nazret.com Merkato Blog

Ethiopia: Youth, the Hamlins and Commitment to Action


By: Samuel M. Gebru*

One of the things I like about community and youth organizing is that I get the opportunity to really connect with people individually and hear what concerns and suggestions they have to improve our communities. Being born in Sudan, raised in the United States and of Ethiopian origin, I belong to many different communities.

When I established the Ethiopian American Youth Initiative, I envisioned bringing dynamic, open-minded and highly motivated youth, students and professionals together. The Ethiopian Diaspora community is highly intoxicated by very superficial things that, at the end of the day, don’t really matter. Whether at home or abroad, we Ethiopians have shown ourselves to be a community that is easily divided, and sometimes it appears—whether real or not—that we are more divided than united.

In December 2004, after watching the Oprah Winfrey Show’s program on obstetric fistula in Ethiopia, I became inspired by the strong commitment to community service displayed by Drs. Reginald and Catherine Hamlin, co-founders of the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital. Reginald passed away in 1993 but Catherine, now in her 80s, still lives in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia with the same commitment that drove her to Ethiopia with her late husband in 1959. The Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital has now evolved into a network of 6 hospitals in Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, Mekelle, Bahar Dar, Harrar, Metu and Yirgalem. They are collectively known as the Hamlin Fistula Hospitals in Ethiopia. In 2009, the hospitals celebrated Catherine Hamlin’s 50th year in Ethiopia.

To think that a foreigner commit over 50 years of dedicated service and hard work to Ethiopia is nothing less than amazing. Learning about the tragedy of obstetric fistula and the energy of the Hamlins not only inspired me but it embarrassed me. As a 13-year-old in December 2004, I began to question why Ethiopians in the Diaspora were not showing the same level of commitment non-Ethiopians demonstrated to Ethiopia. I also began to question why our community is more concerned about ethnic pride, who occupies the Menelik Palace and infesting every aspect of our lives with politics than whether 81 million Ethiopians have access to clean water and if the 6 million Ethiopian orphans will find new kind and loving people to call parents. Out of this embarrassment came inspiration and my commitment to act.

I founded the Ethiopian Team after convening a meeting of 13 Ethiopian youth in the Boston area on April 2, 2005. Once I shared the tragedies of obstetric fistula and the story of the Hamlins, the others were equally inspired to join the efforts. We became the first Ethiopian youth effort in Boston. An entire community was educated and inspired due to our work. The Ethiopian Team, in less than a year, raised enough funds to sponsor 11 women for fistula-repair surgery at the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital. Our youngest member was in 6th grade, our oldest was in 12th grade and I was in 8th grade.

The Ethiopian American Youth Initiative is the Ethiopian Team’s successor. EAYI was formed in 2006 and aimed to bring open-minded youth and student leaders together to really get things done. The Initiative is hosting its first annual conference in 14 days in Washington, D.C. The 2010 EAYI Conference will be about brainstorming proactive and realistic solutions to the everyday problems in Ethiopia. It will also be about finding solutions to the problems in our local communities within the Diaspora. This gathering will be of student and youth leaders that further our collective and individual commitment to act.

I call upon Ethiopians and non-Ethiopians to embrace the spirit of community service of the Hamlins in the same manner it inspired me to respond to the call for action 81 million Ethiopians have silently put.

Now, I am 18-years-old and am still embarrassed, inspired and committed to act.

*The author is the President of the Ethiopian American Youth Initiative.

Ethiopia’s Electoral Problems

By Samuel M. Gebru
Cambridge, MA
May 27, 2010

Ethiopia, a country of 81 million people, held its 4th Parliamentary Elections on Sunday, May 23, 2010. By now, it is known that the ruling party, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), has taken in a landslide victory, winning 99.6% of the seats in the House of People’s Representatives.

Under the 1995 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the country’s federal legislature is a bi-cameral parliament with the lower House of People’s Representatives and the House of the Federation. Gaining dominance in the House of People’s Representatives allows the winning party the ability to form the Executive Branch, led by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.

