|
ETHIOPIA
�S
VITAL INTEREST: NATIONAL SECURITY VS. POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY
By
Tecola W. Hagos
PART
ONE
I.
The Current Diaspora Politics vs. Visions of New Democracies
The
more I read articles and chat-postings in the Internet posted by a number
of Ethiopians in the Diaspora, the more I realize how far Ethiopians
tragically are fractured in their views on the Somali crises. The type of
diversity of ideas on the Somali crises entertained by Ethiopians in the
Diaspora is a symptom of a far more serious and long festering deeply felt
political and cultural wound than just being limited to the Somali crises.
In a way, my article is a response to such common concern not just about
the current Ethiopia/Somalia crises. My real concern, in short, is the
political future of
Ethiopia
as a nation/state. I have entertained alternative views on our future
social, political, and economic life. Hopefully, this article, just as
other articles posted in different websites have done, will advance the
discourse on several fronts on the general political situation in
Ethiopia
and not just limited to the Somali crises. Before I address such issues,
however, I would like to state some general observations on the state of
affairs about �Diaspora politics.�
[I
have an article on a much needed discussion on the divisive and
destructive role being played out by our Church Fathers, in Part Two of
this article to be posted soon.]
Diaspora
politics has evolved into tragic emotive behavior of very many Ethiopians
who express ethnocentric views that is unbelievably infantile, which is
often paraded as a criticism of individuals who happen to have a different
view of Ethiopian history than the �official� one, especially dealing
with past unsavory relationship of Ethiopian leaders with Italy. Whenever
such narrow ethnic �champions� of the legacy of a particular
linguistic culture write about Ethiopian history based on such limited
identification, they only succeed in perpetuating ethnicity as a political
tool of division. It is a fact that one may feel some degree of triumph
trashing an adversary if not with deeds, at least with corrosive words.
Such tragic individuals often engaged in such divisive diatribe are
individuals who claim to speak for all Ethiopians even if their
referential region is limited mostly to Addis Ababa or nearby regions and
the pedigree of a couple of Emperors in a setting where we can rightfully
boast of a mosaic of culture and hundreds of kings, emperors, or leaders
with diverse background.
I
used the word �tragic� repeatedly in describing the different and
divisive voices of very many Ethiopians because I consider the process as
self mutilation. My objection to such process of infliction of suffering
has to do also with the fact that a number of Ethiopians are willing to
�throw out the baby with the bath water,� metaphorically speaking, in
their pursuit of narrow political goals. This narrow vengeful outlook is a
result of alienation and long-running suffering. This statement is more of
a description than an accusation, and is intended to help build common
ground where political participation may in deed be universal. I realize
that my suggestion may be nothing more than some grandiose vision or na�ve
wishful thinking. Ethiopian society is increasingly becoming the least
nurturing society I know of in the world. Thus, it comes as no surprise to
me if some members of the Ethiopian community feel as outsiders and
thereby aspire for their own autonomy.
From
my perspective, it seems to me that the opposition group as exemplified in
Kinijit is heading in the wrong direction, for it is stratified
overwhelmingly with one kind of Ethiopians in the Diaspora of a group
mostly from
Addis Ababa
and vicinity. This form of political initiation is not helpful for
national political development. It simply reinforces what is wrong in all
post-modern political movements all over the world�the fragmentation of
viable states into tiny enclaves of ethnic based primitive �tribal�
communities. A lesson to remember is how the ideas of Andre Gundar Frank
of trusting a military to bring about �socialist� change in a feudal
society adopted by Meison completely backfired and ended up in the
establishment of the most violent military regime in Ethiopian History.
Despite the fact of great opportunities for democratic culture by osmosis,
what is happening in the leadership of Diaspora politics is narrow
ethnicism or at best some kind of a convoluted class structure. Ethiopians
in the Diaspora are now fully engaged in such trend of ethnic politics. I
do not see democratic growth, universal participation, and solidarity of
Ethiopians in the Diaspora. In fact, the reverse is happening of increased
stratification and further political atomization.
