African Media Leaders Must Boycott Ethiopia

BY FASIL GIRMA ARAGAW, 21 AUGUST 2013

Ethiopian journalists have come to expect the worst from our government.

One of the world's most hostile governments to an independent press, it has jailed friends and colleagues, forced them to leave the country and unjustly branded them as terrorists or enemies of the state for doing their jobs. But until now we have at least been able to count on the moral support of fellow journalists, media organizations and others opposed to injustice.

That has been changed by the deeply disappointing decision of the African Media Initiative (AMI) to hold its annual convention, the African Media Leaders' Forum, in Addis Ababa this year. Far from helping to improve Ethiopia's media environment, as suggested by the AMI's chief executive, Amadou Mahtar Ba, this move will instead embolden the government in its ongoing war against the press.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 49 Ethiopian journalists have been forced into exile since 2007. Nine of our colleagues languish in prison, making the country the second worst jailer of journalists in Africa after Eritrea.

Just last year, the government forced the closure of Feteh ("Justice"), the prominent independent newspaper in Addis Ababa, because of its critical editorial line. Its publisher, Mastewal Berhanu, who was forced to leave the country after receiving threats from security agents, is one of those who have said that the AMI's decision is a blow to jailed and exiled Ethiopian journalists.

We have held the AMI in high esteem because of its stated commitment to"promote the development of pluralistic media". But we believe its justification for holding the forum in Ethiopia is self-serving and insensitive to Ethiopia's independent media community, and we cannot understand why Mr. Ba calls the decision "courageous".

The AMI's suggestion that holding the forum in Addis Ababa will further a process of "constructive engagement" with media stakeholders, including the government, is either naïve or aimed at benefiting narrow interests that do not really serve the Ethiopian media community at large. Neither the publishers' association nor the media council with which the AMI has interacted represent independent journalists, nor do they defend their rights.

Despite all the Ethiopian government's actions to stifle press freedom, I used to believe that if the press could organize itself it could gain enough strength to overcome its multi-faceted challenges. To test my belief in practice, I tried in 2011 to organize a monthly informal journalists' roundtable, bringing the highly-polarized media together to discuss investigative journalism, particularly on corruption issues.

This platform sought to help the media play its watchdog role and I hoped it would grow into an investigative or anti-corruption journalists' association.

But over ten months of meetings, the arrest and intimidation of journalists, along with the closures of local rights groups, rendered members frustrated and hesitant about forming an independent association.

Even the monthly roundtable meeting could not be sustained as participants gradually dropped out. Stringent laws, arrogant bureaucracy, threats and other challenges sapped the media of its energy, leaving it too weak to build one strong local media association which could help protect itself.

Today, professional media associations are either under the concealed patronage of the government or too scared to speak out for unlawfully imprisoned journalists such as Eskinder Nega, Reeyot Alemu, Woubshet Taye and many others. The Ethiopian government has ensured that there is no strong and vibrant media association that can stand for freedom of speech and press freedom.

Mr. Ba's suggestion that the government-sponsored media council "is known for its independence and commitment to building free and balanced media" confirms our fears that the AMI, its handful of local partners and the Ethiopian government are speaking with one and the same voice.

I appreciate the Pan-African approach of Mr. Ba. But Pan-Africanism begins with African solidarity, based on the understanding that injustice against one African is an injustice against all Africans. The Ethiopian government is willing to have the AMLF meet in Addis Ababa because it can use the event as a counter to international pressure for freedom of speech and press freedom.

In our struggle to realize the freedoms promised in our constitution, Ethiopian journalists have seldom heard African intellectuals, media leaders or the African Union call out our government on its grave abuses and support those struggling to be free. Apartheid and colonialism were not defeated with "constructive engagement" or apathy and silence.

Business interests that worked with the apartheid regime are marked with shame forever. The AMI should reconsider its plan to hold the meeting in Addis Ababa.

- Fasil Girma Aragaw can be followed on Twitter @fasiledesfasil or contacted by email.

Read more

ዋስትናችን እርቅ ብቻ ነው!

“እኛ የእሳት አደጋ ብርጌድ የለንምና ዋ!!'' ኦባንግ

August 19, 2013 http://www.goolgule.com/

እሳት ሲነሳ የመጀመሪያው ተግባር እሳቱን በፍጥነት ማጥፋት ለሚችለው የእሳት አደጋ ብርጌድ መደወል ሲሆን፣ ቀጣዩ ተግባር እሳቱ በተነሳበት አካባቢ ያሉ ነዋሪዎች ነፍስ አትርፈው እሳቱን በተገኘው መንገድ ለማጥፋት መረባረብ ነው። ይህ የተለመደው ተግባር ዛሬ በኢትዮጵያ ስለመስራቱ የአዲሲቷ ኢትዮጵያ የጋራ ንቅናቄ /አኢጋን/ ዋና ዳይሬክትር ስጋት አላቸው። እናም “እኛ የእሳት አደጋ ብርጌድ የለንምና ዋ!!” የሚል ማስጠንቀቂያ አዘል ጥሪ ያሰማሉ።

“አሁን ባለው ተጨባጭ ሁኔታ እሳቱ ፊትና መልክ ይዞ ሲቀጣጠል አላነውም እንጂ በርካታ የማቀጣጠያ ቅመሞች ተዘጋጅተውለት ለመንደድ በዝግጅት ላይ ነው። መንደዱ የማይቀረው ይህ እሳት ቢነሳ የሚያጠፋው የለም” የሚሉት አቶ ኦባንግ ሜቶ፣ ጥላቻው በሰፈር ደረጃ ከርሯል ይላሉ። በየመንደሩ ህዝብ እንዲቧደን ተደርጓል። ሚና ለይቷል። አገር የሚመራው መንግሥትም ችግሩን ከመፍታትና አገሪቱን ከስጋት ከማላቀቅ “ጥሪ አይቀበልም” በሚል የሃይል ርምጃ መምረጡ ነገሮችን ይበልጥ እንዳወሳሰበ ይናገራሉ።