The EPRDF entered Addis Ababa in 1991 after toppling the Government of Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam. The rebels quickly formed the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) during the July 1991 Conference in Addis Ababa, promising sweeping political reforms and respect for human rights. 19 years later, the EPRDF is positioned to lead Ethiopia for the next five years, after winning four elections consecutively (1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010). Following the bloody aftermath of the 2005 elections, I recall then U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia, Donald Y. Yamamoto, saying that Ethiopians must now look forward to the 2010 elections and need to begin preparing for a free and fair election marked with a level playing field and an open society.

Has Ethiopia’s electoral problems improved or worsened in the past five years?

As we answer the question, one must look at what improvements and setbacks have been made. First, it’s important to mention that Ethiopia has 93 political parties that operate either on the national or state levels. This itself spells anarchy. With 93 political parties it makes sense, with certainty, that Ethiopia’s electoral problems are not skin-deep but resemble a lack of collaboration and compromise. The EPRDF, in the past 19 years, has broadened its membership and support base, some joining willingly while others reluctantly. As the ruling party in Ethiopia, it also gets an advantage to access the people on various levels, ranging from the kebele (ward) to the woreda (district) and to the kilil (state). When one comes to examine the opposition, it is clear that there are many divisions within the opposition that have yet to be addressed.

“United we stand, divided we fall,” is not simply an American saying. In fact, it can be applied to any entity, be it an organization, country or movement. The opposition movement to the EPRDF is, much like the country’s democracy, struggling to exist. In politics, blueprints for a united movement begin at the grassroots level. In an April 24 meeting with the Ethiopian Community in Boston, former Defense Minister Siye Abraha advised that people to think in the long term: “Siye reiterated that it was important that all parties…respect the Ethiopian Constitution…he advised the importance of political investment: Medrek needs to gain the trust of the people and build a grassroots national political coalition” (Top gun turned Politician, April 26, 2010).

Establishment of the Forum for Democracy and Dialogue, or Medrek, was underway in 2008 when senior opposition Members of Parliament began discussions on forming a political coalition to contest in the 2010 Elections. The formation and undertakings of Medrek is commendable because it is a planned and calculated endeavor. In the 2005 Election, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) was the main opposition political coalition against the EPRDF. The CUD, however, was poorly formed a few months before Election Day with the assumption that it would just win. The CUD was a train on the wrong track, and its quick dismemberment following the elections exhibits the lack of planning and calculation that certain opposition leaders took. Taking advice from their own history, opposition leaders were able to form Medrek, which had more of an organized structure.

However, despite the maturity observed and the viability of being an electoral contender, Medrek’s existence does not indicate absolute unity within the opposition. With 93 political parties, it’s going to take more than a coalition of eight parties to gain a majority in the House of People’s Representatives. The opposition must continue to develop peacefully and in accordance with the Ethiopian Constitution. It is ironic to think that the same authors of the Constitution have a hard time observing it. Additionally, the opposition must recognize the importance of youth civic engagement in their political endeavors in the coming five years. Essentially, not having a seat in parliament should not excuse Medrek from developing a grassroots political organization.

Whilst it is a tendency for the Ethiopian opposition to criticize the EPRDF, solutions are seldom presented for the public to consider. One of the negative qualities of many of the EPRDF’s political opponents—both at home and abroad—is that they rarely propose solutions to the problems they have identified within the EPRDF’s administration. This, in turn, gives a persuading argument not to support the opposition. Medrek has exhibited both qualities—venting and proposing. It is important for Medrek to continue to move away from the bad self-imposed qualities of finger pointing and venting that have hampered the development of an opposition movement in Ethiopia. By proposing solutions and recognizing the positive developments of the EPRDF, Medrek will only position itself to earn the trust and confidence of the Ethiopian constituency. Nonetheless, to simply assume that the opposition’s lack of coordination is the sole issue in Ethiopia’s electoral problems would be foolish.

