By: Melaku Tegegne
Many Ethiopian politicians are describing the present national drive by the regime as signaling the beginning of the “Developmental State” in Ethiopia as prescribed by the Prime Minister a year ago. The politicians have expressed their fear that the era of dictatorship in Ethiopia will be elongated rather than culminated.
Their fear arose from the fact that all opposition parties were rendered inoperative by systematic harassment, intimidation, and harassment. This has been lucidly stated by leaders of opposition parties who were soft on the dictatorial regime of Meles Zenawi. The main opposition, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party, the leaders of which were incarcerated nearly for two years, has also been rendered inoperative. This party which won the hearts and minds of the majority people of Ethiopia through its democratic and national unity programs as opposed to the parochial or ethnic-based backward programs of the tribalist regime has been severely oppressed and pushed out of the game. The much-hoped party has also faced internal division which also contributed to its further disintegration, present-day politics in Ethiopia doesn’t offer hope or optimism. As in the Derge era the county is sliding back to authoritarian system. In this piece of writing an attempt is made to scan some elections made in some continents vis-à-vis the Ethiopian local elections still underway.
As many national elections were held in many countries of the world, the year 2008 can be dubbed as a year of elections. There was an election in Russia, but President Putin made a slight change in the hierarchy by simply transferring himself from the presidency to the position of the premiership. In this election the opposition was defeated by overt and covert means employed by the government to make them out of the political game.
In a similar vein, a parliamentary election was held in Iran, the now most feared country by the West for its nuclear proliferation program and its strong support to radical Muslims. Again opposition candidates were technically barred from being elected because of their liberal views on radical Islam. As a result, the incumbent president was proclaimed to be the winner thereby closing the door against the opposition party.
In the USA, fierce competition is underway especially between senators Clinton and Obama to become the next president. There will be a winner among the three American presidential contenders after few months but that wouldn’t be through foul means as in the other countries where there is no democracy and rule of law.
When we turn our attention to Africa, in May 2005, in Ethiopia, a national election was held across the country and was described as the best of its kind in the political history of the country. This was because it involved opposition parties, local and international observers. However, the much touted historic election ultimately turned out to be a fiasco when the regime stole the election result, and subsequently committed unparalleled brutality on demonstrators who opposed the rigging of the election. To date, 193 peaceful demonstrators have been gunned down by the snipers of the regime in the streets of Addis Ababa. These victims paid the highest sacrifice for freedom and democratic rights of the people of Ethiopia. As if that were not enough, more than 50,000 supporters of the main opposition party have been incarcerated by the regime in different concentration camps in the countryside. A European journalist described this gross violation of human rights as unparalleled since the end of Apartheid era in South Africa. Dozens of opposition party leaders and private newspaper journalists were imprisoned for nearly two years under trumped up high treason charges. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the judiciary and Election Board are not neutral in Ethiopia.
According to a recent interview of an opposition leader who was released a few months ago from prison, there are still many political prisoners awaiting verdicts by the kangaroo court of the tribalist regime. I shall come later to the issue of election in Ethiopia, but now let me turn your attention to the other recently held elections in Africa where similar situations occurred.
In Africa, recently elections were held in Nigeria, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Although General Obasanjo did not want to relinquish power, the parliament of the country, however, resolved the problem by denying the General to satisfy his insatiable interest for power. Hence, the election in Nigeria, one of the advanced countries in Africa, was concluded with a peaceful transition.
But in Kenya, a country considered for a long time by the West to be a bearer of democracy in Africa, the election result turned out to be bloody. More than 1,500 people have died and many thousands have been displaced from their residential areas.
Thanks to Mr. Koffi Anan, however, the problem seems to be over. By the way, Mr. Koffi Anan didn’t make a similar negotiation effort to solve the election crisis in Ethiopia at a time when he was Secretary General of the UN. Mr. Koffi Anan was at the economic commission for Africa in Ethiopia before he became Secretary General of the UN. He is very familiar with the residents of Addis Ababa, but unfortunately he didn't extend help to solve one of their greatest problems. As if adding fuel to the fire, Mr. Koffi Annan ignored the request of Ethiopian-Americans to mediate between the government and the opposition party.
The election crisis in Zimbabwe is unprecedented in the history of present-day Africa. President Mugabe, the founding father of the nation who led the protracted struggle against British colonial rule, is at his peak period in his life (84 years old) for retirement. He ruled the country for twenty eight years which is a very long period by any measure of public service. So what does he want? To be a cause of public unrest, bloodshed, social and economic disaster like the one that occurred in Kenya a few months ago?
Turning attention to the local counties election in Ethiopia the first of which was held on April 13 and the next on April 20, 2008, they are simply orchestrated dramas made by the regime to continue holding onto power by all means possible. The regime is still in shock which it had received as a result of the absolute and determined vote made by the residents of Addis Ababa and other urban areas against the regime two years ago during the national election. According to some political analysts, the shock experienced by the regime began to be felt earlier before the election ballot when the residents of Addis Ababa had shown a strong support to opposition parties in a huge rally at the biggest square in Addis Ababa. That was a water shade in the political history of the country regarding the will to establish a democratic system as opposed to a dictatorship exercised by the regime.
This situation, among others, was the one which led the regime to brutally murder the residents of Addis Ababa, who, for the first time since the downfall of the communist system which reigned for seventeen years, have shown strong struggle in defense of their freedoms and political rights. The regime, instead of turning its attention to a peaceful and normal political activity, has continued its roller coaster move and the overall situation in the country has receded. It is in this gloomy situation, a dark period in the political history of the country, now the drama of the local elections are being held. All opposition parties, which had even tried to be loyal to the regime, have boycotted the election describing the nefarious intimidation activities by the regime. Hence, the election underway, conducted under a single party, signals the emergence of the well-calculated plan by the regime to strengthen dictatorship under the name “Developmental State” described by some scholars as crap.
In my lifetime, I saw such orchestration during the brutal military regime of Mengistu. One time, there were only single candidates, and the people of Addis Ababa were forced to endorse the election drama. This kind of election, both the past and the present, should have been termed not an election but an indirect appointment by the regimes.
In such situations, in the countries mentioned earlier such as Russia, Iran, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia, to name just a few, what is the role of the international community, the advanced democratic countries? Can they help out in redressing the imbalance? It is unlikely.
The defence of human rights during the past few years seems to be lukewarm. All the democratic countries are not vocal in their defense against violations of human rights these days. For them, business first, has become the order of the day. They are also facing stiff resistance by the economic giants such as China and other Asian countries. In the past few years, these countries which are oppressive and anti-democratic in both their behaviour and practice, began to defy the voice of democratic countries. As a result, many democratic countries are now turning their strategies from confrontation to a constructive engagement. This is especially true for China, a country known for its continual gross violations of human rights. The current crackdown on Tibetan people by Chinese rulers is a case in point.
In fact, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and my home land, Ethiopia, are weaker in terms of economies. They are poor countries.
Zimbabwe had a glorious past; Kenya has been known for its strong economy and political system, a model in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia has been known for its dependence on the West, especially the USA. Therefore, if western countries have the will or the desire to defend democratic rights, they can put pressure on the government of Ethiopia to bring change. They can withhold financial assistance, put on trade embargos, and curtail cultural exchanges such as sports events.
The one point which is often mentioned in the case of Ethiopia vis avis its relation with the West, especially the US, is strong alliance against radical Muslims. I am not against the alliance. As I stated earlier, in one of my articles, Ethiopia has always been in alliance with the West, both during the Second World War and the Cold War period. There is nothing new with the alliance. But the question is, can't the USA, the champion, the arch-bearer of democratic rights, make the regime of Meles Zenawi understand and make at least a political and economic reform necessary for the day. The same can be said of the European Union. It seems that policy makers of the US and EU know that both Meles Zenawi and his party, the so called Revolutionary Democratic Front, are not indispensable. They have seen with their own eyes that the opposition parties which have many scholars, many of whom had undergone their education in different universities in the USA, can be alternatives.
So why can't fighting against radical Muslims and support for democracy go together? Are they anti-thesis to each other? There shouldn't be a dilemma on this issue which concerns the lives of the seventy million Ethiopians. If the current and the coming US administrations can't resolve the chronic crisis of democratic rights in Ethiopia, they will lose the friendship of the people of Ethiopia.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Abebe Bikila, A Man of Indispensible Personality with Priceless Result
by Lulseged Bekele, Ethiopian Olympic Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1995
Ordinarily, no one takes much notice when a new athlete enters into the spotlight. But when the Ethiopian athlete showed up for the second time in the Rome Olympics, in 1960, everyone was caught by surprise for one clear reason: the bare-footed Abebe Bikila emerged winner in the most grueling marathon race with a time of 2:15:16.2 which was a new world best by a less than a second while the dethroned record holder Emile Zatopek of Czechoslovakia, finished fifth.
Even more so, unlike all his predecessors from 1908 to 1960 who were on the brink of collapse and fell several times before officials helped them cross the line, Abebe made it with style adding a couple of laps and some fitness exercise. For instance, Italy’s Dorado Pietre finished in 2:54:46.4 with the help of officials.
The victory of Abebe in Rome is special to Ethiopia in at least one thing: as Reuter Dispatch sarcastically put it, once again Ethiopia emerged winner, bare-footed, on the sil of Rome. This was to remind the world that the Ethiopians have won over Italians during the resistance movement.
The Rome Olympic Marathon race had also four special qualities: it was the first to start and end outside the stadium, the first to be won by a black African and the first where a bare-footed athlete won.
In light of this Abebe’s victory was a history for the whole of Africa too since Africa’s first participation in the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games where only Ghana and Nigeria were present, Abebe’s gold medal was the only reward that Africa earned.
Abebe’s victory didn’t stop in Rome. Four years later, in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. he emerged a comfortable winner by setting yet another new world record at 2:12:11.2. Abebe, as a result, became the first marathoner in the history of the Olympic Games to break his own record in the marathon. As a matter of fact, Abebe would have had a third victory in Mexico in 1968, but injury prevented him from completing the competition.
One finds it difficult to tell the birth date of an individual in a country where birth certificates are little know. Abebe’s case is no exception. As we have witnessed, different sources give him different birth dates. Examples: the official source says that he was 28 when he won gold in Rome in 1960. According to this source, he was born in 1932. The English Merha Sport issue of January 1, 1989, took it back to 1928. It is generally agreed that he was born on the 5th of September 1933.
He was born in North Shoa at a place called Jetto Bina Deneba near Debre Berhan from his father Bikila Demissie and mother Woodenesh Beneberu. Abebe grew up with his brother Kinfu Bikila and sister Aschaletch Temtime. Like many in the country, he spent his early ages herding cattle and helping his parents. As he grew up he showed an interest in Guggs (traditional horse racing), Hokey Games, etc.
His athletic talents were best seen upon his entry into the Imperial Body Guard in 1953. Oddly enough, it is confirmed, Abebe was dropped from enrolment in the army in 1948 due to his youngish age after five days of stay at the military camp. In 1957, he got married to Miss Yewubdar W/Giorogis and was to have six children, of whom two died.
Abebe was paralysed from the waist down for the rest of his life in a car accident which occurred while driving back home from Sheno to Addis Ababa on the 14th of March 1968. He was flown to London to the Stockmandville Hospital.
Interestingly enough, though confined to a wheelchair, his athletic prowess never came to an end. He completed in archery and won special prizes in the 25 km and 10 km stage race in Britain and Norway. He died on October 25, 1973, at the Imperial Body Guard Hospital and buried the next day at St. Joseph Church in the presence of the former Emperor Haile Selassie.
But despite his untimely death, the great Abebe Bikila is survived by his four children: Dawit 28, Tsige 25, Yetnayet 22, and Teferia 20.
In his eight years athletic career, he scored several spectacular victories.
Melaku says:
Following the footsteps of Abebe Bikila, many young athletic heroes, such as Miruth Yifter, Haile Gebreselassie, and Kenesa Bekele, Derartu Tulu, Gete Wami, and many others, made athletics a sports tradition of Ethiopia.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Some Comparative Studies on Press Freedom in Ethiopia
by Melaku Tegegne
In this article, I would like to compare the press freedom of Ethiopia with that of Russia, China, and North Korea.
Press Freedom in Russia
Time Magazine, in its special edition devoted to Vladimir Putin – Person of the Year 2007 – revealed the grim picture of press freedom in Russia “today, for example, the Russian government doesn’t just have supporters at the national television stations; it owns the stations outright. In a meeting at the Kremlin before I began my trip, Putin’s spokesman didn’t even try to deny that national news was slanted in the government’s favour. But he said the regional media were thriving and independent. ‘Study them,’ he said, and ‘you will understand that this is the freest country in the world.’”
The freest country in the world? Sarcastic at its best. On this point, the journalist who wrote the article went on to say that: “I met journalists throughout my travels and found the Kremlin’s assessment disingenuous at best. In America, you are free to criticize Bush, a television talk-show host told me in his kitchen in Novogorod, wrote the journalist and added ‘Me, too. I am also free to criticize Bush.’ He laughed. Then, not smiling, he said, ‘I am actually scared to be talking to you. Time Magazine is far away. But if I express my opinions, I will have to face the authorities – not Putin, but someone here on a local or provincial level. I will lose my job.’”
The writer states that the will of the central government is well understood by the officials at all levels of the government – how to silence dissenting views or opinions – and gave it the name “grass-roots autocracy”. Noting further, he says, “This is a new phenomenon in the post-Soviet era, but in the words of the talk-show host, Russians have “historical experience” of voluntarily and enthusiastically carrying out the perceived will of the supreme leader.
