Yes It Is Time!
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.” -- words of renowned classical economist John Stewart Mill, 1859.
Social anthropologists theorize that prolong exposure to war such as that which has persisted in Ethiopia can cause a shift in the attitudes of a people towards conflict and its resolution. Although it experienced full-scale war only sporadically, Ethiopia has never known a full decade of real peace since Mussolini's attempted conquest in the 1930s -- war has been a constant. So much so that landmark events of family life such as births, deaths, and weddings are often catalogued and recalled with reference to the names and places of the battles and of the heroes who fought in them. It is no wonder then that the disposition of the people of Ethiopia towards matters of war and peace has indeed been radically altered by the pervasive stress associated with living under wartime conditions for so long.
Throughout the 1980s, the civil war was the all consuming issue not only for the government and the army but also to the average citizen. Ordinary citizens were suffering from economic deprivations arising from the war. The scars of war, the very physical reminders of the barbaric fraternal carnage were everywhere. The patriots’ village and the orphans’ village (yejegnoch amba, yehitsanat amba as they were known in Amharic) as well as all the other facilities built to look after the casualties of war were no sooner opened for business when each quickly filled to overflowing. Hospitals and clinics, city streets and country roads were overcrowded with the living casualties of the war. As the war dragged on and the cost escalated, the morale of the population and of the fighting men and women deteriorated. As a consequence, beginning during the last years of the Mengistu regime and continuing through the first decade of the EPRDF, a striking new development in the Ethiopian psyche set in. An atmosphere of pervasive pacifism descended on the land with the attendant readiness to negotiate any issue and to hold nothing sacrosanct.
This fundamental attitudinal shift was a major departure from the traditional Ethiopian posture. Historically, Ethiopians of all ethnicities and religious faiths have had clear notions that such things as national sovereignty, territorial integrity, freedom to worship, and other ideals which they hold near and dear to their hearts were inviolable. All comers knew that Ethiopians stood prepared to fight, to bleed and to die for these ideals. It is this mark of our national character, our shared mold and bond which seems to have been broken by our exposure to years of war and repression. The progressively expanding guerilla war of the 1970s, the full-scale civil war that followed it and the pervasive repression and harassment in the hands of successive communist gangs masquerading as governments, eventually rendered Ethiopia into a nation of near zealot Gandhists, committed to avoid violence, no matter what the circumstances were.
Everywhere one looks, the virtues of non-violence are proclaimed ad infinitum. In the first years of the 1990s I could hardly hear myself think for the all the din created by the international community's songs of praise showered on the TPLF and EPLF for quickly and peacefully reaching an accord on the terms of Eritrean secession. Those who comment on such matters could not find enough superlatives to praise the defeated Ethiopian army for peacefully breaking up in disarray instead of staying together and seeking to negotiate terms of surrender that might include some protection for its members. Newspapers and journals were filled with endless praise for the peace loving and disciplined Ethiopian people who did not allow the situation to deteriorate as it did in Somalia.
The TPLF and its partners carefully encouraged this incipient pacifism. Meles and his gang bragged about a future Ethiopia that would not need an army. Nonviolence and pacifism was their mantra. Nonviolence was enshrined in the EPRDF constitution. It proclaimed that henceforth only those that swore against ever raising arms for any reason might participate in the political life of the country.
Save for OLF and ONLF, all noteworthy opposition groups quickly jumped on this bandwagon and pledged to wage their struggles peacefully. Even those groups which had sought to retain armed struggle as an option for advancing their political causes, found the goings too tough in this age when all of the affairs of the civilized world are orchestrated from a single power center.
In part to comply with the requirements of the EPRDF constitution, but primarily because of the torrent of pacifist sentiments cascading over the Ethiopian political landscape, all of the opposition parties which took part in the 2005 election were adherents of the principles of non-violence. Not one of the major opposition parties had entertained the need to create even small self-defense units within their organizational structures. Many opposition leaders, but particularly Dr. Berhanu Nega of CUDP eloquently articulated his vehement desire to bring about an end to the long cycle of violence. Speaking on behalf of CUDP, he hammered home the argument that if we relapsed to raising arms once again to remove our current oppressors, then we will have to raise arms later to remove our liberators. He sold to the Ethiopian people the notion that it is only when we are able to free ourselves without relying on an armed liberator that we can blaze into a future where the very need to raise arms would never come.
