Reconciliation? With whom? For whom? To what end? 
By Makonnen Endalkachew | January 19, 2011 

I have followed with great interest the raging public and private debates that have been going on since the clandestine efforts to obtain the release of the convicted Derg junta members have come to light. I have in fact received many posts in feedback to my last op-ed piece in your December 26, 2010 issue, � mostly constructive, not all in agreement, but in the main, indicative that the recent activities the leaders of the four major religious groups have been pursuing on behalf of the 18 convicted Derg officials has indeed touched on an undercurrent of deep-seeded anguish. In addition to the issue of a reconciliation or pardon itself, the secretive approach taken by the group has aroused many different emotions among many different segments of society. Contrary to some attempts to try and position this as a debate between those seeking reconciliation (the religious leaders, the Derg junta members) and those seeking to deny them rehabilitation (namely, family members of the 68 former officials of Emperor Haile Selassie�s government executed by the Derg, Victims of the Derg Red Terror Campaign, and other groups representing martyred Ethiopians), the ongoing debate in the print media and radio both here in Ethiopia and abroad clearly indicates that the issues are much broader and deserving of closer introspection.

While the purpose of my desire to make public my views on this very sensitive and wrenching issue was never to get into a one-on-one public spat with any group or individual, but rather to share views which I felt needed to be shared (and potentially resonated with many Ethiopians), I have been forced to respond (very briefly, mind you) to one riposte that I received from Ato Mulugeta Aserate, who published a piece entitled �Forgiving, Not Forgetting, in Pardoning Convicted Former Derg Officials,� (Fortune, Vol. 11, No. 557, Jan. 2, 2011). Ato Mulugeta attempts to paint this public debate as between those who are magnanimously willing to forgive (i.e., himself, the religious leaders) and those with an insatiable �sadistic� blood thirst which can only be quenched with �nothing short of these people�s death or rotting in prison� (i.e., those who are questioning this interference in the judicial process). I must say, that as far as an attempt to justify an unpalatable position, as well as claim for oneself the higher moral ground, that was rather self-serving, opportunistic, and ultimately amateurish. If memory serves me (and I stand to be corrected, if mistaken), was Ato Mulugeta not the same individual that was screaming at the top of his lungs for prompt action to be taken against these individuals back in the early 1990s? If we are truly the blood-thirsty sadists that he makes us out to be, then I must say that we have learned very well from his example. I was especially offended by Ato Mulugeta�s attempts to further propogate his �them vs. us� theory by claiming that I �deemed it proper to fire a salvo of innuendoes at those whose right it is to air views which happen to be anathema� to my opinions. That could be further from the truth, as what I did was question the purpose, backing, motivation, and timing of this clandestine 2-3 year effort to get these convicts freed. As I said above, I am greatly interested in the public debate about this issue, and only encouraging those who agree with me and discouraging those who have views which are disparate to my own would be rather counter-productive, and would be tantamount to trying to listen to one hand clapping.

Before I get back to the main point of my piece, I feel that it is necessary to render my opinion on some of the more disturbing portions of Ato Mulugeta�s piece. Here are some salient points:
� Yes, as Ato Mulugeta states, I �was spared imprisonment� during the Derg years, since even the Derg did not have as a policy the imprisonment of 10 year old children, no matter whose offspring they happened to be. Would my arguments have had more credence, been more palatable, and more reasonable to him had I lost my freedom? Should I accept his position/opinions as sound because he did? I believe I have the right (no, the obligation) to speak out against this farce because I (unlike, it seems, Ato Mulugeta) lost something more dear to me than mere freedom or property. 

� As for the repentance of these convicted officials, who but a self-serving apologist (or someone suffering from �Stockholm Syndrome� --- i.e., a captive sympathizing with his captors) would actually believe that their repentance is sincere. Repentance and religion are the last refuge of the desperate. These officials questioned the legitimacy of the charges leveled against them, the legitimacy of the government and court to try them, fought the conviction for years all the way to Supreme Court and the Court of Cassation�. And then admitted defeat and claimed epiphany and a desire for repentance.

� The suggestion that I (or any Ethiopian, for that matter) is not aware that the execution of these convicted Derg junta members �would in no way exhume and give life back to their deceased near and dear ones� is both simplistic and offensive. This is, again, a feeble attempt to couch this debate as a thirst for vengeance, rather than a search for justice. To my understanding, the desired aim of justice is not to rectify the evil deed that was committed, but rather to allow society in some manner to offer recompense to the aggrieved, punishment to the offender, and disincentive for the rest of society not to repeat the punishable actions. Convicting and punishing a rapist does not, by any stretch of the imagination, erase the physical and emotional havoc which has been visited upon the rape victim by the rapist, nor does it make the rape victim �whole�. Consequently, convicting an arsonist does not resurrect the building that he has destroyed, but does serve as punishment for his offence, and a disincentive for other fire-happy individuals. 