This heavy-handed action or a subtle method of restraint on the press freedom in Russia was given justification that in the 1990s there was much freedom of the press, and the purpose of the whole exercise now is to “systematize political discourse”. Again it is an ironical statement made against freedom of expression. Briefly stated, the press freedom or freedom of expression in Russia at present is meant only to serve the interests of the new ruling class. The majority people of Russia are deprived one of their basic rights.
The same applies to my homeland, Ethiopia. The principal of the governing law of the press, which is often not expressly stated, is the same as the Russian (unwritten) law. The unwritten law in both cases is “the will of the ruling elite”. The only difference between the two is that in Ethiopia, ideology is added. There is what they call “revolutionary democracy”, reminiscent of Marxism and Leninism. So freedom of expression falls under these two foul practices – ideology and hidden will of the ruling elite. Hence, any journalist who tries to counter both the expressed and unexpressed will of the ruling elite group is knocked out by legal or forced means. That is why many Ethiopian journalists of the private press have been incarcerated, thrown out of jobs, or forced to flee the country.
In Russia, in the past few years, many journalists have been killed in a mysterious way, as stated in Time Magazine, referred to above. But the question is that how can the deaths of journalists, who have respected places in society, be mysterious for a government like Russia which has a very strong security system, a sophisticated means of control?
The nefarious practice in the case of Ethiopia is that the few mass media are now largely controlled and staffed by kinsmen and women of the Prime Minister. Just to mention one example, when I left Ethiopia in 2001, Assefa Bekele, was head of Ethiopian Television. During the previous military regime, both of us were ordinary reporters; I was at Addis Zemen newspaper, and he was at Ethiopian TV. Assefa became head of Ethiopian TV during the time of the new government, not because of his exceptional talent or merit, but because of nepotism: he is a kinsman of the ruling elite.
This is naked tribalism or racism based upon nepotism or abuse of state power. This kind of nepotism was imitated by the Prime Minister and his cohorts from the late Somali dictator, Ziad Barre. He gave all the higher echelons of the government to his kinsmen and women from the Merihan clan. This nefarious practice by the present government of Ethiopia is practiced in all government ministries, commissions, agencies, military institutions, higher education institutions, etc. In all places, one can find “a guardian angel”, a watchdog of the ruling elite. It is very sad to see such a tribalistic situation in one of the ancient countries of the world in the 21st century,
Press Freedom in China
Under the title “Ruthless Media Manipulation”, the Economist Magazine in its special issue of December 22, 2007, (page 124), states how Mao, the founder of modern China, manipulated the media.
Chairman Mao had his “Little Red Book”, a guide to the ideology to be followed by the country. Meles Zenawi authored a voluminous draft work – 700 pages – called “Revolutionary Democracy”, an ideology book for the 21st century of Ethiopia. He wrote the book in 2001 during a crisis period that he faced from his closest friends, founders of his liberation movement. The draft was not published in a book form, which is in some ways good for circumventing the wider dissemination of the ideology throughout the country.
Let me add one more point.
Like Chairman Mao, PM Meles has established a system where he can only talk to a very select group of journalists. The former Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam, had also a similar fashion. These select groups of journalists are either cadres or kinsmen and women of the government officials of the day.
Press Freedom in North Korea
I visited North Korea in 1989, during the International Festival of Youth and Students, representing young Ethiopian journalists. In my stay with the delegation of the Ethiopian youth and students, numbering 150 persons, I observed that in North Korea, there are no BBC, CNN, CBC, ABC, CBS, or any other international radio, TV, magazines, or newspapers. It is a closed system to the outside world. In the international news broadcasts on North Korean TV, one can listen to their version of international news, which is heavily biased in favour of the Communist state. Even our music cassettes and players were taken by the security at Pyongyang airport and returned to us when we went back home.
I saw very few books on shelves, and these books are nothing but portray the juche ideology ("man is the master of everything and decides everything") architected by the late Korean leader, Kim Il Sun. There are also some books written by the current leader, Kim Jong Il. He was praised as the guardian of journalism and the arts.
I mentioned the North Korean experience in press freedom to make a direct link with the current trends in Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi is quickly moving towards the Korean style of suppressing news and information from the international media. Latest reports indicate that the regime blocked the two radio stations based in Washington, DC, and Cologne, Germany, broadcasting in three Ethiopian languages. It also blocked pro-democracy web sites. It has become also a public secret that the regime wiretaps telephone lines of persons who have dissenting views. This simply shows that the Meles regime wants to deny the 70 million people of Ethiopia of the right to information. Following such irresponsible anti-democratic practice, the regime can only drag the all-round development of the country. Without press freedom, free opinion, and ideas, it is inconceivable to envisage a better Ethiopia.
Spin Doctors
In Ethiopia, there are four main spin doctors who manipulate the dissemination of domestic and foreign information. At the forefront comes Bereket Simon, Public Relations Advisor of the Prime Minister. Well known by his notorious activities in the election in 2005, Bereket Simon has rigged the election by illegally knocking out his competitor from the main opposition party and has managed to give interviews to the main international media such as the BBC and CNN. Bereket speaks broken English and this made him a laughing stock among many Ethiopians in the diaspora. How can a person who is not versatile with foreign language, especially English, be a Public Relations Minister?
The second spin doctor is Dr Tekeda Alemu. He is the Deputy Foreign Minister and speechwriter of Meles Zenawi. He spins all the information relating to foreign relations of the country. Although a sophisticated scholar, he lacks integrity and is a well-known opportunist. He is responsible for tarnishing the image of the country, for he has always been providing unsound advice to his bosses, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, who lack professionalism, foresight, and wisdom as he does.
Berhan Hailu, the Minister of Information, is the third spin doctor. However, like his predecessor, Bereket Simon, he is also poor in English. It is indeed shameful to see such people in ministerial positions representing the people of Ethiopia in the 21st century.
The last person whom I would like to mention is Wahide Belay, my former colleague at the Ottawa Embassy. He is now the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I laughed when I heard him speaking about the Human Rights and Democracy Act of Ethiopia, a document which was unanimously passed by the US Congress advocating the protection of human rights, as a document which undermines the sovereignty of the country. He said the document considers Ethiopia as one of the 52 states of the USA. Ridiculous, indeed. A twisted argument, lacking any rationality.
In short, as I stated earlier, the current regime is heading fast towards the suppression of free opinion at the mainstream media and academic institutions. It is worrisome indeed to hear nowadays that professors and doctors in academia are signing their contractual agreements by entering oaths of allegiance not to criticize the political system of the country, which is naked tribalism; this does not augur well for the all round development and progress of the country.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne@hotmail.com. Please visit his blog, Issues in Focus, at http://issues-in-focus.blogspot.com/
In this article, I would like to compare the press freedom of Ethiopia with that of Russia, China, and North Korea.
Press Freedom in Russia
Time Magazine, in its special edition devoted to Vladimir Putin – Person of the Year 2007 – revealed the grim picture of press freedom in Russia “today, for example, the Russian government doesn’t just have supporters at the national television stations; it owns the stations outright. In a meeting at the Kremlin before I began my trip, Putin’s spokesman didn’t even try to deny that national news was slanted in the government’s favour. But he said the regional media were thriving and independent. ‘Study them,’ he said, and ‘you will understand that this is the freest country in the world.’”
The freest country in the world? Sarcastic at its best. On this point, the journalist who wrote the article went on to say that: “I met journalists throughout my travels and found the Kremlin’s assessment disingenuous at best. In America, you are free to criticize Bush, a television talk-show host told me in his kitchen in Novogorod, wrote the journalist and added ‘Me, too. I am also free to criticize Bush.’ He laughed. Then, not smiling, he said, ‘I am actually scared to be talking to you. Time Magazine is far away. But if I express my opinions, I will have to face the authorities – not Putin, but someone here on a local or provincial level. I will lose my job.’”
The writer states that the will of the central government is well understood by the officials at all levels of the government – how to silence dissenting views or opinions – and gave it the name “grass-roots autocracy”. Noting further, he says, “This is a new phenomenon in the post-Soviet era, but in the words of the talk-show host, Russians have “historical experience” of voluntarily and enthusiastically carrying out the perceived will of the supreme leader.
This heavy-handed action or a subtle method of restraint on the press freedom in Russia was given justification that in the 1990s there was much freedom of the press, and the purpose of the whole exercise now is to “systematize political discourse”. Again it is an ironical statement made against freedom of expression. Briefly stated, the press freedom or freedom of expression in Russia at present is meant only to serve the interests of the new ruling class. The majority people of Russia are deprived one of their basic rights.
The same applies to my homeland, Ethiopia. The principal of the governing law of the press, which is often not expressly stated, is the same as the Russian (unwritten) law. The unwritten law in both cases is “the will of the ruling elite”. The only difference between the two is that in Ethiopia, ideology is added. There is what they call “revolutionary democracy”, reminiscent of Marxism and Leninism. So freedom of expression falls under these two foul practices – ideology and hidden will of the ruling elite. Hence, any journalist who tries to counter both the expressed and unexpressed will of the ruling elite group is knocked out by legal or forced means. That is why many Ethiopian journalists of the private press have been incarcerated, thrown out of jobs, or forced to flee the country.
In Russia, in the past few years, many journalists have been killed in a mysterious way, as stated in Time Magazine, referred to above. But the question is that how can the deaths of journalists, who have respected places in society, be mysterious for a government like Russia which has a very strong security system, a sophisticated means of control?
The nefarious practice in the case of Ethiopia is that the few mass media are now largely controlled and staffed by kinsmen and women of the Prime Minister. Just to mention one example, when I left Ethiopia in 2001, Assefa Bekele, was head of Ethiopian Television. During the previous military regime, both of us were ordinary reporters; I was at Addis Zemen newspaper, and he was at Ethiopian TV. Assefa became head of Ethiopian TV during the time of the new government, not because of his exceptional talent or merit, but because of nepotism: he is a kinsman of the ruling elite.
This is naked tribalism or racism based upon nepotism or abuse of state power. This kind of nepotism was imitated by the Prime Minister and his cohorts from the late Somali dictator, Ziad Barre. He gave all the higher echelons of the government to his kinsmen and women from the Merihan clan. This nefarious practice by the present government of Ethiopia is practiced in all government ministries, commissions, agencies, military institutions, higher education institutions, etc. In all places, one can find “a guardian angel”, a watchdog of the ruling elite. It is very sad to see such a tribalistic situation in one of the ancient countries of the world in the 21st century,
Press Freedom in China
Under the title “Ruthless Media Manipulation”, the Economist Magazine in its special issue of December 22, 2007, (page 124), states how Mao, the founder of modern China, manipulated the media.
Chairman Mao had his “Little Red Book”, a guide to the ideology to be followed by the country. Meles Zenawi authored a voluminous draft work – 700 pages – called “Revolutionary Democracy”, an ideology book for the 21st century of Ethiopia. He wrote the book in 2001 during a crisis period that he faced from his closest friends, founders of his liberation movement. The draft was not published in a book form, which is in some ways good for circumventing the wider dissemination of the ideology throughout the country.
Let me add one more point.
Like Chairman Mao, PM Meles has established a system where he can only talk to a very select group of journalists. The former Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam, had also a similar fashion. These select groups of journalists are either cadres or kinsmen and women of the government officials of the day.
Press Freedom in North Korea
I visited North Korea in 1989, during the International Festival of Youth and Students, representing young Ethiopian journalists. In my stay with the delegation of the Ethiopian youth and students, numbering 150 persons, I observed that in North Korea, there are no BBC, CNN, CBC, ABC, CBS, or any other international radio, TV, magazines, or newspapers. It is a closed system to the outside world. In the international news broadcasts on North Korean TV, one can listen to their version of international news, which is heavily biased in favour of the Communist state. Even our music cassettes and players were taken by the security at Pyongyang airport and returned to us when we went back home.
I saw very few books on shelves, and these books are nothing but portray the juche ideology ("man is the master of everything and decides everything") architected by the late Korean leader, Kim Il Sun. There are also some books written by the current leader, Kim Jong Il. He was praised as the guardian of journalism and the arts.
I mentioned the North Korean experience in press freedom to make a direct link with the current trends in Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi is quickly moving towards the Korean style of suppressing news and information from the international media. Latest reports indicate that the regime blocked the two radio stations based in Washington, DC, and Cologne, Germany, broadcasting in three Ethiopian languages. It also blocked pro-democracy web sites. It has become also a public secret that the regime wiretaps telephone lines of persons who have dissenting views. This simply shows that the Meles regime wants to deny the 70 million people of Ethiopia of the right to information. Following such irresponsible anti-democratic practice, the regime can only drag the all-round development of the country. Without press freedom, free opinion, and ideas, it is inconceivable to envisage a better Ethiopia.
Spin Doctors
In Ethiopia, there are four main spin doctors who manipulate the dissemination of domestic and foreign information. At the forefront comes Bereket Simon, Public Relations Advisor of the Prime Minister. Well known by his notorious activities in the election in 2005, Bereket Simon has rigged the election by illegally knocking out his competitor from the main opposition party and has managed to give interviews to the main international media such as the BBC and CNN. Bereket speaks broken English and this made him a laughing stock among many Ethiopians in the diaspora. How can a person who is not versatile with foreign language, especially English, be a Public Relations Minister?
