Ethiopian journalist illegally detained since Sunday

(Awramba Times)

New York, June 21, 2011--The Committee to Protect Journalists called on Ethiopian authorities today to immediately release journalist Woubshet Taye, at left, who has been held since Sunday.

Police picked up Taye, deputy editor of the leading independent weekly Awramba Times, at his home in the capital, Addis Ababa, at 3 p.m. and confiscated several documents, cameras, CDs, and selected copies of Awramba Times, local journalists told CPJ. The newspaper covers politics in-depth.

Taye is being held incommunicado at the federal investigation center at Maekelawi Prisonin the capital, local journalists said. In an interview with CPJ, Shemelis Kemal, a government spokesman, denied any journalists were in detention in the country. "I will check but there are no journalist arrests, incarcerated in Ethiopia," he said. "We have a law prohibiting pretrial detention of journalists. No arrest could be initiated on account of content."

Ethiopia's press law prohibits pre-trial detention of journalists, but two journalists of the state-controlled national broadcaster have been held on vague criminal charges for over a year, while two Eritrean journalists have disappeared in government custody since 2006, according to CPJ research. Also, under the Ethiopian constitution, police must charge or release citizens within 48 hours.

"The detention of Woubshet Taye is unlawful," said CPJ East Africa Consultant Tom Rhodes. "We call on Ethiopian authorities to release him at once."

Awramba Times Managing Editor Dawit Kebede, who was imprisoned for 21 months for critical coverage of a brutal government crackdown following disputed elections in 2005, has been the target of ongoing harassment by the Ethiopian administration and pro-government media outlets, according to CPJ research. Kebede won CPJ's International Press Freedom Award in 2010 for his commitment to journalism despite the repression. The Amharic-language weekly was launched in 2008 after Kebede's release on conditional pardon and is today the second-largest newspaper in circulation in Ethiopia, according to CPJ research.

Right As Usual blogs about De Birhan

By Anko Zuta, Blogger of De Birhan Blogspot

21/6/2011

One of the most popular blogs in the States, actually in the world , Right As Usual (http://rightasusual.blogspot.com/) had blogged about me (http://rightasusual.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-blog-to-look-at.html) last week. Linda, the Blogger , whom I am a fan and follower of ,boosted my traffic in few days.

Thanks for the Bloggers Solidarity Linda.

Ethiopia ranks 20th in FP's list of failed states

Three African states -- Somalia, Chad, and Sudan -- once again top this year's Failed States Index, the annual ranking prepared by the Fund for Peace and published by FOREIGN POLICY of the world's most vulnerable countries. For four years in a row, Somalia has held the No. 1 spot, indicating the depth of the crisis in the international community's longest-running failure.

Ethiopia ranks 20th.

The new edition of the index draws on some 130,000 publicly available sources to analyze 177 countries and rate them on 12 indicators of pressure on the state during the year 2010 -- from refugee flows to poverty, public services to security threats. Taken together, a country's performance on this battery of indicators tells us how stable -- or unstable -- it is. And the latest results show how much the 2008 economic crisis and its ripple effects everywhere, from collapsing trade to soaring food prices to stagnant investment, are still haunting the world.

Somalia's unending woes are the stuff hopelessness is made of. But elsewhere in the top 20, some countries showed improvement, even as others fell further behind. Afghanistan and Iraq both moved down the ranks, suggesting slight gains for the two war-torn countries as the United States seeks a sustainable exit strategy. Kenya moved out of the top 15, showing that the country continues to recover from its bloody post-election ethnic warfare of recent years. Liberia and East Timor, wards of the United Nations, largely stayed out of trouble. But Haiti, already a portrait of misery, moved up six places on the index, battered and struggling to cope with the aftermath of January 2010's tragic earthquake, which left more than 300,000 dead. Another former French colony, Ivory Coast, rejoined the top 10, grimly foreshadowing its devastating post-election crisis this year, while fragile Niger leapt four spots amid a devastating famine.

Africa's promise and peril are likely to figure prominently again this year, with 27 African countries scheduled to hold presidential, legislative, or local elections throughout 2011. As much as elections can contribute to democratic progress, they are often a flashpoint for conflict -- conflicts that invariably send already fragile states back up the ranks of the index. Uganda's incumbent President Yoweri Museveni won reelection in February, but the opposition has cried foul and his inauguration was met with violent protests. In Nigeria, steady in the rankings this year at No. 14, post-election rampages in April killed as many as 800 people. Sudan's closely watched referendum in January on an independent southern state was surprisingly free of bloodshed, but the country continues to hover on the brink of new violence.

As if its traumas last year weren't horrific enough, Haiti in 2011 is again proving to be a hard test for the world, with billions of dollars in donation pledges left unfulfilled and thousands still living in squalid tent camps, battling a cholera epidemic that has killed more than 4,600. After a fraud-marred first round, a presidential runoff election in March brought to power an untested stage performer nicknamed "Sweet Micky."

Perhaps the biggest challenge of all for 2011 will be dealing with the global fallout of the Arab revolutions, which began in Tunisia and quickly spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Few could have predicted that a street vendor's humiliation would be the spark that set an entire region ablaze, with consequences that may reach far beyond the Middle East. After all, if peaceful protesters can unseat an entrenched dictator in Cairo, why can't they take to the repressed streets of Tashkent or Rangoon?

See the Rank Here

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings

Can't stop listening to this song - Viva Gandhi

NB : This Article was written January 16, 208 but because I felt it is worth republishing - I re-entered it here.

June 20, 2011 taken from

http://jurist.org/forumy/2008/01/linking-rights-and-foreign-aid-for.php

Linking Rights and Foreign Aid for Ethiopia: The Case of HR 2003

JURIST Guest Columnist Abigail Salisbury of the Mekelle University Law Faculty in Mek'ele, Ethiopia, says that although the vast majority of Ethiopians publicly denounce H.R. 2003, the so-called Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act now going through Congress that links nonessential US assistance to fulfillment of various human rights obligations, the spirit of the bill is correct...

