On the week Ethiopian immigrants were dehumanized, Saudi wins a rights seat at the UN

On the week Ethiopian immigrants were dehumanized, Saudi wins a rights seat at the UN

ሰበር ዜና: ሳውዲ አረቢያ በተባበሩት መንግስታት የሰብዐዊ መብቶች ምክር ቤት ውስጥ መቀመጫ አሸነፈች
November 12, 2013
Dozens of Ethiopians were killed, scores raped and several wounded and attacked by the Saudi Arabian securities and mobs in the past two weeks.  Saudi Arabia has not taken full responsibility and accountability for the actions and no palpable measure has so far been taken. See HERE and HERE.
Today a stunning News report came from the United Nations (UN), Saudi Arabia has won a seat at the UN Human Rights Council.
The following report is by AP
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam win seats on UN Human Rights Council
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, November 12, 4:59 PM

UNITED NATIONS — China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam won seats on the Human Rights Council, the U.N.’s highest rights watchdog body, upsetting independent human rights groups.The General Assembly on Tuesday elected 14 new members to the 47-seat Geneva-based council, which can shine a spotlight on rights abuses by adopting resolutions — when it chooses to do so. It also has dozens of special monitors watching problem countries and major issues ranging from executions to drone strikes.New York-based Human Rights Watch said five candidate nations — China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Algeria — have refused to let U.N. investigators visit to check alleged abuses.Also elected to three-year terms were Britain and France, the Maldives, Macedonia, Cuba, Mexico, Algeria, Morocco, Namibia, South Africa.  

This other piece of report is taken from CNS News 
Due to an absence of competition, Tuesday’s vote at the General Assembly in New York will see China, Russia and Saudi Arabia all return to the council in January, just one year after term limits obliged them to stand down. They will be joined by Vietnam, which will take a seat for the first time since the Geneva-based HRC was established in 2006.
The State Department’s latest report on human rights in China describes it as “an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party constitutionally is the paramount authority.” The report also cited China for its coercive one-child-per couple policy which sometimes resulted in “forced abortion” or “forced sterilization.”
Saudi Arabia, according to the State Department human rights report, only issues drivers licenses to men, effectively prohibiting women from driving.  The country also requires women to have permission of their “male guardian” to move around the country.
The State Department also says that in Saudi Arabia “conversion from Islam to another religion is considered apostasy, which can be punishable by death.” Non-Muslim clergy are not allowed to enter the country to perform services, according to the State Department’s report on religious freedom, “which is particularly problematic for Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, whose religious traditions require that they receive sacraments from a priest on a regular basis.”
China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Vietnam are all designated “not free” by the democracy watchdog Freedom House, which grades countries for political rights and civil liberties.
In addition, between one and three more “not free” countries will receive the go-ahead to join the council, depending on how the votes go for the only competitive slates on offer – Africa and Latin America. The three are Cuba, Algeria and South Sudan.
Along with five current “not free” countries whose terms extend into next year – Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, United Arab Emirates – that means the 47-seat HRC will from January 2014 have between 10 and 12 “not free” members in total.
That will leave a group of between nine and 11 “partly free” members and between 23 and 25 “free” members. So the caucus of “free” democracies will comprise between 49 and 53 percent of the council next year.
The top end of that range would actually be a slight improvement on recent years, from the point of view of the democratic members. But beyond the math, some of those seeking to return have in past years been particularly influential in directing the agenda and consolidating support around controversial positions.
China and Russia naturally wield leadership in multilateral forums while Cuba, a key player in the bloc of developing nations known as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), drew Western criticism during earlier terms on the council. The Castro regime faces a three-way race Tuesday with Uruguay and Mexico for two available Latin American seats.
Efforts led by Western democracies and rights advocacy groups to urge the U.N. membership to use the secret ballot vote to elect as HRC members only countries that respect human rights have failed over the years.
NAM comprises just under two-thirds of the total General Assembly membership, and some of the world’s most repressive regimes have been elected in past years with large majorities.
Elections have also been marked by horse-trading and the problem of closed-slates – where the U.N.’s regional groups nominate the same number of countries as there are seats available for their group, thereby doing away with any contest.
It is because of closed slates in the Asia and Eastern Europe groups that China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Russia are all but guaranteed success on Tuesday.
(The Asia group did provide some competition until recently, when Jordan dropped out, thus assuring Saudi Arabia of victory. The U.N. has yet to confirm reports that the two Arab states agreed to a tradeoff: in exchange for withdrawing from the HRC contest Jordan will reportedly take the Security Council seat which Saudi Arabia won, and then promptly declined, last month.)
When the HRC in 2011 held its first five-year review – an opportunity to assess and fine-tune its operations – the United States proposed that “closed slates” be disallowed. It also suggested that every country wishing to stand for election should first be required to defend its human rights record through an “interactive dialogue” with U.N. member states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Both recommendations failed.
Despite this and other voiced concerns – mostly relating to a disproportionate focus on Israel – the Obama administration, an enthusiastic participant in the HRC, says U.S. leadership has improved it. At the end of most council sessions the State Department issues a fact sheet highlighting what it sees as positive developments.
Cuba champions ‘just, democratic and equitable international order’
In all, 16 countries are running Tuesday for 14 available seats on the HRC, for three-year terms starting January.
Human Rights Watch, a U.S.-based NGO, noted that five of them – China, Russia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam – have all refused permission in recent years for U.N. rights experts to visit their countries.
After reviewing the rights practices and voting records of the 16 candidates two other NGOs, U.N. Watch and Human Rights Foundation, concluded that no fewer than 12 “fail to meet the U.N.’s own basic criteria for membership.”