The second spin doctor is Dr Tekeda Alemu. He is the Deputy Foreign Minister and speechwriter of Meles Zenawi. He spins all the information relating to foreign relations of the country. Although a sophisticated scholar, he lacks integrity and is a well-known opportunist. He is responsible for tarnishing the image of the country, for he has always been providing unsound advice to his bosses, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, who lack professionalism, foresight, and wisdom as he does.
Berhan Hailu, the Minister of Information, is the third spin doctor. However, like his predecessor, Bereket Simon, he is also poor in English. It is indeed shameful to see such people in ministerial positions representing the people of Ethiopia in the 21st century.
The last person whom I would like to mention is Wahide Belay, my former colleague at the Ottawa Embassy. He is now the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I laughed when I heard him speaking about the Human Rights and Democracy Act of Ethiopia, a document which was unanimously passed by the US Congress advocating the protection of human rights, as a document which undermines the sovereignty of the country. He said the document considers Ethiopia as one of the 52 states of the USA. Ridiculous, indeed. A twisted argument, lacking any rationality.
In short, as I stated earlier, the current regime is heading fast towards the suppression of free opinion at the mainstream media and academic institutions. It is worrisome indeed to hear nowadays that professors and doctors in academia are signing their contractual agreements by entering oaths of allegiance not to criticize the political system of the country, which is naked tribalism; this does not augur well for the all round development and progress of the country.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne@hotmail.com. Please visit his blog, Issues in Focus, at http://issues-in-focus.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
How Press Freedom Is Muzzled in Ethiopia
by Melaku Tegegne
Freedom of Speech is probably the phrase with the longest tradition. Freedom of speech addresses the ability of individuals to communicate ideas and information without interference with the state. When we talk about interference by the state as a legal notion, we are referring to the imposition of prior restraint.
Freedom of speech has typically meant the freedom to publish – publish being used here in its widest possible meaning, as writing, speaking, printing, or broadcasting ideas and information – without prior restraint imposed by the state.
In 1832, McKenzie King, a former Primer Minister of Canada, wrote: “Remember that wherever the press is not free, the people are poor, abject, degraded, slaves, that the press is the life, the safeguard, the very heart’s blood of a free country.”
Article 29 of the Ethiopian Constitution provides:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without any interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression without interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through other media of his choice.”
Unfortunately, this well-intentioned constitutional right has been muzzled and effectively gagged since the National Election for Parliament in 2005 and the turbulent period that followed as a result of the popular demonstration of the people of Addis Ababa against the regime. The muzzling of the Ethiopian press by the Meles regime has been well illustrated by the symbolic handcuffed presentation made by Kifle Mulat, my former colleague and president of the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association. About Kifle Mulat’s has played a prominent role in the struggle for the restoration of press freedom in Ethiopia.
Twists and Turns in the Press Freedom
When I was a high school student in Addis Ababa, during the last years of Emperor Haile Selassie, there was a relative period of freedom of the press. Although there was a strict censorship by the government officials on the press, and sometimes rebuke and suspension of some vocal journalists against the government, there was not a single journalist who was imprisoned or killed as is a common phenomenon now. The late veteran journalist author, Berhanu Zerihun, the other veteran editor in chief and playwright Negash Gebre Mariam and the other prolific writer and head of the Press Department, Mulugeta Lule, had told the people of Ethiopia on several occasions that there was no severe repression by the government of the Emperor.
Also in that relative period of press freedom, many books, dime novels, some magazines, and private newspapers were published. The majority of the authors of these works were the journalists themselves. Berhanu Zerihun was one of them. The other rising star was journalist author Bealu Girma, who was later murdered by the security agents of dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, because of his critical writing against both the officials of the regime and the totalitarian system prevalent in the country then. Bealu, in his last book “Oromai”, predicted the separation of Eritrea. This angered the dictator Mengistu and his spin doctors and led them to a paranoid decision to execute the beloved author.
In short, the period of Emperor Haile Selassie, the last emperor of Ethiopia, can be characterized as a period of relative freedom of the press and people were much happier than now.
The Derg Era
I can write many pages, if readers don’t get bored, about the press freedom during the Derg (the military government) of 1974-1991. I worked in two departments, the Ethiopian Television and the Ethiopian Press, as an assistant cameraman and a journalist for 12 years. It is quite a long time. The veteran journalist, prolific writer, and Head of the Ethiopian Press Department, Mulugeta Lule; my roommate, the vibrant sports writer and editor, Abraha Belai, now the Ethiomedia.com webmaster, were among the journalists with whom I worked.
Coming to the main point, press freedom during the Derg military regime was not only highly controlled but was also framed along socialist ideology and politics. There was not an iota of freedom of conscience for the journalists. We had no right to freely express our opinion, sentiments, or ideas. When I used to write feature articles, most often I was told by the editor in chief or by one of the senior editors to include certain points in the article that would reflect the ideology and policy of the government. Hence, the press was guided and controlled so much so as not to open any conduit for contrary ideas.
On the other hand, the period of the military government was characterized as a favourable period for translation works and some original works. Many young translators and writers had cropped up in that period. In this regard, the censorship was loose. Even many works of Sydney Sheldon, a well known author for romantic books, were let loose and sold in tens of thousands in the capital city and in some major urban areas of the country.
Contrary to this happy development, however, all the rank and file journalists were not allowed to read international magazines and newspapers such as Time, Newsweek, International Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. All these magazines were always meant for the “eyes” of the high officials of the regime and department heads at the Ministry of Information. It seems that they had a fear that bad news would leak out to the public if the magazines or newspapers were allowed to be read by ordinary journalists.
To sum up, the period during the military regime was not good for press freedom or the media (there were no private newspapers, radio, or TV stations) but was good for fictional and non-fictional works, mainly imported books. As it was also a war period, we journalists had a strong fear for our lives and for our daily livelihoods. I, for one, spent 12 years of my young adulthood as a journalist in that particular period. However, when I look back on that period, sometimes I tend to think that the job I had done was not only dangerous but thankless as well. There was no freedom of expression and the whole exercise was a futile one for it has not satisfied the interests of anybody and the writer himself.
The Last Seventeen Years
In the last 17 years (1991-2008), I was away from journalism. I joined the Foreign Ministry in May 1991, twenty days ahead of the overthrow of the military regime by the rebel forces. I wanted to join the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was considered to be a place of rare opportunity in a poor country like ours, mainly because I was a graduate of political science and international relations. Coupled with my journalistic training and work for a considerable number of years, my candidacy for a job at the Foreign Ministry received a quick response.
Hence, my first hand experience in journalism had shifted to foreign policy and diplomacy. I often focused on foreign policy matters, mainly the policy on neighbouring countries. The first years of the transition period were highly taxing. Everything had to start from scratch.
Coming back to the press issue, at the beginning of the transition period, the first years after 1991, the propaganda made by the journalists of the new regime was heavily laden with strong hatred against officials of the fallen regime and their cadres. This was not surprising. The surprising thing, however, was that the government controlled-press, radio, and TV stations often broadcast a hammered and systematized propaganda, tinged with race, against the Amharas. It was a subtle move by the leaders of the new regime, mainly crafted by the then President, now the Prime Minister. The catchwords were nefetegna, timkihitegna, that is to say “oppressors and chauvinists” – aimed at the Amharas, whose ancestors ruled the country for the previous 100 years.
The ideologists of this poisonous propaganda do not want to or cannot remember the 1000 year span of rule by the Sabeans and the Axumites, the ancestors of the PM and his ethnic group. Be that as it may, among some of the encouraging achievements made by the current regime before 2005, a heyday of the press freedom, was the annulment or the cancellation of censorship and permit for the establishment of private newspapers and magazines. After the transition period, newspapers and magazines mushroomed in the capital city due to the loose control by the government. However, practical problems cropped up regarding the functioning of the Ethiopian press.
When many of the private newspapers and magazines became highly critical of the current regime and its political system, which is revolutionary democracy in name and tribal politics in action, the officials, including the Prime Minister, effectively began to deny information to the private press. This was unconstitutional. However, they ignored the articles in the Constitution and continued to practice restraint in a subtle way. In effect, it was back to square one, like the period in the military regime. Like dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, the new dictator, Meles Zenawi, began giving press interviews to very few selected journalists to avoid controversial or tough questions. This is a common practice today.
In addition, the regime turned more focus on the government and the few party-controlled newspapers and their radio station, Radio Fana. The government had also established a parallel news agency of its own, namely Walta Information Centre, to compete with the Ethiopian news agency, the oldest agency which had a strong public trust.
Frustrated by such systematic blockade of information by the government officials of the regime, the private press journalists shifted their attention to focussing on stories based on hearsay, secondary sources of information, and the foreign media. They became more critical and the government came to loggerheads with the private press, and finally resorted to military solutions giving it a cover as legal measures. As is to be recalled, in the wake of the 2005 National Election and the public demonstration that followed, more than a dozen journalists were incarcerated along with the leaders of the main opposition party. Not only this, but also their computers, cameras and other equipment were illegally confiscated after their offices were broken into and ransacked.
Between 2005-2007, for nearly two years, no less than 20 journalists were incarcerated, many fled the country and still more lost their jobs thereby leading a hard life in the country. Kifle Mulat, my former colleague and President of the Ethiopian private press, is still outside the country leaving behind his family in Addis Ababa. This is a dark period for the press freedom in Ethiopia. As long as the current anti-press freedom, anti-democracy, racist regime stays in power with its outdated socialist political system, press freedom in Ethiopia won’t become a reality. Hence, the people of Ethiopia inside and outside the country should continue their peaceful struggle for the prevalence of press freedom which was nipped in the bud by Meles Zenawi and his “revolutionary democrats”, anti-press freedom thugs.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne@hotmail.com. Please visit his blog, Issues in Focus, at http://issues-in-focus.blogspot.com/
Freedom of Speech is probably the phrase with the longest tradition. Freedom of speech addresses the ability of individuals to communicate ideas and information without interference with the state. When we talk about interference by the state as a legal notion, we are referring to the imposition of prior restraint.
Freedom of speech has typically meant the freedom to publish – publish being used here in its widest possible meaning, as writing, speaking, printing, or broadcasting ideas and information – without prior restraint imposed by the state.
In 1832, McKenzie King, a former Primer Minister of Canada, wrote: “Remember that wherever the press is not free, the people are poor, abject, degraded, slaves, that the press is the life, the safeguard, the very heart’s blood of a free country.”
Article 29 of the Ethiopian Constitution provides:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without any interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression without interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through other media of his choice.”
Unfortunately, this well-intentioned constitutional right has been muzzled and effectively gagged since the National Election for Parliament in 2005 and the turbulent period that followed as a result of the popular demonstration of the people of Addis Ababa against the regime. The muzzling of the Ethiopian press by the Meles regime has been well illustrated by the symbolic handcuffed presentation made by Kifle Mulat, my former colleague and president of the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association. About Kifle Mulat’s has played a prominent role in the struggle for the restoration of press freedom in Ethiopia.Twists and Turns in the Press Freedom
When I was a high school student in Addis Ababa, during the last years of Emperor Haile Selassie, there was a relative period of freedom of the press. Although there was a strict censorship by the government officials on the press, and sometimes rebuke and suspension of some vocal journalists against the government, there was not a single journalist who was imprisoned or killed as is a common phenomenon now. The late veteran journalist author, Berhanu Zerihun, the other veteran editor in chief and playwright Negash Gebre Mariam and the other prolific writer and head of the Press Department, Mulugeta Lule, had told the people of Ethiopia on several occasions that there was no severe repression by the government of the Emperor.
Also in that relative period of press freedom, many books, dime novels, some magazines, and private newspapers were published. The majority of the authors of these works were the journalists themselves. Berhanu Zerihun was one of them. The other rising star was journalist author Bealu Girma, who was later murdered by the security agents of dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, because of his critical writing against both the officials of the regime and the totalitarian system prevalent in the country then. Bealu, in his last book “Oromai”, predicted the separation of Eritrea. This angered the dictator Mengistu and his spin doctors and led them to a paranoid decision to execute the beloved author.
In short, the period of Emperor Haile Selassie, the last emperor of Ethiopia, can be characterized as a period of relative freedom of the press and people were much happier than now.
The Derg Era
I can write many pages, if readers don’t get bored, about the press freedom during the Derg (the military government) of 1974-1991. I worked in two departments, the Ethiopian Television and the Ethiopian Press, as an assistant cameraman and a journalist for 12 years. It is quite a long time. The veteran journalist, prolific writer, and Head of the Ethiopian Press Department, Mulugeta Lule; my roommate, the vibrant sports writer and editor, Abraha Belai, now the Ethiomedia.com webmaster, were among the journalists with whom I worked.
Coming to the main point, press freedom during the Derg military regime was not only highly controlled but was also framed along socialist ideology and politics. There was not an iota of freedom of conscience for the journalists. We had no right to freely express our opinion, sentiments, or ideas. When I used to write feature articles, most often I was told by the editor in chief or by one of the senior editors to include certain points in the article that would reflect the ideology and policy of the government. Hence, the press was guided and controlled so much so as not to open any conduit for contrary ideas.
On the other hand, the period of the military government was characterized as a favourable period for translation works and some original works. Many young translators and writers had cropped up in that period. In this regard, the censorship was loose. Even many works of Sydney Sheldon, a well known author for romantic books, were let loose and sold in tens of thousands in the capital city and in some major urban areas of the country.