One of my law school casebooks included a 1960 photo of Bernardus Fourie, former South African Representative to the UN, taken when he was speaking before the Security Council. Here was a man sent to represent his country at a time when it was subject to near-universal criticism for its policy of apartheid. When I looked at the photograph I inspected the individuals on either side of him, trying to gauge their reactions to his remarks. I studied his facial expression and posture, trying to imagine myself in his place. I could not stop asking myself how he must have felt at that very moment captured in the picture, when he was placed in the exceedingly awkward position of publicly representing a country which was under such heavy attack from nearly all sides. Since then, I have had that same question tucked into the back of my mind, and just when I ran across the photo again I was forced to represent America as it was being denounced, causing me to reexamine my beliefs about my own country.

Last month I was invited by my Ethiopian host institution, the Mekelle University Law Faculty, to participate in a panel discussion on H.R. 2003, also known as the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007. This American bill, passed in October by the US House of Representatives and now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would withdraw nonessential assistance from Ethiopia until its government fulfills various human rights obligations as set forth by Congress. As the only American on the Law Faculty's staff, I found myself the de facto representative of the United States, held responsible for explaining and justifying the legislation and its policy objectives. The hall was packed, standing room only at the back, but of all the Ethiopian professors and law students in attendance, not one person believed that it might somehow improve their nation’s situation. Instead, it was unanimously interpreted as an illegal violation of Ethiopian sovereignty. As I listened to the comments of others, I got the impression that there was a perceived air of imperialism in the document. In other words, although all states are equal, depending on their level of development some are more equal than others. As an American, I often feel that when it comes to public opinion, we can never win. When we involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations, we are denounced for apparently believing that we have the right to run the whole world, regardless of law or outside approval. If, on the other hand, we elect to stay out of a conflict, then we are portrayed as cold and unfeeling, only caring about the suffering of others when there is money at stake. When abroad I am often told that Americans are dilettantes in the field of humanitarian intervention, only pushing for change when there is something to gain. This perceived hypocrisy has been worsened by some past administrations, who have been accused of complying with and aiding various regimes in order to achieve their own objectives, almost viewing dictators as the expediters permitted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, some of these short-sighted decisions have come back to haunt us in recent years, indicating a practical — if not entirely altruistic — need for a change. Probably the most frequently-cited example of these policies’ shortcomings is Osama bin Laden, one product of the Cold War-era strategy that the enemy of our enemy was our friend.Accordingly, H.R. 2003 on its face seems to assert Congress’s intent to start fresh. It could potentially be viewed as the legislature’s use of its power of the purse to set foreign policy so that America will no longer support tyrannical governments out of expediency. The problem, however, is that Congress is in some ways commandeering the President’s post. In the past, some of the legislative powers set forth in the Constitution have been widely interpreted in U.S. domestic courts, perhaps most notably its authority over interstate commerce, which has over the years been stretched to permit regulation of myriad seemingly-unrelated areas. Indeed, from that vantage point H.R. 2003 seems to be yet another attempt to retrofit the Constitution in a manner which appears to offend the principle of the separation of powers. Even if the domestic court system holds this exercise of authority to be proper, much of the international legal community will remain unsatisfied, believing that the legislation requests Ethiopian subordination in contravention of the so-called “Friendly Charter” of 1970 which mandates:

