EFP – Page 23 – Gondaronline.com

Why Morocco wants to rejoin African Union after 32 years?

Addis Ababa (AFP) – Morocco on Friday made an official request to return to the African Union, 32 years after quitting the bloc in protest at its decision to accept Western Sahara as a member.

“The Kingdom of Morocco has officially submitted a request to accede to the African Union (AU) Constitutive Act, and therefore, become a Member of the Union,” the AU said in a statement.

Rabat first announced its intention to return to the club in July, with King Mohammed VI saying his country wanted to “take up its natural place within its institutional family.”

Morocco quit the AU in protest in 1984 when the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) — commonly known as Western Sahara — was admitted as a member.

Morocco has occupied the sparsely populated Western Sahara area since 1975 in a move that was not recognised by the international community.

It maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom even though local Sahrawi people have long campaigned for the right to self-determination.

In 1991, the United Nations brokered a ceasefire between Moroccan troops and Sahrawi rebels of the Algerian-backed Polisario Front but a promised referendum to settle the status of the desert territory is yet to materialise.

The Moroccan monarch in July said his nation’s decision to return to the AU did not mean it was changing its stance on Western Sahara.

Rabat’s membership bid must be approved by a vote of the AU Commission in order to be accepted.

Israel’s African Union Observer Bid: An Uphill Struggle

Huffingtonpost- In early July, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a historic four-nation trip to East Africa. The trip was a resounding success. Netanyahu’s aspirations of becoming a global statesman were boosted considerably by the willingness of African leaders to expand their trade and security linkages with Israel. Israel’s goal of becoming an observer state in the African Union (AU) also gained momentum, as the leaders of Ethiopia and Kenya endorsed Israel’s AU observer bid.

Despite these positive developments, Israel’s desire to become an AU observer state and expand its diplomatic involvement in Africa is fraught with many obstacles. Even though Israel was an observer state in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) until its dissolution in 2002, eleven African countries still do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s support for Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, and alleged arms exports to Rwanda during the 1994 genocide have ensured that anti-Israel sentiments remain widespread amongst Africa’s political elites.

Visceral anti-Israel hostilities have even surfaced within African countries with close ties to Jerusalem. During Netanyahu’s visit to Kampala, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni repeatedly referred to Israel as “Palestine.” This deliberate mix-up was covered extensively in the international press and overshadowed the Netanyahu-Museveni bilateral summit.

The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) AU observer status also complicates Israel’s hopes of increasing its involvement in the African Union. Since 2013, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has called for an African boycott of Israeli goods and has urged AU members to support peace negotiations on Palestine’s terms. As Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories has been widely criticized in Africa, Abbas’s anti-Israel rhetoric has resonated strongly with many African leaders.

The ideological synergy between African leaders and Palestinian nationalists was strikingly revealed by Abbas’s praise for the AU’s solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Some African officials are concerned that Israel’s membership in the AU could polarize African leaders’ views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and weaken the AU’s harmony.

In addition to tensions over Palestine, two major AU member states, South Africa and Egypt will likely oppose Israel’s application for AU observer status. South Africa’s opposition to Israel becoming an AU observer can be explained by the governing African National Congress (ANC)’s belief that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is as egregious as apartheid. Israel’s extensive economic linkages to South Africa’s National Party government during the 1970s and 1980s has caused allegations of Israeli apartheid in Palestine to resonate strongly with the South African public.

Even though Israeli heads of state like Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert reached out to the ANC to improve Jerusalem-Pretoria relations, the ANC has remained stridently critical of Israel. In June, the ANC condemned the opposition Democratic Alliance’s close relations with Israel, praised the 200,000 South Africans who campaigned for the Palestinian cause in the Western Cape region, and expressed solidarity with Palestine against “Israeli apartheid.” Many analysts have speculated that Netanyahu’s decision not to visit the AU’s headquarters in Addis Ababa was the result of a snub by the AU Commission’s South African head, Nkosanza Zuma’s.

Egypt’s opposition to Israeli observer status in the AU dates back to the Hosni Mubarak era. Even though large African states like Ethiopia, Nigeria and Kenya strongly supported Israel’s campaign to become an AU observer in 2003, Egyptstaunchly opposed Israel’s inclusion in the organization. Egyptian policymakers feared that Israel would use AU membership to back Ethiopia’s claims to the Nile River basin. As tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia have increased in recent months, Cairo’s position on Israel’s accession as an AU observer is unlikely to change.