Ethiopia: The "Liberty of Movement"

By Alemayehu G Mariam   
Government announces temporary ban on traveling abroad for work”

In an effort to curb the rising tide of abuse and exploitation of Ethiopian migrants, [there will be]  a temporary freeze on citizens traveling abroad for employment. The temporary ban has been issued to prevent abuse and even killings of many Ethiopians who have travelled abroad for work. The ban is intended to remain in force until legal, administrative and institutional gaps in foreign employment have been addressed. These measures had become necessary because previous efforts by the Government to ensure the rights of Ethiopian workers abroad had failed to achieve their aim. Ensuring safe working remains one of the priority areas of the government. The temporary freeze on foreign employment travel and suspension of foreign employment agencies is expected to speed up improvement of working conditions for Ethiopians working overseas.

Is the “temporary freeze on foreign employment travel” constitutional? Does the regime have the constitutional power to suspend the “liberty of movement” of Ethiopian citizens for the purpose of “prevent[ing] abuse and even killings of many Ethiopians who have traveled abroad for work”? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO!

I am compelled to write this commentary on the constitutional “liberty of movement” of Ethiopian citizens for  two reasons. First, for quite some time I have been concerned about and very critical of the regime’s policy of forced displacement or internal deportation (that is, the forced expulsion of Ethiopian citizens from locations they have chosen to establish residence and engage in employment and sending them back to their so called “kilils” [“autonomous regional states”] or “homelands”). In April of this year, Prof. Yacob Hailemariam, a prominent Ethiopian opposition leader and a former senior Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda commented that the expulsion of members of the Amhara ethnic group  from Benishangul-Gumuz (one of the nine “kililistans” in Ethiopia) was a de facto ethnic cleansing. “The forceful deportation of people because they speak a certain language could destabilize a region, and if reported with tangible evidence, the UN Security Council could order the International Criminal Court to begin to examine the crimes.” 

There is substantial and compelling eyewitness and victim testimony to show the flagitious nature of the regime’s policy of internal deportation from various regions including Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, Oromiya, Somali and the Ogaden and   Benji Maji/Gura Ferda area in Southern Ethiopia, among others.  I have previously addressed the internal deportation of the so-called “sefaris of North Godjam Amharas” by the late leader of the regime from the Benji Maji/Gura Ferda area. On the issue of the regime’s culpability under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“Deportation or forcible transfer of population”), I opined: “Whether the expulsion of the Amhara ‘sefaris’ is part of a deliberate and systematic policy of ‘ethnic federalism’ in which ethnic purges of a civilian population are undertaken to ensure the ethnic homogeneity of the southern part of the country to the detriment of other Ethiopians of a different ethnic stripe will bear significantly on the question of ethnic cleansing.”

Second, I was puzzled by the regime’s manifestly willful ignorance and/or willful indifference to its constitutional limitations when it recently imposed a “ban on travel abroad for work”. Due to space limitations (yes, I have heard it whispered that my commentaries are too long; but though “brevity is the soul of wit” as Shakespeare commended, it would be witless of me to sacrifice substance for the sake of brevity), I will address the second  issue here and defer my discussion of forced internal deportation and ethnic cleansing for another time.

Ethiopians’ constitutional right to freedom of movement and travel

Article 32 (“Freedom of Movement”) guarantees Ethiopian citizens an untrammeled freedom of movement: “(1) Any Ethiopian or foreign national lawfully in Ethiopia has, within the national territory, the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence, as well as the  freedom to leave the country at any time he wishes to.”  This “liberty of movement” is further secured and reinforced in two binding international conventions to which Ethiopia is a signatory. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which is explicitly incorporated into the Ethiopian Constitution under Article 13(2) provides, “The fundamental rights and freedoms specified in this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner conforming to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Human Rights and International instruments adopted by Ethiopia.” Article 13 of the UDHR similarly provides, “1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates the identical language of the UDHR, except in subsection 3 makes certain exceptions for national security and public order.

Article 9 of the Ethiopian Constitution (“Supremacy of the Constitution”) provides, “(1) The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law, customary practice or a decision of an organ of state or a public official which contravenes this Constitution shall be of no effect.”

Can the regime impose a “temporary freeze on foreign employment travel” on Ethiopian citizens without flagrantly violating Article 32 of the Ethiopian Constitution and other international conventions?

The language of Article 32 is clear and unambiguous. No special interpretive aid or analytical method is needed to understand the plain meaning of the words. Article 32 is sweeping and comprehensive in its  guarantee of complete freedom of movement. “Any Ethiopian has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence, as well as the freedom to leave the country at any time he wishes to.” There are absolutely no preconditions that a citizen must meet before “choosing his residence”, moving from one part of the country to another or in deciding to “leave the country”. The only precondition, if there is one, is that the citizen “wishes” to travel or exercise his/her freedom of movement.

