nazret.com Merkato Blog

U.S. Ambassador Donald E. Booth Travels to Gambella

Gambella, January 13, 2012: U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia Donald E. Booth visited Gambella from January 11 to 13 to visit U.S. government supported projects in health and education, meet with local government officials, and discuss regional issues in Gambella such as commercial farming and regional development. Ambassador Booth was accompanied by U.S. Agency for International Development Deputy Country Director for Ethiopia Jason Fraser and Mrs. Anita Booth. The Ambassador has now visited every state at least once in Ethiopia.

Ambassador Booth visited U.S. government supported projects such as the Gambella Hospital which hosts a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program offering voluntary medical male circumcision as a HIV/AIDS prevention measure. He also met with Pact Gambella to discuss their peace building and resource management program with the Godere forest management initiative. The Ambassador’s trip included a visit to the Lulo Alternative Basic Education Center outside of Gambella town.

In addition to visiting these U.S. supported projects, Ambassador Booth met with the Regional President of Gambella Omod Obang Olum and other regional officials. Among other topics, they shared views on regional development and commercial farming issues with the Ambassador. The Ambassador also visited area businesses and met with area UNICEF and UNHCR representatives.

Ethiopia: A tale of two Swedes

By Hindessa Abdul

On July 1, 2011 freelance journalist Johan Persson and photo journalist Martin Schibbye were detained in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. There are two versions as to why the Swedes were in the area. The first one, according to The Local, a Swedish online news journal, was to “report on the conflict between the Somali guerrillas and the Ethiopian state.” Then another version popped up in the court hearing which asserts that the journalists were in the area to investigate the Lundin Petroleum that was given licenses to explore oil in the East African Nation. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who was under tremendous pressure over the handling of the case, was a member of the board of the company.

But the government in Addis thinks otherwise. The two journalists have been supporting the rebels of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) that has been designated a terrorist organization by Ethiopian parliament in June 2011.

The trial of the Swedes had attracted huge international media attention. Scores of Swedish journalists flew from Stockholm to express solidarity; international media representatives, diplomats, even the American ambassador in Addis, Donald Booth were among the attendees. Johan Persson and Martin Schibbye were represented by top lawyers from both countries. The trial took a little more than two months. On December 27, 2011 a judge sentenced them to 11 years imprisonment for “supporting terrorism.”
The “high-level contact” between the two countries officials to secure the release of the detainees didn’t bear any fruit. But the relations between the two countries were tense for the past couple of years now. As a result, Addis Ababa decided to close its Embassy in Stockholm. “There is no development cooperation program of any substance between us and Sweden,” the Ethiopian PM told reporters in 2010. The two countries relation dates back to the middle of the 19th century. However, the Scandinavian nation of nine million didn’t reciprocate with the same. It kept its Embassy in Addis open for business.

So the Swedes had until January 10, 2012 to appeal. But heeding to “the best possible advice”, they decided - probably wisely - not to appeal. By now they should have a clear understanding of the justice system of the country. Their guilty verdict was pronounced long before the trial had begun. The PM famously told the Norwegian daily Aftenposten that they were “messenger boys of a terrorist organization.” Don’t blame Judge Shemsu Sirgaga. He was just executing an order from the “dear leader”.

Now there are already talks of the “a tradition of mercy”, Board of Pardon, Presidential Amnesty and so on. Truth be told, how long the Swedes will stay in Kaliti before they go home will squarely depend on the PM who happens to be the darling of the West.

The Kaliti prison which is found in the outskirts of Addis has become a pilgrimage to Ethiopian political dissidents and journalists. Hopefully the Swedes will have a firsthand experience of that grim environment should they want to write about it when they finally go home.

Injustice anywhere…
The justice system in Ethiopia is in shambles. The courts have long become instruments of repression. Judges routinely hand down death sentences and life imprisonment for political dissidents that nobody takes them seriously any more. See why the journalists are not appealing. Because “they felt that it was very unlikely that another judge would see it any different.” Isn’t the whole point of appeal the overturning of a decision by a lower court? What will a man loose by appealing an 11 year prison sentence? The answer is simple. Johan’s and Martin’s six month sojourn in custody gave them a clear picture of the Ethiopian justice system. So appealing is an exercise in futility.

Sadly, the injustice system that has prevailed in the country is primarily paid for by major European democracies who allowed an autocratic leader stay in power for 20-odd years. As usual the lip service has been duly rendered. “The sentencing on terrorism-related charges raises concerns about the freedom of media and expression in Ethiopia,” says a statement released by the EU representative.