Although Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s 2013 coup strained the Egypt-AU relationship, Egypt’s AU membership was restored earlier this year. Egypt will host the Pan-African Parliament’s October 2016 session at Sharm al-Sheikh. During the October parliamentary session, Egypt is expected to reject Ethiopia’s colonial history-based claims to the Nile River basin. Israel’s strong relationships with both Ethiopia and Egypt could force Netanyahu to take a neutral stance out of strategic necessity. This non-committal approach to one of Africa’s most heated territorial disputes could cause Ethiopia to scale back its support for Israel’s AU observer status bid.

Even if Israel gains enough African support to neutralize potential opposition from South Africa and Egypt, Jerusalem’s role in Africa remains highly controversial. In recent months, Israel has attempted to act as a mediator between the United States and AU countries that have strained relations with Washington.

Israel has urged the United States to improve its relationship with Sudan, as Khartoum has distanced itself from Iran’s geopolitical clutches since late 2014. Even though Israeli officials have expressed concerns about Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s deplorable human rights record, Israeli policymakers have covertly urged European policymakers to ameliorate Sudan’s crippling $50 billion debt burden.

Sudan has responded negatively to Israel’s willingness to facilitate Khartoum’s normalization relations with the West. The Sudanese government has insisted that any improvement in Khartoum-Washington relations will occur through bilateral dialogues that exclude Israel. Some Sudanese policymakers are concerned that Israel’s leverage over US policy decisions could alter Washington’s approach to Sudan in a way that unduly benefits Netanyahu’s anti-Iran agenda.

Ethiopia’s contention that Israel is a constructive presence on the world stage has countered Sudan’s animosity towards Israeli diplomacy in Africa. Yet past grievances towards Israel continue to undercut the success of Israel’s soft power campaign in Africa. With notable exceptions like Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, the perception that Israeli diplomats are acting at the behest of American interests has prevented anti-Western authoritarian leaders in Africa from embracing Israel as a constructive diplomatic presence in the AU.

Under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel’s efforts to expand its diplomatic footprint in Africa have made striking progress. But historical legacies and anti-Israeli sentiments within many crucial AU member states could undercut Israel’s ambition of becoming an active observer within the African Union. It remains to be seen whether Israeli peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance initiatives increase Israel’s soft power enough for anti-Western African leaders to soften their opposition to a closer Israel-Africa relationship.

Samuel Ramani is a DPhil candidate in International Relations at St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford. He is also a journalist who writes regularly for the Washington Post, The Diplomat and National Interest magazine. He can be followed on Twitter at samramani2 and on Facebook at Samuel Ramani.

Regional powers back studies on impact of Ethiopia’s Nile dam

Reuters- Dam has become a bone of contention between Ethiopia and Egypt, downstream from the dam and relying almost exclusively on the Nile for agricultural, industrial and domestic water use

KHARTOUM, Sept 20 (Reuters) – Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia commissioned studies into the environmental and economic impact of a $4 billion dam on the Nile that Addis Ababa aims to make the centrepiece of its bid to become Africa’s biggest power exporter.

The 6,000-megawatt Grand Renaissance Dam, situated close to Ethiopia’s border with Sudan and being built by Italy’s largest construction firm Salini Impregilo SpA, is due for completion next year.

It has become a bone of contention between Ethiopia and Egypt, downstream from the dam and relying almost exclusively on the Nile for agricultural, industrial and domestic water use.

Addis Ababa has complained Cairo has pressured international donors and lenders to withhold funding for the project, while Egypt has sought assurances the dam will not significantly cut the flow of water to its rapidly growing population.

Egyptian state news agency MENA said the two countries plus Sudan signed contracts on Tuesday tasking two French firms, BRL and Artelia, with conducting studies into the dam’s impact.

Gilles Rocquelain, BRL Director General, said the studies would start in late 2016 and take 11 months.

The leaders of the three countries signed a co-operation deal in Khartoum last year to pave the way for a joint approach to regional water supplies.

In all, Ethiopia plans to spend some $12 billion on harnessing its rivers for hydro power production in the next two decades.

(Reporting by Khaled Abdelaziz; Additional reporting by Omar Fahmy in Cairo; Writing by Asma Alsharif; Editing by John Stonestreet)

Behind the Ethiopia protests: A view from inside the government

African Arguments

An ex-cabinet minister in the Ethiopian government and former president of Oromia Regional State explains why the current turmoil has come as no surprise.