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Such language, however, pulls the legal ground out from under any and every type of humanitarian intervention. The document, which has been called the “tyrant’s charter” by Geoffrey Robertson, QC, is so open to abuse on its face that one can not reconcile it even with entering a country to provide aid and stop genocide. Clearly, since 1970 there have been many such violations of international law without strict enforcement, indicating a lack of desire to apply its literal language to such foreign interference. Thus, this argument for applying the Friendly Charter in order to invalidate H.R. 2003 internationally is weak. Some Ethiopians go farther, though, stating that the bill amounts to coercion or intimidation, reaching the level of interference and threats against Ethiopia. While I do not believe that the bill was meant to intimidate, it was clearly intended to persuade the Ethiopian government to change its ways, using economic restrictions as a tool. In American law, such an intent is not automatically invalid, because federal aid often comes with strings attached for the states which accept them, and we have a body of case law as a reference point for determining the acceptability of those strings. In international policy, as well, embargoes and economic sanctions are commonplace, and Congress took care in H.R. 2003 to specify that America would only be withdrawing “nonessential United States assistance” separate from funds used for hunger programs, health care, etc. There is no universal travel or import/export restriction such as the decades-long embargo we have imposed on Cuba, for instance. Ethiopians bristle at such a comparison because it tends to imply that since the international community tolerates our stance on Cuba, then it should similarly permit the mandates of H.R. 2003. The analogy is false, many Ethiopians feel, because they have neither threatened nor used force against the U.S. In effect, they see America as taking retaliatory measures which would be appropriate in wartime, but without having been attacked. They find similarly unimpressive any comparisons to other instances when America tried its hand at foreign state-building, because although Congress is trying to encourage the institution of democracy in the post-conflict environment of Ethiopia, it is doing so at a distance and with no right. The U.S. is involved in negotiations for the future of Kosovo and is trying to set benchmarks for Iraq, but it has a physical presence and interest in those places because of its prior military efforts, whereas it has no such relationship with Ethiopia. After listening to the Ethiopians’ opinions and putting them into legal terms, I began to wonder whether Congress is attempting to bootstrap the concept of universal jurisdiction in the courts and turn it into a drafting doctrine, permitting it to legislate at a distance should conditions sufficiently shock the conscience. Some Ethiopians do suspect that America is using H.R. 2003 to disguise some other activity or motive, with Mekelle law professors wondering if this is the beginning of the development of another concept of sovereignty altogether. It is true that Congress is really only dictating how American aid money should be spent and thus is not creating binding laws for Ethiopia in the strictest sense, but dangling conditional aid in front of a country this poor does not allow for real domestic decision-making in Addis Ababa. Instead, Ethiopia starts to be governed from Washington, which would be just fine with some people. Several members of the audience at the law faculty’s discussion forum made vehement statements to the effect that developing nations do not have the luxury of debating the legality of such legislation, and Ethiopia must just accept America’s terms for the good of the nation. Let us say, however, that Ethiopia or any other country in a similar position refuses to comply with the terms of such legislation. Research suggests that economic sanctions or their functional equivalents imposed in response to human rights violations actually exacerbate existing problems. Robert Pape from the University of Chicago has demonstrated that the true results of such measures include losses for foreign investors and subsequent worsening of the local situation. One can easily envision that when people lose their jobs due to withdrawal of foreign investment, they will have nowhere to turn but to the government, which therefore ends up getting more powerful. The strengthened administration will be able to rally additional support by setting up those who imposed the sanctions as the immoral enemy.I can certainly understand the view held by some that America has needy groups at home and has no obligation to send money abroad. Thus, it would follow, if America in its benevolence decides to confer aid to foreign governments, then at least we should have the right to make sure the money is not funding cruel regimes. In short, this is the philosophy, “Play by my rules or I’ll take my football and go home.” In the midst of exasperated attempts to discuss H.R. 2003, I have sometimes wanted to say something to that effect. There is a sense amongst many of the foreign aid workers whom I have met here that Ethiopians have developed a sense of entitlement. It is true that this could just be stressed people complaining about the locals to let off steam. However, during the H.R. 2003 discussion forum there seemed to be a general assumption that Ethiopia is entitled to American aid. Throughout all the exploration of the various legal issues involved, no one ever doubted that the money belongs to the Ethiopian people. When I worked up the courage to mention the issue, I was rather strongly told that America has a moral obligation to provide assistance to Ethiopia.One very practical and compelling reason for criticizing Congress is that many do not agree with the factual findings used as justification for the actions to be taken. There is more than a little hypocrisy in US legislators putting heavy emphasis on alleged election irregularities in Ethiopia while the last two American presidential elections have raised more than a few eyebrows. Congress also relied heavily on the reports and testimony of just a small group of people in preparing its findings, and in Ethiopia there is some doubt as to the interests of the parties involved in the investigations. The opinion of many of the professors in Mekelle is that the bill is now moot because the human rights issues enumerated have already been successfully resolved. Annoyed, and feeling that Ethiopians are already doing all they can, some ask what more America wants from them and why it hasn’t recognized any of the advances made so far. I was beginning to be won over by this particular argument until I sat down to read and grade the mid-term essays of the students in my International Human Rights Law classes. Because all of the instructors at Ethiopian universities are made to sign a contract that we will never say anything against the government or ruling party, I had been very careful in wording my assignment. I asked the students to select a human rights issue in Ethiopia (making sure not to imply that there are any actual problems, just issues) and find another country dealing with that same situation. They were required to then compare the actions of the two nations, discussing them in light of various international human rights instruments which have been covered in class. Then, they were to propose some potential methods they might use to deal with this “issue” they selected. Thinking that this was a sufficiently non-inflammatory prompt, I assumed I would get some rather dry responses, especially given the comments from the H.R. 2003 discussion forum, which all seemed to assert that Ethiopia is doing just fine on the human rights front. I was absolutely shocked, then, when I started reading my students’ work. Out of the hundred third-year students I teach, probably forty of them had inserted a special section, right after the cover page, warning me of what might happen to them were their paper to leave my hands. A number of students wrote that they would never give their real opinions to an Ethiopian professor because they fear being turned in to the government and punished. Others begged me to take their work back to America with me so that people would know what was going on. Of those who wrote such notes, almost all said that I would probably be surprised to find that many of the students had been afraid to express their true feelings at the H.R. 2003 discussion forum because you never know who is listening.After my initial shock, I began to wonder if the students weren’t just making exaggerated claims in hopes of getting better grades. I kept trying to figure out whether they were writing these warnings because they were genuine or because they wanted to make me think that they were really putting themselves on the line for this assignment. As I read the papers which had been submitted without the notes about fears, however, I got the sense that the students were just writing in as safe a fashion as possible. They put in long recitations of facts and laws and strove to make the “issue” seem as insignificant as possible within the larger context of Ethiopian government. They were holding back. Their work lacked the color, honesty, and intensity of the writing of the students who had asked me not to show their papers to anyone. To be fair, I can understand how the students might be afraid to speak their minds, because there have been a number of student protests which have been put down with violence recently, some journalists have been imprisoned, and much of the media is censored. At dinner, some university graduates from Addis Ababa mentioned that they had been without food for weeks at a time on campus but were forbidden by the administrators to ever voice a complaint. My friend tried to learn more about the conditions, but the Ethiopians had quickly changed the subject, telling her that they should not be overheard discussing such things. I even know some expatriate workers here who are hesitant to say anything negative about the country in their e-mails to friends and family at home, because they know that everything goes through a central server and could be read, with possible negative repercussions.I should mention that teaching this human rights class can be a very touchy thing, even though the subject appears to be strongly supported by the university, which is of course overseen by the Ministry of Education in Addis Ababa. While such a subject would be almost a luxury elective or niche seminar in America, it is a part of the Ethiopian core curriculum and the administrators consider it one of the most important topics today, even having established a Human Rights Centre for community advocacy and informative purposes. However, I have heard very little public criticism of the actions taken by the government, even though most people would like the human rights situation to improve. It turns out that ethnic loyalties — not the alleged satisfaction with the progress being made — have a great deal to do with the reluctance to agree with the policies behind H.R. 2003. The political boundaries of Ethiopia are drawn based on ethnic groupings, with each region having its own unique language and culture. I live in the northern region of Tigrai, which is well-known as the homeland of almost all of today’s Ethiopian leaders, including Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who is portrayed in H.R. 2003 as a human rights abuser. After the Derg military regime was defeated, the new government was formed largely by the political party which grew out of the Tigraian People’s Liberation Front, whose enormous office is about three-hundred yards away from the campus of the law faculty. Other groups do not get anything close to the level of governmental representation enjoyed by the citizens of Tigrai, even though it is one of the smallest regions.People from other regions are much more free with their criticism of the government. I have seen several couples get into screaming fights because the spouse from Tigrai refuses to criticize the government while the spouse from elsewhere rants about corruption, censorship, the military, Eritrean secession, and so on. On a recent trip to the Amhara region, some young men asked me and my friends about our travels in Ethiopia. They were extremely friendly to us until we said that we were not really backpackers, but that we live in Mekelle, at which point one of the men spat on our vehicle and all but one walked off in disgust, yelling that they hate people from Tigrai. Our group was made up entirely of white people and this conversation was being held in English. It goes without saying that we could not possibly be from Tigrai, but so great was their hatred of the Tigraian politicians that the mere fact that we live in Mekelle was enough to taint us. One calmer man stayed to speak to us and told us that in order to be safe and have a better time when we travel, we should tell people, “The Ethiopian government made me work in Mekelle. Of course I never wanted to live in Tigrai.” When discussing foreign travel, I often hear Americans advising each other to say they are Canadian in order to avoid politically-motivated troubles. In the minds of a good portion of the world’s people, the U.S. plays the role of the cruel, wasteful and capricious overlord. At the same time, many people look to America when they want things to change. This lose-lose scenario perfectly sums up the problem of H.R. 2003, and a prime illustration occurred at the discussion forum. An irate audience member told me that America has no right to change everything unilaterally and it should have worked for a General Assembly Resolution on Ethiopia instead of making a domestic law. I responded that there is often the perception that the international system provides a high level of legitimacy but a low level of action, such as that taken towards Burma, whose human rights abuses resulted in a toothless Resolution and no real change for its people. The individual then rebutted by recommending — in all seriousness — that the U.S. has the responsibility to revolutionize the UN and install a new system. You just can not have it both ways, wanting America to stay out of the affairs of other nations but still expecting it to come riding in on a white horse to save the day. Listening to the Ethiopians talk about the bill’s various points during the discussion forum, I felt as if I were under attack, but did begin to wonder if America hadn’t done something foolish and egotistical by asserting its right to determine the domestic affairs of a foreign nation. After reading my students’ work and speaking with people from outside Tigrai, however, I have to think that the spirit of H.R. 2003 is correct. I can admire the desire to help the people in another country and break with our tradition of cooperating with governments which harm their people when it suits American needs. I do see, however, that the factual findings section should have been redrafted because it is out-of-date, and if it is used as the justification for the actions taken in the rest of the bill, then the actions are without sufficient foundation and seem pointless. In recent years, foreign policy decisions have made America less and less popular around the world, but I think Americans are frustrated because we want to be recognized for our good works and intentions. I used to get angry and wonder why our leaders do not seem to understand that what they are doing with foreign affairs is not only hurting our reputation, but is putting the U.S. in danger by providing more already-furious people with ever-better reasons to attack us. It is quite sad when someone cannot leave the U.S. and express pride at being American for fear of retaliation by those who can not separate the national policies from the individual citizens. From this experience, however, I can better understand why sometimes actions must be taken which will earn us even more hatred. If those who craft our laws and policies ran international affairs like a popularity contest, then America might be more beloved by foreign nations, but it might also be committing terrible injustices against millions of people whose own leaders care little for their safety or happiness. Thus, although at the discussion forum I felt like Bernardus Fourie in that old photograph, a lone representative forced into the position of defending a nation whose actions are indefensible, I now have a different outlook. Instead of being ashamed that our country is disliked for taking unpopular measures, perhaps as Americans we can find pride in that self-same fact, exactly because we do that which we feel must be done to improve lives, despite what others may think of us.Abigail Salisbury currently teaches at the the Mekelle University Law Faculty in Mek'ele, Ethiopia. She is a 2007 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