በየአቅጣጫው ያሉ ወገኖች ቆም ብለው ሊደበቁት ከማይችሉት ከህሊናቸው ጋር ሊነጋገሩ እንደሚገባ ያመለከቱት አቶ ኦባንግ “ግብጾች ግብጾችን ገደሉ፣ ገና ቀውሱ ይቀጥላል። ይህ እጅግ ዘግናኝ የሆነው ቀውስ እኛ ዘንድ ሳይደርስ ወደ እርቅ እናምራ። ለእውነተኛ እርቅ ጊዜው አሁን ነው” በማለት አንገብጋቢ ያሉትን ጥሪ ያስተላልፋሉ።

“ላለፉት 22 ዓመታት ኢትዮጵያ ላይ ከየአቅጣጫው የተረጨው መርዛማ ፖለቲካና፣ ሰብአዊነት የጎደለው አስተዳደራዊ መዋቅር የፈጠረው ውጥረት ወደ መፈረካከስ እየነዳን ነው” በማለት የስጋቱን መጠን የሚጠቁሙት አቶ ኦባንግ ፣ በግብጽ የተፈጠረው ቀውስ በሃይል ሊቆም የማይችልበት ደረጃ ሲደርስ ምዕራባዊያንም ሆኑ አሜሪካ የሃዘን መግለጫ ከማውጣት የዘለለ ስራ አለመስራታቸው ለኢትዮጵያዊያን ታላቅ ትምህርት ሊሆን እንደሚገባ ያሰምሩበታል።

በሩዋንዳ ለቁጥር የሚያዳግቱ ሰዎች አልቀዋል። በኮሶቮ ህዝብ ተጨፍጭፏል። ዳርፉር ንጹሃን የጥይት ራት ሆነዋል። ይህ ሁሉ ከመሆኑ በፊት ሃያላን መንግስታትና “ድርጅቶቻቸው” በእነዚህ አገራት ውስጥ ነበሩ። እያወቁት ነው የሆነው። ግን ጉዳዩ የጥቅም ችግር ስለማይፈጥርባቸው አገራቱ በደም ጎርፍ ሲታጠቡ በዝምታ ተመልክተው እንደነበር ያስታወሱት አቶ ኦባንግ፣ “ሶሪያ ስትፈርስ፣ ከ100 ሺህ ሰው በላይ ሲያልቅና አሁንም እያለቀ ባለበት ሁኔታ እልቂቱን ማስቆም እየቻሉ ዝምታን መርጠዋል” በማለት አቶ ኦባንግ ከነዚህ አገሮች፣ በተለይም “አሁን ግብጽ ላይ በተፈጠረው ችግር ካልደነገጥንና ለሚቀርበው የእርቅ ጥያቄ መልስ ለመስጠት የማንዘጋጅ ከሆነ አደጋው የከፋ ሊሆን ይችላል” ሲሉ አስጠንቅቀዋል።

ጥያቄው የስልጣን ሳይሆን አገሪቱ ላይ ያንዣበበውን የሞት አደጋ የመግፈፍ አንደሆነ፣ ይህ አሁን ያንዣበበው የቀውስ ደመና ባስቸኳይ ካልተገፈፈ መከራው የሁሉም ወገን እንደሚሆን ጥርጥር እንደማያሻው የጠቆሙት አቶ ኦባንግ “ንጹህ ልብናና ንጹህ ህሊና ያላችሁ ውጡ፣ ለእውነተኛ እርቅ እንስራ፣ አገሪቱንም እናድን፣ የእሳት አደጋ ብርጌድ የለንምና እኛው አገራችንን በማስቀደም እንታደጋት” ሲሉ ከወትሮው በተለየ ጥሪ አስተላልፈዋል።

በምርጫ ፕሬዚዳንት ሆነው በዓመጽ መፈንቅለ መንግሥት የተደረገባቸው ፕሬዚዳንት ሙርሲን የሚደግፉ የሙስሊም ወንድማማች ፓርቲ ደጋፊዎች ላይ የሃይል ርምጃ ከመወሰዱ በፊት በግብጽ ይህ ችግር ሊደርስ እንደሚችል የወተወቱ ነበሩ። ፕሬዚዳንት ሙርሲ ከስልጣን የተወገዱበት አግባብ ቀውስ ሊያስነሳ እንደሚችል ቢነገርም ሰሚ ባለማግኘቱ ቀውሱ ግብጻዊያንን እርስ በርስ አጋደለ። ግብጾች ግብጾችን ጨፈጨፉ። እስከ ሁለት ሺህ የሚደርሱ ሰዎች የተገደሉበት ይህ ቀውስ እንዴት ሊቆም እንደሚችል ፍንጭ የለም። የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ አዋጅ፣ የሰዓት እላፊ፣ ግድያና እስር ዓመጹን ሊገታው አልቻለም። ይልቁኑም መሳሪያ የታጠቁ ተቃዋሚዎች ግብጽን በጥይት እያመሷት ነው። እየገደሉም ነው።

በኢትዮጵያም በተለያዩ ወቅት የተነሱ የህዝብ ጥያቄዎችን በጸረ ሽብር ህግ፣ በእስር፣ በድብደባ፣ በግድያ፣ በማስፈራሪያና በጡንቻ የማስተናገዱ አዝማሚያ ከእለት እለት መጠናከሩ የሚከፋቸውን ሰዎችና ቡድኖች እያበራከተ ነው። የተፈናቀሉ ወገኖች ተበራክተዋል። በተፈናቀሉና መሬታቸው እየተቸበቸበ ያሉ ወገኖች ምሬት የከፋ ደረጃ ደርሷል። ሚዛናዊ ያልሆነው የአስተዳደር መዋቅርና የኢኮኖሚ ልዩነት የፈጠረው ቅሬታ በቃላት የሚገለጽ አልሆነም። እንደ አቶ ኦባንግ ሁሉ እርቅ አስፈላጊ እንደሆነ በማመን እየሰሩ እንደሆነ የሚናገሩትና ለጊዜው ስማቸውን መግለጽ ያልፈለጉ ታዋቂ ምሁር ለጎልጉል እንደተናገሩት “በአሁኑ ወቅት ጥላቻው ከርሮ ህዝብ በገሃድ ስምና ብሔር እየለየ ፊት ለፊት መናገር ጀምሯል፤ የኑሮው ውድነት፣ የመብት ረገጣው፣ ዕንግልቱ፣ … የጥላቻውን መጠን አደባባይ ላይ እንዲታይ እያደረገው መጥቷል። አገራችን ያለችበት መንገድ አደጋ አለው። እርቅ የግድ ነው” ብለዋል፡፡

