Ethnic-Based Politics in Ethiopia

By Teklu Abate

According  to the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia, there are 79 political parties
registered  under  Proclamation No573/2008.  Of  these, only  29%  have country-wide
(national)  identity whereas  71%  are regional parties that are  organized around  ethnic
lines. Of  those parties dubbed  to have  national outreach, some such as All Amhara
People’s Organization (AAPO), Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Front (EPRDF), Geda
System Advancement Party, Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement,  and All Oromo
People Democratic Party do actually have, as their names indicate, ethnicity as their
organizing logic. Several armed groups and parties are also following suit. Stated simply,
Ethiopian politics is  heavily  smeared with ethnicism. On  average, each nationality
(ethnic group) has got its own political party.

That means, the political philosophy of the EPRDF (ethnic federalism) seems to have
gotten popularity from the opposition.  By  necessity, affinity, and/or rhetoric, the
majority of opposition political parties  make ethnicism their core.  Meaning, ethnic
federalism is what unifies EPRDF and the opposition. Although the former has got the
power/legitimation to enforce the ideology, the latter have been playing a no-less-thanimportant role in giving it real life.

Some people tend to mistakenly trace the commencement of ethnic politics in Ethiopia
to the  political participation of the  late Professor and accomplished surgeon Asrat
Woldeyes. Following the ratification of the FDRE Constitution and in response to the
rampant persecution and mass killing of the Amharas,  which is still the reality, Asrat
was ‘forced’ to form the AAPO. Although the party was technically formed to ‘fight’ all
the injustices made against the Amharas, the party was tasked to demand and safeguard
freedom and democracy at the national level.

In  fact, Professor Asrat’s  public  speeches, some of which are  available  on YouTube,
aimed at ensuring national unity, peace, and freedom. From the beginning, it was only
the great surgeon who opposed the endorsement of the Constitution on the grounds that
it undermined Ethiopia’s interest as an independent and unified nation. From that point
onwards, Asrat attracted a lot of negative energy from the ruling party. Despite all the
odds  that happened to him  (e.g.  he was fired from Addis Ababa University), Asrat
intensified his struggle for the freedom of the poor. His formation of the AAPO was not
in support of ethnic politics but was an immediate reaction to the massacre of the
Amharas. Had Asrat been allowd to lead his life and career, we would have seen the
immediate ‘translation’ of the AAPO into a national party.

Ethnic politics in reality has its roots in the now Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).
The founders of this party happened to champion the interest of the Tigray people. After
the 17 year protracted war with the Derg, with strong support from the West and with a
little bit of luck, they managed to emerge victorious. At the eve of the victory,  ‘sister’political parties  were formed representing major ethnic groups such as the Amharas, Oromos, and lately the Southern Nationalities. That fabric metamorphosed into ethnic federalism, which defines current Ethiopian politics. Consequently, the creator and God father of ethnic politics in Ethiopia  must be  the ruling party.  The  majority of  the opposition political parties just contributed to draw its huge public face- they played a
legitimating role.  But  what is  an  important  question  is not who  started it but what
unwanted consequences are there in relation to ethnic politics.

Implications
Seen at the surface, there seems not to be a problem in practicing politics along ethnic
lines. There are several people who even argue that such model of politics allows grassroots-level  participation and is an expression of  improved  democratic governance,
equality, social inclusion, and political consciousness. Theoretically and potentially, this
argument seems to hold some water.

It is, however, a  practical  rarity  to  successfully  fight for freedom and democratic
governance while staying dear and near to one’s own ethnicity. I strongly advocate for
democracy, the rule of law, and presence of alternative voices, but when it comes to
ethnic-based political  parties, I do have serious reservations. I rather claim that
practicing ethnic politics is not the right strategy to fight injustices and to bring genuine
democracy.

One, such political fabric bears no fruits so far. Ethnic politics has been on the horizon
since 1991. Political parties proliferated over the years since then. But their contribution
to ‘fighting’ injustices is nearly unnoticeable. The reason is not only because the ruling
party is systematically narrowing down the playing field but also because of the divided
and symbolic nature of the opposition. The opposition is itself seriously divided along
ethnic lines and some even see each other as potential threats. Ethnic political parties
have a problem going beyond their own localities.