January 16, 2008

Link | | e-mail op-ed | print | post comment | 17 comments | how to subscribe | © JURISTComments:

There are always many version of one story. There are also many angles that can be taken when analyzing and discussing a topic.

Professor Abigail Salisbury has hit one good angle and version of the story. That is good! But I advise her to also look more into the other side of the story and see if it also holds water. Listening to the ones that like to act as victims, while totally ignoring the accused does not reveal the truth of the situation.For example, one reason, I myself, as an Ethiopian, am very suspicious about HR2003, is that it is being sponsored and bankrolled by the Eritrean gov't. There are many evidences of this too long to elaborate on this comment. But one can look at the official Eritrean gov't website to see how the sponsor of this Bill, Congressman Donald Payne, is viewed by the Eritrean gov't: a champion of democracy and Human right issues. Donald Payne feels the same way about Eritrea. He is even on record saying that Ethiopia should be considered to be put on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism; while in actuality, Eritrea is being considered for that list by the US gov't.HR2003 boats about human rights. Eritrea is one the worst human rights abusers in the world. It does not have a constitution, nor has held any elections or has done anything remotely close to democracy as Ethiopia has done. Yet, HR2003 is being sponsored and advocated by Eritrea via Congressman Donald Payne.How hypocritical!Professor Abigail Salisbury, if you truly want to get behind the real issues that give momentum to HR2003, please look into the hand of Eritrea in this.This is just one angle of looking at HR2003 from an individual Ethiopian perspective.There are many more, but enough for now.Thank you.Tadios.

January 16, 2008

Dear Abigail Salisbury

Thank you for the interesting article. I was born in Mekelle and now live in U.S.A. All what you said is correct; I mean the human right violation is brutal and it is done not in front of anyone, but behind the scene. TPLF has been doing this for the people of Tigray for over 33 years and the rest of Ethiopians for 17 years. The reservation of most Tigreans is out of fear not because they support TPLF. Tigrean opposing TPLF is punishable by life in prison not only to the individual who is opposing, but to his immediate families too.

I wish I can prove this by freeing the people from the yoke of TPLF and ask them what they think about TPLF and its leaders. I am hopeful that one day the people of Ethiopia in general and the Tigray people in particular will be free from this and any dictatorship. Your article is an additional proves that this government is just paying a lip service to human right, justice, rule of law and decency. I support HR2003 because that will apply to any government not only to TPLF. Thus, this bill can be a cornerstone to build democracy in Ethiopia. I agree with you that there is nothing to do with sovereignty at all.

Tigrean living in USA

January 16, 2008

You have truly understood the views of the majority of Ethiopians on HR2003.