Contrary to this happy development, however, all the rank and file journalists were not allowed to read international magazines and newspapers such as Time, Newsweek, International Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. All these magazines were always meant for the “eyes” of the high officials of the regime and department heads at the Ministry of Information. It seems that they had a fear that bad news would leak out to the public if the magazines or newspapers were allowed to be read by ordinary journalists.
To sum up, the period during the military regime was not good for press freedom or the media (there were no private newspapers, radio, or TV stations) but was good for fictional and non-fictional works, mainly imported books. As it was also a war period, we journalists had a strong fear for our lives and for our daily livelihoods. I, for one, spent 12 years of my young adulthood as a journalist in that particular period. However, when I look back on that period, sometimes I tend to think that the job I had done was not only dangerous but thankless as well. There was no freedom of expression and the whole exercise was a futile one for it has not satisfied the interests of anybody and the writer himself.
The Last Seventeen Years
In the last 17 years (1991-2008), I was away from journalism. I joined the Foreign Ministry in May 1991, twenty days ahead of the overthrow of the military regime by the rebel forces. I wanted to join the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was considered to be a place of rare opportunity in a poor country like ours, mainly because I was a graduate of political science and international relations. Coupled with my journalistic training and work for a considerable number of years, my candidacy for a job at the Foreign Ministry received a quick response.
Hence, my first hand experience in journalism had shifted to foreign policy and diplomacy. I often focused on foreign policy matters, mainly the policy on neighbouring countries. The first years of the transition period were highly taxing. Everything had to start from scratch.
Coming back to the press issue, at the beginning of the transition period, the first years after 1991, the propaganda made by the journalists of the new regime was heavily laden with strong hatred against officials of the fallen regime and their cadres. This was not surprising. The surprising thing, however, was that the government controlled-press, radio, and TV stations often broadcast a hammered and systematized propaganda, tinged with race, against the Amharas. It was a subtle move by the leaders of the new regime, mainly crafted by the then President, now the Prime Minister. The catchwords were nefetegna, timkihitegna, that is to say “oppressors and chauvinists” – aimed at the Amharas, whose ancestors ruled the country for the previous 100 years.
The ideologists of this poisonous propaganda do not want to or cannot remember the 1000 year span of rule by the Sabeans and the Axumites, the ancestors of the PM and his ethnic group. Be that as it may, among some of the encouraging achievements made by the current regime before 2005, a heyday of the press freedom, was the annulment or the cancellation of censorship and permit for the establishment of private newspapers and magazines. After the transition period, newspapers and magazines mushroomed in the capital city due to the loose control by the government. However, practical problems cropped up regarding the functioning of the Ethiopian press.
When many of the private newspapers and magazines became highly critical of the current regime and its political system, which is revolutionary democracy in name and tribal politics in action, the officials, including the Prime Minister, effectively began to deny information to the private press. This was unconstitutional. However, they ignored the articles in the Constitution and continued to practice restraint in a subtle way. In effect, it was back to square one, like the period in the military regime. Like dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, the new dictator, Meles Zenawi, began giving press interviews to very few selected journalists to avoid controversial or tough questions. This is a common practice today.In addition, the regime turned more focus on the government and the few party-controlled newspapers and their radio station, Radio Fana. The government had also established a parallel news agency of its own, namely Walta Information Centre, to compete with the Ethiopian news agency, the oldest agency which had a strong public trust.
Frustrated by such systematic blockade of information by the government officials of the regime, the private press journalists shifted their attention to focussing on stories based on hearsay, secondary sources of information, and the foreign media. They became more critical and the government came to loggerheads with the private press, and finally resorted to military solutions giving it a cover as legal measures. As is to be recalled, in the wake of the 2005 National Election and the public demonstration that followed, more than a dozen journalists were incarcerated along with the leaders of the main opposition party. Not only this, but also their computers, cameras and other equipment were illegally confiscated after their offices were broken into and ransacked.
Between 2005-2007, for nearly two years, no less than 20 journalists were incarcerated, many fled the country and still more lost their jobs thereby leading a hard life in the country. Kifle Mulat, my former colleague and President of the Ethiopian private press, is still outside the country leaving behind his family in Addis Ababa. This is a dark period for the press freedom in Ethiopia. As long as the current anti-press freedom, anti-democracy, racist regime stays in power with its outdated socialist political system, press freedom in Ethiopia won’t become a reality. Hence, the people of Ethiopia inside and outside the country should continue their peaceful struggle for the prevalence of press freedom which was nipped in the bud by Meles Zenawi and his “revolutionary democrats”, anti-press freedom thugs.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne@hotmail.com. Please visit his blog, Issues in Focus, at http://issues-in-focus.blogspot.com/
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Naked Agression Against a Neighbouring Country
My Position on the Involvement of Ethiopia in Somalia
by Melaku Tegegne
Meles Zenawi could have made a Rambo-style, quick and decisive victory in Somalia and got the job done. Instead, he decided that the Ethiopian soldiers continue for one year as an occupation force. As a result of this, thousands of innocent Somalis have been killed and a million Somalis have been displaced, causing untold suffering and the greatest human tragedy in the Horn of Africa. In this article, I strongly argue that the involvement of Ethiopian soldiers in Somalia is a naked aggression against a neighbouring stateless country.
As a high school student, I have witnessed the 1977-78 Ethio-Somalia war, the major regional war in the Horn of Africa then. I observed, for more than 3 hours, the military parade of 300,000 peasant militia trained in 3 month’s time and deployed to the eastern part of Ethiopia which was under the occupation of the forces of the Said Barre regime. The huge military parade took place in the capital city, Addis Ababa. That force had successfully dislodged and repulsed the aggression of Somalia. In that historic war of liberation, Russians, Cubans, and Yemeni troops had also participated. My second encounter with the Ethio-Somali affair was when I went as an assistant cameraman to the eastern part of the country in 1979. I helped the seasoned cameraman from Ethiopian TV to shoot films on the mock exercise of the dissident Somali group which finally ousted Said Barre from his power and liberated Somalia after a protracted decade-long war which lasted until 1991.
I never visited Mogadishu, the capital city of Somalia, when I was working as a desk officer in the Neighbouring Countries Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia in the early 1990s. However, I had the opportunity to share knowledge about Somalia in those days with a former colleague who was Somalia’s desk officer. Virtually, I had known the daily political, economic, social, and cultural situations in that poor country, which was torn apart by warlords.
Whenever I heard the daily clash between the various clans of Somalia (Darod, Isaac, Dulbahante,…), I was sympathetic to their plight, and the senseless fighting among themselves. Though they are intact in terms of ethnic group, one nation, same language, same religion, unlike Ethiopia, which is a multi-national country differing in religion and race, the Somalis, however, instead of forging national unity and establishing a central government, continued to fight each other for the last 16 years, dividing the country at least into three enclaves. One can recall the case of Puntland, the Mogadishu area, and the south divided and led by warlords. The warlords created havoc among their own different ethnic groups, fanning the glaring clan politics.
The Ethiopian officials, mainly led by the incumbent foreign minister and professor Kinfe Abraham, the president of the so-called Ethiopian International Institute of Peace and Development, encouraged and abetted the division of Somalia into North, South, East, and West enclaves with a sinister design to weaken the national unity of Somalia and impose an ethnic form of federalism as has been done in Ethiopia. Abdulahi Yusuf comes into the picture here. For the record, when I was in Addis Ababa, working at the Foreign Ministry 8 years ago, Abdulahi Yusuf made frequent visits, three times in less than six months. The reception given to him was very warm and he had cordial conversations with the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. Abdulahi Yusuf was a favourite among the other warlords whose allegiance has been divided between Kenya, Eritrea, Yemen, Libya, and Saudi Arabia.
As if that were not enough, the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments interfered in Somalian internal affairs thereby opening up a proxy war which was initiated as result of the border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Meles supported the group led by Abdullahi Yusuf, and Issais Afeworki (Eritrean president) supported the so-called Islamic Courts, a group of fanatics who wanted to establish an Islamic state rather than a secular state. Therefore Somalia became a showdown of Ethiopian and Eritrean forces. The proxy war was made just only for two weeks culminating in a decisive and stunning victory by the Ethiopian troops against the Islamist forces and their Eritrean backers. The defeated army was disarrayed; some of the Eritrean high-ranking military officials were forced to flee Somalia through Kenya.
As I stated in the beginning of my article, the war, rather the proxy war, and the showdown of the Ethio-Eritrean forces should have culminated a year ago. But unfortunately, on the part of Ethiopia, the defeating party, it has dragged on until such time now that it has resulted in an unnecessary human tragedy which would have a long-lasting effect between the relations of the two neighbouring countries.
The latest figures indicate that about a million Somalis have been displaced as a result of the war. It is a very sad event in the political history of not only Ethio-Somalia but the Horn of Africa in general. Who is to blame? Abdullahi Yusuf, the Islamic Courts, Meles or Issais? I believe the responsibility should be shared equally by all four parties. It is a mix of pretexts, proxy war, fanaticism and a policy of appeasement. However, the main reasons, to my understanding, are the proxy war and the manoeuvres taken by the Meles regime to turn the attention of the Ethiopian people from his domestic problems to the war in Somalia.
Meles Zenawi’s rationale behind sending about 15,000 soldiers to Somalia in early 2007, was due mainly to a “threat” against the sovereignty of Ethiopia by the so-called Islamic Courts which are believed to have a connection to Al-Qaeda. Though the Islamic Courts might have a hostile attitude to Ethiopia as a historical enemy, in reality, this small fanatic group with a small number of soldiers cannot pose a major threat to a big country like Ethiopia, which has a strong defence force, and more than 70 million people. Therefore, Meles’ rhetoric, both at the rubber stamp Parliament of Ethiopia and with the international media, was simply a pretext for turning the attention of the people of Ethiopia away from the popular struggle for a radical change for democracy towards the war.
Therefore the objective of the invasion of Somalia was simply made for political expediency, i.e., to save the government of Meles Zenawi from the strong movement for democracy by the people of Ethiopia, who have shown strong support for the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party, commonly known as CUDP. After arresting the leaders and more than 50,000 supporters of the opposition party, the regime turned its attention to Somalia, an underdog in the Horn of Africa.
So now the CUDP is in disarray and the other smaller opposition parties are not faring well. The CUDP has shown a fractious situation by falling apart from each other because of one factor or another. This situation creates happiness on the part of the ruling party.
Turning back to the question under discussion, why doesn’t Meles pull out his forces from Somalia especially at this time when Somalia’s affairs have become an international tragedy? He has already shown his power, and achieved his goal, deterring a perceived enemy. So then why doesn’t he order his forces to pack and return to Addis Ababa? I am of the opinion that it would be unwise to stay in Somalia in such a miserable situation and under international outcry.
On the other hand, I would like to state that I am against terrorist activity in the Horn of Africa, in particular, the Middle East, and South Asia in general. I am a strong supporter of the war against terrorism. However, Meles could have attacked the Islamic Courts with a raid or two, making a surgical operation or a limited strike, and pull back.
The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001 has amply demonstrated that terrorism is a threat to world civilization. The bombings of the American embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi and the American naval ship at the Yemeni calling station have also demonstrated that the intention of the terrorists is to destroy, not construct.
To come to my final point, the case of Somalia versus Ethiopia: Meles Zenawi could have shown his strong support to the USA and NATO member countries by deploying a considerable number of forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, of course under the sanction of the United Nations. Ethiopia’s historic alliance with the USA and the west in general is a public secret. The international community knows very well the role played by the Ethiopian soldiers in both Korea and Congo in the 1960s. Their indefatigable spirit, enthusiasm, patriotism had been remarkably appreciated by the UN agencies and the western world.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne@hotmail.com. Please visit his blog, Issues in Focus, at http://issues-in-focus.blogspot.com/
Sidebar
“… The global communications greed now necessitates policy decisions, actions, and communications on an almost equal instantaneous basis. If a world leader, a leader of a country, delays in responding to a widely known crisis situation, perhaps made visible through television, as image of prisoner of war camps did in Bosnia in 1992, he or she will likely look indecisive, weak, or worse in the international media and court of public opinion. Moreover, lack of rapid policy making or public diplomacy in this hyper-information environment can have significant economic implication.”
source: New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives, page 355, by John V. Pavlik.
by Melaku Tegegne
Meles Zenawi could have made a Rambo-style, quick and decisive victory in Somalia and got the job done. Instead, he decided that the Ethiopian soldiers continue for one year as an occupation force. As a result of this, thousands of innocent Somalis have been killed and a million Somalis have been displaced, causing untold suffering and the greatest human tragedy in the Horn of Africa. In this article, I strongly argue that the involvement of Ethiopian soldiers in Somalia is a naked aggression against a neighbouring stateless country.
As a high school student, I have witnessed the 1977-78 Ethio-Somalia war, the major regional war in the Horn of Africa then. I observed, for more than 3 hours, the military parade of 300,000 peasant militia trained in 3 month’s time and deployed to the eastern part of Ethiopia which was under the occupation of the forces of the Said Barre regime. The huge military parade took place in the capital city, Addis Ababa. That force had successfully dislodged and repulsed the aggression of Somalia. In that historic war of liberation, Russians, Cubans, and Yemeni troops had also participated. My second encounter with the Ethio-Somali affair was when I went as an assistant cameraman to the eastern part of the country in 1979. I helped the seasoned cameraman from Ethiopian TV to shoot films on the mock exercise of the dissident Somali group which finally ousted Said Barre from his power and liberated Somalia after a protracted decade-long war which lasted until 1991.