Two, forming  ethnic  parties  is thus limiting, both physically and psychologically. The
parties are known only to their respective ethnic groups and to the Electoral Board. The
Oromo-based parties, for instance, hardly work in Northern Ethiopia. All the promotion
and campaigning is done within their own localities only. They could not compete or win
members, resources and names elsewhere within the country. They are thinking within
their own boxes.

Three, ethnic  parties just  confuse the general Ethiopian  public.  Several  ethnic groups
each have more than two political parties. It is made unnecessarily confusing to join or
support either party. They  just frustrate the public. Several people seem to consider
opposition parties as hopeless, powerless, disorganized, and fragmented and the like.
This kills public motivation to get involved in politics. Ethnic parties retard and at best
kill opposition politics much more than what EPRDF does to the latter.

Four, ethnic politics falsely communicates the  presence of  freedom and political
participation and  inclusion. There  are several who think that forging a party of some
kind is itself a success. Their leaderships, who seem to secure tenurships, roam around
villages when  elections are  around.  They  proudly talk how their ethnic groups are
represented in Ethiopian politics. This sends a false signal to at least people external to
Ethiopian politics; they are in fact the voiceless voices. They are noises that constantly
irritate the public.

Five, national agendas and interests are being undermined mainly because of ethnicallycharged politics. Parties tend to exclusively focus on their own constituencies’ practical
matters, albeit unsuccessfully. It is hard to get ethnic parties that raise issues related to
Ethiopia’s borders, state of the education sector, unemployment and standard of living,
individual freedom, the exodus of the youth to foreign lands, the Ethiopian Diaspora,
Ethiopian history and  future.  Because of the obsession and compulsion with ethnic
politics, our future integrity and prospect as a nation seem to be less discussed.

Six, ethnic politics contributes little or no to future peace and cooperation.  The more
parties love their own ethnic groups and cultures, the less they stand on the  common
platform- being Ethiopian.  Along  with other aggravating conditions, ethnic politics
could be considered a recipe for future conflict and war among the over 80 nationalities.

Concluding remarks
Ethnicism seems to define Ethiopian politics. It is a common denominator to the ruling
party and the opposition. The two, precisely speaking, have a lot in common than their
differences. If they differ at all, it is related to getting supremacy and power. The less the
difference exists between the ruling party and the opposition, the more frustrating and
meaningless would be the political struggle.  That  is mainly why we do not see any
promising development both from Ethiopia and abroad. If  the opposition really  care
about  and for  Ethiopian politics, they must think and act out of their boxes- their
ethnicity.  Ethiopia is much more than the sum of all the  political  parties and  ethnic
groups.

The writer could be reached at teklu.abate@gmail.com and also blogs at
http://tekluabate.blogspot.no/.
http://www.awrambatimes.com/?p=7051

Egypt, Ethiopia Headed For War Over Water

Girls draw water from a well in El-Halaba, on the rural desert outskirts of the White Nile, March 20, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/ Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah)

Print

FONT SIZE

By: Mustafa al-Labbad Translated from As-Safir (Lebanon).

اقرا المقال الأصلي باللغة العربية

In the coming years, Egypt and Ethiopia may be forced to fight a “water war” because Ethiopia’s ambitions contradict Egypt’s historical and legal rights in the Nile waters. Ethiopia can only be deterred by the regional and international balance of powers, which in recent years has favored Ethiopia.

About This Article

Summary : In the coming years, the biggest threat for Egypt is a lack of water, and Ethiopia's increasing extraction of water from the Nile may signal a possible "water war," writes Mustafa al-Labbad. Publisher: As-Safir (Lebanon)  Original Title: Egypt Is Battling Ethiopia over the Nile Water Author: Mustafa al-Labbad First Published: March 18, 2013 Posted on: March 24 2013 Translated by: Rani Geha Categories :  Egypt