እኚህ ምሁር “ኢህአዴግ ውስጥ እርቅ አስፈላጊ እንደሆነ የሚያምኑና አሁን በየአቅጣጫው ያለው ችግር የሚያሳስባቸው ወገኖች ስላሉ እነዚህን ወገኖች በመቅረብ ለእውነተኛ እርቅ ለመስራት ጊዜው አሁን፣ ለዚያውም ሳይረፍድ በቶሎ ሊሆን ይገባል። ይህንን ካላደረግን ሁላችንም እናዝናለን። ይቆጨናል። በቀላሉ ልናልፈው ወደ ማንችልው ጣጣ ውስጥ ሳንገባ እንረባረብ” በማለት ተናግረዋል። አስተያየት ሰጪው በቅርቡ ራሳቸውን ገልጸው አስተያየት እንደሚሰጡ፣ ለጊዜው የተጀመሩ ስራዎችን በነጻነት ለመስራት ሲሉ  ራሳቸውን ከመግለጽ የተቆጠቡበትን ምክንያት ተናግረዋል።

“አገር እንደ ሰው አካል ነው። አንድ ቦታ ሲታመም ስሜቱ የሙሉው አካሉ እንጂ የተጎዳው አንድ ክፍል ብቻ አይደለም” በማለት የማጠቃለያ አስተያየት የሰጡት አቶ ኦባንግ፣ የአዲሲቷ ኢትዮጵያ የጋራ ንቅናቄ ሲቋቋም ዓላማው ሁሉም ነጻ የማውጣት ታላቅ ዓላማ አንግቦ በመሆኑ በዚህ ረገድ በቅርቡ የእርቅ ተግባሩን ሊከውን የሚያስችለውን እቅዱንና የድርጊት መርሃ ግብሩን ይፋ እንደሚያደርግ፣ ለዚሁም ተግባራዊነት ኮንፍራንስ እንደሚያዘጋጅ አመልክተዋል።

በነጻ አውጪ ስም መደራጀትና መታገል ሙሉውን አካል /አገር/ ሊያድን እንደማይችል ያመለከቱት አቶ ኦባንግ “አሁን ትግሬ፣ ኦሮሞ፣ አማራ፣ ጉራጌ፣ ወላይታ፣ ከንባታ፣ ሲዳማ፣ ከፊቾ … እያልን በተበጣጠሰ አመለካከት ከማነከስ የአገራችንን ህልውና በአንድ ትልቅ አጀንዳ ውስጥ በማካተት ለመስራት ድርጅታችን ለሚያቀርበው ጥሪ ህዝብና ጥሪ የሚደረግላቸው ወገኖች ሁሉ ቀና ምላሽ ሊሰጡ ይገባል” ሲሉ መልዕክታቸውን አስተላልፈዋል።

ሙስሊም፣ ኦርቶዶክስ፣ ካቶሊክ፣ ፕሮቴስታንት፣ ወዘተ በማለት ከብሄርና ጎሳው ልዩነት በተጨማሪ መለያየት መፈጠሩ የአገሪቱን እጣ ፈንታ አሳዛኝና አደጋ እንኳ ቢፈጠር ለተግሳጽ የሚፈራ ሰው እንዳይኖር ማድረጉ አሳሳቢ የሆነባቸው በርካታ ዜጎች አሉ። አቶ ኦባንግ እንደሚሉት ግን ሁሉም ቦታ የፖለቲካ ኮተት የሌለባቸው፣ ንጹህ ልብና ያላቸውና ህሊናቸውን የሚያከብሩ አሉ። እነዚህ ወገኖች ብቸኛ አማራጭ በሆነው እርቅ ላይ አበክረው መስራት እንደሚገባቸው አመልክተዋል። እሳቸው የሚመሩት አኢጋንም ለእንደዚህ አይነቶቹ ንጹሃን በሩ ክፍት መሆኑን አረጋግጠዋል።

በመጨረሻም “አሁን ችግር በተባባሰባቸው ቦታዎች ሁሉ ‘እርቅ’ እንደ መፍትሄ የሚቀርበው፣ ዓለም አሁን ከመቻቻል ሌላ አማራጭ ስለሌላት ስለሆነ እኛም እርቅ ላይ ያለአንዳች ማቅማማት መስራት ይገባናል፤ ይህ ዕርቅ ግን በደፈናው ምህረት የሚያሰጥ ሳይሆን በፍትህ ላይ የተመሠረተ ነው” ያሉት አቶ ኦባንግ “ድርጅታችን እርቅ ላይ ያለው ሃሳብ ከሌሎች በተለየ የተቋቋምንበት፣ የሰፋና የተፈጠርንበት መሰረት በመሆኑ ይህንን ሃላፊነት በመውሰድ እስካሁን የሰራናቸውን ስራዎች ውጤት ለህዝብ ይፋ እናደርጋለን፤ ይህም እንደወቅቱ ሁኔታ ተለዋዋጭ ሳይሆን የጋራ ንቅናቄው ገና ከጅምሩ የወጠነውና እስካሁን ለዓመታት ሲሰራበት የቆየ ጉዳይ ነው። ኢህአዴግም ሰላም ስለሚያስፈልገው፣ ባለስልጣኖቹም መኖር ስለሚፈልጉ፣ ደጋፊዎቹም ዋስትና ስለሚያሻቸው የተቃዋሚ ወገኖችም አገራቸውን ስለሚያስቀድሙ፣ ሁሉም ወገኖች ቀና ምላሽ ይሰጣሉ ብለን እናምናለን” የሚል መልዕክት አስተላልፈዋል።

Read more

Is America Disinventing Human Rights? By Professor Alemayehu G Mariam

In his 1981 farewell speech, President Jimmy Carter said, “America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way round. Human rights invented America.”

In a New York Times op-ed piece in June 2012, Carter cautioned, “At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.”

Carter also raised a number of important questions: Has the U.S. abdicated its moral leadership in the arena of international human rights? Has the U.S. betrayed its core values by maintaining a detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and subjecting dozens of prisoners to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and leaving them without the “prospect of ever obtaining their freedom”? Does the arbitrary killing of a person suspected to be an enemy terrorist in a drone strike along with women and children who happen to be nearby comport with America’s professed commitment to the rule of law and human rights?