Scenes from the recent protests. Credit: Jawar Mohammed.

For over two decades, the Ethiopian government has been walking with its eyes shut towards the edge of the cliff. It is now tittering on the brink.

The protests and strikes that have been held across several towns and cities since last year and have intensified over the past couple of months may have come as a surprise to those who accepted the “Ethiopia rising” myth. But it has come as no surprise to those of us who have seen the political system unfurl from the inside.

[Ethiopia’s unprecedented nationwide Oromo protests: who, what, why?]

Missed opportunities

When a coalition of insurgent groups defeated the former military ruler Mengistu Hailemariam in 1991, most Ethiopians hoped the country would finally put aside its sad history of civil war and poverty and embark on a democratic and prosperous future.

This hope was not without reason. A transitional charter that got rid of the much despised centralised state structure culminated in a federal system that would give self-rule to the country’s 80-plus ethnic groups. Eritrea was allowed to hold a referendum to secede, which it did. Furthermore, given that the rising power-holders were former student radicals who had rebelled against military rule, many hoped the new leaders would be committed to democratic principles.

Yet within a year, this hope had begun to crumble. In 1992, the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), a key member of the transitional government, was pushed out and resumed armed insurgency. Then, in 1994, the Ogaden National Liberation Front, which had represented the Somali ethnic group (the third largest in the country) in the negotiation of the Transitional Charter, also resumed armed struggle.

But despite such setbacks, many in the international community and in Ethiopia gave the new rulers the benefit of the doubt. In 1998, then US president Bill Clinton praised Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea and few others as the “new generation of democratic leaders” in Africa.

Domestically, some began to embrace the new rulers too, whether out of disappointment with the fractured opposition or because they were pleased with some positive changes in social and economic policy.

In 1998, war broke out with Eritrea. This conflict dashed hopes of peace in the region, but it brought about national cohesion within Ethiopia as the public rallied behind the government, led by the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

Many hoped the ruling party would use this support to establish an inclusive and democratic political system in the post-war era a couple years later. But instead, the war brought friction within the ruling party, with the winning faction led by Meles Zenawi purging almost half the senior leadership.

Nevertheless, this move still strengthened hopes for reform. The perception was that the hardliners had lost in the purge, while the reformists had won. Meles had also aligned himself with non-Tigreans to help him overcome the leadership challenge within the TPLF, leading many to assume Tigrean dominance would be reduced. Furthermore, the prime minister put several reforms on the agenda for internal and public discussion.

However, as it turned out, Meles was only keeping up the prospect of reform until he re-consolidated power. And he soon began attacking ideas of political and economic reform as part of conspiracies by neoliberal Western forces.

The country responded to the now growing authoritarianism and Tigrean domination by severely punishing the ruling coalition in the 2005 elections, with some claiming the opposition was robbed of victory by electoral fraud. In the face of the mass protests that ensued, Meles resorted to extreme repression and a crackdown against the opposition,killing hundreds.

At this point, many Oromo military generals gave up on the hope of internal reform and defected to Eritrea to join the OLF rebels. Amhara generals were accused of plotting a coup d’etat and were thrown in jail. And thousands of high and mid-ranking Amhara and Oromo officers were purged.

Meanwhile, mistrust and paranoia within the TPLF leadership continued to increase. In order to cut off economic support for the dissent, businessmen of Oromo, Amhara and Gurage origin had their business activities taken over by Tigreans or were jailed.

Meles’ death, Hailemariam’s staged succession

Meles died in the summer of 2012 after 21 years in power. As he was the main actor blocking reform due to fears of losing personal power, many believed his departure could lead to a fresh start. Those of us within the regime clandestinely circulated this idea.

However, the reaction from the TPLF leadership was extremely negative. They perceived the idea of a new transition as a conspiracy to push them aside. They appointed a non-Tigrean – Hailemariam Desalegn – to be Meles’ replacement, but this gesture was totally disingenuous as they simultaneously took swift measures to cripple the new PM’s power.

To begin with, they appointed some 37 generals, almost all of them Tigreans, before the new prime minister took office in violation of the constitution which gives such power to the prime minister and president.

They reduced the prime minister’s control over ministries by increasing the number of deputy prime ministers from one to three, with each ministry having to report to these deputies rather than the PM himself.