For any Egyptian government, Egypt’s water share and securing the Nile’s headwaters are the top national security priorities, irrespective of the Egyptian government’s ideology or domestic policies. This fact is dictated by geography. For thousands of years, Egyptian rulers have been aware how important water is for Egypt. Water is the lifeline of Egypt (97.5% of Egypt is barren desert). Egyptian rulers have always used any means to defend their country’s historic rights to the Nile waters. As Greek historian Herodotus said, "Egypt is the gift of the Nile.” Egyptian civilization, which is one of history’s greatest civilizations, depends on the Nile. To illustrate the Nile’s importance, we should remember that Egypt is the largest desert oasis in the world. Life in Egypt is concentrated on the river banks where 90 million people live. In short, any Egyptian government should have one eye on the Horn of Africa — on Ethiopia, where the source of the Nile lies — and another eye on the Sinai Peninsula and the Levant, and the balance of power there. History has shown that most of Egypt’s invaders entered through that door.

Egypt’s sentries against the country’s internal and external foes have been sleeping on the job. Their first eye failed to notice the developments at the Blue Nile’s source in Ethiopia (the Blue Nile constitutes 86% and the White Nile 14% of the Nile water volume. The two tributaries meet in Sudan before flowing to Egypt). Their second eye had lost the ability to distinguish friend from foe. Now, with the worsening economic crisis and the political deterioration between the ruling Muslim Brotherhood and the opposition, the balance of power is more and more tilting toward Ethiopia, which may unilaterally increase its water usage. That will affect Egypt’s historic rights of the Nile water and cause a serious threat.

In the report below, we will try to shed light on the Nile conflict and on why Ethiopia’s negotiating position toward Egypt has improved. We will end with a recommendation.

The conflict over the Nile waters

The two groups fighting over the right waters are as follows: the first group are the downstream countries, it includes Egypt and Sudan. The other group are the upstream countries which includes Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Congo, Burundi, Tanzania, Southern Sudan, Rwanda and Kenya.

Egypt depends on the Nile River for 95% of its water needs for drinking, agriculture and electricity generation. The growing Egyptian population is increasingly dependent on Nile water. Egypt has historical rights to these waters under the Nile Water Agreement signed with Britain in 1929. It gave Egypt the right to veto any project in upstream countries affecting Egypt’s share of water flowing to it. It is worth mentioning that the 1929 agreement is binding for the three upstream countries — Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda — on the grounds that Britain, which colonized these countries, was their legal representative and could sign binding international agreements on their behalf.

Egypt codified its legal status in an agreement with Sudan in 1959. The agreement gave Cairo 55.5 billion cubic meters of water (or 66% of the total water flow), which would go to the Aswan Dam, and Sudan received 18.5 billion cubic meters (22%). The remainder, 12%, is lost to evaporation.

The downstream countries argue that they were not a party to those agreements at the time, and therefore do not recognize their legitimacy. The upstream countries want to modify the water-sharing agreement and keep more of the water by building dams, which will directly affect the water share of the downstream states, Egypt and Sudan.

The problem is compounded by the projected large population increase in the Nile basin. The UN projects that the population in the 11 basin states will reach 860 million people by 2050. This is pressuring both sides to try to improve their positions in the conflict over the Nile waters.

In May 2010, Ethiopia drafted the Entebbe Agreement to modify the historical and legal basis for the sharing of water. Most upstream countries supported the agreement but Egypt and Sudan refused it. It is true that the Entebbe Agreement is not legally binding for Egypt and Sudan, but it does show that Ethiopia is aware of the balance of power and its ambition to impose facts on the ground regarding the construction of dams, which will necessarily affect Egypt’s share in the Nile waters and thus represent an existential threat to Egypt. It is true that Ethiopia cannot force Cairo to sign, but the Entebbe Agreement shows that a major crisis between Cairo and Addis Ababa is on the way. What follows is an explanation of the Ethiopian diplomatic attack on Egypt and Sudan.

The geopolitical framework strengthens Ethiopia’s position

In recent years, the geopolitical framework has clearly shifted in Ethiopia’s favor, and it shifted the balance of power between Ethiopia and Egypt. The geopolitical changes that favor Ethiopia can be seen in six key indicators:

First, the disintegration of Somalia, Ethiopia’s traditional rival with which it fought a tough war over the Ogaden region, removed the geopolitical balance facing Ethiopia’s political ambitions in the region. Ethiopia exploited Somalia’s disintegration to strengthen its regional presence in the Horn of Africa. For years, Ethiopia has been “fighting terrorism” emerging from Somalia. Ethiopia has been doing that under an American umbrella from 2006 to 2009 and then again since 2011 until now.

