The Organizers had invited two distinguished scholars to address two different issues on current vital Ethiopian concerns: 1) Professor Messay Kebede - Which Way Ethiopia: Peaceful or Armed Struggle? 2) Professor Seid Hassan - Socioeconomic Governance and the issue of corruption in Ethiopia: An assessment. The Moderator and Facilitator was Professor Alem Hailu, and on that choice, the organizers of the Conference would not have picked a more capable and distinguished scholar than Alem Hailu. His moderation and facilitation greatly enhanced the discourse and gave it the aura of serious scholarship and finesse. Aklog’s introductory remark as Chairman of the Organizers was very informative, especially to me because I was not really aware of the great work already carried out by this new think-tank the “Ethiopian Dialogue for Peace and Common Ground” group. It was both a relief and reassuring to run into many first rate scholars I have known for years, at the conference.

The Conference was attended by fewer than fifty Ethiopians and a couple of foreign nationals. It did not start on time at 2:00pm, but over an hour late—not the fault of the organizers. It is the arrogance of those who come late I object to vehemently. I object sincerely this passive acceptance of audiences dictating to organizers on the time of events by coming late, I mean extremely very late and at times close to two hours. I say, I scream that “We Ethiopians” need to make it a point to show up on time. Period! I do not see why someone coming an hour late could not schedule his or her time an hour early, for I am absolutely sure no Ethiopian is engaged in saving the world that he or she has to show up late routinely to conferences, meetings, weddings, et cetera.

The Conference itself once started picked up speed and intensity very quickly and developed into a most invigorating and rewarding discourse of the highest magnitude. I have attended numerous political and non-political conferences, meetings, brain storming sessions et cetera, and none that I remember were infused with as much good will and hopefulness as this conference. It seems that it finally downed on us Ethiopians that we might be in great danger of losing our country, it being destroyed by vermin in the guise of an official public entity and close associates and counterparts in neighboring countries, who are our historic enemies, eating us from within.

Here I am including my unsolicited words of caution addressed to the Organizers: stay the course and do not change these excellent start-up presentations by distinguished scholars and others into some third rate political advocacy appendage to some political party. I urge the members of the group to stay above the fry and deal with issues concerning Ethiopia in a universal sense.

Messay Kebede presented two main ideas dealing with non-violent struggle and the issue of ethnic based political system in Ethiopia. He presented his reasons why he supports non-violent struggle as opposed to violent struggle quite well. He distinguished the cost-benefit of the two types of struggles. As was obvious from the remarks of the members of the audience, including Professor Getachew Metaferia, that form of struggle was contextual in the very nature of all peaceful struggles. Non-violence and non-cooperation as a form of struggle, in the sense of actively disobeying and not cooperating with the government would require a highly disciplined powerful leadership with clear rallying motto for such non-violent struggle to succeed. It seems the general consensus at the conference was supportive of Messay’s thesis of non-violent struggle and civil disobedience taking into account the refinement offered from the floor.

On the other hand, Messay’s presentation on the issue of ethnic politics, basing or taking into account ethnicity as a governmental structure was met with cool but polite rejection of the idea by the audience. In fact, one remarkable young lady from the audience made a poignant illustrative remark how in area of languages ethnicism has become an embarrassment to her for she has non-Ethiopian friends who are studying “Geeze” while some Ethiopians (Oromos) are trying to use Latin Alphabets dropping the Geez Alphabets. Her remark was not lost on the audience. A number of individuals remarked how we were all marginalized by Meles Zenawi because we were dividing ourselves by ethnicity implementing what Meles used as his strategic and tactical process to divide and conquer us all. Messay tried to present the issue as an ontological issue that must be addressed and not swept under the rug out of sight. I understand Messay’s concern that hiding an issue because it makes us uncomfortable is not a solution, and that we are simply postponing the problem that will sooner than later confront us with far worse results than would be the case had we confronted the problem right away.

