Abigail Salisbury is an enemy of the state of Ethiopia

by Cristina Holtzer
Source: The Pitt News

Ethiopia bans access to student’s critical article

Abigail Salisbury is an enemy of the state of Ethiopia because of an op-ed column she published online.
Salisbury, a student in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, spoke about her article to an audience of about 10 in a “Let’s Talk Africa” lecture on Wednesday in 4130 Posvar Hall from 1:30 to 3 p.m. The Ethiopian government blocked her article, titled “Human Rights and the War on Terror in Ethiopia,” one day after she published it online.
While in Ethiopia, Salisbury noticed an extreme lack of freedom of speech and press for Ethiopian people and decided to write the piece, which criticizes the Ethiopian government.
Salisbury was working as an assistant professor at Mekelle University Law School, a small college outside of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, when she published the article. After the university administration discovered her article, Salisbury said the university “basically asked [her] not to work there anymore.”
“I was told that, based on what I wrote, that if I had been an Ethiopian person, I would have been put in prison,” Salisbury said. “I don’t think they want me back.”
Ironically enough, Salisbury said, she was in the country teaching international human-rights law, a class required for graduation from law school in Ethiopia.
Anna-Maria Karnes, a representative of the Africana studies department, also attended the lecture and interjected throughout. Karnes, whose parents live in Ethiopia, has a thorough grasp of the political climate in the country.
“Skype was outlawed two years ago in Ethiopia,” Karnes said. “There were people jailed for using Skype.”
When Karnes first discovered the Skype law, she worried that she would not be able to get in touch with her parents because that was their primary source of communication. But Skype was illegal only for Ethiopians, not for foreigners.
“As a Westerner, you are treated differently,” Salisbury said. “Better.”
Ethiopians subscribe to a different race and caste system than many Americans are used to. Salisbury said that when African-Americans traveled to Ethiopia, they were treated the same as whites. Ethiopians believe that everyone else in Africa is black but that they, themselves, are red skinned.
Salisbury recounted a story of when someone in the street approached her and asked, “Have you seen any black women today?”
Salisbury said she was surprised by the scale of differences between the learning environments in Ethiopia and the U.S.
Because of the country’s limited resources, students learn to memorize verbatim what professors say in lecture. Salisbury said she’s seen students reproduce a lecture right down to the “ums” and “likes.”
Ethiopian education also differs from Western education because, Salisbury said, there could be “watchers” present at any time, in any classroom. Watchers are government representatives on the lookout for those speaking out against the government.
“What would creep me out if I were in that class?” Salisbury said. “I don’t know if I would be raising my hand with opinions.”
In addition to an extreme lack of freedom of speech, Salisbury said Ethiopians also struggle with tough racial tensions and “ethnic federalism,” or preferential treatment for one ethnic group that is officially recognized by the government. With Ethiopia located in a contentious part of the world, Salisbury said U.S.-Ethiopia relations are crucial.
“Ethiopia is really instrumental in the U.S. agenda and the global war on terror that we’re engaged in,” she said.
Salisbury and Karnes opened the presentation with an activity about African knowledge. They divided the audience into small groups and asked them to label a map of Africa with the names of as many countries as they could. Even with several African students and faculty in the audience, no one was able to label the entire map.
“You can’t know the whole of Africa,” Director of Africana Studies Macrina Lelei said. “That’s part of why we have African studies here at Pitt … to share those experiences.”