If
a person goes around checking and learning about the leaders of
�Kinijit� in the Diaspora, such person will be amazed how narrow the
range of associations, friends, family extensions, church memberships et
cetera seem to be of such leaders. By contrast in the 1980s the TPLF,
which started out its political life as the quintessential narrow ethnic
organization, has formed close relationships with numerous liberation
fronts from the rest of
Ethiopia
. The relationship formed by the TPLF seems to have been based on
ideological commonality with leaders of other political organizations on
socialist principles in contradistinction to all �feudalistic�
organizational structures. Some of the present high officials in the
Ethiopian Government, such as the Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers,
Ambassadors et cetera are individuals who were members of that blanket
organization as representatives from different linguistic groups from
Somalia/Harar area, Gurage/Wolieta region, Oromia et cetera. What I
witnessed in 1991 was a horizontal relationship between such leaders from
different political organizations that was egalitarian in appearance
despite the fact that the core political power was welded by the TPLF
leaders; I see a reversion in a direction that is not what you might think
is the case.
I
challenge anyone to show me how diversified the current Diaspora
Opposition leadership is. What I am observing is the aggregation of
�birds of the same feather� closely bunched and allowing no space to
the larger community of Ethiopians from outside of Addis Ababa and
vicinity, and not reflective of the diversity of religion and ethnic
background of Ethiopians. This is a very serious setback that must be
reversed if one wants to avoid horrendous bloodshed in the future. Thus,
Kinijit or any other organization in order to succeed in its political
goals to replace the current Government of Meles Zenawi must expand and
diversify the membership of its leadership to include individuals
reflective of the linguistic or ethnic diversity of
Ethiopia
. On the other hand, Kinijit
must clean itself from the stain of former �Red Terror� and �White
Terror� participants. Above all, it must not allow former Derg officials
as its leaders.
Berhanu
G. Balcha the Vice-Chair of
Network of Ethiopian Scholars (NES) has written an article �A minority rule brings neither democracy nor stability� posted in
Ethiomedia on 10 February 2007
that illustrate to me the type of dangerous and degenerative thinking of
some of Ethiopia�s elites. The reference to Walker Connor by Berhanu G.
Balcha is similar in essence to that of using Andre Gundar Frank by Meison
to justify its opportunistic position in joining the Derg in 1975. Why
should anyone follow the views of these two post-modern thinkers to
justify the atomization of a viable state structure like that of
Ethiopia
? The argument of Berhanu G. Balcha is based on the idea of
self-determination, but that �self-determination� is to be used to
dethrone a minority group [TPLF] from its political leadership position by
the aggregation of two ethnic groups [Amharas and Oromos] that would be
clearly in the majority even though individually such ethnic groups are
not in the majority. In that particular article by Berhanu G. Balcha, what
seems to be the message is a call for Oromos and Amharas to gang up
against Tigreans and subjugate them by driving them out of political
power. Such ideation is a far cry from advocating for a political process
with universal principles of democracy, equality, and freedom to all
members of a society.
It
is unbelievable that the result of �education� and life in the West
could affect some Ethiopians to become even more narrow ethnicists than
their parents. As a reminder, lest we commit more damage to the unity of
the people of
Ethiopia
by making such calls for genocidal war as stated by the learned Vise-Chair
of an elite association, I would like to recall briefly the history of
Ethiopia
for the last one hundred years. Our present condition of poverty,
ignorance, social injustice et cetera is a direct result of the inequities
that we suffered in the hands of �non-Tigrean� Ethiopian leaders such
as Menilik, Zewditu,
Haile Selassie and Mengistu (in his latter phase). Meles Zenawi and
his TPLF warriors started out as rebellious group due to the unbearable
suppression of the people of Ethiopia by Haile Selassie and later by
Mengistu where millions were starved to death and where political
suppression was total except for the limited range of people centered from
Addis Ababa who were able to benefit to some extent from being close to
the center of power. The entire national wealth of
Ethiopia
was invested in that particular area whereas the rest of the Ethiopian
people were left in horrible underdevelopment and brutal oppression. Meles
Zenawi (TPLF) and Mengistu (the Military Derg) were both symptoms
(victims) of a legacy of unenlightened brutally oppressive Ethiopian
leadership when they started out their rebellion movements rather than
being the full cause of the present economic and political condition of
Ethiopia
. After acquiring power, they turned out to be no less brutal or
oppressive than their predecessors.
The
fighting banner of �self�determination� is a dubious motto as used
by �liberation� movements to this day. It is a fact that almost all
�liberation� movements that professed such principles of equality and
freedom in order to gain independence from their colonial masters, failed
miserably to deliver anything that even remotely resembles any form of
equality and freedom once �independence� was achieved. Nevertheless,
in every instance since the 1960s the disaster visited by such process of
so called �national liberation� is still the legacy that we are
struggling against in
Africa
and else where in the �underdeveloped� world.