Much has happened since those heady days of April and May. Today we witness the Ethiopian opposition being methodically dismantled by the Meles Zenawi regime for the crime of having peacefully won the hearts, minds and votes of the Ethiopian people. Dr Berhanu and practically all of his colleagues find themselves in the grip of one who has no use for peaceful resistance. And yet, the opposition continues to seek solutions for its troubles exclusively in the sphere of peaceful negotiations or legal absolution in Meles Zenawi’s courts. It prefers to wage a non-violent peoples’ struggle against a well entrenched soulless tyranny.
Given the nature of our opressors, this is of course the height of folly. The other side refuses to abide by the law. Meles and his core constituency routinely ignore the norms of civilized political discourse, resorting to crude tactics of intimidation even when engaged in what were billed to be peaceful pre-electoral debates. The leadership of the TPLF often questions the manhood of the leaders of the opposition and challenges these individuals to go do what the TPLF had to do to take power from its doctrinal twin, the Workers Party of Ethiopia. I will never forget the exchange between defense minister Aba Dula and ONC chair Dr. Merera. Aba Dula was literally challenging the good professor to a fist fight, much like a tipsy young man in a Nefas Silk watering hole might do on a Saturday evening.
The TPLF engages in retributive violence against the person and property of members and supporters of the opposition as though it were not a government but a branch of an urban gang. Meles’ government has no qualms about launching the security forces of the country into combat against citizens who try to peaceably express their grievances. From Addis to Gondar to Awassa to Gambella to Ambo to Dire Dawa and Bahir Dar, it never passes on any opportunity to show its willingness to use all of the resources at its disposal to quash anyone who disagrees with it no matter how meekly. It welcomes confrontations, for these occasions provide it with the opportunities to remind the restive public what the price of dissent is.
Social anthropologists theorize that prolong exposure to war such as that which has persisted in Ethiopia can cause a shift in the attitudes of a people towards conflict and its resolution. Although it experienced full-scale war only sporadically, Ethiopia has never known a full decade of real peace since Mussolini's attempted conquest in the 1930s -- war has been a constant. So much so that landmark events of family life such as births, deaths, and weddings are often catalogued and recalled with reference to the names and places of the battles and of the heroes who fought in them. It is no wonder then that the disposition of the people of Ethiopia towards matters of war and peace has indeed been radically altered by the pervasive stress associated with living under wartime conditions for so long.
Throughout the 1980s, the civil war was the all consuming issue not only for the government and the army but also to the average citizen. Ordinary citizens were suffering from economic deprivations arising from the war. The scars of war, the very physical reminders of the barbaric fraternal carnage were everywhere. The patriots’ village and the orphans’ village (yejegnoch amba, yehitsanat amba as they were known in Amharic) as well as all the other facilities built to look after the casualties of war were no sooner opened for business when each quickly filled to overflowing. Hospitals and clinics, city streets and country roads were overcrowded with the living casualties of the war. As the war dragged on and the cost escalated, the morale of the population and of the fighting men and women deteriorated. As a consequence, beginning during the last years of the Mengistu regime and continuing through the first decade of the EPRDF, a striking new development in the Ethiopian psyche set in. An atmosphere of pervasive pacifism descended on the land with the attendant readiness to negotiate any issue and to hold nothing sacrosanct.
This fundamental attitudinal shift was a major departure from the traditional Ethiopian posture. Historically, Ethiopians of all ethnicities and religious faiths have had clear notions that such things as national sovereignty, territorial integrity, freedom to worship, and other ideals which they hold near and dear to their hearts were inviolable. All comers knew that Ethiopians stood prepared to fight, to bleed and to die for these ideals. It is this mark of our national character, our shared mold and bond which seems to have been broken by our exposure to years of war and repression. The progressively expanding guerilla war of the 1970s, the full-scale civil war that followed it and the pervasive repression and harassment in the hands of successive communist gangs masquerading as governments, eventually rendered Ethiopia into a nation of near zealot Gandhists, committed to avoid violence, no matter what the circumstances were.
Everywhere one looks, the virtues of non-violence are proclaimed ad infinitum. In the first years of the 1990s I could hardly hear myself think for the all the din created by the international community's songs of praise showered on the TPLF and EPLF for quickly and peacefully reaching an accord on the terms of Eritrean secession. Those who comment on such matters could not find enough superlatives to praise the defeated Ethiopian army for peacefully breaking up in disarray instead of staying together and seeking to negotiate terms of surrender that might include some protection for its members. Newspapers and journals were filled with endless praise for the peace loving and disciplined Ethiopian people who did not allow the situation to deteriorate as it did in Somalia.