The EPRDF as a government, political party, business entity, police force, judicial system and ombudsman knows no boundaries. In Ethiopia, the boundary between state and party has yet to be realized, despite the plethora of support and skill there is to do so—from Ethiopians abroad, to opposition politicians, who have seen their political space dwindle, to the country’s donor community. The EPRDF faces many opportunities to improve its governance record, however the nature of its actions shows increased indifference to meeting the aspirations of democracy in Ethiopia.

The EPRDF’s record includes very impressive turn-arounds for Ethiopia, from its diplomatic standing in the international community to the availability of primary education and access to free healthcare. Furthermore, road expansion and utilization of the country’s water resources through various hydroelectric projects are very commendable on the ruling party’s leadership. However, the EPRDF has seemingly become too complacent with its developmental achievements that it has not prioritized the necessary political reforms needed to enhance the development of democracy and sustainability of people and economic growth.

Focusing on the future is critical. The EPRDF continues to, like its adversaries, be a party of the past. In Tigray, for instance, the EPRDF frequently reminded the voters of who freed them from the military rule of the Derg and that there was an apparent electoral obligation to the EPRDF—the other option was for Derg remnants (i.e. Medrek) to lead Ethiopia. The inflammatory claim that the voters of Tigray have an electoral obligation to the EPRDF is nothing short of an undermining of their intelligence. Tigrayans need not be reminded who defeated the Derg; Tigrayans need to be reminded of who continues to abuse state power for political gain. The use of state resources for the EPRDF is unacceptable. After working on three election campaigns, I have witnessed the importance of dividing governmental duties and electoral duties. During one campaign, for instance, the office printer was not working and we asked an aide at Cambridge City Hall if she could print a Voter ID packet from there. The respectable and necessary decline on her part demonstrated that separation of state and party are crucial in elections.

Giving due attention to the future of Ethiopia is what all Ethiopians should do. There are many undesirables in Ethiopia’s political system right now. The excessive preoccupation with ethnic grievances and the “rights” of the “nations, nationalities and peoples” must be corrected using civilized public discourse. Ethiopia’s ethnic groups accuse each other of having been oppressed while they do not recognize that they were once oppressors too. Furthermore, there is an unhealthy obsession towards the parochial considerations of the “nations, nationalities and peoples” while the national interest is sidelined as is in Article 39.4 of the Ethiopian Constitution. Improvements have been made, however, to concentrate on political debates where the opposition has also proposed domestic and foreign policy alternatives built on practicality and not emotion.

In focusing on what lies ahead, it is equally important to begin taking the initiative to “nationalize” Ethiopia’s political parties. Political parties in Ethiopia—all 93 of them—have tended to focus narrowly on particular ethnic concerns rather than on specific social and economic interests that can attract a significant portion of the country’s voters. Ethnically organized political parties should be prohibited from contesting in local, state and federal elections because political parties should be required to compete with national interests in mind. Transforming Ethiopia requires the presence of nationally oriented socially responsible leaders that are able to defend, first and foremost, the public interest.

Solving Ethiopia’s electoral problems must also include reexamining the separation of state and party as well as the separation of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. The European Union Election Observer Mission and other domestic observers observed the usage of state resources for the EPRDF’s re-election campaign. This, as discussed earlier, would be a serious violation against electoral law in any matured democracy, and to suggest that this is excusable given Ethiopia’s infantile democracy is simply foolish. Furthermore, there is a lack of checks and balances in the Federal Government.