In 1948, the U.S. played a central leadership role in “inventing” the principal instrument which today serves as the bedrock foundation of modern human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948, set a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” in terms of equality, dignity and rights. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the committee that drafted the UDHR. Eleanor remains an unsung heroine even though she was the mother of the modern global human rights movement. Without her, there would have been no UDHR; and without the UDHR, it is doubtful that the plethora of subsequent human rights conventions and regimes would have come into existence. Remarkably, she managed to mobilize, organize and proselytize human rights even though she had no legal training, diplomatic experience or bureaucratic expertise. She used her skills as political activist and advocate in the cause of freedom, justice and civil rights to work for global human rights.

Is America disinventing human rights?

It seems the U.S. is “disinventing” human rights through the pursuit of  double (triple, quadruple) standard of human rights policy wrapped in a cover of diplocrisy.  In Africa, the U.S. has one set of standards for Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and Omar al-Bashir’s Sudan. Mugabe and Bashir are classified as the nasty hombres of human rights in Africa. The U.S. has targeted both regimes for crippling economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. The U.S. has frozen the assets of Mugabe's family and henchmen because the “Mugabe regime rules through politically motivated violence and intimidation and has triggered the collapse of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.” 

The U.S. calls “partners” equally brutal regimes in Africa which serve as its proxies. Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Yuweri Museveni of Uganda and the deceased leader of the regime in Ethiopia are lauded as the “new breed of African leaders" and crowned “partners”. Uhuru Kenyatta, recently elected president of Kenya and a suspect under indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity is said to be different than Bashir who faces similar ICC charges. In  2009,  Ambassador Susan E. Rice, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, demanded Bashir’s arrest and prosecution:  “The people of Sudan have suffered too much for too long, and an end to their anguish will not come easily. Those who committed atrocities in Sudan, including genocide, should be brought to justice.” No official U.S. statement on Uhuru’s ICC prosecution was issued.

The U.S. maintains excellent relations with  Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea who has been in power since 1979 because of that country’s oil reserves; but all of the oil revenues are looted by Obiang and his cronies. In 2011, the U.S. brought legal action in federal court  against Obiang’s son to seize corruptly obtained assets including a $40 million estate in Malibu, California  overlooking the Pacific Ocean, a luxury plane and a dozen super-sports cars worth millions of dollars.  The U.S. has not touched any of the other African Ali Babas and their forty dozen thieving cronies who have stolen billions and stashed their cash in U.S. and other banks.  

Despite lofty rhetoric in support of the advancement of democracy and protection of human rights in Africa, the United States continues to subsidize and coddle African dictatorships that are as bad as or even worse than Mugabe's. The U.S. currently provides substantial economic aid, loans, technical and security assistance to the repressive regimes in Ethiopia, Congo (DRC), Uganda, Rwanda and elsewhere. None of these countries holds free elections, allow the operation of an independent press or free expression or abide by the rule of law. All of them are corrupt to the core, keep thousands of political prisoners, use torture and ruthlessly persecute their opposition. Yet they are deemed U.S. “partners”.

“Principled disengagement” as a way of reinventing an American human rights policy?

If the Obama Administration indeed has a global or African human rights policy, it must be a well-kept secret. In March 2013,  Michael Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor   said American human rights policy is based on “principled engagement”: “We are going to go to the United Nations and join the Human Rights Council and we’re going to be part of it even though we recognize it doesn’t work… We’re going to engage with governments that are allies but we are also going to engage with governments with tough relationships and human rights are going to be  part of those discussions.” Second, the U.S. will follow “a single standard for human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it applies to all including ourselves…” Third, consistent with President “Obama’s personality”, the Administration believes “change occurs from within and so a lot of  the emphasis… [will be] on how we can help local actors, change agents, civil society, labor activists, religious leaders trying to change their societies from within and amplify their own voices and give them the support they need...”

On August 14, according to Egyptian government sources, 525 protesters, mostly members of the Muslim Brotherhood, were killed and 3,717 injured at the hands of Egyptian military and security forces. It was an unspeakably horrifying massacre of protesters exercising their right to peaceful expression of grievances.

On August 15, President Obama criticized the heavy-handed crackdown on peaceful protesters with the usual platitudes. “The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypt's interim government and security forces. We deplore violence against civilians.” His message to the Egyptian people was somewhat disconcerting in light of the massacre. “America cannot determine the future of Egypt. We do not take sides with any particular party or political figure. I know it’s tempting inside Egypt to blame the United States.”

In July 2009, in Ghana, President Obama told Africa’s “strongmen”, “History offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not…. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality… Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans [citizens and their communities driving change], and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” 

President Obama has a clear choice in Egypt between “those who use coups to stay in power” and the people of Egypt peacefully protesting in the streets. Now he says, “We don’t take sides…” By "not taking sides",  it seems he has taken sides with Egypt’s strongmen who "use coups to stay in power".  So much for “principled engagement”!

Obama reassured the Egyptian military that the U.S. does not intend to end or suspend its decades-old partnership with them. He cautioned the military that “While we want to sustain our relationship with Egypt, our traditional cooperation cannot continue as usual while civilians are being killed in the streets.”  He indicated his disapproval of the imposition of “martial law” but made no mention of the manifest military coup that had ousted Morsy. He obliquely referred to it as a “military intervention”. He made a gesture of  “action” cancelling a symbolic military exercise with the Egyptian army. There will be no suspension of U.S. military aid to Egypt and no other sanctions will be imposed on the Egyptian military or government.

I am not clear what Obama’s human rights policy of “principled engagement” actually means. But I have a lot of questions about it: Does it mean moral complacency and tolerance of the crimes against humanity of African dictators for the sake of the war on terror and oil? Is it a euphemism for abdication of American ideals on the altar of political expediency? Does it mean overlooking and excusing the crimes of  ruthless dictators and turning a blind eye to their bottomless  corruption? Does “principled engagement” mean  allowing dictators to suck at the teats of American taxpayers to satisfy their insatiable aid addiction while they brutalize their people?

The facts of  Obama’s “principled engagement” tell a different story. In May 2010,  after the ruling party in Ethiopia declared it had won 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament, the U.S. demonstrated its “principled engagement” by issuing a Statement expressing “concern that international observers found that the elections fell short of international commitments” and promised to “work diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people.” There is no evidence that the U.S. did anything to “strengthen democratic institutions and open political dialogue to become a reality for the Ethiopian people.”