Article 32 also requires no additional legislative act to effectuate its purpose  with such conditional operative clauses as “in a manner to be prescribed by law”. Article 32 is self-executing, which means it fully operative by virtue of its constitutional declaration. It cannot be changed, altered, modified or suspended by legislation or executive fiat.

The regime’s “temporary ban on travel” reviewed within the mandatory language of the supremacy clause of Article 9 (“any decision of an organ of state or a public official which contravenes this Constitution shall be of no effect”), is manifestly offensive and flagrantly repugnant to the sweeping guarantees of Articles 32. The right of law abiding Ethiopian citizens who “wish” to travel cannot be “frozen”, “suspended temporarily” or otherwise  subjected to encroachment. The regime’s travel ban should be roundly condemned and legally declared null and void. (I will not waste ink or time writing about why proper constitutional adjudication of this issue is impossible in the regime’s kangaroo courts or its make-believe “Council of Constitutional Inquiry” under Article 82.)

The plight of Ethiopian domestic workers abroad

There is no question that over the last few years many young Ethiopian women who have voluntarily traveled to or have been  trafficked into various Middle Eastern countries as domestic workers have suffered and continue to suffer horrific abuse and inhumane treatment. I commented on the subject and expressed my outrage over the maltreatment of these  workers nearly three years ago in my commentary “From the International Slave Trade to the International Maid Trade”. Even today, countless Ethiopian domestic workers throughout the Middle East suffer forcible detention by their employers, sexual violence, denial of wages and economic exploitation, demonization in the host countries as criminals and other unspeakable abuse. Their situation is not only heart aching, it is heartbreaking!

However, trashing the unfettered  liberty of movement of citizens will not alleviate the suffering of Ethiopian domestic workers in the Middle East nor prevent their abuse or exploitation. The policy rationale that because “previous efforts have failed to ensure the rights of Ethiopian workers abroad” a  “temporary freeze on travel is expected to speed up improvement of working conditions for Ethiopians working overseas” is a nonsensical non sequitur (does not logically follow). To argue that  “Freezing (stopping) employment travel” in its tracks domestically “will speed up improved working conditions overseas” is like saying standing water will cause a flood. The policy justification makes very little sense because the Ethiopians being “exploited and abused” are already in the various countries suffering exploitation and abuse.

It is true that the regime has been the target of intense criticism for its years of depraved and callous indifference to the suffering of these workers. The regime’s “embassies” in that part of the world have turned a deaf ear, blind eyes and muted lips to Ethiopians who have sought their help and support.

Will a “temporary freeze” materially improve the abject conditions of those Ethiopian domestic workers already suffering abuse and exploitation? It will not! Will it facilitate the prosecution of the abusive employers? It will not! Will the “freeze” prevent human trafficking in “forced labor” by criminal elements and their official protectors inside Ethiopia and in the host countries? It will not! Is the “freeze” much of a bargaining chip in negotiations with host governments that allow such abuse and continue to deny basic and minimal legal protections to such workers? It is not! At best, the “freeze” is a last-ditch public relations stunt by the regime to cover up its years of depraved indifference towards the plight of these workers. It is a clever ploy to distract attention from the fact that the regime has done diddly-squat in the face of daily reports and revelations of suicides, homicides and abusive treatment of these workers throughout the Middle East.

The need for special protection of Ethiopian domestic workers abroad  

I believe the exploitation and abuse of migrant domestic workers is among the most important human rights issues of the Twenty First Century. The estimated 150 thousand Ethiopian domestic workers scattered throughout the Middle East and elsewhere are part of the millions of migrant domestic workers facing human rights abuses throughout the world. However, in contrast to the indifference and inaction of the regime in Ethiopia, other legitimately elected governments facing similar problems have taken affirmative action to deal with the problem.

If the regime in Ethiopia is serious about its claims of  “curbing the rising tide of abuse and exploitation of Ethiopian migrants workers”, it must go beyond window dressing and take actions commensurate with the professed concern. First, the regime should accede to  the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) “Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97). That Convention provides a comprehensive framework for the implementation of legislation which provides robust protections to such workers including a “system of supervision of contracts of employment between an employer, or a person acting on his behalf, and a migrant for employment”. Second, the regime should also accede to the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. That convention provides, among other things, “No migrant worker or member of his or her family shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The elements of this Convention should be incorporated by reference or included by enumeration in any agreements the regime enters with host countries with migrant domestic workers programs. 

Third, the regime should take advantage of available opportunities to learn from the experiences, policies and laws of other countries with large numbers of migrant workers deployed abroad. Here I use the word “learn” advisedly. By “learning”, I do not mean cutting and pasting the laws and policies of other countries mindlessly and robotically and rubberstamping them.  To this day, I cringe with embarrassment and shame when I recall the braggadocio of the late leader of the regime in February 2012 explaining to his parliament how he had crafted a “flawless” “anti-terrorism law” by plagiarizing and cannibalizing the laws and policies of other countries: “In drafting our anti-terrorism law, we copied word-for-word the very best anti-terrorism laws in the world. We took from America, England and the European model anti-terrorism laws. …Because they have experience, there is no shame  if we learn or take from them. Learning from a good teacher is useful not harmful. Nothing embarrassing about it. The [antiterrorism] proclamation in every respect is flawless. It is better than the best anti-terrorism laws [in the world] but not less than any one of them in any way…” Of course, there was no “drafting” of an “anti-terrorism law”. It was all “copied word for word” (plagiarized) from the laws of other countries. It was a shameless cut and paste job. Today, thousands are imprisoned on the authority of a “law” mindlessly pieced together by ignoramuses who believe laws and policies are mere random words strung together in sentences and paragraphs.