The Chief of Staff of the armed forces, the chiefs of intelligence, and foreign affairs remained in the hand of the TPLF. Several senior advisors were appointed to Hailemariam, almost all of them Tigreans. And while most of the hardline TPLF members who were pushed out in 2001 began to work covertly with the system again, those in government opposed to the increasing one-party monopoly were either demoted or, as in my case, purged.

The country did not only lose a chance to reform with Meles’ death, but entered a new and dangerous era. As the TPLF could not find a direct replacement for Meles, leadership rivalries emerged and fractured the TPLF. Meanwhile, several non-Tigreans in government finally gave up on internal reform and started actively colluding with opposition parties and activists.

No surprises

For those of us who have seen the genesis of the current crisis from the inside, the current turn of events is therefore not surprising.

The eruption of mass protests in the two largest regions of Oromia and Amhara was inevitable as these communities have been deliberately and systematically marginalised.

The resilience of these protests is also not unexpected, given not just the depth of the people’s grievances but the complete lack of will to reform from the government. Thebrutal response of the regime is also in keeping with its paranoia about the rise of either the Oromo or Amhara against Tigrayan domination or of the alliance between the two.

The government seems to think it can kill and jail its way out of this unprecedented crisis, but no government could ever kill or jail such a vast percentage of its population.

The ruling party has shown that it can no longer reform itself and the state apparatus. It is therefore in the best interest of the country and the region that the regime steps aside to allow an inclusive transitional arrangement.

Juneydi Saaddo is the former President of Oromia Regional State, the largest region in Ethiopia. He served as Ethiopia’s Minister for Transport & Communication, Minister for Science and Technology, and Civil Service Minister until 2012.

Israel’s role in South Sudan under scrutiny amid violence

By Tia Goldenberg and Justin Lynch | AP

JERUSALEM — Escalating violence in South Sudan is casting a light on Israel’s murky involvement in that conflict and raising questions about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new strategy of strengthening ties with African countries.

Netanyahu has been forging alliances across Africa in an effort he says will help blunt Palestinian diplomatic initiatives against Israel at the United Nations.

But critics says these new ties — illustrated by Netanyahu’s high-profile visit to several African countries in July — have come without regard for the human rights records of those allies.

Such concerns have been magnified by Israel’s close ties to South Sudan, whose government has used Israeli arms and surveillance equipment to crack down on its opponents. Critics say Israel’s global arms export policies lack transparency and proper oversight, and ignore the receiving country’s intended use.

“It is the role of the prime minister, the defense minister and the foreign minister to look out for Israel’s interests. But this has a limit: not at any cost and not with everyone,” said Tamar Zandberg, an Israeli opposition lawmaker who has filed a court appeal to halt Israeli sales of sensitive technology to South Sudan.

Israel has long viewed South Sudan as an important ally and a counterweight to neighboring Sudan’s support for Islamic Palestinian militants. Israel was one of the first countries to recognize South Sudan’s independence in 2011, and South Sudanese leader Salva Kiir visited Israel months later.

Since South Sudan descended into civil war in 2013, some 50,000 people have been killed and 2 million have been displaced.

In July, hundreds died when fighting erupted in the capital, Juba. South Sudanese troops went on a nearly four-hour rampage at a hotel, killing a local journalist while forcing others to watch, raping several foreign women, and looting the compound, several witnesses told The Associated Press.

Just days earlier, Netanyahu had traveled to four African countries — Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Ethiopia — in a visit meant to cultivate new allies in his diplomatic battle with the Palestinians. It was the first visit to sub-Saharan Africa by a sitting Israeli prime minister in nearly three decades.

During the visit, he convened a summit with seven regional leaders, including Kiir — nearly all of whom have been criticized by rights watchdogs for alleged abuses.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity for his role in stoking ethnic violence, charges that were later withdrawn, with the prosecutor accusing Kenya of blocking her investigation. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, 71, has served for 30 years and is trying to change the constitution so he can effectively extend his rule for life. Rwandan President Paul Kagame has been dogged by allegations of human rights abuses in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and criticized by rights groups for being an authoritarian ruler.

A U.N. report in January said Israeli surveillance equipment was being used by South Sudanese intelligence, allowing it to intercept communications in a “significantly enhanced” crackdown on government opponents.

The report also found that an Israeli automatic rifle known as the Micro Galil is “present in larger numbers than before the outbreak of the conflict.”