Ethiopia
has no such legacy of colonialism and the concept of self-determination as
expressed by post-modern thinkers has no real connection to the people of
Ethiopia
and of no political value to us. I know all about the mumbo-jumbo polemic
of our local liberation movements (OLF, EPLF et cetera) where it is
asserted that
Ethiopia
having colonized Oromos, Somalis, et cetera is in fact a colonial power in
itself. Of course, such assertion is �nonsense on stilts� because in
Ethiopia
what is happening is old-fashioned nation building with diverse people as
its building constitutive parts and not colonialism. If you insist in such
type of nonsense of assertion that Ethiopia is a colonial power, then you
may have to produce to me a Bushongo/Congo King of Belgium, a Kikuyu Queen
of England, a Tuareg/Berber President of
France et cetera in order to draw a parallel to the condition of the
political evolution of nation building that is still underway in Ethiopia,
with your assertion of colonialism. What we need in Ethiopian leadership
are �giants� with visions of building �an Ethiopian empire� not Lilliputian ethnicists that are aspiring to fly
hundreds of �flags� from numerous mini-states.
We
have now one serendipitous development that may be the crowning jewel in
our long search for a political �party� organized by individuals with
stellar background. I am impressed with the activities of some young
Ethiopians and their sophisticated universalistic political awareness of a
different kind from that espoused by ethnicist political movements and
thinkers like Berhanu G. Balcha. It is tragic for any educated person to
fail to make a distinction between the leaders of a brutal regime and the
�ethnic� groups of such leaders, groups who are often victims
themselves as the general population. The emergence of young Ethiopians
with selfless acts of great integrity and professional excellence had me
thinking loudly. None are better situated to start a new �Democratic
Party of Ethiopia� based on universal participation and away from all
the divisive ethnic based political setups. The moment I realized the
surging undercurrent of young Ethiopians, I was thinking of the type of
leadership role they could play and thereby rekindle the spirit of
youthful optimism in all Ethiopians. I only hope they do net get seduced
by the shallow �opposition� politics that has unfolded in front of us
since May of 2005, especially of the type that is blatantly narrow
tribalism and genocidal.
II. The Issues Concerning the Somali Crises
The
scope of views on the Somali crises rang from total denial of the
existence of a threat to the national security of
Ethiopia
to Meles Zenawi staging the whole crises trying to divert attention away
from his oppressive government in
Ethiopia
. In addressing such important national and international concern, I am
setting aside the many infantile bravado of individuals who throw
political ad hominem darts at me
hiding behind fake names, instead I will focus my attention on a number of
well intentioned and well articulated essays written by very capable and
erudite Ethiopians on the Somali crises, the most recent being that of
Fekade Shewakena, �Zenawi's
invasion of Somalia: A serious, long-term policy blunder,� of January
18, 2006.
I
am not picking on author Fekade; rather I am just providing us a well
articulated point of reference so that we are not indulging in some
abstraction or phantom criticism. I assume that the author�s patriotism
is as genuine as mine if not more, and I assume further that if the author
harbors any overt or hidden political agenda, it is a legitimate one. If
such is the case, then why am I critical of such expressed views critical
of the actions in
Somalia
by the Government of Meles Zenawi? There are several answers to that
question and all focused on the vital interest of
Ethiopia
.
Let
me start first by articulating the main issues that critics of the
Ethiopian Government and Meles Zenawi�s involvement in
Somalia
often point out. There are five main criticisms offered by the critics of
the Ethiopian Government involvement and the support it has provided the
Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFGS) against the Islamic
Courts Union, and may be summarized as follows:
1)
The Islamic Courts Union is legitimate and was beneficial to the Somali
people even in its short lived occupation of power in Mogadishu and other
key towns and vast tract of Somalia, and pause no threat to the national
security and territorial integrity of Ethiopia;
2)
Meles Zenawi is using the crises to divert the attention of the world from
focusing on his oppressive government;
3)
Meles Zenawi is a puppet simply playing out the biddings of his
puppet-master, the
United States
, thereby has compromised the prestige and acceptability of
Ethiopia
in the region and the world;
4)
Because of Meles Zenawi�s Government support of the TFGS and its
military defeat of the Islamic Courts, Ethiopia as a nation will be
attacked in the future by the surrounding regional �benign forces�
i.e., Islamic nations, for Ethiopia will be perceived to be part of the
�crusade� against Islam spearheaded by the United States; and
5)
Because of Meles Zenawi�s short sighted invasion of
Somalia
,
Ethiopia
is jeopardizing its future international business/trade relationships in
the region.