My simple suggestion here is that the regime should carefully study the policies of those governments that have taken effective action to protect the rights of their migrant workers. I believe there is much to be learned from the laws and policies of the Government of the Philippine (GoP) designed to protect the human and economic rights of their migrant workers. In 1982, the GoP established the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The central aim of the POEA is to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipino workers. In 1995, the GoP enacted The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 with the aim of expanding “overseas employment and establish[ing] a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families and overseas Filipinos in distress”. This Act was amended in 2009 by  REPUBLIC ACT No. 10022  reaffirming the GoP’s intent to “deploy overseas Filipino workers only in countries where the rights of Filipino migrant workers are protected.” To ensure the rights of these workers are respected, the GoP requires host countries to adopt  “labor and social laws protecting the rights of migrant workers”, ratify or accede to “multilateral conventions, declarations or resolutions relating to the protection of migrant workers” and take “concrete measures to protect the rights of migrant workers.” In 2011, pursuant to the Republic Act No. 10022,  POEA issued a list of countries where Filipino workers may not be deployed owing to the failure of host countries in adopting domestic laws that protect migrant workers. Among the countries where Filipino workers may not be deployed or deployment to be reconsidered include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.

Nile talks end on sour note

       By Al-Monitor  

KHARTOUM, Sudan — Disputes and disagreements erupted again between Egypt and Ethiopia concerning the Nile River dam construction, after both countries failed to reach an agreement governing the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in their initial negotiating session. The attempt at dialogue quickly ended, while the crisis of trust between the two countries resurfaced as their fears that the other might appropriate the Nile’s waters became evident.
gyptian, Ethiopian and Sudanese ministers of water resources met in the Sudanese capital Khartoum on Sunday, Nov. 4, to begin the first round of negotiating sessions set to deal with the Renaissance Dam, as well as to consult with each other on the mechanisms needed to complete it, and how to implement the recommendations of an international committee of technical experts. The latter concluded its activities on May 27 after studying the effects of the dam on the water security of Egypt and Sudan.
The meetings began with an opening session, attended by Al-Monitor, in which the ministers of water resources from all three countries spoke about the prevailing spirit of cooperation and contentment, as well as the principle of mutual good will and a desire to prevent harm to others. Egypt's minister of irrigation affirmed in a speech that Egypt would not stand against development in countries of the Nile Basin, as long as it did not adversely affect it. The Ethiopian minister countered that his country would not cause harm to any downstream countries, meaning Egypt and Sudan. Attitudes quickly changed, however, once the closed sessions began and disagreements mounted. As a result, the meetings were suspended and a new date for negotiations was set for Dec. 8. “We were taken aback by Ethiopia’s attempts to impose its agenda on us during the meetings, while it outright failed to recognize the international committee’s recommendations pertaining to the dam. Disagreements revolved around how to establish a committee or body through which the three countries would work to implement those recommendations,” an Egyptian diplomatic source who participated in the meetings told Al-Monitor. “Egypt is of the opinion that it is necessary for Ethiopia to acknowledge that there are problems associated with the dam and that it will have negative effects on Egypt. Clear conditions must be set, and Ethiopia must commit to abide by and never circumvent them. This is why Egypt has insisted on the presence of international experts who would serve to validate Egypt’s position before the international community, though Ethiopia has objected to this,” added the source who requested anonymity. Egyptian concerns about the Renaissance Dam are confined to its technical specifications, the size of the projected structure and the holding capacity of the reservoir attached to it, which might negatively affect the flow of water into Egypt and decrease the rate of electricity production at the Aswan Dam. Furthermore, Ethiopia did not submit sufficient studies concerning the dam’s safety and its ecological and social impact. “We were surprised by Ethiopia’s rejection of our proposals during the meeting. We cannot support the dam without added proof of good intentions from the Ethiopian side. All options are open before Egypt, if Ethiopia does not acquiesce to our conditions,” another Egyptian source present at the meetings told Al-Monitor. “We do not want to characterize the negotiations as having failed. We will give ourselves another chance to talk and better clarify everybody’s points of view,” Egypt’s Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources, Mohammed Abdel Moteleb, further told Al-Monitor. Ethiopian Minister of Water and Energy Alamayo Tegno, in a statement given to Al-Monitor after the meetings, said: “The decision to build the Renaissance Dam is resolute, both by the government and the Ethiopian people. We are in complete agreement with Sudan about all the details pertaining to the completion of the dam. Egypt will certainly come to understand this and espouse our position.” “What is currently taking place is a dispute and not a difference in opinion. We have repeatedly affirmed our intention not to harm any other country. Financing difficulties will not hinder our efforts, since the Ethiopian people are mobilized in favor of building the dam. Ethiopia has now become one of the world’s 10 fastest-developing countries,” Tegno continued. Cairo is currently mulling taking a number of quick steps prior to the second session of negotiations scheduled for Dec. 8. In this regard, Egypt’s political leadership seemed comfortable with the matter when the Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Biblawi announced before the first session was held that the Renaissance Dam could bring prosperity to Egypt. This is in direct contrast with Egypt’s stance during negotiations. An Egyptian diplomatic source told Al-Monitor that Cairo’s options right now revolve around maintaining international pressure and preventing foreign funding of the dam project to slow construction until an agreement can be reached with the Ethiopians. Egypt will also make public the official report prepared by the international committee of technical experts, which shows that the dam will have a negative impact if it is built according to the current planned dimensions. “Continuing to follow the technical track in negotiations pertaining to the Renaissance Dam between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia will lead nowhere. A political agreement must be reached, and an official mechanism established by the senior leaders of all three countries, through which direct negotiations are held until each country’s positions and decisions can be clearly defined,” the source affirmed. As the tug of war between the Egyptian and Ethiopian delegations intensified during the first negotiating session, Sudan fully and unreservedly adopted the Ethiopian position. None of the Sudanese delegation members wanted to comment about the meetings, though Sudanese Minister of Water and Energy Osama Abdallah issued a very brief news statement. In it, he said that an atmosphere of honesty and brotherhood prevailed over the meetings, while they all tried to find the best avenues to move forward. He added that they would meet again to reconsider the matter. The door is still open to all possibilities and the upcoming negotiations between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia about the Renaissance Dam could either succeed or fail. Available information, however, seems to indicate that disagreements and a lack of confidence still prevail between the Egyptian and Ethiopian sides, with Sudan joining the latter’s camp to safeguard its interests and receive a part of the ensuing benefits. Egypt, on the other hand, has failed to clearly state whether it will participate in building the dam, despite the positive statements issued by the country’s political and diplomatic leadership in this regard.