How long will the process of pardon takes place will also depend on the regime’s intentions rather than rules and procedures. We all hope the two will be released as soon as possible and join their loved ones.
For the record, there are three local and two Eritrean journalists in Ethiopian prisons. And let’s not forget Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, just to borrow from Martin Luther King Jr.

Ethiopia: OLF and Ethiopian Sovereignty

By Zerihun Abebe

Recently there is a growing debate within OLF’s regarding its stand on the question of a democratic Ethiopian unity and there seem to be a revitalization of the question of ethno-nationalism and Ethiopian sovereignty among the Diaspora. There are now a group of individuals who officially identified themselves and recognized by others as member or supporter of OLF but their membership or affiliation is contested by some other group of individuals who consider themselves more authentic than the other. I argue that the recent development within OLF and other Ethiopian political forces demonstrates yet again the very nature of the post-1991 Ethiopian politics which is characterized by fragmentation and disputes. And this fragmentation is a result of the historical state formation and inter-group relationship in what is now called the Ethiopian region. Rather than the solution, the current EPRDF is part of the problem. This is because though it dismantled the historical Amhara-Tigre culture dominated Ethiopian nationalism; EPRDF didn’t institutionalize an alternative, all inclusive and democratic form of Ethiopian nationalism where all Ethiopians across ethnic, linguistic and religious boundaries identify themselves as a part of one state. In fact EPRDF gives trifling importance to what unite the various Peoples in the country under a single Ethiopian state and this I think is a suicidal political project.

The post-1991 Ethiopia is characterized by two main features; on the one hand there have increasingly emerged various groups with voices articulated in terms of ethnic ideology. These voices use ethnicity or questions of identity as their mobilizing force. Ethnic based political mobilization did in fact begin as early as the 1960s. Yet the post-1991 situation displayed an increasing number of ethnic-based political groups some of which had no earlier history at all. There are on the other hand those (not in fact homogeneous and expressed in various forms) who deny or (if at all they do) give secondary or marginal importance to issue of identity along cultural and religious lines. This group emphasizes Ethiopian unity vis-a-vis ethnicity or identity politics. These two elements though are influenced by the post-socialist world in which both globalization and fragmentation are central, they should mainly be seen as being results of the very unfinished modern Ethiopian nation-state building project commonly associated with Menelik and Hailselassie. As such they clearly define the contemporary Ethiopian politics impasse and the way out is striking the delicate balance between Ethiopian ethnicities and nationalism. In another language what I am suggesting is that rather than promoting a pro-unity OLF group of individuals vis-à-vis anti-unity OLF-ones, the best solution is to work more to create a rational and national consensus among all forces that challenge the viability of one, democratic and all inclusive Ethiopian state.

Rational consensus is at the heart of the solution for such deadlock. The anti-unity forces should come up with how to resolve their question within a general and all-inclusive Ethiopia because freedom from the so called ‘national oppression’, as it is commonly called, doesn’t necessarily lead to human right and equality because oppression by its nature is multi-faceted and demand more than ethnic mobilization. If the Oromo speaking people will be lead by their ethnic fellows this doesn’t guarantee freedom and human right for all Oromo individuals since collective right doesn’t immediately translate into individual right. The necessity of a sovereign and democratic state power doesn’t come from the fact that human beings share similar culture or language but rather human individuals by their very nature may come in conflict with other individuals that a sovereign state is the only viable legal and moral authority to guarantee freedom. At the end of the day what matters most is a system that guarantees individual freedom, the right to have any kind of faith, gender equality, minority right and all these cannot be achieved through ethnic based movement. On the other hand those who promote Ethiopian nationalism or unity should also consider the way to accommodate ethnicity or ethno-nationalism because the post-1991 political development in Ethiopia shows an attempt to impose European like national-state project has reached its dead-end and there is no go back. This means in as much as Ethiopian consciousness (shared identities, practices and subjectivities across boundaries) is a historically established social and cultural force, ethno-nationalist consciousness is not a figment of individual’s imagination and needs to be recognized as an aspect of, if not central to Ethiopian social and political configuration.