Thank you!zana

January 16, 2008

Dear Professor Abigail Salisbury thank you for your information. I live in USA and orginaly I am from Ethiopia. I am working closley from day 1 on this bill. I am glad your surprised was answer by your students assignemnt. That is why we need the bill. I want you to know that when you hear anything from those politician or higher official don't trust them because they don't tell you the truth. They are getting used of lie and false statment. H.R. 2003 is important and I am confident this bill will pass and will be a law very soon.

January 16, 2008

I dont agree with the suggestion, ethiopians think they are entitled to US money. Ethiopians are not beggers, We are proud People. Let me see if you can pass a bill like HR2003 for Saudi Arabia, for Iran and see the result. Just keep your money ,and let us keep our dignity with our poverty. ...Man can not live with bread only....

January 16, 2008

Thank you professor,

You are understanding the true nature of Ethiopian and above all African people problem.keep on searching and exposing the truth.We ethiopians had tried to demonstrate,write letter,sign petition or other peaceful meanses available but,can not be heard by the US administration.You should know the puppets of the Ethiopian government are blinded by their ethnic ego or self-interest.professor, if someone believes in democracy how on earth can he oppose human rights Bill?At least he is expected to add or oppose some points.As for TPLF members HR2003 is against their pocket and they can make no compromise. Cambridge, USA

January 16, 2008

To Tadios and alike,

We have to examine the bill itself not who sponsor the bill. Donald Payne has a right to visit any country, including Eritrea and that doesn't mean anything at all.I know Shaebia is against Ethiopia, so is TPLF. There is dictatorship on both countries. We don't have to wait to democratize Ethiopia until Eritrea does. It is shame, why anyone have to compare with a tiny country that is seceded with the blessing of TPLF.TPLF was sleeping in the same bed with Shaebia for over 24 years. Why we are condemning anyone who visits Eritrea now?The Ethiopian people want democracy, rule of law, equality, and equal distribution of power. Because I am a Tigrean it is immoral to support unequal distribution of power, which is injustice. As the Amharic saying goes “LeRas Sikorsu AyasaNsu”. This kind of mentality should seize.Kiros (Tigran living in US)

January 16, 2008

A wonderful analysis from a jurist's point of view. The person who commented earlier that the Eritrean regime is the sponsor of the bill does not know what he is talking about. American legistlators are not that stupid to be told what to do by a foreign regime. He may have had a case had he said the Ethiopian Diaspora is reponsible. That may have been closer to the truth since politics in the US is mainly politics of constituents. Besides, the regime in Eritrea is no better than the minority regime in Ethiopia.

Good job.

January 16, 2008

Professor Abigail Salisbury you have made one of the best defenses for HR2003. Thank You Professor. I am very glad that the law students at Mekele University have someone like you to guide them.

The US has every right to dictate its policy where it dispenses the US tax payer's money. There is not a single statement in HR2003 that undermines the independence of Ethiopia. What do Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopians want? The answer is obvious. Democracy, Rule of Law and respect of human rights. Any one who debates the points your article states should first answer if HR2003 defends and promotes Democracy, Rule of Law and respect of human rights or not.The minority dictatorial government in Ethiopia has made a weak defense against HR2003 by trying to appeal to the national sentiment of Ethiopians, thus equating the bill to the effect of a historical treaty between Ethiopia and Italy. This was a desperateattempt for any one to see since the treaty (Treaty of Wouchalle) was about making Ethiopia a colony of Italy. There is no statement in HR2003 that indicates that the US desires to run the affairs of Ethiopia. Now from the comments of Tadios on your article I saw that he suspects the Eritrean government is behind HR2003. This again is another desperate attempt to defend the indefensible-the actions of the minority dictatorial government that resulted in the passing of HR2003 in the US congress in the first place.Congressman Donald Payne is a free man to travel any where his mission takes him. Concluding that the Eritrean government is behind HR2003 and present the visit of Mr. Payne as evidence is certainly a characteristics of the government supporters argument. I hope that did not come from a young law student in Mekelle. The future if of Ethiopia is in the hands of the young students that confided their fear to you. Thanks again. I am very happy to read your article. My best wishes to you in your stay in Ethiopia.

January 16, 2008

Abigail,

Don't you find it interesting that those who support your argument are Eritrean supporters of the ruthless regime in Asmara? They use different nick names but I can tell you HR2003 supporters are Eritreans and a few power hungry Ethiopians. If HR 2003 was about human rights, what was Donald Payne, sponsor of the bill, doing in Eritrea praising the most repressive regime in Africa?HR2003 is sponsored by Ethiopia's enemies to dismantle the country.

January 16, 2008

Abigail,

Just from your encounters with individuals you can tell how reserved people are. If HR2003 was not necessary those people who were afraid to talk to you would not have been afraid. It is clear that there is a dictatorship in Ethiopia just from what you observed isn't it

January 16, 2008

Dear Prof. Salisbury,

I read your commentary with interest. Initially I had thought you were fooled by the Mekele professors who can be expected to mouth whatever would please the ears of the dictators, but as I continued to read I was impressed by your intellignet way you went about to find the truth. This is a government that has banned most independent media, muzzles the opposition, steals elections, controls the entire military-political establishment of the poor country. Why does it object to HR2003, a bill that promotes only human rights and the rule of law? By the way, this bill is not the first in dealing with human rights abuses in Africa. There is a European Union Cotonu agreement that bars economic assistance to African dictators who abuse the human rights of their citizens. In fact many European countries suspended economic aid to the Ethiopian regime after it stole the 2005 election and massacurred over 190 peaceful protesters.

January 16, 2008

As an ethiopian living in the states I admire your efforts. You have validated the Diaspora's concerns, and hence the need for HR2003. Professor your article was very insightful. Your travels in Ethiopia have revealed to you the true nature of this governmanet and how they sow the seeds of hate. By segregating the people of Tigrai they are creating an apartheid kind of government which is doomed to fail one day.

Again thanks and we need people like you to vett the truth.

January 16, 2008

As an American who has lived for 30 years outside the US (including more than 2 years in Ethiopia), I am very familiar with the dilemmas that arise in "representing" (or disagreeing with) US policy actions overseas. Professor Salisbury's thoughts on her own situation are admirably thoughtful, intelligent, and caring. Thank you for making this available.