Say No to Saudi Arabia Brutality!

              

Which Political Argument suffers more from a non-Dynamic Way of Thinking?

by T. Goshu
Let me first make myself clear that this topic of my comment which I believe is straight -forward and fairly critical is aimed at the recent political argument on the question of how to advance the struggle against an ethnic –based tyranny in our country.  I wanted to be straight-forward because I strongly believe that whenever it is appropriate and necessary, there is a need to address our concerns directly to which it belongs to. I also wanted to be fairly critical because I sincerely believe that forwarding our concerns and views in a critical and rational manner, not in an emotional and passive way of thinking is so desirable if there has to be a productive conversation that could move the struggle forward.  Though it is not as easy as we aspire and talk, there is a need to have bold and straight-forward conversation, not going round about and make much generalized views and comments.
On the other hand, it must equally be underlined that our conversations should focus on ideas or issues we want to deal with, not on personal characterization and attack, especially among opposition forces who claim engaging in the struggle for genuine democracy and the prevalence of justice. I understand that given our political history of non-tolerance and undemocratic practices, this line of thinking (focusing on issues, not merely on personalities) has been and still is a huge challenge. But there is no any other way other than courageously facing all the challenges ahead of us by engaging in a dynamic way of argument that can help move our struggle in the right direction and with fairly acceptable speed.
This said; let me proceed to the view point that specifically refers to the recent conversation between Ginbot 7 and the Ethiopian People’s Congress for United Struggle (Shengo). There may be some fellow Ethiopians who may think that discussing on this conversation or argument any further is not necessary because of their “fear” that it may affect the situation negatively.  My view is quite different in sense that the political argument between the two sides is powerfully relevant to the ongoing struggle against a dangerously irresponsible ruling circle in our country. Yes, the very ill-nurtured and ill-guided political agenda by the TPLF/EPRDF elites   cannot be explained only in terms of dictatorial repression as we know. There is no doubt that the political madness of the ruling inner circle has put the very survival of the country at a very serious risk.  I seriously believe that the attitude of staying away from the issues that could affect the ongoing struggle (be it peaceful disobedience or otherwise) is not a desirable political culture we need to advance. Needless to say, it is this kind of sentiment that has contributed to our terrible failure for the last quarter of a century and prolonged the unbearable misery of the people. Yes, it is this kind of very clumsy, if not self-defeating political “shyness” that has contributed to the continuation of the general crisis (political, socio-economic, moral and cultural) we continue to experience.
To show how a real sense of argument is an essential part of our lives, Gerry Spence, the author of a book, How TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME (1995) argues that we need to argue whenever and wherever “we see injustice, repression, inhumane treatment, the degradation of moral, national interest at risk.…”  He further states, “Without argument a nation becomes a waste of land where nothing grows, nothing blossoms, nothing is created, nothing lives.” It is from this very powerful truth that the argument between Ginbot 7 and the Shengo is truly appreciated and commendable. The question is how far we have gone in making our political arguments critical, genuine, productive and forward-looking. Let me continue.
I found the interview conducted by Sisay Agena of ESAT (10/29/130) with Ato Aklilu of the Shengo truly interesting. Yes, it was interesting in a sense that the Shengo, leaving aside its power of argument, deserves sincere appreciation for its willingness and effort to clarify its line of argument to the public. What made the interview more interesting to me was the way journalist Sisay Agena of ESAT handled it. I was so impressed with the legitimate and professional intervention made by Sisay Agena. He intervened smartly and appropriately when he strongly felt that there was a point to be clear and sound. That is the way it should be! Great Job Sisay!
I also attentively listened to the conversation between Ato Aklilu of the Shengo and Ato Efrem Madibo of Ginbot-7 hosted by Abebe Belew of Addis Dimts Radio, on 11/02/13. Abebe Belew deserves sincere appreciation for extending his invitation to his guests and let them make their points of argument; and also let listeners ask questions and make their comments.  Remarkable job Abebe!