Whilst it is standard in many countries for the Executive to appoint the Judiciary, it is concerning to know that the line between the two is very narrow, if not blurred, in Ethiopia. Two primary reasons motivate this claim. First, there is a surprising number of Judges—and even Parliamentarians—that are not well-versed in international law, treaties Ethiopia has signed as well as Judicial norms and best practices. Incompetent people can only make incompetent decisions. Secondly, there is a growing disregard of the concept of “conflict of interest,” where certain ruling party affiliates are sworn in as judges based on their affiliation and not profession. It should be noted that it is commendable that the National Election Board has been restructured so that the Chief Justice of Ethiopia’s Supreme Court is not the Chairman of the Election Board. That is like asking Benito Mussolini to preside over Adolf Hitler’s war crimes case—there is a serious conflict of interest.

The EPRDF faces, again, another opportunity to further democratize Ethiopia. Although its recent past shows otherwise, it is my hope that the party will be able to liberalize and “nationalize” the political system as well as undertake reforms to its highly discouraging media law. Given my background in organizing, it behooves me to also mention that the CSO law must be amended with significant participation of opposition parties and the NGOs it concerns. Systematic improvements and reforms will only help Ethiopia—and in the process it might also help the EPRDF’s image. Nonetheless, it is my conclusion that Ethiopia’s electoral problems will ultimately be addressed by new generations of leaders who believe in sustainable and collaborative politics based on the notion of social responsibility, ethics and respect for human and civil rights.

Lebanon owes Ethiopia an explanation

By Samuel Gebru

Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET409 was scheduled to fly from Beirut to Addis Ababa on January 25, 2010 when it plunged into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after taking off. All 82 passengers and 8 crewmembers are presumed dead. The aircraft was a Boeing 737-8AS registered with Ethiopian Airlines as ET-ANB and crashed shortly after taking off from Beirut Rafik Hariri International Airport bound to Addis Ababa Bole International Airport. Beirut’s weather was unfavorable with thunder and lightening storms at the time. After 5 minutes in flight, all radar contact was lost with the plane.

Lebanon, the U.N., the U.S., France, Britain and Cyprus carried out the search and rescue mission jointly. Later, the Lebanon, Ethiopia, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, the French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety and Boeing Company all cooperated in a joint investigation.

On the morning and the days following the crash, high-level authorities of the Government of Lebanon issued statements and interviews to the press ruling out terrorism. Lebanese officials from the President to the Health Minister all voiced their opinions to the public, creating an atmosphere of confusion and assumptions without the official results of the investigation.

The Government of Lebanon has used the crash of ET409 for political gain. Statements from Lebanon’s President, Michel Suleiman, ruled out terrorism. Information Minister Tarek Mitri claimed that weather was not a problem. Transportation Minister Ghazi Aridi and Defense Minister Elias el-Murr both blamed the pilot for failing to follow Lebanese air traffic control. Lebanon’s officials have continuously stated various reasons for why they think the plane crashed without having any evidence. Their public statements have caused unnecessary confusion in the path to finding out what happened on January 25.

The quickness of Lebanon’s Government to rule out terrorism has caused suspicion, particularly since the declaration happened the day after the crash when no investigation had been conducted. Not only did Lebanon breach a gag agreement made with Ethiopia but also tampered with evidence and withheld information. It has been reported that the Cockpit Voice Recorder, commonly referred to as the black boxes, was missing 2 minutes of recording, which is odd considering that they should hold 30 minutes worth of recording. The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority requires that the recording duration be a minimum of 30 minutes. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, however, recommends 2 hours. U.S. Federal Aviation Regulation Section 121.359 on Cockpit Voice Recorders reads:

“In complying with this section, an approved cockpit voice recorder having an erasure feature may be used, so that at any time during the operation of the recorder, information recorded more than 30 minutes earlier may be erased or otherwise obliterated.”