I never visited Mogadishu, the capital city of Somalia, when I was working as a desk officer in the Neighbouring Countries Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia in the early 1990s. However, I had the opportunity to share knowledge about Somalia in those days with a former colleague who was Somalia’s desk officer. Virtually, I had known the daily political, economic, social, and cultural situations in that poor country, which was torn apart by warlords.
Whenever I heard the daily clash between the various clans of Somalia (Darod, Isaac, Dulbahante,…), I was sympathetic to their plight, and the senseless fighting among themselves. Though they are intact in terms of ethnic group, one nation, same language, same religion, unlike Ethiopia, which is a multi-national country differing in religion and race, the Somalis, however, instead of forging national unity and establishing a central government, continued to fight each other for the last 16 years, dividing the country at least into three enclaves. One can recall the case of Puntland, the Mogadishu area, and the south divided and led by warlords. The warlords created havoc among their own different ethnic groups, fanning the glaring clan politics.
The Ethiopian officials, mainly led by the incumbent foreign minister and professor Kinfe Abraham, the president of the so-called Ethiopian International Institute of Peace and Development, encouraged and abetted the division of Somalia into North, South, East, and West enclaves with a sinister design to weaken the national unity of Somalia and impose an ethnic form of federalism as has been done in Ethiopia. Abdulahi Yusuf comes into the picture here. For the record, when I was in Addis Ababa, working at the Foreign Ministry 8 years ago, Abdulahi Yusuf made frequent visits, three times in less than six months. The reception given to him was very warm and he had cordial conversations with the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. Abdulahi Yusuf was a favourite among the other warlords whose allegiance has been divided between Kenya, Eritrea, Yemen, Libya, and Saudi Arabia.
As if that were not enough, the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments interfered in Somalian internal affairs thereby opening up a proxy war which was initiated as result of the border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Meles supported the group led by Abdullahi Yusuf, and Issais Afeworki (Eritrean president) supported the so-called Islamic Courts, a group of fanatics who wanted to establish an Islamic state rather than a secular state. Therefore Somalia became a showdown of Ethiopian and Eritrean forces. The proxy war was made just only for two weeks culminating in a decisive and stunning victory by the Ethiopian troops against the Islamist forces and their Eritrean backers. The defeated army was disarrayed; some of the Eritrean high-ranking military officials were forced to flee Somalia through Kenya.
As I stated in the beginning of my article, the war, rather the proxy war, and the showdown of the Ethio-Eritrean forces should have culminated a year ago. But unfortunately, on the part of Ethiopia, the defeating party, it has dragged on until such time now that it has resulted in an unnecessary human tragedy which would have a long-lasting effect between the relations of the two neighbouring countries.
The latest figures indicate that about a million Somalis have been displaced as a result of the war. It is a very sad event in the political history of not only Ethio-Somalia but the Horn of Africa in general. Who is to blame? Abdullahi Yusuf, the Islamic Courts, Meles or Issais? I believe the responsibility should be shared equally by all four parties. It is a mix of pretexts, proxy war, fanaticism and a policy of appeasement. However, the main reasons, to my understanding, are the proxy war and the manoeuvres taken by the Meles regime to turn the attention of the Ethiopian people from his domestic problems to the war in Somalia.
Meles Zenawi’s rationale behind sending about 15,000 soldiers to Somalia in early 2007, was due mainly to a “threat” against the sovereignty of Ethiopia by the so-called Islamic Courts which are believed to have a connection to Al-Qaeda. Though the Islamic Courts might have a hostile attitude to Ethiopia as a historical enemy, in reality, this small fanatic group with a small number of soldiers cannot pose a major threat to a big country like Ethiopia, which has a strong defence force, and more than 70 million people. Therefore, Meles’ rhetoric, both at the rubber stamp Parliament of Ethiopia and with the international media, was simply a pretext for turning the attention of the people of Ethiopia away from the popular struggle for a radical change for democracy towards the war.
Therefore the objective of the invasion of Somalia was simply made for political expediency, i.e., to save the government of Meles Zenawi from the strong movement for democracy by the people of Ethiopia, who have shown strong support for the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party, commonly known as CUDP. After arresting the leaders and more than 50,000 supporters of the opposition party, the regime turned its attention to Somalia, an underdog in the Horn of Africa.
So now the CUDP is in disarray and the other smaller opposition parties are not faring well. The CUDP has shown a fractious situation by falling apart from each other because of one factor or another. This situation creates happiness on the part of the ruling party.
Turning back to the question under discussion, why doesn’t Meles pull out his forces from Somalia especially at this time when Somalia’s affairs have become an international tragedy? He has already shown his power, and achieved his goal, deterring a perceived enemy. So then why doesn’t he order his forces to pack and return to Addis Ababa? I am of the opinion that it would be unwise to stay in Somalia in such a miserable situation and under international outcry.
On the other hand, I would like to state that I am against terrorist activity in the Horn of Africa, in particular, the Middle East, and South Asia in general. I am a strong supporter of the war against terrorism. However, Meles could have attacked the Islamic Courts with a raid or two, making a surgical operation or a limited strike, and pull back.
The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001 has amply demonstrated that terrorism is a threat to world civilization. The bombings of the American embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi and the American naval ship at the Yemeni calling station have also demonstrated that the intention of the terrorists is to destroy, not construct.
To come to my final point, the case of Somalia versus Ethiopia: Meles Zenawi could have shown his strong support to the USA and NATO member countries by deploying a considerable number of forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, of course under the sanction of the United Nations. Ethiopia’s historic alliance with the USA and the west in general is a public secret. The international community knows very well the role played by the Ethiopian soldiers in both Korea and Congo in the 1960s. Their indefatigable spirit, enthusiasm, patriotism had been remarkably appreciated by the UN agencies and the western world.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne@hotmail.com. Please visit his blog, Issues in Focus, at http://issues-in-focus.blogspot.com/
Sidebar
“… The global communications greed now necessitates policy decisions, actions, and communications on an almost equal instantaneous basis. If a world leader, a leader of a country, delays in responding to a widely known crisis situation, perhaps made visible through television, as image of prisoner of war camps did in Bosnia in 1992, he or she will likely look indecisive, weak, or worse in the international media and court of public opinion. Moreover, lack of rapid policy making or public diplomacy in this hyper-information environment can have significant economic implication.”
source: New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives, page 355, by John V. Pavlik.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
A Call for Reconfiguring the Federal Structure of Ethiopia
This call or plea is made following the statement made by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia in which he dubbed the country’s entry into the third millennium as a Period of Renaissance. He made this statement in an interview that he gave on September 6, 2007, to Time Magazine. In that interview, he said, “It has always been fear — fear that this great nation, which was great 1,000 years ago but then embarked on a downward spiral for 1,000 years, and reached its nadir when millions of people were starving and dying, may be on the verge of total collapse. Now it's not a fear of collapse, I believe we are beyond that. It's the fear that the light which is beginning to flicker, the light of a renewal, an Ethiopian renaissance, that this light might be dimmed by some bloody mistake by someone, somewhere. This [renaissance] is still fragile, a few shoots [which] may need time to be more robust. At the moment, it is fear born out of hope that this new millennium will be as good as the first one and not as bad as the second one.”Indeed, as he said, Ethiopia had its greatest famine in 1984 which was mainly brought about by the feudal system that the country had passed through for about 200 years or so. Ethiopia had also experienced a military dictatorship which lasted 17 years. In this particular period, the country was engulfed in unprecedented civil wars in Eritrea and Tigrai (1970s and 80s) and an expansionist war from Somalia (1977-1978). Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly young students and peasants and a number of scholars, perished. In my opinion, that was the darkest period in the history of the country.
When the Eritrean, Tigrean, and Oromo Liberation Fronts succeeded in ousting the brutal military regime, the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea were overjoyed. They had the conviction that a new era had dawned in the freedom, democracy, and economic progress of the two countries. Unfortunately, however, that euphoria and optimism has been dashed in a few years by the actions of the governments in planning and implementing policies that encourage separatism within Ethiopia.
Many scholars have criticized the current federal structure, which is based on ethnicity. For example, Professor Emeritus Mesfin Wolde Mariam, the well-known professor of geography at Addis Ababa University, and now a member of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party, once described the present federal structure as Bantustans (separate lands), likening it to apartheid in South Africa.
Another time, the same professor described it as a style of the Mussolini government which delineated the administration of Ethiopia along ethnic boundaries after their invasion in 1935.
There was also a cry by many scholars that Article 99 in the present Ethiopian Constitution, which grants freedom for all administrative regions based on ethnic lines, the right to independence if they wish. So this, in my opinion, gave fertile ground for some opposition parties who are currently in battle with government forces in Oromea and Ogaden regions. I strongly support freedom for any ethnic group, rather than coercion or subjugation as has been done by the past two Ethiopian governments. In short, a strong federation along non-ethnic lines should be the goal of the current government.
Background
Ethiopia is one of the ancient countries in the world; its history goes back to 4,500 BC. Its ancient kingdoms, the Sabean and Axumite Kingdoms have taken the longest span of time in the country’s checkered history, namely 1,000 years. Indeed, History attests to the fact that the Queen of Sheba had ruled over Yemen, and the Axumite emperors also did the same, and even extended their rule to Meroe town in present-day northern Sudan, making it their capital, and having a strong relationship with Egypt. Arising from this historical fact, Menelik II, the greatest emperor of Ethiopia, once declared that his forefathers had ruled a vast territory ranging from Yemen to Madagascar.
The state of Ethiopia came into being, as a modern nation state, in the past 110 years, especially after Emperor Menelik II took the helm of power and pioneered the country’s modernization programs around the turn of the century. The uneducated but foresighted Emperor had also made a valiant struggle against the encroachment of British, French, and Italian colonialism. Menelik and his lieutenants, who were leaders from the main ethnic groups (Amhara, Oromo, Gurage, etc.) and the general public, rallied around the Emperor’s march to Adowa and registered a shining victory against Italian colonialism. Adowa, surprisingly enough, is the birthplace of the current Prime Minister who has a strong dislike of the grand Ethiopian emperor, Menelik II. The Prime Minister is the chief denigrator of this founding father of the nation, in his drive to promote ethnic politics.
There is an old saying that those in power rewrite History.
In his 24 years of reign, the foresighted Emperor brought in all facets of modernization to the country with the sole objective of advancing the nation towards all-round progress. Just to site an example, the Ethio-Djibouti railway line which is the lifeline between Addis Ababa and Djibouti, was planned and partly implemented by the Emperor. Unfortunately, he died before it was completed. Because of lack of financial resources, however, the Emperor leased Djibouti to France for 99 years, and upon the termination of the contract, Djibouti became independent by a referendum of its population in 1976 during the period of the military regime.
Looked at in hindsight, the Eritrean and Tigrean liberation movements, which started their struggles in the early 1970s, were established at the right time to liberate their respective ethnic groups from the shackles of the military dictatorship led by Lt. Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam who fled Ethiopia in May 1991.
The original objective of the Tigrai liberation movement was to secede the historical part (the land of Sabean and Axumites) from the rest of Ethiopia. But the leaders of the liberation movement changed their goal of seceding, and instead decided to struggle with other movements to liberate Ethiopia from the oppressive military dictatorial regime.
It was a good decision and resulted in a success story, the formation of a federal government abolishing the unitary and centralized government of the old regimes. But the federation which had been expected for a long time by the entire population of Ethiopia was entirely different from the present ethnically-divided federation, which has brought about a number of practical problems.
Just to cite one example, the capital city, Addis Ababa, is still contested by the Oromos who consider it to be the capital city of their own administrative region. They consider the capital city to be their excusive domain. This situation arose from the fact that Addis Ababa was originally inhabited by the ancestors of the present-day Oromos. It is true that Addis Ababa was the land of the Oromos. But the argument now brought about against an exclusive right of the Oromos is that, as a result of settlement of millions of Ethiopians from every part of the country, the city is now multi-ethnic, not exclusively Oromo. This settlement has occurred over the past 100 years. This controversy arose as a result of the ethnically-based federation.
The federal structure based on ethnicity has also brought a number of problems concerning political participation, land ownership, business, and trade activities. A stranger, or a new settler, in the lands of any of the ethnic-based administrative regions doesn’t have equal rights with the indigenous population. This practically deprives the rights of citizens, Ethiopians, who have the constitutional right to live in any part of the country, own or possess property, and participate in the election of their administrative representatives, both at the regional and national levels.
The federation opens avenues for unnecessary competition, rivalry, deep hatred, and sometimes animosity among Ethiopians. When I was in Ethiopia in 1996, it was reported that some Amharas were displaced by the local people, their houses also burned down, and still others murdered by the same local people in the Southern part of the country. Many teachers from the same ethnic group lost their jobs just because they didn’t know the language of the locality where they were living. After being labeled as Neftegne (pioneers), many people from Amhara were killed at Arba Gugu, Arsi region, Asbot Monastery, eastern Ethiopia, by mob action, which seems to have had tacit approval from the government. It was this brutal action which led to the formation of the All Amhara Party led by the renowned veteran surgeon, Professor Asrat Woldeyes, who was incarcerated for a long time at the prison of the current regime. The Professor languished in prison for several years and finally was so debilitated that he died.
In short, the current ethnic-based federation is divisive, deprives human rights of the country, and retards the progress of the country.
Models of Federalism
1. The Difference-Blind State:
Pros:
The state allows people to develop and express their cultural practices and identities in private – in the home, church, or private associations – so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same, but the state neither promotes nor discourages cultural affiliations and practices. Ethno-cultural diversity is simply privatized, and the state is blind to the private cultural choice of individuals.