When two ICC indicted suspects in Kenya (Kenyatta and Ruto) won the presidency in Kenya a few months ago, the U.S. applied its “principled engagement” in the form of a robust defense of the suspects. Johnnie Carson, the former United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, said the ICC indictments of  Bashir and Uhuru/Ruto are different. “I don't want to make a comparison with Sudan in its totality because Sudan is a special case in many ways.” What makes Bashir and Sudan different, according to Carson, is the fact that Sudan is on the list of countries that support terrorism and Bashir and his co-defendants are under indictment for the genocide in Darfur. Since “none of that applies to Kenya,” according to Carson, it appears the U.S. will follow a different policy.

President Obama says the U.S. will maintain its traditional partnership with Egypt’s military, Egypt’s “strongmen”. At the onset of the Egyptian Revolution in 2011,  Obama and his foreign policy team froze in stunned silence, flat-footed and twiddling their thumbs and scratching their heads for days before staking out a position on that popular uprising. They could not bring themselves to use the “D” word (dictator as in Hosni Mubarak) to describe events in Egypt then. Today Obama cannot bring himself to say the “C” word (as in Egyptian military coup).

Obama is in an extraordinary historical position as a person of color to advance American ideals and values throughout the world in convincing and creative ways. But he cannot advance these ideals and values through a hollow notion of “principled engagement.”

Rather, he must adopt a policy of  “principled disengagement” with African dictators. That does not mean isolationism or a hands off approach to human rights. By “principled disengagement” I mean a policy and policy outcome that is based on measurable human rights metrics. Under a policy of “principled disengagement”, the U.S. would establish clear, attainable and measurable human rights policy objectives in its relations with African dictatorships. The policy would establish minimum conditions of human rights compliance. For instance, the U.S. could set some basic criteria for the conduct of free and fair elections, press and individual freedoms, limits on arbitrary arrests and detentions, prevention of extrajudicial punishments, etc. Using its annual human rights assessments, the U.S. could make factual determinations on the extent to which it will engage or disengage with a particular regime. “Partnership” status and the benefits that come with it will be reserved to those regimes that have good and improving records on specific human rights measures. Regimes that steal elections, win elections by 99.6 percent, engage in arbitrary arrests and detentions and other human rights violations would be denied “partnership” status and denied aid, loans and technical assistance. Persistent violators of human rights would be given a compliance timetable to improve their records and provided appropriate assistance to achieve specific human rights goals. If regimes persist in a pattern and practice of human rights violations, the U.S. could raise the stakes and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The ‘‘ Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 ’’ contained many important statutory provisions that could serve as a foundation for “principled disengagement”.

Obama’s “principled engagement” seems to be a justification for expediency at the cost of American ideals. Until he decides to stand for principle, instead of standing behind the rhetoric of “principled engagement”, he will continue to find himself on a tightrope of moral, legal and political ambiguity. The U.S. cannot “condemn” and “deplore” its way out of its human rights obligations or global leadership role. Yes, the U.S. must take sides! It must take a stand either with the victims of human rights abuses throughout the world or the human rights abusers of the world.  If Obama wants to save the world from strongmen with boots and in designer suits with briefcases full of cash, he should pursue a policy of “principled disengagement”. But he should start by reflecting on the words he spoke during his first inauguration speech:

Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.

Read more

Demonstration against TPLF in Oslo Norway Aug 16 .2013

Read more

አንድነት ፓርቲ: የሙስሊሞችን ጥያቄና የሸኽ ኑሩን ግድያ ከፖለቲካ ፓርቲዎች ጋር ማያያዝ ወንጀል ነው!!!

August 16, 2013

ነሐሴ 10 ቀን 2005 ዓ.ም
ከአንድነት ለዴሞክራሲና ለፍትሕ ፓርቲ(አንድነት) የተሰጠ መግለጫ

እንደተለመደው የኢትዮጵያ ሬድዮና ቴሌቪዥን ድርጅት በመረጃና ደህንነት አገልግሎት ተሰናዳ ያለውን ‹‹ሸህ ኑሩን ማን ገደላቸው?›› በሚል ርዕስ ዶክመንተሪ አዘጋጅቶ አስተላልፏል፡፡ ይህ ዶክመንተሪ የገዥውን ፓርቲ ብፅእና ከመተረክም በላይ ጉልበተኝነትንና ፍረጃን ማእከል አድርጎ ከአኬልዳማ እና ከጃሀዳዊ ሀረካት የቀጠለ በፓርቲያችን እና በዜጎች ላይ የተቃጣ ህገ ወጥ የፕሮፓጋንዳ ስራ ነው፡፡ የመንግስትነት ስልጣን የያዘ አካል ሀገራዊ ችግሮችን ለምን በዶክመንተሪ ፊልም ለመፍታትና ለማዳፈን እንደሚጥር እንቆቅልሽ ቢሆንብንም አሁንም ከዜጎች የሚነሱ ሰላማዊና ህጋዊ ጥያቄዎች መልስ ማግኘት እንዳለባቸው ፓርቲያችን በፅኑ ያምናል፡፡ የሙስሊም ወገኖቻችን ጥያቄም በውይይትና በመግባባት ላይ ተመስርቶ ሊመለስ እንደሚገባና የሀይል እርምጃው መቆም እንዳለበት ያለንን ጽኑ እምነትና አቋም ደግመን እናረጋግጣለን፡፡

መንግስት ህዝቡን በዶክመንተሪ ፊልም በማስፈራራት ለማሳመን ከመድከም ባሻገር ዴሞክራሲያዊ ባህሪን መላበስ አልተቻለውም፡፡ ዶክመንታሪ ፊልሙም እንደተለመደው የኢህአዴግ የፍረጃ ፖለቲካ የተንፀባረቀበት፤ የተለየ ሀሳብና ጥያቄ ያቀረቡ ግለሰቦችንና ተቋማትን ማሸማቀቅ ብሎም የማጥፋት እኩይ ተግባር ማሳያ ነው፡፡ ይሄ የጉልበት አካሄድ የሰብዓዊና ዴሞክራሲያዊ መብት ረገጣውን አባብሶ ከመቀጠል ውጭ መፍትሄ የማያመጣ ሲሆን የፓርቲያችንን ሰላማዊ ትግልም ሊቀለብሰው አይችልም፡፡ በተደጋጋሚ እንደገለፅነውም ፍርድ ቤት በተጠርጣሪዎች ላይ ምርመራ አድርጎ ውሳኔ ሳያሳልፍ በቴሌቪዥን ፍርድ መስጠቱ ገዢው ፓርቲ በህግ የማይገዛ አምባገነን ስለመሆኑ ግልጽ ማሳያ ሲሆን የፍትህ ስርዓቱ ልዕልናም በአንድ ቴሌቪዥን ጣቢያ ተገፏል፡፡