Thus we are able to conclude that if the estimated flight time was between 4 and 5 minutes, the entire flight should have been able to be recorded. Interestingly, the Ethiopian investigators that went to both Lebanon and France were only given 2 minutes of the recorder. The Government of Lebanon owes the Government of Ethiopia as well as the Governments of France, Britain, Russia, Canada, Syria and Iraq an explanation as to:

a) Why it took 15 days to retrieve the black boxes after they were spotted, being located on January 29 and retrieved on February 14,
b) Why the original gag agreement was not respected,
c) Why various Lebanese Cabinet Ministers including the President and Prime Minister have all given their own variations of what happened on January 25,
d) Why terrorism was ruled out so quickly even amidst reports of locals seeing the Ethiopian Airlines jet on fire and when some recovered victims showed fire wounds,
e) Why Ethiopian Airlines was denied access to meet with the families of the 51 Lebanese victims in order to discuss insurance-related matters,
f) Why the Ethiopian investigation team was not allowed to visit the crash site,
g) Why the entire Boeing 737 jet has not been retrieved yet, with the majority of the plane said to still be in the Mediterranean Sea over a month after the crash,
h) Why the Civil Aviation Authority of Lebanon denied the Ethiopian investigation team access to the entire contents of the flight recorder, and
i) Why Lebanon’s authorities were quick to use Ethiopian Airlines ET409 Captain Habtamu Benti and his Co-Captain Alula Tamrat as scapegoats.

According to Ethiopian Airlines, there were 90 people on board from Ethiopia, Lebanon, France, Britain, Russia, Canada, Syria and Iraq. The only French national was the wife of the French Ambassador to Lebanon. On February 23 the Lebanon stated that all bodies had been recovered and identified and will be repatriated.

Lebanese Ministers must understand that ET409 should not be used to garner political support for the Government of Lebanon, which has pictured itself as the “champion” in this situation at the expense of the reputation an airline carrier. Ethiopian Airlines, the flag carrier of Ethiopia, is one of the safest airlines in the world and arguably the safest in Africa. The only two accidents in Ethiopian Airlines’ over 60 years history has not been the result of pilot error: the first, nonfatal, was due to a flock of birds that flew into the engine and the second, partially fatal, was a result of a hijacking. Thus, Lebanon’s quick conclusion of pilot error must be taken with heavy skepticism.

I would like to express my sincerest condolences to all of the families and friends that have been affected by the loss of the 90 people aboard Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET409.

Samuel Gebru

Samuel Gebru
27 December 2009

It has been over a week since the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference ended. The conference, held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, lasted from December 7-18. The conference, known as COP15, included the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was first held in Rio de Janeiro from June 3-14, 1992.

Despite all the build up surrounding the talks, the UN Climate Change Conference fell short meeting Africa’s expectations. COP15 failed to come up with a legally binding agreement that would ensure that an accord was agreed upon and that all nations would be obliged to follow through. The Copenhagen Accord did not include any commitments that would legally bind developed nations to reduce their carbon emissions, despite its “recognition” that climate change is a serious challenge. American President Barack Obama other G8 leaders praised the agreement. Unfortunately the Nobel Peace Prize-winning American President forgot that adverse changes in the climate are already affecting developing and Island nations, causing damage and destruction to people’s homes, lands and lives. Although the Copenhagen Accord failed to satisfy the needs of the world’s poorest people and angered many world leaders, a legally binding treaty could have come out of COP15.

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia is the Coordinator of the Committee of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change. Prior to leaving for Europe, Meles Zenawi sounded very bold calls for African demands to be met. There were even rumors of an African walkout if the treaty did not meet African demands. So what happened? Ethiopia’s Prime Minister seemed to forget that as Africa’s sole representative he had to articulate and negotiate for and, most importantly, on behalf of the African people. Meles Zenawi ditched his originally praised plan in exchange for a weak and insulting proposal for $10 billion a year for African compensation. Furthermore, Prime Minister Meles proposed that global compensation increase to $50 billion annual in 2013 and then $100 billion annually in 2010. His proposal fit perfectly with the American proposal that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented. Was that a coincidence? Many African civil society organizations have now rightfully demanded that Prime Minister Meles Zenawi resign from his leadership of the African Committee.