Some argue that EPRDF is the solution and its ethnic federalism is an alternative. The problem with the EPRDF structure is that first, it is essentially based on group-centered ideology at the expense of the significance of individual freedom. Despite the fact that individual right is recognized in the Ethiopian constitution, the real politics gives priority and precedence to collective, cultural or linguistic rights. In addition EPRDF is not open and transparent. It is still secretive, unknowable and vague group. Whose ever fault it is there is for example no free civil society or media or institution (in the sense that it is a non-EPRDF controlled, or affiliated or sympathized ) that can make EPRDF and its officials accountable for what they did and what they are doing now. EPRDF doesn’t trust other than itself. Its officials and supporters wrongly claim that their party is a self-correcting machine and doesn’t need non-EPRDF elements for its functioning as a guarantor of Ethiopian sovereignty. Second, EPRDF though seemed to embrace ethno-nationalism; in actual fact its essential feature seemed similar to the century old type of Abyssinian state-system where the center co-opted local or ethnic elites from the margin. There is in fact a difference but it is mainly a difference in scale and complexity rather than in the core system or substance.
EPRDF supporters argue that EPRDF is in the right truck because it is in the business of eradicating poverty. Eradicating poverty is in fact an essential part of human development. Yet I argue that political growth is as equally important as economic growth that emphasizing the one at the expense of the other doesn’t lead to sustainable development. This argument is based on the general notion that neither matter nor consciousness determines social being that both are equally important for human social and political development. The main point I want to make is that political symbolism or the consciousness of sharing a common identity and belonging within a state which monopolizes violence as a legal institution in the international community of states is an essential element in achieving development not only because it kindles group loyalty but also because of its ability to encompass the full dimensions of human spiritual possibilities and make them conscious of their social and political existence within their Ager. EPRDF doesn’t build Ethiopia in which each and every individual living in current day Ethiopia claim their loyalty as citizens of the state. There is no sufficient effort made by EPRDF official to build a new political symbol, which embraces and represents the positive common values, history, symbols and rights of all Ethiopian citizens.

This process has facilitated the competing elitism and greater fragmentation we witness along different social boundaries such as religious, ethnic and local. The fact that EPRDF hasn’t worked for national and rational consensus means that it doesn’t legitimize its control of federal state power on an alternative consciousness shared by all Ethiopians. EPRDF’s control of state power neither is legitimized by shared democratic values not only because it is not democratic but also because the Ethiopian elites as well as the mass have to go a great length to develop and materialize democratic practices. Hence different political and religious groups of individuals emerge and assert their extreme position (both pro and anti unity) only to undermine Ethiopian sovereignty. In fact if one looks the pattern one can notice an increase in split and fragmentation especially following the coming into power of the TPLF-led EPRDF group. A number of major examples could be mentioned in this regard. For instance TPLF once seemed a solid group but now we have noticed its fragmentation following an internal splinter group which charge TPLF of devaluing Ethiopian sovereignty. ONLF and OLF are also a part of this pattern. Some group of the ONLF have already joined EPRDF by accepting the latter’s claims of running a unified Ethiopia even though in actual fact what we have now under EPRDF is a conglomeration of ethnic or nationality groups led by ethnic-elites who are tightly controlled from the center. The same holds to the various Ethiopian religious groups where we see one religion is divided into different competing and sometimes conflicting groups in which the question Ethiopian sovereignty vis-à-vis the question of identity and modernity is part of the problem.

Fragmentation doesn’t come from the outside though it is facilitated by external factors. External factors could have in fact contributed but if one looks into how division and factions emerge in the political and religious fields in contemporary Ethiopia – internal actors, organization and dynamics are the ultimate reasons. I argue ultimately fragmentation among Ethiopian social and political groups is a function both of the history of inter-ethnic relations and state formation in what is now called Ethiopia that the main question is how to come up with a new idea which combines these historical realities rather than dichotomizing them as irreconcilable entities. There are generally tow aspects here. On the one hand the historical state formation in Ethiopia, though was not fully successful, had resulted in the creation of shared consciousness and subjectivities across ethnic and linguistic boundaries. There is more an Oromo speaking peasant share with his Amhara or Tigre peasants especially in respect to everyday life rituals, plough agriculture, religious practices, anti-colonial subjectivities and mentalities in a way different from other African countries etc… On the other hand at the same time, the fact that historical Ethiopian state formation was not fully successful means that there are always ethnic consciousness and identities that go against any homogenizing political project. This includes distinct languages, myth origins, descent systems, and other cultural aspects. Fragmentation among contemporary Ethiopian political elites ultimately boils down to these two contradictory but interrelated forces.

The way out from this predicament is developing a synthesis that transform the two without reducing the one vis-à-vis the other. But this is not an easy task. It needs a new notion of Ethiopia. It needs what I call rational innocence, or critical but open-mindedness and open heart. It demands a centrist view with civility and a post-modern thinking, which rejects any extremist ideology while embracing individual human right and diversity as the basis for democratic citizenship building. A best solution for contemporary Ethiopia is to create a state in which its citizens share some legal and ideological values as well as enjoy their respective distinct ethiopianess that may manifest itself in terms of diversified languages, local narratives and cultures. True, Ethiopian history is contested. But the notion that all our past is not shared or it is bad lacks candor and is irresponsible. We have both good and bad histories, heroes and values. If there is the political will from the respective elites there is still a lot good that the various Peoples in Ethiopia share both in their history and present and that defines them as a distinct community or Ager vis-à-vis Peoples in other African countries.