All
of the above concerns if perceived in the abstract and devoid of
historical context may sound legitimate and even convincing. As they say
�the devil is in the detail,� and a closer scrutiny of the above
arguments against the Ethiopian Government�s action in
Somalia
revels serious flaws and misrepresentation of current and historical facts
of the tumultuous relationship of
Somalia
and
Ethiopia
. Long before the current crises, there was a vicious history of
hostilities between
Ethiopia
and
Somalia
. We cannot afford either to be selective in our facts or suffer amnesia
in regard to crucial events in our past or current history just to bolster
arguments against the government of Meles Zenawi. The undeniable fact is
that
Somalia
since the time of its independence in 1960 has been very hostile toward
Ethiopia
and had waged three main offensive wars against
Ethiopia
in 1964, 1977-78, and 1982, and numerous skirmishes along the border to
this day.
To
think of Somali forces (past and present) and the other forces that are
aligned with the Arab League, the historic �enemies� of Ethiopia, such
as that of Djibouti, Egypt, Qatar, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan,
and of recent vintage �Eritrea,� as �benign outside forces�
visa-vie Ethiopia is, simply put, delusional. That pronouncement is what
�Kinijit� [one faction] used as its pedestal for its foreign policy.
Such a statement maybe a simple gaffe; however, if seriously offered as a
foreign policy statement, it is not even within the bounds of extreme form
of political mistake, for it is just absurd. On the other hand, there are
several points raised by the critics of Ethiopia�s involvement in the
Somali crises that I agree with completely, for example, the unreliability
of the United States Government in backing Ethiopia in the future if
Ethiopia is faced with hostilities from its Arab neighbors. Another
important statement that I agree with is the assertion that
Ethiopia
�s internal strength is dependant on the adoption of democratic
political structure and democratic governance.
[Once
it became clear that the Ethiopian led forces have driven out the
Jihadists in the current Somali crises, it seems Egypt, Sudan, and Saudi
Arabia are now pretending to support the Ethiopian military cooperation
with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, despite the fact that
those same Arab nations are the main backers of the Jihadist Islamic
Courts insurgents to this day.]
III. The National Interest and Political
Ambition
I
am not condemning outright all political ambitions. There are experts in
human evolution and psychology who claim that the effort to acquire power
is as much the result of a biological function as much as a social
processes. Thus, my previous statements critical of political ambitions in
other articles posted in this website ought to be understood in the
narrowest possible context. I am only critical of ambitious individuals
when I believe that the political ambitions of such individuals have no
content except the �ambition� for power.
What
I find most disappointing of Ethiopian politicians in general is the fact
that most of them have no record of civic involvement during their youth
or in their adult lives. In a society where there are limited voluntary
non-profit organizations, and minimal social clubs such as fraternities,
alumni associations et cetera it may be unrealistic to expect a high
degree of civic participation by the population. For the purpose of this
essay, participation in political organizations does not qualify as
participation in civic organizations. There is nothing I could point to
that could tell me what type of administrative or service skills they have
acquired through their work that would benefit
Ethiopia
in its political and economic development if they become leaders. As a
matter of fact, quite a number of aspiring leaders in the Diaspora have
lived most of their adult lives in foreign countries, that they may as
well be considered strangers to the people of
Ethiopia
. Such defect should have made such individuals humble enough to realize
the acute limitations of their capacity to lead
Ethiopia
, instead what we have in the Diaspora are such old gizzards trying to
reinvent themselves as eleventh-hour saviors of
Ethiopia
.
Social
participation in
Ethiopia
is more of the massive disembodied religious celebration type like Meskel,
Timket, et cetera, where the individual is lost in the frenzied mass
of people. The more intimate membership based narrowly structured
participation in associations, clubs et cetera is almost totally
non-existent in Ethiopian society. Of course there is the Ider, but that is a very specialized association to bury the dead
properly. The implication of such absence of intimate social interaction
is that most Ethiopian social relationships lack depth and individual
commitment to the general members of society. The individual in such
society is highly vulnerable and easily victimized by government forces.