I would hope, in the future, that I would not have to spend a great deal of my time (and the reading public�s, by default) engaging in such unproductive back-and-forth, but rather debating the actual merits of the arguments for-and-against this issue. My experience tells me, however, that we shall be having this same sort of exchange well into the future since there will always be individuals who seem adamant to justify their unjustifiable position, as opposed to having a healthy discourse and exchange of ideas .�. So be it, for as our fathers so wisely put it, �Te�fetron Te�mekro ayarimom���..
And now back to the main point of the discourse���
In the ongoing debate that I have followed for the past couple of weeks , I have come across some quite interesting drivers for the heated discussions that have been going on both here and abroad around this exercise. Key amongst the issues which I have found perplexing has been the issue of �reconciliation� espoused as the key reason behind the religious leaders� secretive efforts for the past two years. Reconciliation between whom and on whose behalf? The issue of national reconciliation in the context of this discussion is very well past due its �sell-by� date, as I would argue that the average Ethiopian has reconciled with the Derg and its destructive 17-year reign on his or her own, and is relatively busy living a productive life without the ill-timed intervention of these leaders. This is clearly supported by the absence of vengeful and retaliatory acts being performed by the populace on those Derg cadres and functionaries that have been living openly amongst them for the past 20 years. The issue of reconciliation would have been timely and constructive in 1991 when the EPRDF took power and there would have been an imminent threat of retaliatory acts by those who had been unjustly tortured, maimed, bereaved, imprisoned, etc, but in 2011 it is a farcical smoke-screen by parties behind the efforts to release these convicted junta members in order to give their unsavory campaign some palatability and legitimacy.

Furthermore, attempts to compare Ethiopia�s unique circumstances with those of the Jews after the end of WWII and South Africa after the end of apartheid are ill-conceived and indicate a relatively revisionist and na�ve historical view. Although it could be argued that Jews (and eventually the State of Israel) may have forgiven (but never forgotten) the many crimes committed by the German state, they never forgave the upper echelon of the Nazi party, and in fact pushed for and supported the Allies� efforts to bring to trial and convict a significant number of Nazi leaders at Nuremburg in the late 1940�s, with most being executed for their heinous crimes against humanity. Subsequent to the formation of the State of Israel, the efforts to capture Nazi leaders who had escaped justice did not cease or diminish, as is evidenced by the multi-year and multi-continent chase which eventually resulted in the capture, trial, and execution of Adolph Eichmann in the early 1960�s ---- decades after the end of WWII. Finally, even defectors like Rudolf Hess, who defected to England in the early 1940�ss (that is, before the end of WWII) was tried, convicted and served a full life sentence for his activities as a Nazi. 
As for comparisons with South Africa�s experience at the end of the apartheid regime, the decision of the Mandela government to grant clemency and pursue reconciliation was driven (in my opinion) by a desire to create a channel for decades of pent-up racial tensions and foster a peaceful resolution to demands of harsh retributions for the grave injustices visited upon the black majority by the numerically inferior white Afrikaner minority. Additionally, the mere fact that South Africa was a regional powerhouse (with rumored nuclear capability), as well as a financial power base, was an added incentive to foster an atmosphere of reconciliation, as political instability was not desired by either the major powers or the incoming government. Finally, the inevitable pursuit of a campaign of retribution on whites by the black majority could have led to a significant amount of �white flight� as was experienced in Zimbabwe, and one has but to look at the condition of that country to understand the economical and political disincentive of pursuing such a strategy. 

This racial tension was not a factor in Ethiopia�s tumultuous Derg era, as the Derg consisted of Ethiopian junior officers and political cadres persecuting and murdering Ethiopian citizens at will, not based on their race but more driven by perceived political differences and personal vendettas. As I stated above, retaliatory actions by aggrieved citizens with pent-up desires of revenge would have occurred in 1991 (if they were to happen), and would have been aimed at the thousands of political cadres and kebele functionaries that were living quite openly among the populace at the time. Had this been an imminent threat, and the above-mentioned religious leaders proposed reconciliation efforts at the time, I believe that there would have been minimal opposition to such an effort.