Cons:
There are two obvious limitations to this model. The first is that it requires considerable self-restraint on the part of the dominant groups who control the state, and hence which have the power to adopt state policies supporting their culture. Yet again, it would be naïve to suppose that dominant groups will not always be tempted to use their control over the state resources to promote their identities and practices.
Secondly, the state cannot avoid implicitly or explicitly supporting some cultures over others. Most obviously, the state must make decisions about the language or public administration, public health care, schools, public media, road signs, and so on.
Summary:
Many African countries have tried to avoid the danger of linguistic favouritism by simply adopting the colonial language as a state language. But this does not solve the problem of language policy at the local level.
In short, this model can’t serve best for Ethiopia.
2. Jacobean Republicanism
Pros:
The state promotes one particular language, culture, and identity and tries to turn this into a virtue rather than a vice. While the origin of the language will have been from one particular cultural group, the state declares it to be the national language and promotes it through all areas of the country. An example of this is modern-day Thailand. This is the French model of citizenship in which all citizens are expected to assimilate to a particular national language, republican political heritage, and secular culture. This was the model promoted by the Romans 2000 years ago.
Cons:
Many African countries have tried to pursue this sort of top-down nation-building strategy, particularly in Francophone Africa, where French has become the national language of several countries, relegating ethnic languages to a secondary position. However, in non-Francophone areas, including Ethiopia, this model was bitterly resisted by minority groups who feared losing their language.
Summary:
This centralized top-down nation-building strategy cannot be a model for Ethiopia as it has already been tried by the last Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie. The Emperor tried to impose Amharic language on the other ethnic groups who bitterly resented this policy.
3. Civil Society
Pros:
This model aims at avoiding imposition from a centralized and authoritarian state, by promoting government by institutions of civil society such as churches, trade unions, newspapers, environmental groups, women’s groups, etc. In this way, nation-building will occur as a result of gradual evolution and consensus-building in civil society, not by state imposition.
Cons:
Each group has a tendency to be dominant and tries to impose its own will on the others, leading to strife.
Summary:
This an attractive model followed by some African countries, Mauritius being the best example. However, this model, like the other previous models, was contested by many scholars in the field as unworkable. It doesn’t work in reality because there are too many fractured groups who cannot reach a consensus.
4. Multi-nation or Multi-ethnic Federalism
Pros:
This model aims at achieving the formation of a multi-nation state that can be seen as a federation or partnership of various groups, each of which will retain its distinctiveness and its rights to autonomy or self-government.
Where groups are more or less territorially concentrated, it is likely to take the form of federalism. In a multi-nation federal system, the country is divided into several sub-units whose borders are drawn in such a way that each of the various groups will form a local majority in one or more of the sub-units. By defacto controlling a sub-unit, even if they are a minority in the country as a whole, each group is able to feel a sense of security, and can use the levers of sub-state power to protect and promote its identity and culture.
Cons:
This compartmentalization of the country into ethnically-divided administrative regions might help to develop the language, culture, land of each individual state in the country, but there is a rigidity because it does not allow for free movement from one part to another. Thus personal rights are not respected.
Summary:
This model has been successfully applied in Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, and Spain, but has been a failure in Africa, including Ethiopia, because, in each country where it has been attempted, one ethnic group has taken control to the detriment of the others.
5. Shared Ethnic Rule
Pros:
The state may be unitary and centralized, but there are guarantees that all ethnic groups will share power at the central level. This may be achieved through rules regarding the representation of ethnic groups in the legislature, in cabinet, and in the civil service. Electoral systems can play an important rule in encouraging or requiring power sharing in the central legislature.
This model may involve some form of veto rights so that all the major groups in the country must agree on a policy, particularly if it involves constitutional changes or it affects the basic interests of the groups. Like federalism, this model has been successfully adopted in some Western states, such as the Netherlands, Austria, and Belgium. And it, too, has been promoted in Africa, with only limited success. The most obvious attempt to implement it, in Ruanda and Burundi, failed completely but it remains a topic of debate in other African countries including Liberia and Angola.
Proponents argue that it may help to provide a sense of security among the members of the various groups and help them develop some sense of identification with and loyalty to the state. It also eliminates the fear of secession which is often raised in federal systems, since groups are not given control over territory.
Relevant Quotes
• “Concerned with relations between an ethnic groups and the state or between two or more ethnic groups, is essentially amoral. This process, often called ‘political tribalism’, describes the competitive confrontation of ‘ethnic contenders’ for the material resources of modernity through control of the state apparatus. Here success is defined as maximizing the power and resources available to one’s own group, whatever the consequences for other groups or for the functioning of the state as a whole.” – Ethnicity and the Politics of Democratic Nation-Building in Africa, by Bruce Berman, Dickson Eyoh, and Will Kymlicka.
• “The groundswell of popular opposition to all totalitarian rule in the late 1980s and early 1990s was, for many a welcome sign of the re-animation of the agency of Africans to design for themselves more promising futures – futures that would be based on liberal politics and market economies. [emphasis added] This euphoria did not last long as successive electoral cycles re-affirmed the renaissance of clientalism and patronage as the dominant practice of African politics.” – Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, Reinhardt Benedix.
• “The development of ethnicity in African more than a century ago has been marked by dialectic of expansion and differentiation. Contemporary ethnicities are both much larger in social scale and population, and more shall be demarcated from other such groups, than the smaller and more fluid communities of the pre-colonial past. At the same time, African ethnic groups are univocal, and the concept of culture and custom as well as the boundaries of communities remain matters of frequent conflict and negotiation. The social forces shaping ethnic development and identity have been fundamentally material and ethnic politics has focused on defining the terms of access both to traditional assets of land and labour and the material resources of modernity in both the state and the market.” – Ethnicity and the Politics of Democratic Nation-Building in Africa, by Bruce Berman, Dickson Eyoh, and Will Kymlicka.
• “However constructed, transformed and instrumentalised politically, ethnicity is always or nearly always metaphoric kinship.” [emphasis added] – Ethnicity and the Politics of Democratic Nation-Building in Africa, by Bruce Berman, Dickson Eyoh, and Will Kymlicka.
The Proposal
Here follows what I have in mind regarding the existing ethnic federalism and the changes that should be made by the incumbent government. It is my conviction that, if a change is made to the current federal structure based on ethnicity, Ethiopia can smoothly sail the boat to catch up with the fast growing mid-level advanced countries or to usher in the 21st century.
I propose that the current 10 ethnically-based states be merged into 4 geographically-based states, namely Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western states. The country should adopt the Canadian model which is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual structure.
Boundaries are drawn by natural features of the landscape, such as mountains and rivers. This will allow the government to save money on civil service overhead. It does not favour any ethnic group over any other, and it brings people together. It promotes intermarriage and interaction between the ethnic groups. People will have equal rights regarding political affiliations, finding jobs, languages, and culture.
Regarding languages, although Ethiopia has never been colonized and had a language imposed, nevertheless English has become the second most popular language for business and the first for interacting with the outside world. So developing on this fact and the necessity to engage the people of Ethiopia with science and technological progress being made in the 21st century, it is high time that the government should adopt a new language policy which can bring English to number one in the coming few years. The current national language, Amharic, would become an official second language, and Oromifa would be recognized as the third national language. Following the Canadian example, all government documents would be issued in all three languages, legal systems would recognize and utilize all three languages in the courts. The official languages would also be used equally in advertising and packaging materials, road signs, schools, hospitals, and so on. The government should encourage people to learn all three languages by persuasion not coercion.
About the Author:
Melaku Tegegne is a former Ethiopian journalist and diplomat, now a peace and democracy activist and can be reached at melaku_tegegne[at]hotmail.com.
SIDEBAR
This is a call made to the President, Prime Minister, and Members of the Parliament of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia by me alone, without the involvement of any individual, group, or party.
Based on the statement made by the Prime Minister about this being a Renaissance Period, I came to the conclusion that a complete overhaul of the government and federal structure of the country is a matter of necessity, not luxury. The idea of having such a plan is aimed purely at promoting the concept of a multi-ethnic nation and to bring Ethiopia into the 21st century.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Professor Asrat: a Martyr for Democracy in Ethiopia
Death of Prof. Asrat Called “Liquidation”
Professor Asrat Woldeyes, Ethiopia’s most famous victim of the current Addis Ababa administration and onetime leader of the All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO), Professor Asrat Woldeyes, passed away on May 14, 1999, at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, USA. He died from complications from a heart ailment which had been exacerbated by the effects of his long and internationally-con- demned imprisonment and ill-treatment at the hands of the Meles administration.
The Crown Council immediately said that Dr Asrat’s untimely death was “virtual state liquidation”, and was directly attributable to the Meles administration.
Prof. Asrat, a medical doctor and one of Ethiopia’s leading scientists and humanitarians, had been suffering from a variety of ailments, mostly centering around a heart disorder, when Meles administration officials — faced with daily protests around the world and mounting hostility from major governments — released him to seek medical treatment abroad just before Western Christmas 1998. He has been hospitalized ever since.
He had been personal physician to the late Emperor Haile Selassie I for a quarter century. He had been dismissed from his post at the Black Lion Hospital, in Addis Ababa, when the TPLF administration of Meles Zenawi seized power in 1991.
Prof. Asrat’s family, including his two sons, had gathered to be with him at the hospital at the end. As well, the President of the Crown Council, Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie and Princess Gelila Fesseha, a niece of the Professor, were with him. Le’ult Gelila helped spearhead the campaign to have Dr Asrat released from his illegal imprisonment.
The Professor, who was in his seventies when he died, was preparing his legacy manifesto before his condition worsened in early May.
“Professor Asrat has already created his greatest legacy,” Crown Council President Prince Ermias said. “His legacy is that he has reaffirmed Ethiopia can only survive as a united, democratic country, and that this prize is worth sacrifice to achieve. Professor Asrat has always been a man of peace, dignity and intelligent reason. His imprisonment on trumped-up charges only serves to highlight the nobility of his non-violent protest and the bankruptcy of policies which are imposed by those who fear the will of the people. We cannot allow his sacrifice to be in vain. We cannot forget that his life has been shortened by what amounts to State murder, because he should have been able to complete his medical and teaching career in peace, and he should have been able to look forward to a long and happy retirement. All of this was denied to him, as such freedom is being denied to so many Ethiopians under illegal detainment by the Meles administration.”
The Meles administration released Dr Asrat when it became clear that his condition was deteriorating rapidly in prison. He had already become one of the focal points of protest against the administration, and officials feared that he would become a martyr if he died in prison.
“There is no doubt that Dr Asrat, who never saw himself as a martyr but rather as someone who needed to uphold principles of integrity and Ethiopianness, is now an even greater symbol of Ethiopia’s need for unity and for an end to the kind of repression which has characterized the totalitarianism of the Meles administration,” said one foreign diplomat in Addis Ababa, contacted by Negarit following Dr Asrat’s death. “His death, even released from custody, reflects on Meles.”
Source: Negarit Online, the Crown Council of Ethiopia
==============================
Melaku says:
I have never met the Professor personally, what I know is from the media. I came to know that he was the private physician of the Emperor Haile Selassie I. Furthermore, I know that he was a leading surgeon in Ethiopia of his time. When I heard of his imprisonment in one of the dungeons in Addis Ababa while I was in Khartoum serving the current brutal regime as Second Secretary in Charge of the Consular Section, I felt unhappy to be associated with this government.
Upon my coming to the Foreign Ministry in Addis Ababa, and especially during the burial ceremony of Professor Asrat, I expressed my grief by shedding tears in my private room. It was that particular day, the day of the funeral of Professor Asrat, which became the cause of my desertion of the current government.
Professor Asrat Woldeyes, Ethiopia’s most famous victim of the current Addis Ababa administration and onetime leader of the All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO), Professor Asrat Woldeyes, passed away on May 14, 1999, at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, USA. He died from complications from a heart ailment which had been exacerbated by the effects of his long and internationally-con- demned imprisonment and ill-treatment at the hands of the Meles administration.The Crown Council immediately said that Dr Asrat’s untimely death was “virtual state liquidation”, and was directly attributable to the Meles administration.
Prof. Asrat, a medical doctor and one of Ethiopia’s leading scientists and humanitarians, had been suffering from a variety of ailments, mostly centering around a heart disorder, when Meles administration officials — faced with daily protests around the world and mounting hostility from major governments — released him to seek medical treatment abroad just before Western Christmas 1998. He has been hospitalized ever since.
He had been personal physician to the late Emperor Haile Selassie I for a quarter century. He had been dismissed from his post at the Black Lion Hospital, in Addis Ababa, when the TPLF administration of Meles Zenawi seized power in 1991.
Prof. Asrat’s family, including his two sons, had gathered to be with him at the hospital at the end. As well, the President of the Crown Council, Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie and Princess Gelila Fesseha, a niece of the Professor, were with him. Le’ult Gelila helped spearhead the campaign to have Dr Asrat released from his illegal imprisonment.
The Professor, who was in his seventies when he died, was preparing his legacy manifesto before his condition worsened in early May.
“Professor Asrat has already created his greatest legacy,” Crown Council President Prince Ermias said. “His legacy is that he has reaffirmed Ethiopia can only survive as a united, democratic country, and that this prize is worth sacrifice to achieve. Professor Asrat has always been a man of peace, dignity and intelligent reason. His imprisonment on trumped-up charges only serves to highlight the nobility of his non-violent protest and the bankruptcy of policies which are imposed by those who fear the will of the people. We cannot allow his sacrifice to be in vain. We cannot forget that his life has been shortened by what amounts to State murder, because he should have been able to complete his medical and teaching career in peace, and he should have been able to look forward to a long and happy retirement. All of this was denied to him, as such freedom is being denied to so many Ethiopians under illegal detainment by the Meles administration.”