The individual in such society is highly vulnerable and easily victimized
by government forces. It is a breeding ground of spies and government
informers thereby severely damaging social cohesion. This is particularly
true of Ethiopian society where successive Ethiopian governments have
abused individual Ethiopians with violence and random detentions without
much resistance from the public. I am not in any way degrading the few
courageous Ethiopians who sacrificed themselves fighting all brutal
governments in
Ethiopia
including the current Ethiopian Government.
Thus
the political picture away from the undercurrent of professional young
Ethiopians back in
Ethiopia
is not that encouraging. I have stated several times, almost ad nausium that
Ethiopia
is suffering an extreme form of degenerative downward spiral of leadership
i.e., an acute lack of institutionalized adequate training in leadership,
since the insane destruction of the old Ethiopian Empire took place for
twelve horrible years under the leadership of the Ottoman Turkish Empire
sponsored Gragn Mohammed in the 16th Century. And within our
reach of timeline, from the ascendance of Tewodros as Emperor of Ethiopia,
both king-makers and leaders have qualitatively changed to a point where
we have had �palace retainers� and treasonous individuals, drastically
narrowing down the power base and alienating the general public, who had
succeeded to become king-makers and kings/presidents and sat on the
Imperial Throne of this ancient State to date. And centuries of civil
strive, famine and lowered intake of calories, lack of necessary vitamins
and minerals in the diet of slowly starving Ethiopians seems to have
decapitated the vitality of the general population also. The ongoing slow
starvation of the people of
Ethiopia
in itself is a liability for the entire population not just to those who
are directly affected by such situation. The result of such compound
problems is the current political leadership, including all opposition
leaders, and political environment.
True
to form, despite the fact of justified rebellious at their starting point,
the leaders of the current Ethiopian Government suffer the same
degenerative �downward spiral� as was the case with the previous
leadership of Mengistu Hailemariam and his thugs. And the current
�Opposition� political engine is also one aspect of the same
degenerative �downward spiral.� It is fed by millions of unemployed
and uneducated mass of people from Addis Ababa and other urban centers in
addition to the fact of some of its leaders (including some in detention)
harboring degenerative narrow ethnicism. In fact, one courageous
journalist was �banished� from Diaspora-politics for pointing out the
fact that the 2005 election was of dubious value because of the types of
voters, and for characterizing the types of voters who participated in the
election and demonstrations in unflattering terms similar to mine. No one
is going to be able to bring back law and order ones such wild force
breaks through existing governmental structure. There is every indication
that the repeat of the �Red Terror� and �White Terror� is a clear
possibility. If such degenerative ethnic based politics succeeds, this
time the breakup of
Ethiopia
into mini-states will be a reality.
The
reference to the �national interest� of
Ethiopia
covers a wide and loose range of items that includes, in its definitional
aspect, the �vital interest� of
Ethiopia
as well. In fact, most anything we can think of in connection with
Ethiopia
may be considered as our national interest. At any rate, all items of
�national interest� have varied magnitude and importance. Thus the
scope of our national interest would easily cover a range of interests
from the most serious (vital interest), such as going to war defending the
nation against aggression on one end to winning a �soccer game� on the
�frivolous� end of our national interest. There is no doubt that the
type of ideology our leaders adopt is of �vital interest� to the
survival of
Ethiopia
.
What
is the national �vital interest� of
Ethiopia
? In answering such a question one may run the risk of freezing a dynamic
process thereby providing the wrong analysis of the vital interest of
Ethiopia
. It is helpful for our discussion of the current crises in
Somalia
and
Ethiopia
to identify first the national interest of
Ethiopia
. The territorial integrity of
Ethiopia
is the most pressing national interest of
Ethiopia
. This identification would encompass as well the vital interest of
Ethiopia
. It is seemingly an easy task to write about but monumentally difficult
to undertake or maintain.
The
foreign relation between states is enhanced to a high degree of positive
results on the willingness of such governments for flexibility and
compromise. One may surmise that all foreign relations between nations is
more like a waltz with very many interchangeable partners rather than a
solo act of display of the individual�s virtuosity. In other words there
is a need of at least one other partner to have any form of international
relations. In the abstract, one can reasonably assume that democratic
nations would have more flexible and less dogmatic foreign policy.