January 16, 2008

Ms. Salisbury,

You've superbly tied together the following points:1. There is lack of freedom of speech and a climate of fear in Ethiopia.2. The ruling party is despised in many parts of Ethiopia.3. There is the perception that the ruling party disproportionately represents the Tigray ethnic group, and that this perception has unfortunately resulted in strong resentment towards Tigrayans.4. There is, alas, a feeling of foreign aid entitlement now in Ethiopia. This unfortunate psyche, damaging to development, is possibly a result of decades of poor governance and alienation of the populace from their government.5. Ethiopians, like many citizens of the Third World, have a paradoxical and conspiratorial perception of U.S. foreign policy.6. The principle that it is unethical for donors to provide aid untied to good governance, since such aid reduces a government's accountability to its people, thus stifling democracy.I envy your students, so I certainly hope that this article does not compromise your situation.

January 17, 2008

Dear Prof. Salisbury,

I read your very insightful aricle about the issue of human rights in Ethiopia.The Mekelle University students who inserted 'supplementary notes' about political repression in their term papers are those honest and brave souls who would like to expose the covered-up government brutality in Ethiopia. If one paper of any one of the students falls into the hand of the government, there is no doubt the life of the student ends right there. That is why all of them cautioned you seriously.What is quite different is the case of the Faculty members who were speaking vehemently against HR 2003. In a way, what the Faculty members were doing at the panel is - by way of denouncing the Human Rights Bill - testifying their loyalty to the government in power. The more they swear against HR 2003, the more they make their job secure. That is sad.I'm glad you finally unlocked the secret of all the buzz around HR 2003 by refering to reverse psychology: when someone speaks about a fledgling democracy in Ethiopia, the translation is how fear is pervasive, ethnic hate is gaining ground, and tyranny entrenched.

January 17, 2008

Thank you for giving-up your time, money and comfort to help a needy county not so much for food and other essentials to live but for "FREEDOM". You are a brave person to look beyond the surface and expose the truth and feeling of so many oppressed people.

I could only imagine what kinds of term paper you would have read if there was no oppression of the mind. What is worst than fear? But it is however a sad reality that the Ethiopian people never managed to stump it out nor enjoyed the type of intellectual freedom that rest of the western countries are experiencing. Who knows when but I am certain that your contribution to help a needy county and it's oppressed people one day will bring the desired result, "Freedom".

January 20, 2008

Highflyers Establishing Private Dev’t Bank

By SAMSON HAILEYESUS
FORTUNE STAFF WRITER

http://www.addisfortune.com

06/20/2011

Costantinos Berhe Tesfu (PhD), a board member of the African Union (AU) Anti-corruption Commission, is leading a group of 25 prominent individuals who are working towards establishing the first private development bank in the form of Afri-Agro Industrial Bank.

Aberra Deressa, former minister of agriculture (MoA); Brehane Deressa, former mayor of Addis Abeba; and Gabriel Negatu, director of governance, economic and financial reform at African Development Bank (AfDB); are included among the founders.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, the bank made a public offering of 100,000 shares, each valued at 10,000 Br, with the aim to raise one billion Birr.

A selection process for the bank’s president and vice president is underway, with the announcements expected as early as two weeks, Fortune has learnt.

Afri-Agro Industrial Bank, which was initiated three years ago, is set to open a project office within the next five months, according to Costantinos, who is also an assistant lecturer at the University of Addis Abeba (AAU).

The bank aims to add value to the agriculture sector by working with farmers’ unions and cooperatives. The bank’s business model is based on short-term and long-term investments and is particularly targeting value additions in agro processing projects.

“Farmers’ unions and cooperatives are our key partners in this endeavour and we will work closely with them to enhance their capacities, both as customers and partners,” Costantinos told Fortune. “Our vision is to revolutionise agriculture in Ethiopia by pushing for more investments in mechanised agriculture by Ethiopians. We see it as a viable model; the conditions in the country indicate that there are opportunities for the export of value-added agricultural products.”

If sesame is processed to make sesame oil, one’s earnings stand to increase by 3,000pc and the bulk of the freight decreases, he explained.

By the bank’s side will be a venture financing company to finance long-term projects that would also source financing from international institutions such as the World Bank (WB), AfDB, International Fund for Agriculture Development, and hedge funds, according to Costantinos.

The bank plans to open a research wing as a knowledge centre for its dealings and will draw experiences from similar agro-industrial banks in China, India, and Kenya with collaborations in research and capacity building, he claimed.

Abyei,Ethiopia and The Sudan

By Anko Zuta, Blogger 0f De Birhan Blogspot

17-6-2011

Associated Press reported on the 13th of June that North and south Sudan had agreed "in principle" to demilitarize the disputed central Sudan region of Abyei and to allow an Ethiopian peacekeeping team to come in, in a meeting that was mediated by the former South African President Thabo Mbeki and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Addis Abeba.The meeting is still being going on in Addis Abeba according to sources.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir attended the meeting.Southern Sudan is preparing to secede from the North on July 9 while the issue of Abyei continues to be an issues of disagreement and spot of war.

Hillary Clinton also said the U.S. welcomes Ethiopian peacekeepers being sent in.

But why aren't United Nations peace keepers or other regional Groupings coming in between? Why is Ethiopia specially giving its forces to that area preceding all other neighbouring countries? Is it because both sides ''trust'' Ethiopia or an order from the West like the invasion of Somalia? Or is the soul of Ethiopian soldiers worthless to be flashed in an insecure area?

I was speaking to a Sudanese friend who has worked in an independent tink tank and often gives me an impartial opinion of the situations in that country and the region. He says "the coming in of Ethiopian forces to the region seems to have come from Bashir and was basically in the interest of both the US and Ethiopia. "

" Bashir is happy that Ethiopian forces under Meles' command enter the region that any regional or multilateral peacekeeping force .He knows that most of Ethiopia's Economic and political interests are highly tied to Sudan thus he wants an Ethiopian peacekeeping force that he could manipulate or indirectly lead via the long ropes of Meles ." he adds. Bashir isn't also interested in the coming in of other multilateral or neighbouring countries due to his International injunction and ''basically because the others won't be as flexibly manageable for his interests as he wants them to be; while Meles would.''