The Meles administration released Dr Asrat when it became clear that his condition was deteriorating rapidly in prison. He had already become one of the focal points of protest against the administration, and officials feared that he would become a martyr if he died in prison.
“There is no doubt that Dr Asrat, who never saw himself as a martyr but rather as someone who needed to uphold principles of integrity and Ethiopianness, is now an even greater symbol of Ethiopia’s need for unity and for an end to the kind of repression which has characterized the totalitarianism of the Meles administration,” said one foreign diplomat in Addis Ababa, contacted by Negarit following Dr Asrat’s death. “His death, even released from custody, reflects on Meles.”
Source: Negarit Online, the Crown Council of Ethiopia
==============================
Melaku says:
I have never met the Professor personally, what I know is from the media. I came to know that he was the private physician of the Emperor Haile Selassie I. Furthermore, I know that he was a leading surgeon in Ethiopia of his time. When I heard of his imprisonment in one of the dungeons in Addis Ababa while I was in Khartoum serving the current brutal regime as Second Secretary in Charge of the Consular Section, I felt unhappy to be associated with this government.
Upon my coming to the Foreign Ministry in Addis Ababa, and especially during the burial ceremony of Professor Asrat, I expressed my grief by shedding tears in my private room. It was that particular day, the day of the funeral of Professor Asrat, which became the cause of my desertion of the current government.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Melaku Receiving a Journalism Certificate
Melaku receiving a journalism certificate from the former Editor-in-Chief of Addis Zemen, a daily Amharic newspaper in Addis Ababa in the early 1980s. The man behind was the Minister of the then National Guidance and Information Ministry, Dr. Feleke Gedle Ghiorgs.
Paying Homage to Our Greatest Emperor After More than a Century
Menelik II of Ethiopia
Emperor Menelik II (August 17, 1844 – December 12, 1913) was baptized as Sahle Maryam, was Meridazmach of Shewa ("Graceful Leader" of the province Shewa, now called Addis Ababa Administrative Region) from the period 1866-1889, then "King of Kings" of Ethiopia from 1889 to his death.
Meridazmach ("Graceful Leader") of Shewa Province
The son of Negus Haile Melekot of Shewa, prince Sahle Maryam was born in Ankober, Shewa. In 1855, at the age of 11, he was named as his successor as king of Shewa by his father. Upon the death of his father, he was taken prisoner by Emperor Tewodros II, a former minor nobleman originally named Kassa of Qwara, who had usurped the Imperial throne from the last Emperor of the elder Gondar branch of the Solomonic dynasty (either Emperor Yohannes III or Emperor Sahle Dengel; the historical record is uncertain here). Following Tewodros' conquest of Shewa, young Sahle Maryam of Shewa was imprisoned on the Emperor's mountain stronghold of Magdala, but was treated well by the Emperor, even marrying Tewodros' daughter, Alitash.
Upon Sahle Maryam's imprisonment, his uncle, Haile Mikael had been made ruler of Shewa by Emperor Tewodros II with the title of Meridazmach. However, Meridazmach Haile Mikael rebelled against Tewodros, resulting in his being replaced by the non-royal Ato Bezabih as governor of Shewa. However, Ato Bezabih promptly rebelled against the Emperor and proclaimed himself King of Shewa. Although the Shewan royals imprisoned at Magdala had been largely complacent as long as a member of their family ruled over Shewa, this usurpation by a commoner was not palatable to them. They plotted the escape of Sahle Maryam from Magdala; with the help of Queen Worqitu of Wollo, he escaped from Magdala the night of 1 July 1865, abandoning his wife, and returned to Shewa. Enraged, Emperor Tewodros slaughtered 29 Oromo hostages then had 12 Amhara notables beaten to death with bamboo rods.
Bezabih's attempt to raise an army against Sahle Maryam failed miserably; thousands of Shewans rallied to the flag of the son of Haile Melekot and even Bezabih's own soldiers deserted him for the returning prince. Sahle Maryam entered Ankober and proclaimed himself Negus (King) with the name of Menelik.
While Menelik reclaimed his ancestral crown, he also made a claim on the Imperial throne, as a direct descendant male line of Emperor Lebna Dengel. However, he made no overt attempt to assert this claim during this time; Marcus interprets his lack of decisive action not only to Menelik's lack of confience and experience, but that "he was emotionally incapable of helping to destroy the man who had treated him as a son."
By failing to take part in the 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia, he allowed his rival Kassa to benefit with gifts of modern weapons and supplies from the British. Afterwards other challenges -- a revolt amongst the Wollo to the north, the intrigues of his next wife, Baffana, to replace him with her choice of ruler, military failures against the Arsi Oromo to the south east -- kept Menelik from directly confronting Kassa until after his rival had brought an Abuna (bishop) from Egypt who crowned him Emperor Yohannes IV.
Eventually Menelik acquiesed to Yohannes' superior position, and on 20 March 1878, "approached Yohannes on foot, carrying a rock on his neck, his face down in the traditional form of submission." However, very aware of how precarious his own position was, Yohannes recognized Menelik as Negus of Shewa and gave him numerous presents which included four cannons, several hundred modern Remington rifles, and ammunition for both.
In 1883, Negus Menelik married Taytu Betul, a noblewoman of Imperial blood, and a member of one of the leading families of the regions of Semien, Yejju in modern Wollo, and Begemder. Her paternal uncle, Dejazmatch Wube Haile Maryam of Semien, had been the ruler of Tigray and much of northern Ethiopia. She had been married four times previously and exercised considerable influence. Menelik and Taytu would have no children.
Menelik had, previous to this marriage, sired not only Zauditu (eventually Empress of Ethiopia), but also another daughter, Shoaregga (who married Ras Mikael of Wollo), and a son, Prince Wossen Seged, who died in childhood. In 1886 Menelik married Zewditu to Emperor Yohannes’ son, Ras Araya Selassie. Ras Araya Selassie died in May 1888 without any issue by her, and the Emperor Yohannes was killed in a war against the dervishes (Sudanese of that time) at the Battle of Gallabat (Matemma) in present-day Eastern Sudan on May 10, 1889.
The succession now lay between the late emperor’s natural son, Ras Mengesha, and Menelik of Shewa, but the latter was able to obtain the allegiance of a large majority of the nobility. Menelek was consecrated and crowned as Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia shortly afterwards. Menelek argued that while the family of Yohannes IV claimed descent from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba through females of the dynasty, his own claim was based on uninterrupted direct male lineage which made the claims of the House of Shewa equal to those of the elder Gondar line of the dynasty.
Menelik, and later his daughter, Zewditu, would be the last Ethiopian monarchs who could claim uninterrupted direct male descent from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (both Lij Eyasu and Emperor Haile Selassie were in the female line, Iyasu through his mother Shewarega Menelik, and Haile Selassie through his paternal grandmother, Tenagnework Sahle Selassie).
His Reign as Emperor
In 1889, while claiming the throne against Mengesha, Menelik signed at Wuchale in Wollo province (Uccialli in Italian), a treaty with Italy acknowledging the establishment of the new Italian Colony of Eritrea with its seat at Asmara. This colony had previously been part of the northern Tigrayan territories from which Ras Mangasha and his allies such as Ras Alula generated support, and the establishment of the Italian colony weakened the northern Rases.
However, it was soon found that the Italian version of one of the articles of the treaty placed the Ethiopian Empire under an Italian protectorate, while the Amharic version did not. Emperor Menelik denounced it and demanded that the Italian version be changed.
Negotiations failed, so Menelik renounced the treaty, leading Italy to declare war and invade from Eritrea. After defeating the Italians at Amba Alagi and Mekele, Menelik inflicted an even greater defeat on them, at the Battle of Adowa on March 1, 1896, forcing them to capitulate. A treaty was signed at Addis Ababa recognizing the absolute sovereign independence of Ethiopia.
Menelik II's French sympathies were shown in a reported official offer of treasure towards payment of the indemnity at the close of the Franco-Prussian War, and in February 1897, he concluded a commercial treaty with France on very favorable terms. He also gave assistance to French officers who sought to reach the upper Nile from Ethiopia, there to join forces with the Marchand Mission. Ethiopian armies were sent towards the Nile, but withdrew when the Fashoda Crisis between France and the United Kingdom cooled off. A British mission under Sir Rennell Rodd in May 1897, however, was cordially received, and Menelik agreed to a settlement of the Somali boundaries, to keep open to British commerce the caravan route between Zaila and Harrar, and to prevent the transit of munitions of war to the Mahdists, whom he proclaimed enemies of Ethiopia.
In the following year, the Sudan was reconquered by an Anglo-Egyptian army and thereafter cordial relations between Menelik and the British authorities were established. In 1889 and subsequent years, Menelik sent forces to co-operate with the British troops engaged against a Somali leader, Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan.
In 1898, Menelik had crushed a rebellion by Ras Mangasha, who died in 1906. He directed his efforts henceforth to the consolidation of his authority, and in a certain degree, to the opening up of his country to western civilization. Menelik’s clemency to Ras Mangasha, whom he compelled to submit and then made hereditary Prince of his native Tigray, was ill repaid by a long series of revolts by that prince.
Menelek focused much of his energy on development and modernization of his country after this threat to his throne was firmly ended. In 1894, he had granted a concession for the building of a railway to his capital from the French port of Djibouti, but, alarmed by a claim made by France in 1902 to the control of the line in Ethiopian territory, he stopped for four years the extension of the railway beyond Dire Dawa. When France, the United Kingdom and Italy came to an agreement on the subject in 1906, granting control to a joint venture corporation, Menelek officially reiterated his full sovereign rights over the whole of his empire. He successfully played Italians, French, and British against each other.
In May 1909, the emperor’s grandson Lij Iyasu (later Iyasu V) by his late daughter Shoaregga, then a lad of thirteen, was married to Romanework Mengesha (b. 1902), granddaughter of the Emperor Yohannes IV by his natural son Ras Mengesha, and was also the niece of Empress Taytu. Two days later Iyasu was publicly proclaimed at Addis Ababa as Menelik’s successor. At that time the emperor was seriously ill and as his ill-health continued, a council of regency -— from which the empress was excluded —- was formed in March 1910.
Lij Iyasu's marriage to Romanework Mengesha was dissolved, and he married Seble Wongel Hailu, daughter of Ras Hailu, and granddaughter of Negus Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam. On December 12, 1913, Emperor Menelek II died of a stroke and was buried secretly at the Se'el Bet Kidane Meheret Church on the grounds of the Imperial Palace. Official news of his death was kept from the public for several years by order of Lij Iyasu, although it was soon widely known.
Following the deposing of Lij Iyasu in 1916, and the crowning of Menelik's daughter Zewditu as Empress of Ethiopia, Menelik II was reburied in the specially built church at Ba'eta Le Mariam Monastery of Addis Ababa.
Other Significant Developments During his Reign as Emperor
Menelik II was fascinated by modernity, and like Tewodros II before him, had a keen ambition to introduce the technological and administrative advances of the west into Ethiopia. Following the rush by the major powers to establish diplomatic relations following the Ethiopian victory at Adowa, more and more westerners began to travel to Ethiopia looking for trade, farming, hunting and mineral exploration concessions.
Menelik II founded the first modern bank in Ethiopia, the Bank of Abyssinia; introduced the first modern postal system; signed the agreement and initiated work that established the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway with the French; introduced electricity to Addis Ababa; and also introduced the telephone, telegraph, the motor car, and modern plumbing.
During a particularly devastating famine caused by the decimation of plowing and burden cattle by Rinderpest (an infectious viral disease of cattle, including buffalo) early in his reign, Menelik II personally went out with a hand-held hoe to furrow the fields to show that there was no shame in plowing fields by hand without oxen, something Ethiopian highlanders had been too proud to consider previously. He also forgave taxes during this particularly severe famine.
Later in his reign, he established the first Cabinet of Ministers to help in the administration of the Empire, appointing trusted and widely respected nobles and retainers to the first Ministries. These ministers would remain in place long after his death, serving in their posts through the brief reign of Lij Iyasu and into the reign of Empress Zewditu. They would, in fact, play a key role in the deposing of Lij Iyasu.
Miscellaneous
=======================
Melaku says:
Let's all of us who are inside and outside Ethiopia pay the greatest homage to Emperor Menelik II, the Father of the Nation, on March 1, 2008, the 112th Adowas Victory Day. Needless to state in detail what the greatest Emperor, our equivalent of Alexander the Great, Napolean the Great and Peter the Great, has done for our beloved country in terms of modernization and material and spiritual progress.
Many Ethiopian historians and foreigners alike have documented well the life and work history of the Emperor. Among the books I read about the Emperor, the one that was written by the late, renowned veteran journalist, Gashe (a form of respect for elderly men in Ethiopia) Paulos Ngongo comes freshly to my mind. Menelik was indeed a great statesman of the 19th and 20th centuries. Because he was a beloved Emperor, he had earned the nickname Emeye (mother). He was indeed the father and mother of the country.