However, in reality what we have is the opposite. It is a tragic
situation to be boxed in a position that one does not fully support.
Maybe
it is helpful first to identify the vital national interest of
Ethiopia
in connection with the current Somali crises in order to be able to map
out the corresponding security interest of
Ethiopia
. There are a few foundational facts we all must acknowledge in order to
draw a historical profile of the state of
Ethiopia
that will help us understand what is the vital interest of
Ethiopia
. The current Somali crises in its proper context will illustrate to us
some of the aspects of the vital interest of
Ethiopia
. First of all we must acknowledge the fact that
Ethiopia
does not exist in a vacuum.
Ethiopia
is found in a region that has been plagued with natural and man-made
calamities for centuries. It is in the middle of an extremely hostile
environment. No amount of wishful thinking would change that reality.
According
to Fekade,
Ethiopia
�s vital interest is in economic development. He informs us, �As a
poor country sitting at the bottom of all indexes of socioeconomic
development and a hellhole of poverty on this planet,
Ethiopia
�s primary variable in the computation of its national interest is its
economic wellbeing and the future of its economy.� [Emphasis mine]
In other words, what is being claimed to be the vital interest of
Ethiopia
is a truism, in the abstract worth very little. No one disputes that
Ethiopia
is in dire circumstances and needs to develop its economy on the double.
The problem with such exclusive type of assertion is obvious, for any
economist will tell us that peace and national security are the dual
prerequisites for any economic development. One may sit on the richest oil
fields and mineral reserves in the world, and yet be poor if there is no
peace and security and no sufficient investment and know-how; I give you
as examples
Iraq
, the
Congo
,
Namibia
et cetera.
The
debate or discourse on the Somali crises as detriment to the economic
growth of Ethiopia itself is based on a fallacy, a fallacy logicians
identify as �false dilemma,� in the sense that the solution to our
economic problem some how has to displace our national security or vise-versa.
The emphasis on economic development or political liberalization, by the
critics of the Ethiopian Government�s involvement in
Somalia
, is creating �false dilemma� of forced choices between national
security and economic or political development.
Ethiopia
�s economic development should not have been seen exclusive and in
contradistinction to our national security interest. The right approach
should have been geared toward the avoidance of such fallacies and focus
on prioritizing steps to be taken in light of the immediacy of the
problems and impacts of possible solutions rather than creating a logical
loop even a god would have difficulties to overcome.
It
is not the first time that
Ethiopia
�s vital interest has been discussed based on such fallacies of �false
dilemma.� Often political issues are presented in �either/or� or
�win or lose� format, thereby unnecessarily forcing people to take
sides or adopt points of trajectories that they may not fully support. In
a way, it is our own political immaturity that leads us into such forms of
political confrontations and dilemmas. This is not to undermine situations
where there need be clear cut confrontation of governmental authority,
especially where there is violent suppression and killings by the
government�s security or military forces as was the case in the 2005
massacre of one hundred ninety seven Ethiopians documented opposition
demonstrators by the forces under the command of Meles Zenawi. Of course,
the magnitude of the violence is much higher than the one in the report.
If the Commission had sufficient power to investigate all allegations of
violence around the country, the murder of Ethiopians in the opposition
would have been more in
thousands than in hundreds.
A
good referential material to consider in this discussion is �the Report
of the Monitoring Group on
Somalia
pursuant to Security Council resolution 1676 (2006)� that was
transmitted by the Group to the Chairman of the United Nations Security
Council Committee on 16 October 2006. The report has carefully itemized
the types of international involvements that gave dangerous military
capacity to the rise of the Islamic Courts Union that can be easily shown
to be against the vital interest of
Ethiopia
. Different peoples in the region, who were once upon a time part of the
Ottoman Turkish campaign against Ethiopia for centuries are now
resurrected as independent States such as Djibouti, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi
Arabia and joined by late comers such as �Eritrea� still smarting
vengeance against Ethiopia. The Arab World was quick to label
Ethiopia
as �a crusader� in cahoots with the
United States
the moment it became clear that
Ethiopia
was not going to back down from supporting the legitimate Government of
Somalia. The Islamic Courts declared Jihad against
Ethiopia
. It did not matter to them that
Ethiopia
is a multi religious country with Moslems at least making up thirty to
forty percent of the population, the majority being Christians.