He said that Ethiopia also has had its forces ready in the border between the two countries since some five months ago in a preventative measure. Meles fears that any political unrest in Sudan could be the source of change in his own country,he wants to control the developments in the Horn, and portray himslef as a key ally and player in the region.

In this situation it is South Sudan that has a lesser say and is unaffectedly ignorant of the calculations. Although South Sudan is actively participating in the meetings and working towards mutual benefit,the goals and latent agendas of the North and Ethiopia seem to be superseding and dominating so far.

Today the Indian Ocean Newsletter reported ''Addis Ababa is alarmed by the contacts between Ethiopian opponents and Sudanese officials. Khartoum, for its part, does not appreciate Ethiopian military aid for South Sudan.''

Bashir is claimed to be very ''cryptic and mysterious'' in his political games by most of his opponents that it would be possible to believe that he turned his back against his long-time pal,Meles and sided with Ethiopian opposition forces.

President Obama today (Thursday 17th) also voiced “deep concern” over the widening violence in Sudan.

July nine will clear most of the speculations.

Centuries after nations have been formed,borders of countries were demarcated and nations of the world have focused on life in other planets; yet, a new country crawls to be formed in Africa.

Related News : http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/9201/global-insider-ethiopia-sudan-relations

EHSNA DC Festival July 1st to the 3rd

Joint Report from Oakland Institute and SMNE Sounds Alarm on Foreign Agri-Investments in Food Insecure Ethiopia

PRESS RELEASE--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Oakland Institute (OI) and the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE) announce the June 8, 2011 release of their joint report on Ethiopia; part of the OI’s more comprehensive report on “Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa.” The report on Ethiopia is the outcome of an extensive in-country study in Ethiopia of what is commonly called “land-grabs”—government executed land investment deals with foreign investors that give them the rights to some of the most fertile, water-accessible land in Ethiopia for up to 99 years at prices as low as $1.19 (USD) per hectare; all done without consulting the people.

Mr. Obang Metho, the Executive Director of the SMNE compared the report’s evidence of the total exclusion of the people from involvement in these illegal land agreements as reminiscent of the Berlin Conference of 1884, “These illegal land agreements do not represent the interests of the local people; but instead, represent the interests of the current regime TPLF/EPRDF and investors; yet, the indigenous people will be impacted forever, just like those decisions made by past colonialists at the Berlin Conference to divvy up Africa without the African people present; decisions which have continued to incite conflict and instability on the continent ever since.”

The Land Rent Contractual Agreements for land leases between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) and twenty-four companies or individuals; now available for downloading from the SMNE’s website: http://www.solidaritymovement.org/110510EthiopianAgriculturalPortal.php You can read about the major loopholes in land lease contracts:http://www.solidaritymovement.org/110511MajorLoopholesInLandLeaseContrac.... You can also read SMNE’s independent comments and recommendations based on this report which will include observations regarding the political impact and specific recommendations to address concerns. And watch 12 minutes video on Ethiopia's land rush: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/ethiopia-centre-global-farml....

These deals are being carried out behind closed doors by the one-party government (EPRDF) of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, a regime regarded as illegitimate following the elections of both 2005 and 2010; neither of which met international standards. In the 2005 election, 194 peaceful post-election protestors were killed, some 50,000 were detained and opposition leaders were imprisoned. In the 2010 election, all political space was closed and the EPRDF claimed a 99.6% victory. Repressive laws have been created to criminalize dissent, peaceful protest, assembly of more than three people in public and restrict civil society; including advocating for human rights. Those who resist have faced punitive measures including threats, intimidation, loss of jobs or opportunities, arrest, detention or death.

Mr. Metho states, “This is the Neo-colonization of Africa. If what is going on in Gambella, Ethiopia was happening in New Delhi, India; in Oxford, England; in Bismarck, U.S.A; or in Saskatoon, Canada, this would create outrage! If some Ethiopian company went to India or any of these places and took over this much land without consultation with those impacted, would the people of these nations be silent? If it is not allowed in these places, why is it justified in Ethiopia?”

Ethiopian citizens are denied the right of private land ownership, but what is essentially “lifetime land ownership” through these long-term lease agreements are now being given to foreign investors by this cash-strapped government; now being accused of laundering 8.2 billion dollars. As this land is leased, hundreds of thousands of some of the most vulnerable and marginalized Ethiopians are being forced from their indigenous land and told to build new homes within designated areas provided by the regime; purportedly to give them greater access to services; however, these services have failed to materialize. Although the TPLF/EPRDF regime claims there is no connection between these forced evictions and the government’s new “villagization projects;” recently released contracts between the government and these investors promise to provide “vacant land free of any impediments,” which appears to mean those currently living on the land.

The TPLF/EPRDF regime, known as a serial perpetrator of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other gross human rights violations, has promised to provide “security” to ensure “peace” to these investors, which in this case, appears to mean military force. Mr. Metho, who comes from the Gambella region where the most land has already been leased and where much information was gathered for this report, shared his fear that serious human rights abuses may be committed to protect the investments of these foreign companies. He stated, “Ethiopian defense forces have already become more prevalent in these areas in anticipation of resistance from the people to these planned resettlements. If force is used, more people will die.”

Ethiopians are in favor of foreign investment, agricultural development and economic expansion, but not under these conditions where the opportunity is only available to regime cronies and foreign investors willing to work with this corrupt regime. As these subsistence farmers become impoverished and lose the means to sustain themselves and their families, many of these displaced people may have no other option than to work as a cheap labor force on their own ancestral land. Even if they could afford to pay for the food, most is unashamedly said to be destined for export to places like Saudi Arabia, India, China and beyond. Other land will be used for non-food production such as for flowers and bio-fuels.