In recognition of his feats in the process of building blocks to present-day Ethiopia, the government in power and the people of Ethiopia at large had celebrated the 100 years anniversary of the great victory of Adowa some years ago with pomp and colour. Indeed, it was a good measure, rather a decision to celebrate the victory of Adowa, the shining victory of the black man against colonial encoachment. However, in my opinion, both the government and the people of Ethiopia need to make more to pay tribute to the Emperor. Let me suggest some of them as follows:
Emperor Menelik II (August 17, 1844 – December 12, 1913) was baptized as Sahle Maryam, was Meridazmach of Shewa ("Graceful Leader" of the province Shewa, now called Addis Ababa Administrative Region) from the period 1866-1889, then "King of Kings" of Ethiopia from 1889 to his death.Meridazmach ("Graceful Leader") of Shewa Province
The son of Negus Haile Melekot of Shewa, prince Sahle Maryam was born in Ankober, Shewa. In 1855, at the age of 11, he was named as his successor as king of Shewa by his father. Upon the death of his father, he was taken prisoner by Emperor Tewodros II, a former minor nobleman originally named Kassa of Qwara, who had usurped the Imperial throne from the last Emperor of the elder Gondar branch of the Solomonic dynasty (either Emperor Yohannes III or Emperor Sahle Dengel; the historical record is uncertain here). Following Tewodros' conquest of Shewa, young Sahle Maryam of Shewa was imprisoned on the Emperor's mountain stronghold of Magdala, but was treated well by the Emperor, even marrying Tewodros' daughter, Alitash.
Upon Sahle Maryam's imprisonment, his uncle, Haile Mikael had been made ruler of Shewa by Emperor Tewodros II with the title of Meridazmach. However, Meridazmach Haile Mikael rebelled against Tewodros, resulting in his being replaced by the non-royal Ato Bezabih as governor of Shewa. However, Ato Bezabih promptly rebelled against the Emperor and proclaimed himself King of Shewa. Although the Shewan royals imprisoned at Magdala had been largely complacent as long as a member of their family ruled over Shewa, this usurpation by a commoner was not palatable to them. They plotted the escape of Sahle Maryam from Magdala; with the help of Queen Worqitu of Wollo, he escaped from Magdala the night of 1 July 1865, abandoning his wife, and returned to Shewa. Enraged, Emperor Tewodros slaughtered 29 Oromo hostages then had 12 Amhara notables beaten to death with bamboo rods.
Bezabih's attempt to raise an army against Sahle Maryam failed miserably; thousands of Shewans rallied to the flag of the son of Haile Melekot and even Bezabih's own soldiers deserted him for the returning prince. Sahle Maryam entered Ankober and proclaimed himself Negus (King) with the name of Menelik.
While Menelik reclaimed his ancestral crown, he also made a claim on the Imperial throne, as a direct descendant male line of Emperor Lebna Dengel. However, he made no overt attempt to assert this claim during this time; Marcus interprets his lack of decisive action not only to Menelik's lack of confience and experience, but that "he was emotionally incapable of helping to destroy the man who had treated him as a son."
By failing to take part in the 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia, he allowed his rival Kassa to benefit with gifts of modern weapons and supplies from the British. Afterwards other challenges -- a revolt amongst the Wollo to the north, the intrigues of his next wife, Baffana, to replace him with her choice of ruler, military failures against the Arsi Oromo to the south east -- kept Menelik from directly confronting Kassa until after his rival had brought an Abuna (bishop) from Egypt who crowned him Emperor Yohannes IV.
Eventually Menelik acquiesed to Yohannes' superior position, and on 20 March 1878, "approached Yohannes on foot, carrying a rock on his neck, his face down in the traditional form of submission." However, very aware of how precarious his own position was, Yohannes recognized Menelik as Negus of Shewa and gave him numerous presents which included four cannons, several hundred modern Remington rifles, and ammunition for both.
In 1883, Negus Menelik married Taytu Betul, a noblewoman of Imperial blood, and a member of one of the leading families of the regions of Semien, Yejju in modern Wollo, and Begemder. Her paternal uncle, Dejazmatch Wube Haile Maryam of Semien, had been the ruler of Tigray and much of northern Ethiopia. She had been married four times previously and exercised considerable influence. Menelik and Taytu would have no children.
Menelik had, previous to this marriage, sired not only Zauditu (eventually Empress of Ethiopia), but also another daughter, Shoaregga (who married Ras Mikael of Wollo), and a son, Prince Wossen Seged, who died in childhood. In 1886 Menelik married Zewditu to Emperor Yohannes’ son, Ras Araya Selassie. Ras Araya Selassie died in May 1888 without any issue by her, and the Emperor Yohannes was killed in a war against the dervishes (Sudanese of that time) at the Battle of Gallabat (Matemma) in present-day Eastern Sudan on May 10, 1889.
The succession now lay between the late emperor’s natural son, Ras Mengesha, and Menelik of Shewa, but the latter was able to obtain the allegiance of a large majority of the nobility. Menelek was consecrated and crowned as Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia shortly afterwards. Menelek argued that while the family of Yohannes IV claimed descent from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba through females of the dynasty, his own claim was based on uninterrupted direct male lineage which made the claims of the House of Shewa equal to those of the elder Gondar line of the dynasty.
Menelik, and later his daughter, Zewditu, would be the last Ethiopian monarchs who could claim uninterrupted direct male descent from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (both Lij Eyasu and Emperor Haile Selassie were in the female line, Iyasu through his mother Shewarega Menelik, and Haile Selassie through his paternal grandmother, Tenagnework Sahle Selassie).
His Reign as Emperor
In 1889, while claiming the throne against Mengesha, Menelik signed at Wuchale in Wollo province (Uccialli in Italian), a treaty with Italy acknowledging the establishment of the new Italian Colony of Eritrea with its seat at Asmara. This colony had previously been part of the northern Tigrayan territories from which Ras Mangasha and his allies such as Ras Alula generated support, and the establishment of the Italian colony weakened the northern Rases.
However, it was soon found that the Italian version of one of the articles of the treaty placed the Ethiopian Empire under an Italian protectorate, while the Amharic version did not. Emperor Menelik denounced it and demanded that the Italian version be changed.
Negotiations failed, so Menelik renounced the treaty, leading Italy to declare war and invade from Eritrea. After defeating the Italians at Amba Alagi and Mekele, Menelik inflicted an even greater defeat on them, at the Battle of Adowa on March 1, 1896, forcing them to capitulate. A treaty was signed at Addis Ababa recognizing the absolute sovereign independence of Ethiopia.
Menelik II's French sympathies were shown in a reported official offer of treasure towards payment of the indemnity at the close of the Franco-Prussian War, and in February 1897, he concluded a commercial treaty with France on very favorable terms. He also gave assistance to French officers who sought to reach the upper Nile from Ethiopia, there to join forces with the Marchand Mission. Ethiopian armies were sent towards the Nile, but withdrew when the Fashoda Crisis between France and the United Kingdom cooled off. A British mission under Sir Rennell Rodd in May 1897, however, was cordially received, and Menelik agreed to a settlement of the Somali boundaries, to keep open to British commerce the caravan route between Zaila and Harrar, and to prevent the transit of munitions of war to the Mahdists, whom he proclaimed enemies of Ethiopia.
In the following year, the Sudan was reconquered by an Anglo-Egyptian army and thereafter cordial relations between Menelik and the British authorities were established. In 1889 and subsequent years, Menelik sent forces to co-operate with the British troops engaged against a Somali leader, Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan.
In 1898, Menelik had crushed a rebellion by Ras Mangasha, who died in 1906. He directed his efforts henceforth to the consolidation of his authority, and in a certain degree, to the opening up of his country to western civilization. Menelik’s clemency to Ras Mangasha, whom he compelled to submit and then made hereditary Prince of his native Tigray, was ill repaid by a long series of revolts by that prince.
Menelek focused much of his energy on development and modernization of his country after this threat to his throne was firmly ended. In 1894, he had granted a concession for the building of a railway to his capital from the French port of Djibouti, but, alarmed by a claim made by France in 1902 to the control of the line in Ethiopian territory, he stopped for four years the extension of the railway beyond Dire Dawa. When France, the United Kingdom and Italy came to an agreement on the subject in 1906, granting control to a joint venture corporation, Menelek officially reiterated his full sovereign rights over the whole of his empire. He successfully played Italians, French, and British against each other.
In May 1909, the emperor’s grandson Lij Iyasu (later Iyasu V) by his late daughter Shoaregga, then a lad of thirteen, was married to Romanework Mengesha (b. 1902), granddaughter of the Emperor Yohannes IV by his natural son Ras Mengesha, and was also the niece of Empress Taytu. Two days later Iyasu was publicly proclaimed at Addis Ababa as Menelik’s successor. At that time the emperor was seriously ill and as his ill-health continued, a council of regency -— from which the empress was excluded —- was formed in March 1910.
Lij Iyasu's marriage to Romanework Mengesha was dissolved, and he married Seble Wongel Hailu, daughter of Ras Hailu, and granddaughter of Negus Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam. On December 12, 1913, Emperor Menelek II died of a stroke and was buried secretly at the Se'el Bet Kidane Meheret Church on the grounds of the Imperial Palace. Official news of his death was kept from the public for several years by order of Lij Iyasu, although it was soon widely known.
Following the deposing of Lij Iyasu in 1916, and the crowning of Menelik's daughter Zewditu as Empress of Ethiopia, Menelik II was reburied in the specially built church at Ba'eta Le Mariam Monastery of Addis Ababa.
Other Significant Developments During his Reign as Emperor
Menelik II was fascinated by modernity, and like Tewodros II before him, had a keen ambition to introduce the technological and administrative advances of the west into Ethiopia. Following the rush by the major powers to establish diplomatic relations following the Ethiopian victory at Adowa, more and more westerners began to travel to Ethiopia looking for trade, farming, hunting and mineral exploration concessions.
Menelik II founded the first modern bank in Ethiopia, the Bank of Abyssinia; introduced the first modern postal system; signed the agreement and initiated work that established the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway with the French; introduced electricity to Addis Ababa; and also introduced the telephone, telegraph, the motor car, and modern plumbing.
During a particularly devastating famine caused by the decimation of plowing and burden cattle by Rinderpest (an infectious viral disease of cattle, including buffalo) early in his reign, Menelik II personally went out with a hand-held hoe to furrow the fields to show that there was no shame in plowing fields by hand without oxen, something Ethiopian highlanders had been too proud to consider previously. He also forgave taxes during this particularly severe famine.
Later in his reign, he established the first Cabinet of Ministers to help in the administration of the Empire, appointing trusted and widely respected nobles and retainers to the first Ministries. These ministers would remain in place long after his death, serving in their posts through the brief reign of Lij Iyasu and into the reign of Empress Zewditu. They would, in fact, play a key role in the deposing of Lij Iyasu.
Miscellaneous
- Rumored natural children of the Emperor include Ras Birru Wolde Gabriel and Dejazmach Kebede Tessema. The latter, in turn, was rumored to be the natural grandfather of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, the communist leader of the Derg, who eventually deposed the monarchy and assumed power in Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991. However, the only children that Menelek II acknowledged publicly were Zauditu, Shoaregga, and Wossen Seged. Of these three, only Shoaregga has present day descendants.
- During the 1890s, Menelik heard about the modern method of executing criminals using electric chairs, and he ordered 3 for his kingdom. When the chairs arrived, Menelik learned they would not work, as Ethiopia did not yet have an electrical power industry. Rather than waste his investment, Menelik used one of the chairs as his throne, sending another to Lique Mequas Abate (high priest).
- Menelek was known for saying "We must resist the powers, to keep our independence."
=======================
Melaku says:
Let's all of us who are inside and outside Ethiopia pay the greatest homage to Emperor Menelik II, the Father of the Nation, on March 1, 2008, the 112th Adowas Victory Day. Needless to state in detail what the greatest Emperor, our equivalent of Alexander the Great, Napolean the Great and Peter the Great, has done for our beloved country in terms of modernization and material and spiritual progress.
Many Ethiopian historians and foreigners alike have documented well the life and work history of the Emperor. Among the books I read about the Emperor, the one that was written by the late, renowned veteran journalist, Gashe (a form of respect for elderly men in Ethiopia) Paulos Ngongo comes freshly to my mind. Menelik was indeed a great statesman of the 19th and 20th centuries. Because he was a beloved Emperor, he had earned the nickname Emeye (mother). He was indeed the father and mother of the country.
In recognition of his feats in the process of building blocks to present-day Ethiopia, the government in power and the people of Ethiopia at large had celebrated the 100 years anniversary of the great victory of Adowa some years ago with pomp and colour. Indeed, it was a good measure, rather a decision to celebrate the victory of Adowa, the shining victory of the black man against colonial encoachment. However, in my opinion, both the government and the people of Ethiopia need to make more to pay tribute to the Emperor. Let me suggest some of them as follows:
- straighten up the smear campaign or lop-sided development with regard to Menelik's fame and personal contribution, by way of depicting the true history of the founding father of the nation in the mainstream media and the free press;
- allow all teachers and students of higher educational institutions, secondary and elementary schools, to make free discussions, debates, on the role played by the Emperor;
- send the President of the country (not a low-ranking official) to lay wreaths on Menelik's Monument in the centre of Addis Ababa;
- prevent or contol any damage to his monument that can happen by mob action, as has been tried before by some Nihilist groups;
- renew History of the Emperor who has alleged to have committed brutality against the Oromo women by ordering off their breasts; this allegation was aimed at inciting one ethnic group against another;
- keep the monument as part of our heritage; the Minister of Culture and Sports should give priority to the protection, and whenever necessary, the renovation or repair of this monument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