The
�Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia pursuant to Security Council
Resolution 1676 (2006)� submitted by the Monitoring Group to the United
Nations Security Council Committee Chairman on 16 October 2006 is a very
important document to consider in connection with any analysis of the
Somali crises. To write a critical analysis of the involvement of
Ethiopia
in
Somalia
without reading and deliberating on the Report of the Monitoring Group
would lack credibility and authenticity. In the introduction of the Report
the mandate given to the Group is itemized, which gives us some idea of
the degree of concern of the international community about the Somali
situation. It is to be recalled that the first international focus of the
Security Council on an increasingly lawless
Somalia
was in 1992.
The
following extract is the mandate given to the Monitoring Group in 2006:
�(a) To continue the tasks outlined in paragraphs 3 (a) to (c) of
resolution 1587 (2005); b) To continue to investigate, in coordination
with relevant international agencies, all activities, including in the
financial, maritime and other sectors, which generate revenues used to
commit arms embargo violations; (c) To continue to investigate any means
of transport, routes, seaports, airports and other facilities used in
connection with arms embargo violations;�.(i) To submit, for the
Security Council�s consideration, through the Committee, a final report
covering all the tasks set out above, no later than 15 days prior to the
termination of the Monitoring Group�s mandate.�
The
members of the Monitoring Group were individuals with extensive experience
and expertise: �Bruno Schiemsky (
Belgium
), arms expert and Chairman; Melvin E. Holt, Jr. (
United States of America
), arms expert; Harjit Kelley (
Kenya
), maritime expert; and Joel Salek (
Colombia
), finance expert.� Of late, the report by the Group on the number of
foreign �Jihad� fighters who have joined up with the forces of the
Islamic Courts has lost some degree of credibility due to the limited
number of captured or killed foreign Jihad fighters. In fact, some writers
claim that the Monitoring Group exaggerated the number of such foreign
fighters to support the claim of the presence of terrorists in
Somalia
, by the Government of the
United States
.
It
is absurd for anyone to minimize the danger of Islamic fundamentalism in
the region and specifically its threat to
Ethiopia
. Whether we consider past history or current affairs, Arabs unreasonably
have always been hostile to
Ethiopia
. It is useless to try to placate such Arab nations and their governments
by appealing to our common humanity. The only language that makes sense to
belligerent governments/nations is military strength. And the foundation
of a strong nation is the democratic structure of its government. It is
often indicated as an example of that thesis how the government of the
Soviet Union
, a totalitarian corrupt government, crumbled in the face of Western
democratic system of governments and market based economic structure.
[I
have a different take on the matter. I do happen to believe that the
Soviet Union crumbled because of its own governance problems accelerated
by a treasonous leader, Mikhail Gorbachev,
a jaded man with a peasant�s fascination of Western gadgets, who
compromised the rights of the people of the Union and forced a political
change that ended up creating a heaven for carpetbaggers to acquire the
wealth of the people of the Union for peanuts. Putin, the current
President of Russia, is fighting a heroic battle to restore the looted
wealth of the people of the former Union, and is paying for it by being
vilified by the gangster
Western Media
whose ownership is one and the same with the carpetbaggers. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that the
Soviet Union
did crumble.]
A
democratic political structure and some progressive economic systems are
vital interests of
Ethiopia
. Thus, every Ethiopian has the singular obligation to promote a
democratic political structure and some form of progressive economic
system in
Ethiopia
. If it is a matter of prioritization, political concerns need be
considered first because such concerns directly affect the human rights of
individuals. I do not believe the idea that without economic progress to
speak of individual rights is meaningless, for what lead a starving
individual to such condition often is political oppression. To argue what
is needed most is something to eat not rhetoric of civil or individual
rights is a form of argument that suffers from extreme form of
reductionism. It is a populist appeal to the emotion rather than address
the issue squarely as a failure of governmental policy. In other words,
the problems of hunger and starvation are due to flawed superstructures
caused by serious defects of governance affecting the base or foundational
principles of individual human and civic rights.
Tecola
W. Hagos
Washington
DC
February
10, 2007
To be continued���
PART TWO
The
Role of Religion in the Political Life of
Ethiopia
: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church Holy Synod in Exile
PART
THREE
The
Tragic Presidency of George W. Bush and Its Impact on the World
PART FOUR
The Two Alternatives: The Vital Interests of
Ethiopia
and the
United States
|