According to the report, Israel sold the rifles to Uganda in 2007, which transferred the weapons to South Sudan’s National Security Service in 2014. According to the report, Israel said it didn’t receive a request from Uganda for the transfer.

Eitay Mack, an Israeli lawyer working with Zandberg, the opposition lawmaker, said weapons export licenses require knowledge of end users and mid users — meaning the transfer would either have been done with Israel’s knowledge or would have prompted an investigation into the offending company. He said no investigation was known to have been opened.

The U.N. report said Israeli ACE rifles were used in a massacre that targeted Nuer citizens in Juba in 2013.

Zandberg said Israel stopped sending firearms to South Sudan in 2013 but that export licenses for the surveillance equipment continue. The Israeli Defense Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said Israel is “extremely satisfied with our renewed relations with many African countries and Israel does not interfere in those countries’ internal affairs.” He rejected criticism of the Israeli outreach, suggesting Israel was being unfairly singled out. The United States and other Western countries also consider many African countries important allies.

The European Union has placed an arms embargo on South Sudan, and following the outbreak of violence, the U.S. imposed sanctions on top military officials from both sides of the conflict.

In August, the U.N. Security Council approved an additional regional protection force to enter South Sudan, but decided against an arms embargo on the country.

“Even without an international arms embargo, states should unilaterally suspend arms transfers given the likelihood that arms would be used to commit human rights violations,” said Elizabeth Deng, Amnesty International’s South Sudan researcher.

Zandberg and Mack asked Israel’s Supreme Court in May to force Israel to explain why it has continued export licenses for the surveillance system to South Sudan. Reflecting Israel’s typically opaque approach to such transfers, the Defense Ministry asked for a gag order to be imposed on the proceedings. A hearing is scheduled later this month.

Zandberg is also seeking to change Israel’s weapons export oversight law, which she says does not adequately ensure that Israeli arms don’t end up in troubled countries.

The law states that Israel shall not supply weapons to any country under a Security Council arms embargo. But the council can often be slow to act, and Zandberg wants Israel’s Foreign Ministry to have clout in determining whether it should allow arms transfers.

A 2013 report by Israel’s state comptroller pointed to “shortcomings, some of them significant,” in export oversight, including a lack of personnel to investigate possible breaches and lax enforcement of requirements for exporters.

“A country that hands out these export licenses has to be accountable and to take responsibility for the (weapons’) final use,” Zandberg said.

___

Lynch reported from Juba, South Sudan.

Why Egypt postponed GERD impact studies contracts signing?

Ahram Online

File Photo: A general view shows construction activity on the Grand Renaissance dam in Guba Woreda, Benishangul Gumuz region in this March 16, 2014 (Photo: Reuters)

Egypt’s irrigation and water resources minister announced on Sunday the postponing of contract signing with two foreign consultancy firms – to study the impact of Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam on downriver countries – due to “unresolved issues.”

In statements to the state-owned MENA news agency, ministry spokesman Waleed Haqiqi said that the delay was due to “outstanding issues between the consultancy firms conducting the technical studies and the legal firm wording the contracts.”

Haqiqi added that another reason behind the postponing was that the firms’ experts were not granted entry visas to Sudan.

The signing of the contracts between the two French firms – BRL and Artelia – and Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan was to take place on 5-6 September in Sudan’s Khartoum, according to Egypt’s foreign ministry.

The spokesman added that Egypt was currently coordinating with the consultancy firms and the Sudanese and Ethiopian sides to agree on a new date for the meetings.

The announcement by Egypt comes a few days after media reports quoted an unnamed Ethiopian source as saying that no date was set for the signing of the contracts as announced by Egypt’s foreign ministry.

However, last week an official Egyptian source told Al-Ahram newspaper said that they were officially invited by Ethiopia to the meeting on 5-6 September and have not received any notice of a postponement, quelling the media reports.

Cairo has repeatedly expressed concerns that Ethiopia’s $4.2 billion dam could affect its historical share of Nile water, or, according to Prime Minister Sherif Ismail, that the hydroelectric dam could be used for reasons other than electricity generation.

Addis Ababa insists that the nearly complete dam project will not affect downstream countries negatively.