A second issue that is both concerning and puzzling has been the professed sense of remorse (�tsetset�) being expressed by the convicted Derg junta members and their sudden religious epiphany. Are these not the same individuals that defiantly questioned both their guilt and the legitimacy of the government (and the court) to try and convict them? Did they not spend the better part of two decades fighting the government�s prosecutor through their cadre of lawyers (a luxury not afforded the hundreds of thousand they persecuted and executed), never once admitting guilt or complicity in the many well-documented atrocities that had been committed? Was the Derg not avowedly atheistic, professing the only religion was Socialism and the state, and did it not in fact persecute religious leaders at will, as well as desecrate sanctified religious ground by building a bunker for Mengistu on the grounds of Kidist Bahta Church? Where then does this new sense of religious fervor originate from, and how can we possibly believe that it is genuine? As for the remorse (�tsetset�), could it possibly be the result of a realization that, having been convicted and sentenced, the possibility of mortality has sharpened their senses and they see this as their last chance for redemption/release? Although I know late-in-life conversions are a possibility, I do believe in this case these individuals are trying to have it both ways. Consequently, that is not possible or plausible in this case�.. these individuals are either avowed atheists or devout Christians, and faith can not be conveniently placed upon one�s shoulders like a cloak in order to avoid accepting responsibility for one�s actions and avoid justice being carried out� This is clearly a case of �ke�moke be�mankia� ke �kezekeze be�ijay��..

Thirdly, the entire objection to this endeavor has been couched as a search for vengeance (�bekel�) against the convicted Derg junta members. Quite the contrary, for had we been seeking vengeance, we would have been clamoring for the summary conviction and execution of these criminals twenty years ago without the pursuit of due process. This is a search for justice, and a reaffirmation of the belief that things can be done differently and legally today in Ethiopia, unlike in the days of the Derg. While some may view the resonating activities of the many groups opposed to this ludicrous venture as the work of a few privileged individuals with a personal agenda to pursue, that could be further from the truth. While it is true that my father and the other 67 former government officials were the first to fall under the deadly sword that the Derg wielded in its time in power, the death and destruction unleashed by the Derg was not limited to one particular class, ethnic group, age group, or religious denomination. As such, I believe that we are obliged to raise the inconsistencies in this pursuit of clemency for these junta members not only because of our personal loss, but also on behalf of all those nameless/faceless Ethiopians who are not afforded a platform like ourselves to express their grief and devastation by the current state of affairs. 

Finally, I have read many posts in the past two weeks that have expressed a desire for reconciliation on a national level, but have questioned the need to release and/or pardon the Derg junta members in order to achieve such a goal. In contrast, I have also read some posts which state the idealistic view that releasing these convicted junta members would serve as some �panacea� and go a long way to reconciling all of the residual differences we harbor as a result of the 17-year Derg reign. While I found the idealistic viewpoints refreshing, I was reminded of a quotation that I believe to be germaine to this discourse:

�Idealism increases in direct proportion to one�s distance from the problem.� John Galsworthy
I do not believe for a minute that any of the individuals or groups who are opposed to this clemency exercise are against the concept of national reconciliation. In essence, the mere fact that we are having this discussion in Ethiopia is testament to the reconciliation that has occurred. Many of the aggrieved parties who were abused and persecuted by the Derg have reconciled on a personal level and currently reside in Ethiopia, both those who never left Ethiopia as well as those who have returned from exile (forced or self-imposed) in the United States and Europe. Additionally, we have among our ranks individuals who spent anywhere from eight to fifteen years under the Derg�s harsh imprisonment, but who today pursue peaceful and productive lives in Addis Ababa and the rest of Ethiopia, having reconciled with their tormentors and the many people who had persecuted them during those stormy 17 years. Therefore, while I may agree that we do need to have a national discourse on the ill-effects of the Derg years and the potential impacts on future generations, I categorically dispute the religious leaders� argument that the direly-needed national reconciliation can only be achieved with the pardoning and/or release of these 18 high-level Derg junta members. 

Let well enough alone, and let these convicts serve their sentences without any interference from outside parties. The same rule of law and God which they mocked and desecrated can not (and should not) be used as a means of escaping justice which has been a long time in coming. Any attempt to legitimize this redemption campaign by trying to assume some unattainaible moral high ground or by sputtering some catchy platitude such as �out-Mandela Mandela� is really not that productive or original, demeans this weighty discussion, and heaps further anguish, pain, and suffering on many who have already suffered enough. □
Makonnen Endalkachew
________________________________________
Source: Ethiomedia.