The TPLF and its partners carefully encouraged this incipient pacifism. Meles and his gang bragged about a future Ethiopia that would not need an army. Nonviolence and pacifism was their mantra. Nonviolence was enshrined in the EPRDF constitution. It proclaimed that henceforth only those that swore against ever raising arms for any reason might participate in the political life of the country.
Save for OLF and ONLF, all noteworthy opposition groups quickly jumped on this bandwagon and pledged to wage their struggles peacefully. Even those groups which had sought to retain armed struggle as an option for advancing their political causes, found the goings too tough in this age when all of the affairs of the civilized world are orchestrated from a single power center.
In part to comply with the requirements of the EPRDF constitution, but primarily because of the torrent of pacifist sentiments cascading over the Ethiopian political landscape, all of the opposition parties which took part in the 2005 election were adherents of the principles of non-violence. Not one of the major opposition parties had entertained the need to create even small self-defense units within their organizational structures. Many opposition leaders, but particularly Dr. Berhanu Nega of CUDP eloquently articulated his vehement desire to bring about an end to the long cycle of violence. Speaking on behalf of CUDP, he hammered home the argument that if we relapsed to raising arms once again to remove our current oppressors, then we will have to raise arms later to remove our liberators. He sold to the Ethiopian people the notion that it is only when we are able to free ourselves without relying on an armed liberator that we can blaze into a future where the very need to raise arms would never come.
Much has happened since those heady days of April and May. Today we witness the Ethiopian opposition being methodically dismantled by the Meles Zenawi regime for the crime of having peacefully won the hearts, minds and votes of the Ethiopian people. Dr Berhanu and practically all of his colleagues find themselves in the grip of one who has no use for peaceful resistance. And yet, the opposition continues to seek solutions for its troubles exclusively in the sphere of peaceful negotiations or legal absolution in Meles Zenawi’s courts. It prefers to wage a non-violent peoples’ struggle against a well entrenched soulless tyranny.
Given the nature of our opressors, this is of course the height of folly. The other side refuses to abide by the law. Meles and his core constituency routinely ignore the norms of civilized political discourse, resorting to crude tactics of intimidation even when engaged in what were billed to be peaceful pre-electoral debates. The leadership of the TPLF often questions the manhood of the leaders of the opposition and challenges these individuals to go do what the TPLF had to do to take power from its doctrinal twin, the Workers Party of Ethiopia. I will never forget the exchange between defense minister Aba Dula and ONC chair Dr. Merera. Aba Dula was literally challenging the good professor to a fist fight, much like a tipsy young man in a Nefas Silk watering hole might do on a Saturday evening.
The TPLF engages in retributive violence against the person and property of members and supporters of the opposition as though it were not a government but a branch of an urban gang. Meles’ government has no qualms about launching the security forces of the country into combat against citizens who try to peaceably express their grievances. From Addis to Gondar to Awassa to Gambella to Ambo to Dire Dawa and Bahir Dar, it never passes on any opportunity to show its willingness to use all of the resources at its disposal to quash anyone who disagrees with it no matter how meekly. It welcomes confrontations, for these occasions provide it with the opportunities to remind the restive public what the price of dissent is.
Certainly, there had been several instances when oppressed people had been able to successfully resist their oppressors using non-violent mass movements. In India and in the American South during the 1940s, 50s and 60s as well as in Georgia and Ukraine in 2003 and 2004-05, freedom fighters employed civil disobedience to bring their respective struggles to successful conclusions. These countries and communities share certain critical attributes which contributed to the success of their civil disobedience. In each case, by and large, the peoples’ oppressor relied on legal means -- granted, these tend to be farcical laws legislated and administered by non-democratic/non-representative institutions in order to maintain the oppressive regime in place. In Ethiopia, the TPLF’s preferred method of governance is deceit and underhanded shenanigans on the one hand and violence on the other. Even in the Jim Crowe South, there were well established laws delineating what the government or the majority population can and cannot do to the minority. In Ethiopia, the law is always in flux, sometimes changing daily to accommodate the ever changing needs and whims of the regime.
Another key factor that all of these people had going for them but which is absent in Ethiopia is an international community keenly interested in their affairs. The same cannot be said of Ethiopia. When each these people were engaged in their peaceful resistance movements, the world was closely monitoring their progress. In the American South as well as in Eastern Europe, the international community stood with the freedom fighters, denouncing every move made by the oppressive regimes and encouraging the freedom fighters to go on. At least for now, the Ethiopian people are on their own. The rest of the world seems to be too preoccupied either with events it finds more worthy or, even worse, too busy piling praises on the purveyors of oppression. Indeed, had it not been for the presence of large numbers of our compatriots around the world, I am afraid that even the sporadic coverage the crisis receives would not have materialized.