Meles Zenawi’s insulting proposal gave into Western expectations of a quick fix at COP15. His proposal is like putting a band-aid on Africa’s climate change problems in hopes that the wound doesn’t get infected. He seemed to ignore that his proposal, and the Copenhagen Accord, undermines the significance of climate change in Africa. The continent’s droughts are becoming increasingly frequent and stronger, affecting millions of lives. In the Prime Minister’s own country, Ethiopia, about 13 million people are in need of emergency international food aid, although his government continues to deny that number. Ethiopia is an agriculture-based economy and the majority of the country’s GDP comes from agricultural exports to Europe and Asia. When the rains fall short of the expected amount, farmers are forced to shut down their operations and wait on food aid, usually in big sacks imprinted with the well-known USAID logo. Ethiopia’s climate problems with respects to its agriculture-based economy and underdeveloped financial institutions are a microcosm of Africa’s extensive worries with climate change. A change in global temperatures can mean death for Africans.

Climate change itself isn’t new. However, it is humanity’s substantial pollution, the emission of carbon gasses into the atmosphere that is hurting the earth. In September 2007, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi spoke at the Plenary Session of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City. Sitting with folks like Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bill Clinton, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia articulated that, “Africa contributed nothing to global warming,” but it is Africa that stands to suffer most. The attendees at the Third Annual Summit of the Clinton Global Initiative gave the Ethiopian premier a standing ovation for his eloquent and honed comments.

In the months leading up to COP15, Prime Minister Meles sent an unyielding message to the word that Africa demands its fair share from the Copenhagen Accord. International news outlets began reporting the Prime Minister’s immutable comments. African civil society leaders raised their expectations that a favorable outcome would be achieved. Prior to arriving in Denmark, Meles Zenawi traveled to France to speak with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. In the press conference, the Prime Minister articulated that, “There will be no global agreement without Africa,” noting that African countries constitute 25% of the United Nations’ membership.

It was encouraging to see that a united G77 spoke out at COP15. Developing nations made it clear that the Kyoto Protocol’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions would not be abandoned; and no Copenhagen Accord would be signed that sought to undermine it. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Meles’ decision to break away from Africa’s demands in support of a Western position is a clear sign that he did not serve Africa well at COP15. Contrary to my original notions, Meles Zenawi is not the most suitable negotiator for Africa’s climate interests. He ditched the solidarity achieved amongst Africa’s people, civil society organizations and leaders, in order to achieve the favor of Western officials. The African people will bear the harshest and heaviest burden from climate change.

Samuel Gebru
December 10, 2009

Ethiopia’s Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Samuel Assefa, has completed his term after serving a turbulent three and a half years in Washington, D.C. Ambassador Samuel, a former professor and son of a politically active family, was sent to United States to persuade U.S. lawmakers not to pass legislation that his government viewed as meddling in the nation’s internal affairs and potentially harming Ethiopia-U.S. relations.

Ambassador Samuel came at a time when the Embassy of Ethiopia was facing severe staff shortages. His predecessor, Ambassador Kassahun Ayele, who now completed his term as Ethiopian Ambassador to Germany, enjoyed functioning political and community departments staffed with experienced diplomats. After presenting his credentials in a May 17, 2006 White House ceremony to former U.S. President George W. Bush, Samuel Assefa was faced with tough challenges.

Not only was Ethiopia’s diplomatic mission to the United States understaffed and underrepresented, but Samuel and his team also had to weather two potentially harmful bills that certain U.S. lawmakers in the House of Representatives were eager to pass. The bills, H.R. 5680: Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006 and H.R. 2003: Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007, were introduced by Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ4) and Donald Payne (D-NJ10), respectively. The former university professor was challenged with a big test: can he successfully convince American lawmakers that both pieces of legislation should not become law? In the end, the outcomes worked in favor of the Ethiopian Government. H.R. 5680 never was introduced for a vote in the House and while the House passed H.R. 2003, it never was introduced into the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Read more here.