Growing Protests Bring Ethiopia to the Tipping Point

Anuradha Mittal

The past weeks have seen an escalation of ongoing protests across Ethiopia—including widespread acts of resistance like citizens shaving their heads in solidarity with jailed opposition leader Bekele Gerba and stay-at-home protests that have turned bustling cities into near ghost-towns. Despite the undeniable peacefulness of these actions, state violence and repression has continued. Earlier this month, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister authorized the National Defence Force to use “its full force to bring rule of law” in the country. Internet shut downs by the government have been used to silence critics. And, Addis Standard reported, security forces have broken into the homes of those who are “staying in.”

Land Grabs: Genesis of Ethiopia Protests

While much of this has gone unreported by the international press, news of attacks against at least nine foreign-owned horticultural companies, including those from the Netherlands, Israel, Italy, India, and Belgium—did generate coverage. The attacks caused nearly $8 million in damages to one company alone, Esmeralda Flower Company. A statement released by Esmeralda suggests that many businesses—both local and internationally-owned—with ties to the Ethiopian government are targets. This is not a surprise given take over of lands in the name of promoting development, much against the will and consent of the local populations, generated these protests in late 2015, which are now manifesting themselves as a movement for democracy and freedom.

As discussed in a previous post, the United States has been noticeably silent with regard to recent protests. In early August, after nearly 100 protesters were gunned down by the Ethiopian security forces, the US Embassy in Ethiopia released a paltry statement with the absurd suggestion that protesters should engage in “constructive dialogue” with the government. Less than two weeks later, the State Department issued a travel advisory, but still failed to condemn government’s use of excessive force on the protestors and its role in the political upheaval on the ground.

The Government’s “Self-Defeating Tactics”

But then, on August 21st, US Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Tom Malinowski, released an op-ed, calling the abuses by government officials as “self-defeating tactics.” The strongly worded statement explains that the protests are “a manifestation of Ethiopian citizens’ expectation of more responsive governance and political pluralism” and that protesters are “exercising their right under Ethiopia’s constitution to express their views.” If that isn’t a strong enough endorsement of the protesters, Malinowski then rips apart the myth that the protests are being perpetuated by outside forces—a myth spread far and wide by the Ethiopian government itself.

“When thousands of people, in dozens of locations, in multiple regions come out on the streets to ask for a bigger say in the decisions that affect their lives, this cannot be dismissed as the handiwork of external enemies.”

President Barack Obama meets Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn during 2013 G8 Summit. Credit: Pete Souza, White House Photographer

The Obama Administration’s Responsibility

Last week, according to the Ethiopian government, 23 inmates at the high-security prison, Qilinto, died after a fire where anti-government protesters and political prisoners, including Bekele Gerba, Pastor Omot, Ethiopian Muslim leaders, and many others are being held. The identity of the dead prisoners has not been made public, while the fate of the political leaders remains unknown. At a grave time like this, the importance of a statement from the US government, cannot go understated. However, it is not enough. As the single largest country donor to Ethiopia, the US has huge power and influence in the country. Until recently, the Obama administration may have accepted the lack of democracy, muzzling of media and civil society, and widespread violations of human rights as the price to pay for ensuring stability and strong rule in a country that has been a critical ally in a highly unstable region. Recent developments may prove this to be a miscalculation as growing resentment against the regime’s abuses has ignited instability and violence in the country, with many fearing political unrest, as seen in neighboring South Sudan and Somalia.

To date, silent complicity of the United States has signaled that violent repression on the part of the Ethiopian government is permissible. Time and time again, the Oakland Institute has called the US government out for not taking a stronger stance, asking how much blood must be shed before the US is willing to stand up for human rights and true development in Ethiopia.

With renewed calls for protests against the Ethiopian regime both within and outside the country gaining momentum, perhaps we are at a tipping point. Perhaps this will be the turning of the tide.

Anuradha Mittal is the Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

Why are EPRDF doesn’t want you to know these things are happening in Ethiopia?

By Paul Schemm washingtonpost

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA — After going through its worst drought in 50 years, Ethiopia is again seeing rain. In fact, in some places, it’s falling too hard and has set off floods.

So while the number of people requiring food aid has dropped slightly from 10.2 million in January to 9.7 million, according to the latest figures, there is a new threat of disease in a population weakened by drought.

Measles, meningitis, malaria and scabies are on the rise. And most seriously, there has been an outbreak of something mysteriously called “AWD,” according to the Humanitarian Requirements Document, issued by the government and humanitarian agencies on Aug. 13.

“There is a high risk that AWD can spread to all regions with high speed as there is a frequent population movement between Addis Ababa and other regions,” it warned.