When it comes to Ginbot 7, I do not have much to say because I believe that its leaders ( specifically Ato Andargachew Tsegie ,Dr.Birhanu Nega and Ato Efrem Madibo) have  tried to make their points of view about the struggle; and why they reached a decision to get themselves organized and prepared in Eritrea as reasonable as possible. Well, expressing our concerns with this not only merely tactical choice but also with kind of strategic implication is the right thing to do. In other words, it is quite legitimate and desirable to not only remind but also to keep Ginbot 7 cautious in the process of advancing its political struggle. This is because although the struggle is first to get rid of a chronically ill political system of TPLF/EPRDF and subsequently create a democratic society in Ethiopia, there is a compelling reason to take the struggle towards the creation of common understanding and mutual respect between the people of the two countries (Ethiopia and Eritrea) in particular and in the sub-region in general is truly desirable. With all its weaknesses and difficulties as well as the very poor support from the community in the diaspora, I sincerely believe that Ginbot-7 as an opposition political movement has a relatively rational and understandable argument over the Shengo.
How about the Shengo? Well, I sincerely believe that the first thing that deserves due recognition and appreciation is the effort it has made to bring opposition political parties, civic groupings as well as individuals together so that they can play their part in a more concreted manner. The other one is its effort to get the voices of the Ethiopian people heard throughout the world in general and in the Ethiopian community abroad in particular.  And of course, expressing its serious concern with the trustworthiness of the Eritrean government is something to be taken into consideration and should be dealt with appropriately. If we take the statement of October 2, 2013 by the Shengo which rejects any co-operation from the Eritrean government and the subsequent interview given to various media as well as the argument with members of Ginbot-7 leaders as helpful parts of the “dynamic” political process, we can say that the points of concern that the Shengo has tried to raise are legitimate.
The problem is when it comes to the question of whether our political thinking and performance is in line with the political dynamism of the country, of the continent and of the world at large. In other words, there is a need to adjust both our political thinking and actions to the very dynamic political circumstances of the time. Unfortunately, my impression about the way the Shengo performed in the above mentioned specific case (Ginbot-7 and the Eritrean government) has suffered from non-dynamic political way of thinking. I really do not know why a “Congress /Shengo” that comprises some members who claim to be members of the generation of the 1970s such as EPRP and Meison could not make its view point rationally and substantially relevant to the dynamically changing political arena.  Let me jot down some of my specific points as follows:

• Ato Aklilu said that the statement of 10/2/13 does not particularly refer to Ginbot-7; but it is just to make public awareness about the danger of being associated with the government of Isaias Afeworki. The question of being genuinely and critically straight-forward is terribly missing here.  I think starting his conversation with this kind of not- honest approach has contributed to the very weaknesses of his subsequent argument. What was and is the problem with saying, “yes, it includes Ginbot-7” and then justify it without being disingenuous?
• For that matter, was it not genuinely wise to take courageous initiative to contact Ginbot-7 and other political movements and express the concern instead of rushing for press release (statement)?   I really do not know how the political coalitions like the Shengo can deal with those forces that are very difficult if they do not dare to ask for clarification from movements which claim standing for the same cause.
•  When Ato Akliu was asked what his group is doing at this critical moment; he said that his group creates public awareness (hizbin enastemiralen), produce press releases, conducts diplomatic campaign, and takes its concern to the attention of human rights organizations, and supports the peaceful struggle back home. Well, these are very routine things which we recite year after year being most of the time difficult to verify and with no significant effect. Moreover, I was wondering how the recent complaints made by a couple of members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Synod (Addis Ababa) against the damaging intervention by the ruling party was used as a huge step to which the Shengo has played a significant role.
• Ato Aklilu tried further to justify his argument by saying that Gibot-7 and others who are trying to get organized and prepared in Eritrea have done nothing feasible. I think trying to undermine the efforts being made by politicians such as Ato Andargachew Tsigie who happened to be on the ground and tried to create a well-informed movement from that direction of the country is not a convincing line of argument at all. There is no doubt there is kind of dynamism there. And whether we like it or not, an effort to use Eritrea as a stepping stone with a wise and cautious approach toward the government of Isaias afeworki is part of a dynamic way of political thinking and action.