If we see the recent development within the OLF from this perspective there is nothing major and new we learn regarding OLF and Ethiopian sovereignty. In fact the fact that there are now Oromo elites, who unconditionally accept Ethiopian sovereignty, is a positive step and should be encouraged. There is nothing inherently negative in such move regardless of the personal motives of the individuals who promotes this position. Nevertheless, if we see the bigger picture still Ethiopian politics at large remains in elites’ quagmire where the elites from all sides in diversified fields still fail to develop an all inclusive and well-thought-out new Ethiopia or state system that gives a viable alternative from the past and the present towards a promising future in achieving peace, stability and certainty to ordinary Peoples.

The writer is a Research Fellow, University of Bergen, Norwaycould and can be reached at zwo041@uib.no

Ethiopia: Washington Update

By Mesfin Mekonen

January 10, 2012

At a recent meeting senior State Department officials discussed U.S. food aid to Ethiopia and other countries in the Horn of Africa. President Obama announced on Dec. 22 that the U.S. was giving an additional $113 million in emergency relief assistance to the Horn of Africa, making the total U.S. commitment during the current crisis over $870 million.

We brought to the State Department's attention credible media reports indicating that the Ethiopian regime has used food aid as a tool to reward its supporters and punish opponents. BBC Newsnight has produced two excellent investigative stories about the Meles regime's use of food aid as a tool of oppression, and about the regime's crackdown on opposition supporters, politicians and journalists. We also reported to the officials about the jailed AEUP members. The programs can be viewed at BBC

State Department officials said that U.S. food aid is being distributed by responsible, independent NGOs. However, it is impossible for anyone to say with certainty how food aid is distributed in Ethiopia. The Meles regime has suppressed international support for Ethiopian NGOs, limited news media access, and jailed Ethiopians who speak out about abuses such as limiting the distribution of food and agricultural assistance to government supporters. There can be no doubt that many people are suffering simply because they do not actively support the Meles government, or are accused of supporting the opposition. The U.S. embassy, and other countries that supply food assistance, lack the resources, personnel and expertise needed to ensure fair and equitable distribution of aid in Ethiopia.

Of course, there is and will continue to be an urgent need for food assistance to Ethiopia. But the U.S. and other donors should require accountability to ensure that it does not become a weapon against the Ethiopian people.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) continues to take a strong interest in the human rights situation in Ethiopia. At a recent meeting, Smith's senior staff said Smith is very concerned about human rights abuses in Ethiopia. Ethiopian-Americans should contact their elected representatives in Congress to express their concerns about human rights in Ethiopia and press the U.S. government to do more to promote its ideals in Ethiopia. Ethiopia's fate is in the hands of Ethiopians, but support and assistance from the U.S. Congress is important.

All Ethiopian Unity Party supporters met at the Washington Hebrew Congregation last Sunday to provide moral and financial support for AEUP activities in Ethiopia. They heard from Engineer Hailu Shawel, who expressed appreciation for the efforts of Ethiopians in Washington, D.C. Meeting participants decided to meet on a monthly basis to discuss the current situation in Ethiopia and plans for promoting democracy, human rights and economic development.

Ethiopia: No Aid for Repressive Tyrants

Source: NYU Development Research Institute

We … call on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and America’s Western allies to publicly repudiate Ethiopia’s efforts to use terrorism laws to silence political dissent. We also urge the U.S. to ensure that our more than $600 million in aid to Ethiopia is not used to foster repression.

This is the call to action from a letter published in the New York Review of Books this month.

We at DRI are inspired by the courage of Eskinder Nega, an Ethiopian journalist, newspaper publisher, and dissident arrested on September 14th after writing a blog post demanding freedom of expression and an end to torture in Ethiopian prisons. Despite previous arrests, both Eskinder and his wife, Serkalem Fasil, have chosen to remain in Ethiopia and continue their work.

While we don’t want to meddle in other countries’ politics, we do want to speak out against aid that supports rights-violating regimes, in solidarity with Ethiopian citizens who are simply asking to exercise their own civil liberties.

From 2005, when Eskinder Nega was first imprisoned in the aftermath of Ethiopia’s parliamentary elections marred with rigging and violence, to the present, international aid to Ethiopia has more than doubled to well over $4 billion. The three largest donors are the World Bank, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Read More