[1 in every 113 human beings is forcibly displaced from their home right now]

The letters stand for acute watery diarrhea. It is a potentially fatal condition caused by water infected with the vibrio cholera bacterium. Everywhere else in the world it is simply called cholera.

But not in Ethiopia, where international humanitarian organizations privately admit that they are only allowed to call it AWD and are not permitted to publish the number of people affected.

The government is apparently concerned about the international impact if news of a significant cholera outbreak were to get out, even though the disease is not unusual in East Africa.

This means that, hypothetically, when refugees from South Sudan with cholera flee across the border into Ethiopia, they suddenly have AWD instead.

[South Sudanese civilians fear the U.N. can’t protect them from a massacre]

In a similar manner, exactly one year ago, when aid organizations started sounding the alarm bells over the failed rains, government officials were divided over whether they would call it a drought and appeal for international aid.

Hundreds of protesters on Saturday clashed with police in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa after campaigners called for nationwide protests due to what they say is an unfair distribution of wealth in the country. (Reuters)

The narrative for Ethiopia in 2015 was a successful nation with double-digit growth, and the government did not want to bring back memories of the 1980s drought that killed hundreds of thousands and left the country forever associated with famine.

“We don’t use the f-word,” explained an aid worker to me back in September, referring to famine.

Like many of its neighbors in the region, Ethiopia has some issues with freedom of expression and is very keen about how it is perceived abroad. While the country has many developmental successes to celebrate, its current sensitivity suggests it will be some time before this close U.S. ally resembles the democracy it has long claimed to be.

Ultimately, the government recognized there was a drought and made an international appeal for aid. The systems put into place over the years prevented the drought from turning into a humanitarian catastrophe — for which the country has earned praise from its international partners.

In the same manner, even though it doesn’t call it cholera, the government is still waging a vigorous campaign to educate people on how to avoid AWD, by boiling water and washing their hands.

Yet this sensitivity to bad news extends to the economic realm as well. Critics have often criticized Ethiopia’s decade of reported strong growth as being the product of cooked numbers. The government does seem to produce rosier figures than international institutions.

After the drought, the International Monetary Fund predicted in Aprilthat growth would drop from 10.2 percent in 2015 to just 4.5 percent in 2016.

Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, maintained, however, that growth would be a robust 8.5 percent, despite the falling agriculture productivity and decreased export earnings.

In the political realm, news of unrest and protests is suppressed. During a weekend of demonstrations on Aug. 6 and 7, the Internet was cut, making it difficult to find out what happened.

Human rights organizations, opposition parties and media tried to piece together the toll from the deadly demonstrations, which according to Amnesty International may have been up to 100.

The United Nations has called for international observers to carry out an investigation in the affected regions, which the government has strongly rejected even as it has dismissed estimates of casualties without providing any of its own.

“That is one of the factors we are struggling against with this government, the blockade of information,” complained Beyene Petros, the chairman of a coalition of opposition parties. “Journalists cannot go and verify. We cannot do that.”

Local journalists are heavily constrained, and as Felix Horne of Human Rights Watch points out, Ethiopia is one of the biggest jailers of journalists on the continent.

“Limitations on independent media, jamming of television and radio signals, and recent blocking of social media all point to a government afraid to allow its citizens access to independent information,” he said.

Foreign journalists do not fare much better, especially if they attempt to venture out of the capital to do their reporting.

In March, the New York Times and Bloomberg correspondents were detained by police while trying to report on the disturbances in the Oromo Region.

They were sent back to Addis Ababa and held overnight in a local prison before being interrogated and released.

In a similar fashion, a television crew with American Public Broadcasting Service was detained on Aug. 8 south of the capital trying to do a story on the drought conditions.

They and their Ethiopian fixer — an accredited journalist in her own right — were released after 24 hours, and they were told not to do any reporting outside of Addis.

In both cases the journalists were all accredited by the Government Communication Affairs Office, with credentials that are supposed to extend the breadth of the country but in practice are widely ignored by local officials.

The government spokesman, Getachew Reda, has dismissed the allegations about the information crackdown in the country and in recentappearances on the Al Jazeera network he maintained that there are no obstacles to information in Ethiopia.

“This country is open for business, it’s open for the international community, people have every right to collect whatever information they want,” he said.

Land Grabs: Genesis of Ethiopia Protests

The Government’s “Self-Defeating Tactics”

The Obama Administration’s Responsibility

Police break up anti-government protest in Ethiopian capital