‹‹ሼህ ኑሩን ማን ገደላቸው?›› በሚል ርዕስ የቀረበው ፊልም በህጋዊ መንገድ ተቋቁሞ በሰላማዊ መንገድ እየተንቀሳቀሰ የሚገኘውን የፓርቲያችንን ስም ለማጥፋት፤ ለመፈረጅና በህዝቡ ዘንድ እየገነባን ያለነውን ተቀባይነት ለመሸርሸር ሆን ተብሎ የተከናወነ የፈራጁን አካል ህገ-ወጥነትም ፍንትው አድርጎ የሚያሳይ ነው፡፡ የሙስሊም ወንድሞቻችንን ለሁለት ዓመት የዘለቀ ጥያቄና የሼህ ኑሩን ግድያ ከፓርቲያችን ጋር በማያያዝ ፖለቲካዊ ጥያቄ ለማስመሰል መሞከር ጥፋትም ወንጀልም ነው፡፡

ፓርቲያችን አንድነት አሁንም ዘር፣ ፆታ፣ ሀይማኖት፣ ቀለም ሳይለይ ዜጎች የሚያነሱት ፖለቲካዊ፣ ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ጥያቄዎች እንዲመለሱ፤ የመንግስት በሐይማኖት ጣልቃ ገብነትም እንዲቆም ትግሉን አጠናክሮ እንደሚቀጥል ለመላው የኢትዮጵያ ህዝብ ያረጋግጣል፡፡ የኢትዮጵያ ሬድዮ እና ቴሌቪዥን ድርጅት የፓርቲያችን አመራሮች በየግዜው የሚያደርጉትን ንግግሮች ሞያንና ንጹህ ህሊናን በሚያጎድፍ መልኩ እየቆራረጠ ሙሉ ትርጉሙን እንዳይዝ አድርጎ በማስተላለፍ እየፈጸመ ያለው አሳፋሪ ተግባር እንዲታረም ተቋሙን እናሳስባለን፡፡ በሼህ ኑሩ ላይ የተፈጸመው ግድያ በየትኛውም አካል የተፈጸመ ቢሆንም ህገ ወጥ እና ኢሰባአዊ መሆኑን ፓርቲያችን የሚያምን ሲሆን ድርጊቱም በሀገራችን ህግ እንዲዳኝ በድጋሚ እንጠይቃለን፡፡ መንግስትም በፓርቲያችን ላይ እያደረገ ካለው ፍረጃ እንዲታቀብና ወደ ውይይት እንዲመጣ እንዲሁም ሙስሊም ኢትዮጵያውያን ያነሱትን ጥያቄ በሰላማዊ መንገድ እንዲመልስ በድጋሚ ጥሪያችንን እናስተላልፋለን፡፡

ዘላለማዊ ክብር ለኢትዮጵያ!!!

አንድነት ለዴሞክራሲና ለፍትሕ ፓርቲ (አንድነት)

ነሐሴ 10 ቀን 2005 ዓ.ም

Read more

The Heroic Ethiopian Journalist Eskinder Nega

by Betre Yacob

Ethiopian prominent Journalist and blogger Eskinder Naga is one of those who have been arrested, interrogated, and threatened in Ethiopia, for exercising freedom of expression. He is currently serving his jail sentence in Kality, a notoriously brutal prison in Addis Ababa, where dozens of political prisoners are suffering. Judged a “terrorist” by the regime’s kangaroo court, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2012, along with other critical journalists and bloggers.

Ethiopia is one of the leading repressive nations in the world. Particularly, the repression of freedom of expression is the most severe in this poor East African nation more than any other country. According to Amnesty International, during the past three years only, over 100 prominent journalists and influential political activists were prosecuted on fabricated charges of terrorism, and too many others were also subjected to harassment, intimidation, threat, and other violence.

Eskinder Naga, 45, is a brave and most admirable journalist and blogger that the world has ever seen. What makes him exceptional is his commitment to freedom of speech even in the face of grave risks. According to his profile, he has courageously worked as a journalist for more than twenty one years and been jailed 8 times in the past two decades only. Until his last day in freedom, he courageously wrote about the political crisis of his impoverished country Ethiopia, and bravely fought falsehoods, brutality, and oppression with the power of words. Today, this exceptional courage, resistance, and commitment to freedom of expression have made him a glorious hero in Ethiopia and a symbol of press freedom in Africa.

Eskinder served as a vital voice for independent journalism in Ethiopia that hungers for access to free information, and as inspiration for many journalists and human right activists. He found 4 most prominent newspapers which were eventually closed by the Ethiopian regime that continues its tight grip on press freedom. He has also worked as a columnist at different publications, and been a contributor of many Ethiopian online medias and news forums.

Eskinder was arrested on 14 September 2011, just a week after he had posted an article which criticises the anti-terrorism law that had been adapted by the Ethiopian government in 2009 to target perceived opponents, stifle dissent, and silence journalists. He was detained without charge and access to a lawyer. The government announced that he was accused of organizing terrorism nearly two months later. During the trial, the prosecutors claimed that Eskinder had been coordinating different activities of terrorism using his constitutional rights to freedom of expression as a cover. The evidences submitted by the prosecutors were, however, relied on his public writings and other journalistic activities. Based on such evidences, Eskinder was finally said “terrorist”, and sentenced to 18 years in prison on 10 November 2012, under the anti-terrorism law he questioned.