The official statement by Mr. Abera Deressa, Ethiopian Minister of State for Agriculture reflects that when he said “The government is advising American, Canadian, Chinese and Indian investors to grow “high value” crops including soya beans, palm oil and bio-fuels, rather than cereals, to help feed the approximately 13 million Ethiopians that require some form of food aid. If we get money we can buy food anywhere,” “Then we can solve the food problem.” In a country that is nearly synonymous with the image of famine and hunger and where over thirteen million people are now depending on food aid; this plan to “give away” up to seven million hectares of land is both outrageous and immoral.

The findings of the report also indicate the alarming lack of oversight in protecting the environment and wildlife in the area; particularly as most of the land being leased is the ecologically fragile area of the headwaters of the Upper Nile. Deforestation is rapidly being carried out as virgin forests are being destroyed. Yet, the TPLF/EPRDF government shows little concern for either the well being of the people or the future environmental impact in Ethiopia or downstream in Sudan, Egypt or beyond.

Ethiopia does not have to be one of the poorest countries in the world for it is rich in natural resources, fertile land, abundant water and hardworking people; however, it has been plagued with governments of the past who did not care about the people; but never before have Ethiopians faced the crisis of losing their own land right from underneath their feet like is now being done by Meles Zenawi. Despite receiving billions of dollars of aid over the last decade, why has there been such little investment into the agricultural development for Ethiopians who still largely use antiquated farming methods? Why has this regime refused to budge on private land ownership and instead, held a tight grip on a medieval land tenure system that has not changed since the time of Haile Selassie? This new trend is simply a continuation of the feudal system that makes landowners of a few while all others remain in poverty. The only difference is the landowners are now foreigners or cronies who have a vested interest in this unpopular regime.

As the report indicates, most of the people will be excluded from the benefits despite the increasing hunger in the country; only deepened in seriousness due to a growing population. When Meles took over nearly twenty years ago; reportedly, he claimed a goal in ten years would be for Ethiopians to eat three meals a day. But today, hunger and starvation, typically found most in the rural areas and in the dryer regions in the north, are now also affecting those in the urban centers. Many Ethiopian families eat in shifts and are surviving on only one meal or less a day. Children are fainting in school for lack of food. Those with adequate means are finding it increasingly difficult to find some of the most basic staples such as oil, sugar and teff—used to make the national dish of Ethiopians—injera.

Witnesses within the report speak to the widespread anger over these land grabs; only silenced due to fear of retaliation from this brutal regime; however, when it is combined with the desperate conditions of hungry Ethiopians, it is only a matter of time before diverse people will come together to demand change. Ethiopians seek the freedom that will enable them to take responsibility to feed themselves rather than to depend on outsiders for food aid; however, the alarming explosion of these land deals threatens the future of the entire country in ever accomplishing that goal.

TPLF/EPRDF is a Marxist-Leninist government that tries to hide under the cloak of democracy; yet, donor countries such as the U.S., the U.K, Canada, Germany, Norway, France and others have prolonged its rule by providing huge amounts of foreign aid while turning a blind eye to its human rights abuses, repression of civil rights, the perversion of the rule of law and now the large-scale robbery of the peoples’ land and assets.

On the other hand, support for this dictatorship is undermining investment opportunities from these same and other countries that care about advancing democratic principles and a market-based economy as opposed to those who place no demands on dictatorial regimes. Laws such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000 (US) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (US) erect much-needed ethical barriers to doing business with a corrupt regime; however, it makes it easier for countries without such ethically-based restrictions to forge ahead in Ethiopia. Ethiopians want to do business in an open global market, but want agreements that will benefit all parties and be sustainable.

The lack of transparency in these deals is clearly calculated; particularly in light of the February 18, 2010 report from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that found Ethiopia to be one of the five most at risk countries in the world for money laundering (AML) and the financing of terrorism (CFT); stating that the lack of such compliance made not only Ethiopia, but also others involved with them, whether inside or outside their borders, extremely vulnerable to illicit activities. (http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/34/29/44636171.pdf).

Undoubtedly, the TPLF/EPRDF will attempt to discredit this joint report; as they have done with reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch, the European Union and the U.S. State Department’s yearly human rights reports; however, the people on the ground, from different regions and towns throughout Ethiopia speak a consistent testimony. Some of these witnesses have already been threatened; forcing them to seek safety outside of Ethiopia along with thousands of Ethiopians scattered throughout the world—a strong testimony of the oppressive nature of this regime that has made life unbearable for its citizens. This is a regime that wants the resources, but not the people. Ethiopians people have been robbed of their land and their dignity with nothing with which to replace it.

Recently, one of the pro-regime newspapers (Ethio-channel) reported Meles Zenawi’s brazen response to the criticisms of these land giveaways as he said, “If we have to cry, we should not be crying for the hundred thousand (100, 000) hectares of farmland we have already given away to the Indians, but for the 3 million hectares of farmland we are about to give away.” (English translation from Amharic).

In response to this Mr. Metho warns, “We, the people of Ethiopia, are even now working through various available mechanisms to make sure those who are involved in corruption, human rights violations and in the accumulation of illgained wealth will be held accountable. Free countries no longer are the safe-havens of the past.”

To the current and potential investors in Ethiopia Mr. Metho advises extreme caution. He asks, “Are you aware of the “unspoken” dark side of these land investment deals; particularly the devastating impact on the lives of the people? Whose side will you be on? Investors should understand that you will be doing business with an unelected government that took power by force, manipulation and corruption and therefore does not possess the legitimate authority to negotiate in the name of the Ethiopian people. It is risky to partner with a government whose right to govern is being challenged by the majority of the people. Once this regime falls or implodes, these agreements will not be binding!”

=======================ENDS=======================.

For media enquiries, including interview requests, contact Mr. Obang Metho, Executive Director of the SMNE. Phone 202 725-1616 or Email: Obang@solidaritymovement.org.

The SMNE is a non-violent, non-political, grassroots social justice movement of diverse Ethiopians; committed to bringing truth, justice, freedom, equality, reconciliation, accountability and respect for human and civil rights to the people of Ethiopia and beyond. The SMNE has branches in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom and chapters in various cities and countries throughout the world, including within Ethiopia.

You can find more about the SMNE through its website at: www.solidaritymovement.org. Or OI through its website at http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/