• Ato Aklilu could not (did not) want to answer a very straight-forward question, “if his grouping recognizes Eritrea as an independent country?” He instead kept going back to the story of how Eritrea was separated from Ethiopia. He argued that it was the work of TPLF and Shabiya. True, the people of Eritrea had no time and chance to choose what was better for them, let alone the people of Ethiopia. It must equally be admitted that there has never been a wisely fair and popular mechanism to settle one of the longest civil war in contemporary political history due to the absence of a political system led by statesmen leadership that should extend its efforts beyond its self-serving political power. And therefore, I do not think simply singling out ugly political games played by TPLF and Shabiya but ignoring what our own rulers had negatively contributed is helpful if we want to deal with the ongoing challenges appropriately. Whether it was by hook or crook and we like it or not, Eritrea is an independent state being recognized by international law, not by de facto. Well, it is the right thing to use how serious mistakes have been made in the process of the separation that includes Asssab as a teachable experience during the argument about how to turn the bad into the better. I do not think we need to stick ourselves to a very static political sentiment of “historic animosity”. I do not believe that it is a good line of argument to deny a hard fact because it was created wrongly and we did not like it. Instead, we have to recognize it and try to deal with it accordingly. That is why I wanted to say that Ato Aklilu’s line of argument suffers from lack of recognizing the political dynamism that has taken place for the last several years.
• It has been repeatedly argued by Ato Aklilu that Shabiya ( Ato Esaias Afeworki) has unfinished agenda to make sure he could not only  maintain but also strengthen his political power at the expense of Ethiopia’s national  interest. Two points: a) this is not either surprising or unusual behavior or practice in any international politics let alone the relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea which was not only characterized by very terrible and complex ups and downs for a long time but characterized also by the ongoing huge challenge. I do not think any genuinely concerned political group or individual with a reasonable level of political understanding can be naïve enough to expect the Eritrean government to extend its assistance to the Ethiopian opposition forces merely because of its generosity/magnanimity. The question is how to deal with this given fact and get something good for the goal we want to achieve, not take a chance and be victims of the outcomes. b) I do not think those Ethiopian opposition forces who are trying to get prepared in Eritrea are naïve about all the horrible historic factors, and the current significant political difficulties that require wise and cautious way of doing things. It is from this perspective of mine that I would like to say that it is not a strong line of argument for Ato Aklilu to consider those Ethiopian opposition forces simply as “puppets” of Ato Isaias Afeworki. Ato Aklilu has also tried to justify his argument with the failure, if not very sad end of some Ethiopians such as colonel Tadese, and Getachew, the former university student. Well, I do not want to question the patriotic efforts of those fellow Ethiopians. However, I want to say that a) it is necessary for Ato Aklilu ( the Shengo) and for any genuinely concerned Ethiopian for that matter ,  to know why and how those great Ethiopians have become victims of the situation in Eritrea; instead of simply talking about the very bad fate they ended up . b) arguing that making any association with and getting support from the Eritrean government is necessarily doomed to fail because those who tried before have failed does not sound logically  convincing and  politically realistic as far as the very dynamic political environment we witness is concerned.

Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole purpose of my comment is not either to praise Ginbot -7; and simply undermine the efforts of the shengo. It is to express my impression that the Shengo has suffered from a static way of thinking as far as the argument I tried to discuss is concerned. I hope we all will strive hard to engage in sensible and critical conversations and play complementary roles towards each other, not in an endless and mutually destructive tug of war.