When Eskinder was arrested, he was bringing his 6 years old son from kindergarten. According to his wife Serkalem Fasil, the police stopped them on their way and would not even let Eskinder bring the kid home. She said that they had brutally split the boy from his father. She further said that the police officers had been recording and taking pictures as the boy had been crawling on the ground and crying watching his father who had been thrown around and handcuffed. The Committee to Protect Journalists asserted that the charge against Eskinder was baseless and politically motivated in reprisal for his writings, adding: “his conviction reiterates that Ethiopia will not hesitate to punish a probing press by imprisoning journalists or pushing them into exile in misusing the law to silence critical and independent reportings.”

The saddest reality is that the very harsh sentence handed down to Eskinder Nega was not the end but the beginning. On September 2012, the Federal High Court further ordered the property of Eskinder Nega (which includes a house and car) to be confiscated. But, surprisingly, notwithstanding these all painful punishments, Eskinder continues writing his dissenting views. For instance, in his recent article entitled “From Ethiopia’s Gulag”, which was smuggled from the prison, he criticised the Ethiopian brutal regime and recommended the US government to take appropriate action against it. In this article, he also warned that Ethiopia could be imploded in the near future as the result of the standing political and humanitarian crisis.

Born in 1968 in Addis Ababa, Eskinder had studied high school and college in the United States of America (USA). Upon completing his study, he returned to his home land Ethiopia and began to work as a journalist in 1991, with the objective to hold the Ethiopian government accountable to its democratic promise and promote democracy and freedom.

In 2005, following the controversial election in which government troops brutally killed more than 193 unarmed peaceful protesters and wounded another 763, Eskinder was arrested and charged with serious crimes such as treason and genocide. This was for the 3rd time that he was jailed for practicing journalism, but what makes this one too different was that he was not alone but with his then pregnant wife, Serkalem Fasil, a journalist and newspaper publisher, who later gave birth to a son with no pre-natal care in her very small and crowded cell. Eskinder and his wife were released in 2007, by presidential pardon. Up on his release, Eskinder was banned from publishing his newspaper–named Satenaw, and denied a license to launch a new publication. But, this didn’t stop him from speaking out. He was able to write his dissenting views online, until he got arrested.

Eskinder Nega is the recipient of the PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award.

Read more

Oromo journalist, Lalise Wodajo, reunited with family after 8 years

                                                                                                  

by Sinke Wesho

(OPride) – Jiitu Wakjira was only five years old when Ethiopian security forces took away her father, Dhabasa Wakjira, from their home in April 2004. Jiitu understood very little at the time, but remembers missing her father, whom she visited at Ethiopia's notorious Kaliti prison every weekend – for nearly three years.

On Saturday Aug. 10 2013, Jiitu, 14, described her family’s ordeals, in a heartfelt speech that read much like a movie script, before a captive Oromo and Australian audience. Exposed to politics, suppression, oppression and loss at a young age, Jiitu’s is a story of love, perseverance, resilience, and courage.

“This is my way of taking everyone here back to when everything started,” Jiitu told her audience as she began speaking. “Every adult in my family has had a rough patch with the Ethiopian government. I didn’t understand what was happening when the police came to take my dad…I can’t explain how I felt. I guess I was scared. I mean, who wouldn’t be?”

The event was organized by members of the Australian Oromo Community Association in Victoria to celebrate a reunion of a family torn apart by years of injustice. Lalise Wadajo, Jiitu’s mother and former journalist with the state-run Ethiopian Television, was arrested on October 30, 2008 and later sentenced to 10 years without parole for alleged associations with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). Lalise arrived in Australia early this month after serving nearly three years in prison.

At Waltz Matilda hotel in Springvale ballroom, where the event was held, a family photo of the Wakjira’s beamed from two screens. The iconic photo shows Dhabasa and his children hugging Lalise as if to never let go off her again.

The story of the Wakjira’s resonates with many in the Oromo diaspora – separation from loved ones, despair and triumph of longing to see each other again. Tables were filled with Oromo traditional food, decorated with an Oromo flag and Oromo attires greeted entrants from all directions.

The auspicious dinner was followed by remarks from the family and a Skype call from Dr. Trevor Truman, human rights advocate and chairman of the UK-based Oromo Support Group. “Galatooma,” said Dr. Truman thanking the organizers in Afan Oromo. “Lalise ani gammade jira” – I am so happy for you, Lalise. Dr. Truman said he was thrilled about Lalise’s release and subsequent reunion with her family. He then commended Lalise for her patience and perseverance in the face of harsh and inhumane treatment in the hands of Ethiopian authorities – something he knows all too well having worked with Oromo refugees over the last two decades.

Unable to finish her five-page speech, Jiitu sat next to her parents, wiping tears off her angelic face. As Toltu Tufa – who campaigned and lobbied the Australian government on Lalise’s behalf for years – narrated the rest of her story, Jiitu fought back tears and as did everyone else in the room. Even in such an emotional moment, the teenage Jiitu was humble and graceful. The roomful audience was sniffing in tears.

Jiitu described how confused and lost she was to witness the alternative imprisonment of her parents. She recalled the first time her father was arrested – with no warrants or accusations. Jiitu remembers the federal police breaking into their house, interrogating her father, and confiscating her video games, tapes of her parent’s wedding and certain newspapers.

“I remember sitting on dad’s lap, watching the policemen open wardrobe after wardrobe,” Jiitu wrote. “My memories of that time are hazy, all I remember is that it was Friday and the next day when I woke up and asked mom where dad was, she said he was, in simple words, gone.”

For the next two years, every time she visited her father in prison, the impressionable Jiitu saw hundreds of Oromos at Kaliti prison.

“My dad told me that I once asked [him], ‘Did you know Qaliti is Oromia’s ‘capital’ city?’ He had asked ‘Why?’ to which I replied, “Because all Oromo[s] are here. They all speak Afaan Oromo.’ I’m guessing I didn’t view it as a prison back then but more like a meeting hall for all Oromo people to converse,” Jiitu said of the infamous prison on the outskirts of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital. The room was dead silent, filled only with sniffles, as Jiitu chronologically detailed the harrowing story of the Wakjira’s.

When Dhabasa was released in 2008, the young Jiitu hoped for a normal and steady family. “It came as a shock,” Jiitu recalled in her remarks. “My brother, Bonsen [a toddler when Dhabasa was arrested] believed that a picture of dad was his dad. When dad came home, he didn’t believe us when we told him that dad was really dad. It took him a while to understand that a picture was incapable of fathering him.”