Democracy, Tolerance, and G7’s position towards Eritrea

by Kirubeal Bekele
On Sunday September 22, 2013, the Ginbot 7 leadership had a very revealing and open discussion in Washington DC meeting like it has never had before. As you know, the issue of working with Eritrea has been a bone in the throat for G7 as well as for its supporters around the world. Many have argued against using Eritrea as a spring board to wage an armed struggle against TPLF.
Opponents claim that Eritrea cannot be trusted based on their experience with Isayas Afeworki so far and his public rhetoric as it relates to Ethiopia. They may have a point. But the problem is that they don’t practice the position they defend or argue for. They don’t provide an alternative and actually implement that alternative. For example, they don’t answer to the question of where to wage an armed struggle and show us the way by an example. They don’t. Why don’t they find a place within Ethiopia and wage an armed struggle and show us the way? Why don’t they go and practice what they preach like G7 Popular Force instead of simply analyzing and arguing from the comfort of their homes in the West? What they do is simply disagree and sometimes with bitterness and even animosity against G7’s position towards Eritrea.
Instead of making an honest and logical attempt to convince and win support, those who oppose G7′s position in Eritrea use intimidation, name callings, insults, put downs and innuendos to impose their opinion on G7 and its supporters. But the irony is that these forces claim to believe and fight for democracy in Ethiopia and yet they forcefully impose their position on others. G7 has repeatedly expressed the right of any political entity to follow a path it believes in without imposing its policy or belief on any one else except asking their support. G7 has often made clear that it does not oppose other political parties who pursue a political path different than its own. It is interesting whether we know how to win support with a clean and convincing argument backed by results on the ground instead of using endless spurious arguments and worse innuendos and name callings.
Those who oppose G7 are not all in the same wave length. One group is of course the enemy. Pro-TPLF mercenaries like Awramba Times editor and TPLF dogs are barking against G7 simply to accomplish their paid assignments. It is their duty. There is no surprise there. They are part of the package. There is a second group that questions and suspects a multi-national political force like G7 for fear of revenge by TPLF victims in the form of genocide or a lesser nationwide violence. This group has a legitimate fear.
But opposing such a political force like G7, or any other multi-national force for that matter, is not a solution to their fear. On the contrary, a force such as G7 that has created an alliance with Tigray People Democratic Movement (TPDM), if strengthened, may help stabilize the country by preventing a possible chaos and ethnic violence in Ethiopia when TPLF collapses. But there are some in this group who may have their own ax to grind who dream to preserve the ethnic hegemony of the status quo by reforming TPLF one way or another. And they strongly oppose the emergence of a formidable multi-national party or organization like G7 or any other multi-national party or group. They support and are comfortable working with a passive resistance movement(s) and if possible lead it (them) or high jack its (their) leadership. They infiltrate these types of do-nothing organizations and use them as their handy tool to wage their smear campaign and propaganda against G7 and anything related to it.
There is a third group. These are political organizations that are contemplating and competing for power in Ethiopia after TPLF. They believe that if they don’t cook the dish, it will never taste good. They want power at any cost and by any means. They are ego-driven and uncompromising, full of intrigues and back stabbing. Nothing satisfies them until they are in charge. They oppose everything any opponent does. They deliberately or honestly believe that truth is on their side. Compromise or giving a chance to others wounds their ego. If something is successful and they are not a part of it, by chance or by design, they want no part of it. And they will oppose it. That is why we see people and even organizations that have the audacity to oppose ESAT some openly and a few in silence. This hurts their ambitions and their life long political journey for fame and fortune extinguishing their chances to positions of power in Ethiopia. And they don’t like it a bit.
There is one final group which I consider innocent but suspicious. This is the vast majority that is mostly patriotic that should be handled with care. They have no ax to grind except to see Ethiopia free. It is critical that they should be convinced to make a difference. Our story with Eritrea is full of suspicions and actual heart-breaking experiences due to the war waged between Ethiopia and Eritrea for over 40 years now. This group doesn’t trust anything related to Eritrea no matter who said what including God. It has a legitimate concern but suspicion should not tie our hands and prevent us from doing what needs to be done. Our situation today is desperate. TPLF has done and still doing all it can to destroy our people and country.
This suspicious group should know that there are times in life when you have to do what you got to do to get out of a rock and hard place by swallowing our pride and controlling our suspicion. There is a saying in our country,”ቀን እስኪአልፍልህ የአባትህ ባርያ ይግዛህ” that sums it up. This group has to be convinced that there is no alternative except to give the policy of using Eritrea as staging platform to deal with TPLF. This is the group Ato Andargachew Tsige specifically addressed asking them to give G7 a chance while holding its suspicions.