For 15 years, the TPLF preached peace even as it practiced terror. If you are reading this, you know of the litany of abuses—physical, mental, economical and spiritual abuses—the Ethiopian people have been subjected to over these years. By all account, the last six years—the years since Meles and Isaias had a falling out—have actually been the best of the Meles years. Apparently, Mr. Meles felt a bit naked when he parted ways with his allies and protectors. Yet, we see what he is prepared to do when his grab on power is threatened by the people’s peaceful movement. He has no mental hiccups about killing innocent men, women and children, indefinitely incarcerating tens of thousands, stealing an election, destroying the political opposition, perverting the judicial system or corrupting the national security institutions.
Let us face it; this man will not go away peacefully. He is determined to hold on. We cannot wait him-out for he is only 50 years old. We cannot appeal to his conscience. He has none. We cannot seek pity from the international community, for it is falsely enamored with him. So, what are the choices left to us? What is our strategy for removing the tyrant who, as you read this, is terrorizing the entire country?
There is only one other option left. We all know it. We are just afraid to face up to it; afraid to raise it in public forums. The people know it and only seek leadership to prepare them. Our leaders know it, but are afraid of the responsibility of sending someone’s child in harms way. Our backs are to the wall. So it is time to think and discuss the only real alternative we have left.
When he found himself in circumstances similar to that of the opposition today, Meles had no qualms in doing an about face on his “Ethiopia has no need for a large standing army” pledge. When in 1998 Mr. Isaias made a badly calculated move against Ethiopia, Meles ordered the propaganda machine to re-energize the Ethiopian people. The machine whose duty had been to castigate and label as chauvinist warmonger any one who questioned the wisdom of the Eritrean arrangements and the ill advised decision to demobilize the nation’s defense forces, stopped that campaign just long enough to help drum up support for the impending war.
During its first seven years of its rule, the TPLF made it plain that it views Ethiopian nationalism as an expression of latent militarism by the revanchist elements of Ethiopian society. Consequently, public expressions of nationalism had been rendered a cultural taboo and of dubious standing under the law. So, when the Eritrean army rolled across the border, the TPLF found itself unprepared for it. For two years, it tried to avoid the inevitable. For two years, it dickered at the OAU and at the UN. For two long years, it toiled in Washington, in Kigali, and in Ouagadougou.
In the end, none of the diplomatic maneuvers and the talk of peace achieved anything. It was only the decision to send our young men to war that dislodged the enemy from the trenches. In the end, it took a willingness on the part of some Ethiopians to die for the right cause to achieve the spectacular victory. In the end, Ethiopia had to set aside pacifism and nonviolence to regain that which was rightfully hers.
The Ethiopian democratic movement today can learn a great deal from that recent episode of our history. Appeasement has never guaranteed peace. In fact, history has shown time and again that appeasement frequently leads to war -- a willingness to fight is the precondition for peace. If we refuse to diligently consider all our option now, we will not only prolong our suffering, we will likely saw the seeds of an uglier war. If we have the wisdom to know that placing some lives at risk now can save many more lives in the future, the next war could be avoided.
John Stewart Mill also said that “the person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." Mill who is primarily known for his classical free market economic theory, eloquently argues that a man must be ready to die so that he might live and he must stand ready to lose his liberty in order to gain his freedom. This soft-spoken but powerful advocate of freedom tells us that a people intent on pacifism at any cost will invite aggression; a people who are not willing to fight to defend what is theirs or to protect what is in their national interest are sure to invite aggression except if others were to pity them or fight for them.
It is time for Ethiopia to openly debate and decide whether freedom is worth fighting for.
posted by eth4life | 1:10 AM
5 Comments:
I just read this morning how a U.S. Predator destroyed a Pakistani village killing anywhere between 17 and 41 people, in an attempt to kill Al-Zawahri, the number two person of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, the U.S. decision makers felt that it was ok to destroy a whole village, including women and children, for an opportunity to kill one of the worst terrorists in the world. Collateral damage. However, this misguided approach, as it has done before in Vietnam, creates more foot soldiers for a cause. In one destroyed house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said 24 of his family members were killed and vowed he would "seek justice from God." We know what that means! He is not waiting for judgment day!