On the issue of ethnicism, I disagree with Messay’s remarks to the extent that if we make ethnicism even as a contingent issue in our discourse, it will tunnel its way to be at the center of our discourse thereby overriding all compelling issues dealing with issues of our immediate and human needs, such as hunger and poverty, social security, education, civil war et cetera from being addressed fully and urgently. Even if we think of ethnicism as part of a discourse, it must not be done in a vacuous setting where other players from our historic past recede in the background leaving us alone to overcome our problems. But our reality is far from such ideal condition, for we are surrounded with nations and their governments ready to tear us apart and shred us into strips of ungovernable pieces and fragments. There is a saying in Amharic “Jib bekededew leba yegebabetal.” Or the other way! To base our political structure on ethnic groups is suicidal, for any crack we cause within the structure of the State of Ethiopia disputing ethnic based “rights and privileges” will be used by our enemies to insert wedges and pliers to tear us apart.

In other words we need to adjust our concept about ethnicity. Ethnicity per se is not a source of human rights, for all such rights are that of the individual. The issue of so called group rights had been resolved in favor of individual rights for over half a century now. Even the skepticism of post-modern thinkers could not dislodge that foundational starting point. The only exception being the on going debate on strictly defined and identity oriented “group rights” reserved for “indigenous people.” The legislative history as well as the literature on that subject is overwhelming in its quantity. Nevertheless, all that enormous output is reducible to few universal principles for proper resolution.

III. Professor Seid Hassan – Governance and the issue of corruption

It was wonderful to see on the Podium a distinguished brother from my home-town Dessie, Seid Hassan of Gerado/Dessie (South-West of Dessie) and I being form Dawdo/Dessie (North-East). Not only had that in common, for we both attended W/o Seheen Comprehensive High School at different period. Seid started out his presentation by endorsing Messay Kebede’s civil–disobedience ideas, but expressed much doubt how that could be carried out in an Ethiopian setting. He bluntly and courageously told us to our face that we are cowards and do not have the moral courage to carry out such highly risky action of disobedience and non-cooperation against a brutal Government.

Without sounding patronizing, what I find charming also with Seid’s presentation is his unadulterated enthusiasm and a degree of innocence that comes across in his exuberant mode of presentation and also from his honesty and sensitivity to the human condition. I thought to my self contemplatively that despite his blistering criticism of the gross violations and corruption of individuals in powerful positions and our bleak existence, Seid is a believer in the inherent goodness of mankind and the outside world. In times like this, we all need to be reassured that the world is a benign one, after all.

One important and standout contribution at the conference out of very many is Seid’s identification of the Government of Meles Zenawi as a Mafia like organization. He provided us an invaluable parallel identification markers common to both. I find his parallel comparison between the Government of Meles Zenawi and the Mafia uncanny, eerie, and frightening. I listened careful to his meticulous characterizations of both structures, for I have of late used the term “Mafia” in reference to Meles Zenawi and his government. I now have very clear comparative characteristics between the two organizations that I could easily tick off at will.

Lest our enthusiasm gets ahead of our moral sense and the reality on the ground level back in Ethiopia, Seid underscored the fact that all of us Ethiopians have to make a clear distinction between Meles Zenawi and his associates and party enthusiasts from the general population of Tigrayans. He stated that Tigrayans are as much victims of Meles Zenawi and his group as the rest of the people of Ethiopia. The courageous and truthful statement of Seid was greeted with an enthusiastic applaud from the Floor. Aregawi Berhe (Ph.D) later commented from the Floor that it was the first time he heard from anyone in a public forum making such a clear distinction, and that we wasted the last eighteen years bickering with each other (on such guilt by association anti-Tigrayan rhetoric) rather than consolidating our forces against a common enemy.

Having said that it was also obvious that Seid did not make any degree of allowances for some of the serendipitous benefits the Ethiopian people have had over the eighteen years period since Meles Zenawi and his EPRDF have taken over the political (and economy) leadership of Ethiopia. I am more inclined to favor using the new and least known logic of abduction, which I find to be most appropriate in explaining our relationships in a developing world matrix. Thus I may sound engaged in some form of double talk, which is not the case, in an awkward reasoning without “causal” inferences, inferences that we are all conditioned to expect and accept. I am saying this because it is very frustrating to me to see even well informed and talented writers, such as Al Mariam falling for tricksters and immoral agents like Donald Payne, who is against Ethiopia and promoting Issayas Afeworki and his juvenile inferiority complex and all those Arab anti-Ethiopia Governments. It is unacceptable to undermine the long term national interest of Ethiopia for short term limited political advantages vis-à-vis the current horrible and treasonous government of Meles Zenawi. One must not jeopardize our national survival.

