vocally active Diaspora political activists.

TPLF, of course invested all its resources for such to divide the Diaspora political activism from proactively supporting the popular movement at home. TPLF’s paid mercenaries are able to infiltrate the diasporas political activism and trapped it in their decade long “divide them by their ethnicities and religion, weaken them and rule” policy.

Once again, lets learn from our mistakes we have been doing again and again. Lets listen what the youths at home told us to work in partnership and unit our force against TPLF. Our role is not to “lead” but to “support” the home based struggle.
Ethiopia is home for all of us. We can build a country where no one is discriminated by ethnicity, religion, gender, ability, age, political opinion or other factors. The common enemy which is killing and imprisoning Ethiopians is TPLF.

Never abandon those brothers and sisters at home fighting TPLF’s led regime. Never give up. Had our forefathers gave up due to the might of Italian military forces, we would have been different people and our identity lost.

Open your eyes and ears, let’s listen the people back home and support the struggle in united approach! Let’s stand and work together to be owners of our country!

The Weekend (Abel Tesfaye – Ethio_Canadian Musician)

Esat Radio Wed 21 Dec 2016

Voice of Amara Radio 21 Dec 2016

December 21, 2016 Associated Press
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia –  Ethiopia said Wednesday it is releasing nearly 10,000 people detained under its ongoing state of emergency but plans to charge almost 2,500 others accused of destabilizing the country.

Deputy government spokesman Zadig Abraha told The Associated Press that 9,800 people were being freed. “They have been given lots of trainings … so that they won’t be part of the destructive trend that we have seen in the past,” Zadig said.

This East African country declared the state of emergency in October after nearly a year of anti-government protests that human rights groups say left hundreds dead. It was some of the country’s worst violence since Ethiopia’s ruling party came to power in 1991. Rights groups have accused the government of using excessive force.

Most of the detainees are from the restive Oromia and Amhara regions. The government has said that under the state of emergency, people detained could be sent to rehabilitation centers without charges.

Zadig said Ethiopia has seen a “tremendous change in the peace and security” under the state of emergency, which is expected to end in April. The government already has lifted a ban on diplomats traveling more than 40 kilometers (24 miles) outside the capital, Addis Ababa.

Ethiopia, one of Africa’s best-performing economies and a close security ally of the United States, was hit by a wave of protests beginning in November 2015 when ethnic Oromos protested against proposed land seizures to add to Addis Ababa city. Protesters said the plan was aimed at expanding the capital’s administrative control into Oromia.

The violence then spread to the Amhara region in the country’s north and beyond, with people calling on the government to end arbitrary arrests, respect regional autonomy and respect rights enshrined in the constitution.

The Economist

The Gibe III dam has the capacity to double the country’s electricity output at the flick of a switch

SUB-Saharan Africa’s largest mass-housing programme; its first metro; its biggest army. Ethiopia’s government likes to deal in superlatives. Last week the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) added another to the list: the tallest dam.

After years of delay, due primarily to funding shortages, the prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegne, at last inaugurated the 243-metre (800ft) Gibe III dam on the Omo River on December 17th. Its hydroelectric plant has the potential to double the country’s measly energy output at the flick of a switch.

Dubbed “the water tower of Africa”, Ethiopia has long sought to harness the power of the rivers that tumble from its highlands. Flagship dam projects were central to the modernisation plans drawn up by the Italian administration of 1936-1941 and by the former emperor, Haile Selassie, in the 1960s. Gibe III is the latest in a series being built along the Omo River by the government, which is also constructing what will be the largest-ever dam in Africa when it opens, in theory, next year: the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. Together these projects are intended to turn Ethiopia, which has scarce minerals but enormous hydropower potential, into a renewable-energy exporter. Gibe III alone is expected to generate as much electricity as currently produced by the whole of neighbouring Kenya, which has enthusiastically signed up to buy some of its power. The export earnings will help to plug Ethiopia’s gaping current-account deficit, while the cheap power will provide a timely fillip to its nascent manufacturing sector.

Large dams tend to be controversial, wherever they are built. An Oxford University study published in 2014 argued that large-scale hydroelectric projects are almost always damaging to developing economies, saddling them with debt while offering scant benefit for the populations they displace. But Gibe III has been especially contentious since work began in 2006. The African Development Bank, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank all declined to finance the project directly. In the end the Ethiopian government stumped up the cash with the help of a $470m Chinese loan.

By regulating the Omo’s flow, in order to generate year-round electricity, Gibe III will have significant consequences downstream for the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods are dependent on the annual flood. There was no flood in 2015 and, according to some activists, the one released in 2016 was too low to sustain crops. Added to this is the claim that the government did not consult the affected communities. “They’ve just been totally ignored,” says David Turton, an anthropologist specialising in the Lower Omo basin.

Further south at Lake Turkana in Kenya, where the Omo ends, the environmental impact may be even greater. The lake’s level has fallen by nearly 1.5m in the 18 months since the Gibe III reservoir started to fill, notes Sean Avery, a Nairobi-based water-resources consultant. “Its fisheries have collapsed,” he adds. Some worry that, with almost 90% of its waters supplied by the Omo, the lake could one day disappear entirely. This is because, besides electricity generation, Gibe III will support a vast irrigation complex, equal in size to the entire irrigated area of Kenya. In particular, the complex will supply a 245,000-hectare sugar plantation, the Kuraz Sugar Development Project, run by the Ethiopian Sugar Corporation and perhaps the country’s largest-ever agricultural scheme. As much as half of the river’s flow could end up being diverted to supply the thirsty sugar cane.

Attempts to modernise Ethiopia’s farming sector have sparked further controversy. In order to boost productivity the government has begun resettling semi-nomadic cattle herders from the Lower Omo basin into permanent villages along irrigated canals—a controversial process known as “villagisation”. Critics complain that the government has ridden roughshod over these communities, forcing them to ditch their livestock for crop cultivation. “It is not in the EPRD’s vocabulary to talk of protecting or maintaining this culture,” says Jason Mosley of Chatham House, a think-tank in London. “It is referred to as ‘primitive’ and ‘backward’.”

Faced with criticism the Ethiopian government has hardened its stance on the Gibe III dam. The former prime minister, Meles Zenawi (who died in 2012), insisted that it would be finished “at any cost”. Instead of listening to international critics he dismissed their concerns, saying that they “don’t want to see developed Africa; they want us to remain undeveloped and backward to serve their tourists as a museum.” The inauguration of Gibe III is a reminder that, when it comes to its top-down development agenda, the party makes few concessions to critics.