My point above, as you eloquently said in your posting, is when people have nothing to loose they are willing to die to “seek justice”. I am not comparing Meles’s ethnocentric, medieval, totalitarian approach in governance to one of the most evolved democracies in the world. We can get into a whole discussion about the bankruptcy of U.S foreign policy. However, most of us will agree as to the existence of the rule of law in the U.S.
You said, “It is time”. My concern is that it may be too late for those who believe in democracy, equality and a unified Federal Ethiopia. It may be too late for those who believe in the rule of law and individual rights. It may be too late for those who want to celebrate the beauty and diversity of Ethiopia. It may be too late for those who acknowledge the injustice in the Ethiopian empire but want to build a new federal Ethiopia based on equality, respect, justice, group and individual rights. It may be too late for those who want to hold hands and sing this land is my land from the Fasil Castle to the Bale Mountains, from Axum to Harar, from Awassa to Addis Ababa.
This is because, the ones who vow as their goal the destruction of Ethiopia are already armed and waging their unholy war. In addition, EPRDF is creating the objective conditions on the ground for them to be successful. Just like the Derg’s approach pushed the pendulum in Eritrea, EPRDF’s approach is creating the same in Oromia and the Ogaden. The end result could be where we end up being ruled by modern day “Mesafints” who have “liberated” us. Once they liberate us they will establish a one party state and wage war with each other! All we have to do is look at Eritrea today.
I agree with Dr. Berhanu that the only way for a democratic federal Ethiopia is to let the people speak in the ballot box. If EPRDF knows what is good for itself as well as Ethiopia it will do the following:
1. Release all political prisoners.
2. Reconstitute the election board and the judiciary.
3. Change the parliamentary rules so our country can benefit from all the bright minds of its children.
4. Legalize the OLF and make Afan Oromo a national language.
5. After a reasonable time of agitation by all political parties, have a referendum on the nature of the federal state where the people can decide on how they want to organize at the federal level.
6. Have free and fair election within a reasonable time after that.
In the meantime the opposition can join parliament, run Addis Ababa, and can help create a democratic “culture”, which is lacking in all corners.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that Meles and Co. care about Ethiopia and will do any of the above. Instead they are creating Sami Ullah’s everyday, by the thousands. One day we will look back and say what if ….Just like what if Haile Sealssie has kept the federal status of Eritrea, what if Aman Andom was successful in leading the Derg etc…
As I said above, the only organized groups that are available and welcome the foot soldiers are those who so far have not shown any leadership quality. Take the OLF. How can a movement that supposedly fights for the majority of the population today (not pre 1974) not step forward to be a vanguard of the whole nation. The OLF is the one group (besides the EPRDF) that had another golden opportunity to fight for the creation of a democratic Ethiopia. Beside a couple of reflective editorials by Ato Lencho Letta their rhetoric is still caught in the past and not the 21st century.
It is time.
From OneEthiopia:
Dear H. Gabriel;
I would like you to know that I am delighted that you took time to read my post. As soon as I finish and post something, I always feel defeated with the fear that perhaps no one will read it and if they do they may not care enough to have any kind of reaction about it.
It is good to know that you found the issue I raised worthy of your time and your effort.
Having said that, let me assure you that I too would settle for advancing just a few inches towards the ultimate goal of democracy peacefully rather than subject our traumatized country to another round of war. I am afraid, however, that option is being ruled out by Meles. So, we the people have a choice to make. We either knowingly accept subjugation for the long haul or come together and remove the source of our missery once and for all. All this post really asks is for us to engage in a discussion of this option and not jut sit on our collective thumbs and pray for the gods to inspire Meles to see the light.
I did not take your post to mean anything else except saying nothing should be taboo to discuss. I think that is healthy. We agree that the objective is a creation of a democratic federal Ethiopia. It is incumbent for all of us to articulate what tactics achieve that goal. I will elaborate in a different post why I think there is so much more we can do now to support the peaceful struggle and why I am pessimistic about the armed struggle. For one thing, the armed struggle has been going on and is rapidly accelerating. Unfortunately, it is waged by those who have not shown us any vision of a future Ethiopia that will be any more democratic than under the EPRDF.
In the meantime, please continue to reflect on this Blog. I personally find your postings educational and thought provoking.
To h.gabriel
I share your sentiments.
Visotor
Never be discouraged,your intelligent and sincere blogging is essential to feed the growing network of open minds. Do you feel that creative non-violent methods are exhausted already? My heart bleeds for the mothers of Ethiopia.
Post a Comment
<< Home