Meles Zenawi is not Ethiopia. He is one bad nightmare after another. He has caused Ethiopia tremendous harm and seeded long term divisive political land-mines all over Ethiopia. He wrecked the national economy, looted the national wealth, and ceded millions of acres of our land to hostile governments and their citizens. These are some of the serious problems that we need to consider all the time. The solution is not to be found by running to foreign governments, including that of Asmara, as Ginbot 7 did, but within ourselves. Let us come together and sort out our problems as a united one nation. This is one service that the kind of conference that I attended would do to bolster our unity and solidarity. Seid Hassan delivered a masterful, educational, and personal message of hope and unity to counter all the destructive forces lined up against Ethiopia and Ethiopians whether based on narrow ethnic hatred or material corruption of leaders.

One such misconception of the application or operation of human rights principles is in the area delineated as minority or ethnic rights. This is an improper use of the concept of human rights in connection with minorities or ethnic groups. There is no such thing as such that can be identified distinguishable as “minority rights or “ethnic rights,” but rather we are dealing with safeguards in the protection not to deny already universally applicable rights to minorities and ethnic groups. It is not a case of having a peculiar type of rights called “minority rights” or “ethnic rights” as some additional “rights” of expanded or original import. The international instruments applicable to the issues of minority and/or ethnic rights are the same international instruments. They are not different than the ones we refer to in recognizing the civil and human rights of every individual in the world. Thus, when there is a claim of minority or ethnic rights it is simply a claim to have equal access to the universally declared or acknowledged rights. As we can see from the many declarations, covenants, conventions and resolutions, it is never meant or designed to empower or endow minorities or ethnic groups with rights that are different and superior to those recognized universally.

The confusion in this area of international law principles and practices is due to the apparent contradiction of the many declarations dealing with seemingly “unique rights” of a protected group as entertained by several international instruments, such as the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities (1992); the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief; the declaration at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna (1993); the declaration at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen; and the Habitate II conference in Istanbul and the charter of the United Nations dealing with the issue of self-determination. The ILO convention of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1957 and 1989 has simply added to the confusion. It is important to reconcile these sets of principles contained in such declarations specifically dealing with minorities and ethnic groups with the universal declarations and covenants dealing with universal principles of human rights.

In support of my suggestion of a limited application of principles dealing with self-determination issues, it is very enlightening to read the recommendation of the watchdog institution within the United Nations system itself namely the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 1996 the Office of the High Commissioner elaborated the meaning and scope of self-determination as understood within the United Nations system (of several declarations, resolutions and conferences) dealing with the issue of “self-determination” put a definitive limit to the claims of every aspiring “liberation” front. In Section 6 of its Recommendation No. 21 it stated, “The Committee emphasizes that, in accordance with the Declaration on Friendly Relations, none of the Committee's actions shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and possessing a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. In the view of the Committee, international law has not recognized a general right of peoples unilaterally to declare secession from a State.” (Emphasis mine)

There are also several interpretations by respected international law experts supporting such interpretations of limiting the meaning and import of the concept of self-determination. The less contentious principles of protecting minorities and ethnic groups and others is not that difficult to understand in light of the above mentioned recommendation on the far more challenging concept of “self-determination” by the Office of the High Commissioner as stated above. The obvious starting point under that regime of international law principles is to identify minorities and ethnic groups that are threatened with extinction, abuse, marginalization, exclusion, et cetera if no step is taken to protect such endangered groups. In the Ethiopian setting, there is none that could be seen entitled to such protection. There is of course the question of neglect in the sharing of resources, particular assistance, effort to encourage social and political participation, but such shortcoming on the part of the Ethiopian State does not amount to an active persecution and immediate threat to the continued existence of such groups.