But Jiitu’s excitement did not last long as Dhabasa soon escaped a probable arrest and left for exile first to Kenya, and eventually resettled to Australia. Hopelessness set in for Jiitu not knowing if she would ever see him again. “I didn’t understand that he was gone for his own safety, in fact, back then, I preferred the first departure than the second. At least then, I got to see him weekly [in prison],” Jiitu wrote. Then the police took her mother – literally leaving her and two younger siblings without parents.

The day Lalise was arrested, Jiitu was returning home from school, after taking a major exam, to tell her mother how easy it was. Upon arrival though, Jiitu watched in horror and confusion as her mother was whisked away by uniformed security personnel. Jiitu screamed and cried for her mother as the officers slamming the door on the pickup truck. “I will be back,’’ Jiitu recalled her mother saying as the truck drove off. “Who was going to take care of us...Where’s mom going?” Jiitu remembered pondering as she embraced her baby brother, Bonsen. Jiitu once again found herself trekking back to Kaliti, this time to visit her mother, unlawfully convicted for no other reason than being Oromo.

Separated from both her parents, Jiitu had to learn to be an adult at a young age. But there was another hurdle. She attended school six days a week. This meant she could only see her mother on Sundays, missing church, which upset her aunt Mastawot. Jiitu remembers seeing girls younger than her age living in prison quarters whenever she visited her mother. In one instance, Jiitu describes how her eyes were fixated on a young girl, about seven or eight years old, apparently living in prison, until Jiitu's mother distracted her with a candy. Unable to comprehend why a girl her age was doing at Kaliti prison, Jiitu asked her mother for explanation. “To this day, I do not understand why an innocent young girl who was obviously not capable of doing any harm to the government [was] in prison,” Jiitu said in her speech.  

Jiitu eventually joined her father in exile but with some misgivings. “When I found out that we were going to be with dad, I felt like I was in a dilemma,” she recalled. “I was happy, I mean I was going to see dad but then I was sad too. I was leaving mom. I was going one way or another. It was like a transition, from both parents to mom to both parents and then to none.”

In Nairobi, I had a better understanding to why my parents were arrested. It turned out they were not an exception, they were just Oromo people. I couldn’t get my head around why they were arrested though. Taking pride in one’s country shouldn’t have been a crime. It shouldn’t have been frowned upon; it should be accepted and encouraged.

Even after her mother was released, Jiitu still had to wait for over a year to see her mother. But after learning her mother was granted the family reunion visa to Ausralia, “I literally had a hand-made calendar counting down the days on the back of my school diary and had different scenarios of how I would greet her in my head.”

Jiitu’s father, Dhabasa, a former journalist and community activist, spoke next. He admitted that when he lodged the family reunification application in August 2011, he did not believe that this day would come; a day when he would see his beloved wife sitting next to him with all her family. On July 3, 2013, Lalise was granted a visa to travel to Australia. After a long torturous eight years of waiting, they were reunited on in Melbourne on the morning of Aug. 8, 2013.

Dhabasa told a heartbreaking tale of losing a sister, brother, and mother in a matter of weeks. And in all these grief, Dhabasa was unable to mourn for his loved ones since he could not return home. “I inherited the strength of this woman,” he said of his wife, Lalise. “She stood by me, my children, my family all these years that I was missing. She became father and mother of my children, and ensured that they were educated, she went on hungry stomach to feed our family and today she is still strong.”

The mood in the room turned somber.

Next, Lalise took the stage to a standing ovation – beaming in an Oromo cloth painted with Odaa, the symbol of Oromo democracy, with beads around her neck and forehead. Her confidence and charisma was contagious. “Galatooma,” she told members of the Australian Oromo Community for standing by her family during the long ordeal. She was humble but clear and eloquent; Lalise spoke about ongoing systematic oppression of the Oromo people and the quandary of Oromo political prisoners. A remarkable storyteller, by the time Lalise was done speaking, the crowd seemed as if wanting to hear more.

As a woman and young person, I was filled with feelings of love and rage. I was enraged because an innocent woman was dehumanized, separated from her family, her husband and nation with no reason. But I also fall in love with her, in part because this was the first time I saw my community celebrating a heroine. Although women have been the backbone of Oromo struggle, little has been said about their contribution and ordeals. Even when recognized, there is little or no follow up. Women’s place still feels at the house while men carry the flag of advocacy. Celebrating Lalise I felt I was seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Witnessing Lalise’s and Jiitu’s journey, I felt this was the beginning of ‘bilisummaa’ or freedom for Oromo – by embracing half of its population.

Families and invited guests joined in celebratory Oromo dance after the formal event. Lalise looks like every Oromo daughter, mother and a wife. But she has borne too much a loss just for being an Oromo. For the Oromo nation though, Lalise’s children – the fruits of long and arduous struggle – are now the hope and leaders of tomorrow. I have no doubt her story of both struggle and triumph, when and if told, will inspire millions across the globe.

Jiitu, now an Oromo rights activist, ended her speech with a quote from Martin Luther King: Freedom is not voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed . She urged those in the room to fight injustice and support the Oromo people’s struggle.

Here’s a short except from her remarks:

In the airport, I started getting worried because she was one of the last people to arrive. Our eyes were darting around looking for her until Bontu yelled ‘She’s here’ and they started running towards her. I didn’t greet her until I got over the fact that she was there. I did try to stop myself from crying but how could I not? The minute we hugged, my hands were just tight around her neck and I was tearing up. I knew people wanted to greet her too but I didn’t want to let go.

Even though mom is here with us and the missing puzzle to our family was complete, there are still others suffering under the Ethiopian government. There are still parents with children like me suffering and yet putting their children’s safety in front of theirs …We owe them, I owe them a lot of things and we should never take our freedom here for granted.

I still remember Hawi, Aberash, Faxe, Muda, Mesfin and many others in Ethiopian prison because of their identity, their background and political views. I wish that they could all be here with us away from the dictatorship but they’re not. I really hope one day that we could unite and live life as the big family we are without fear.

--

*The writer, Sinqe Wesho, is a Melbourne-based human rights activist and former public relations officer for the Australian Oromo Community in Victoria. She can be reached for comments at arfasabill@yahoo.com.au. Photos by Alula Mosisa, an engineering student and freelance photographer based in Melbourne, Australia. He can be reached at falmata430@hotmail.com.

Read more