ወያኔ ማለት ቁምጣ ለብሶ የመጣ ደርግ ነው ፡፡

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=286230021510610

ጥቁር ሽብር ወያኔ ቁምጣ የለበሰ ደርግ ነው ! እመኑኝ በየትኛውም የታሪክ ገጠመኝ የሳወዲ መንግስት የዚህ አይነት ድፍረት ያውም በአደባባይ በዜጎቻችን ላይ አሳይቶ አያውቅም ፡፡ ነገሮችን ተመልሰን ከተመለከትን ይህ ግፍና በደል የእኛው ባለስልጣናት ሳውዲወችን አደፋፍረው ያስፈፀሙት ጉዳይ ነው፡፡ ይህም ሁለት ፖለቲካዊ ምክንያቶች አሉት ፡፡ የመጀመሪያው ፡- የወያኔ ባለስልጣናት በሳውዲ የሚኖሩ ኢትዮጲያዊያንን ቦንድ እንዲገዙ በሰበሰቡበት ወቅት ተደጋጋሚ ተቃውሞ ደርሶባቸው እንደነበር የሚታወቅ ነው ፡፡ ይህም ድምፃችን ይሰማ ባሉ ሙስሊሞች ላይ በሃገር ውስጥ የሚደርሰው በደል ይቁም ለጥያቂያቸውም አጥጋቢ መልስ ይሰጥ በሚል ምክንያት ነበር ፡፡ ቂመኛው መንግስታችን ይህን እንደበደል በመቁጠር በእጅ አዙር ዜጎቻችንን እያስጋዘ ይገኛል ፡፡ ለዚህ በደሉ ሽፋን እንዲሆነው በቅርቡ በተለያዩ ሚዲያወቹ አረብ አገራት ላይ ያተኮሩ ወሬወችን ሲነዛ ቆይቷል ፡፡ የሳዲ መንግስት በሰጠው የጊዤ ገደብ የሚያስፈልጋቸውን መረጃ ሊጠይቁ ወደ ‹‹ኢትዮጲያ ኤምባሲ ›› የሄዱ ሚስኪን ለፍቶ አደሮች ቦንድ ግዙ እየተባሉ ሲመላለሱ የጊዜ ገደቡ አልቆላቸዋል ፡፡ ሁለተኛው ምክንያቱ ፡- አገር ውስጥ ያለው ‹‹የድምፃችን ይሰማ ›› እንቅስቃሴ አረብ አገራት ባሉ ኢትዮጲያዊያን የገንዘብ ድጋፍ ያገኛል በሚል ፍርሃት ነው ፡፡ፍርሃት ብቻ ሳይሆን በግልፅም በወቲቪ (የ ወያኔ ቴሌቪዥን ) በተደጋጋሚ ተናግሮታል ፡፡ በመሆኑም ይህን የራሱን ስጋት ለማስታገስና መመለስ ያልቻለውን የማይችለውንም የመብት ጥያቄ ለማፈን የገቢ ምንጭ ናቸው ያላቸውን በአረብ አገር የሚኖሩ ኢትዮጲያዊያንን ሰላም ደህንነትና ሂወት ጭምር በእጅ አዙር እየነጠቀ ነው ፡፡ (እዚህ ላይ ሳውዲወች የቴውድሮስ አድሃኖም ስምምነት አለበት ማለታቸውን እንዳንዘነጋ) አሁን ከወደኪዌት እንደምንሰማው ደግሞ ከስራቸው በገፍ የተፈናቀሉ ኢትዮጲያዊያን ሰልፍ እንወጣለን አልያም ስራ ይሰጠን እያሉ ነው ፡፡ እኒህ ኢትዮጲያዊያን ምክንያቱ ባልታወቀ ሁኔታ ከስራቸው የተፈናቀሉ ናቸው ፡፡
ወያኔ እና የወያኔ ጭፍን ደጋፊወች ማወቅ ያለባችሁ ጉዳይ ድህነት ትግልን ያባብሳል እንጅ አያዳፍንም ‹‹አፈር እየቃምን ድንጋይ እየቆረጠምን ደርግን ጣልነው ›› እንደምትሉት ይህም ህዝብ ሆነ ብላችሁ የምትጭኑበትን ድህነትና እንግልት ተቋቁሞ ድል ማድረጉ የማይቀር ነው ፡፡ ታውቁታላችሁ እናውቀዋለን ! ወያኔ ማለት ቁምጣ ለብሶ የመጣ ደርግ ነው ፡፡ ደርግ ቀይ ሽብር ብሎ ህዝብ ፈጀ ፤ ወያኔ በተዳፈነና የህዝብን መብት ፣ ነፃነትና ሂወት ጭምር በጋረደ ጨለማ አገዛዙ ጥቁር ሽብሩን አወጀ፡፡ እነሆ አገራችን በጥቁር ሽብር ውስጥ ወድቃለች ንጋትን ናፍቆ የተሰደደ ህዝብ በገፍ እየተሰቃየ ነው ፡፡

Sekota Wollo Ethiopia

ብሄራዊ ውርደት፤ የምንመጻደቅበት ‘ሌጋሲ’ (ክንፉ አሰፋ)

    
ወገናችንን በጥይት ሲደፉት በራሱ ላይ አረንጓዴ፣ ቢጫና ቀይ ባንድራችንን ጠምጥመውበታል[1]። ጭካኔ በተሞለበት መንገድ የተገደለው ይህ ኢትዮጵያዊ አስከሬኑም በሰላም አላረፈም። በአካሉ ላይ ያረፈውን ጨርቅ በሴንጢ እየቆራረጡ በሰብአዊ ፍጡር ላይ ሊደረግ የማይገባውን ሁሉ አደረጉበት። ድርጊቱ ናዚዎች በኦሽዌትስ ይፈጽሙት የነበረውን አሰቃቂ ግፍ ያስታውሰናል። በ21ኛው ዘመን እንዲህ አይነቱ ክስተት ይደገማል ብሎ የሚያስብ የለም። እነሆ ሳውዲ አረቢያ በኢትዮጵያውያን ላይ እየፈጸመችው ነው። በስውር ሳይሆን በግልጽ። እንደ ኦሽዊትስ በታጠረ የማጎርያ ካምፕ ሳይሆን በአደባባይ።

ሰው ከሞተ በኋላ ለምን ሙት አካሉን ማሰቃየት አስፈለገ? ምን አይነት ጭካኔ ነው? ምን አይነትስ ጥላቻ ነው? ለሳውዲዎች ግማሽ ፈረንሳይን የሚያህል መሬት ሰጥተናቸው የለም እንዴ? ሀጥያታችን ምኑ ላይ ነው ታዲያ? አስከሬኑን ውሻ፣ ውሻ ሲሉ ሲሳለቁበት ከማየት በላይ የሚያም ነገር የለም። በአደባባይ እንደዋዛ የተጣለው አስከሬን በእርግጥ የዉሻ አስከሬን ቢሆን ኖሮ የእንስሳ ተከራካሪዎች አለምን ቀውጢ ባደረጓት ነበር። Read full story in PDF…
EMF