The many liberation movements that mushroomed in Ethiopia whether they are Eritreans, Tygreans, Oromos, Somali, Sidama, Gambela et cetera fall within the exigencies or constraints of that regime of international law (cited herein above) that tells us none of the movements could be considered legitimate in light of Ethiopian socio-political reality. All such aggrieved groups need solve their problems peacefully as part of the political and social process within the government-state framework of Ethiopia. All liberation organizations mentioned here in, as long as their demand is for independence and secession as such, are illegal and the Government of Ethiopia has the legal and moral right to prosecute such divisionary or secessionist liberation movements with the full force of its power. Any government of a foreign state that gives sanctuary and military assistance to such liberation movements is committing an illegal act, and such involvement of a foreign state in the internal affair of Ethiopia can be considered by Ethiopia as an act of hostility and aggression. This includes the governments of several countries around the world such as Egypt, Sudan, the many Arab states in the Middle East, Britain, Canada, Italy, France, Germany, Pakistan, the United States, governments involved in some form of illegal funding and/or military assistance to such liberation movements.

Most of the border conflicts whether it is in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and even in present day Europe is a direct consequences of the legacy left by the brutal colonialism of England, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, and Germany. European colonizers left in their former colonies troublesome legacies where they continued to perpetuate their control and instigate conflict between related groups of people who were either free or under subjugation under contending European colonizers even though they were all shared a common history before colonialism. A good example is that of the new state of “Eritrea” and its parent country Ethiopia. Djibouti is another example of a territory curved out of Ethiopia as a colonial beachhead earlier and now as an independent nation serves as a French outpost to keep an eye on the Red Sea passage (corridor) of vital business and military strategic importance. Belize is another example of England excess of slavery and serfdom, a pure creation of a British plantation turned sovereign country at the cost of the parent country of Guatemala. Kuwait is an example of a reneged enclave of a minority group that is a bone inserted in the very throat of Iraq siphoning off oil from a shared field of oil and depositing all that wealth in British banks infusing that rotting colonial Empire an infusion of badly needed capital. The United States, a new comer to the drama, is acting out its ignoramus idea of self-determination on Ethiopia favoring the secessionist Eritrean independent state and undermining the very mother country of ancient linage. [Extracted and modified from Tecola W. Hagos, “Civil Disobedience, Truth, and Human Rights,” December 15, 2005.] [www.tecolahagos.com]

The Conference represents, in more ways than we can imagine, one of the stages or processes that imperceptibly heal the body politic of Ethiopians around the World. There is a movement within the many Ethiopian communities spread around the world that may be identified as positive, constructive, reflective, and wise bringing Ethiopians to the realization that after all they are part of a much larger and more profound narrative of a great people who started this whole human history, the cradle of human kind and humanity and of civilization. To paraphrase my good friend Messay Kebede, a statement uttered in a different context critiquing previous OLF leaders’ attempt to disassociate Ethiopian history from Oromo people, which statement is equally true of the larger Ethiopian community in that it would be very foolish of us not to claim this fabulous history that the World has recognized to be uniquely ours, for ourselves.

Reading some of the essays and responses (posted in Websites) from all kinds of Ethiopians, I have a distinct feeling that we seem to forget that history is a messy process that there are no clean cut history-blocks identifiable with precision belonging to this or that group of people. We make our history. Ethiopia is a living example of such human effort often times tragic, but overall a success story! Let us not gloss over of the fact that we are the most successful surviving civilization in the World, for all of our contemporaries from three thousand years ago have bitten the dust. Our main problem is poverty that had distorted our personality development and weakened our ethical and moral standards. However, even under the most difficult of times, look how good we are. We run faster and endure longer than anybody else in the World; we think as good or even better in any academic setting; we are courageous warriors; we are ethical in one item that matters the most—we respect individual innocence. And to top it all, we are beautiful too!

Tecola W. Hagos

July 4, 2009

Washington DC

-----------------------------------------------------

Peaceful or Armed Struggle? Ethiopian Dialogue