The second indicator is represented by the partition of Sudan into two states: Sudan and South Sudan. That development has weakened Sudan (and thus Egypt) in the Horn of Africa and allowed Ethiopia to participate, since 2012, in the UN peacekeeping forces in the Abyei region, which is disputed between Sudan and South Sudan.

The third indicator is the following: the weakening of Sudan has shifted the balance of power in Ethiopia’s favor. The crisis in Darfur and the international isolation of the Sudanese president (an international arrest warrant was issued against him by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2009) has significantly limited Khartoum’s ability to maneuver in the Nile conflict.

The fourth indicator is the improved relationship between Ethiopia and the West in general, and between Ethiopia and the US in particular, after Addis Ababa emerged as a reliable partner in the Horn of Africa. Every year, Ethiopia gets $4 billion in military, development and food assistance. But the matter is not limited to direct aid. The West has started looking at Ethiopia differently in regard to development projects, such as the construction of dams in Ethiopia. The West had opposed such projects for decades because they were considered a threat to regional security.

The fifth indicator is about China. China is Ethiopia’s primary trade partner and Beijing has expressed willingness to finance a dam construction in Ethiopia and offered Chinese expertise in building large dams. China wishes to have a foothold in the region. There is oil in South Sudan and the Congo has mineral resources.

The sixth indicator is the weakening of Egypt’s political weight in the Horn of Africa. Egypt has no role in Somalia and was not even a key party in the negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan. Egypt’s preoccupation with internal matters is weakening its ability to confront regional and international players, such as China. Even though Egypt is the biggest market for Chinese goods among the 11 basin countries, China has favored other considerations over Egyptian priorities and Egypt’s rights in the Nile waters. So much so that China has offered its technological expertise in constructing dams, which is a complete disregard to Egyptian rights. What will Egypt do about all that? Only God knows.

A recommendation

In the coming years, Egypt and Ethiopia may be forced to fight a “water war” because Ethiopia’s ambitions contradict Egypt’s historical and legal rights in river waters. Ethiopia can only be deterred by the regional and international balance of powers, which in recent years has favored Ethiopia.

The government of Hisham Qandil (an irrigation expert, not a diplomat, legal expert or strategist) seems unable to manage such a complex issue with legal, political, economic, military and international aspects. His government is unable to solve everyday problems that are less complex, such as security, traffic, and fuel and food supplies. This portends dire consequences for Egypt.

What is needed is a way to manage the crisis and use Egyptian soft power toward Ethiopia, especially the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is the Ethiopian Church’s mother church. It is necessary to form a fixed Egyptian team to manage this highly sensitive issue. The team should go beyond party affiliation and include leading Egyptian Nile specialists. Ideological or religious affiliation should not be a factor in choosing that Egyptian crisis team. What is important should be the capabilities and competencies of the team members, who will come from the “clay” of the country, not from a particular group, party or political current. Clay, to those who don’t know, is what Egyptians call their country’s soil, which is a fertile soil resulting from the mixing with the Nile water.

Will Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi realize the seriousness of the situation and deal with that issue as a major national matter and quickly implement the required policies and procedures, or will he hesitate, as usual, and go down in history as someone who squandered the historic rights of Egypt and its future generations?

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/03/egypt-ethiopia-water-war.html#ixzz2P0LwayL3

The Gada System – Why Denied Recognition to Be a World Heritage?

BY SAMUEL TAYE

The Oromo Gada system is a system of generational classes that succeed each other every eight years in assuming political, military, judicial, legislative and ritual responsibilities. Each one of the eight active generation classes–beyond the three grades–has its own internal leadership and its own assembly, but the leaders of the classes become the leaders of the nation as a whole when their class comes to power in the middle of the life course at a stage of life called “Gada” among the Borana.

The class in power is headed by an officer known as Abba Gada or Abba Bokku in different Oromo areas.

Gada is an existing system in Borana Oromo. It is still able to preserve its structural values though various external challenges tested it to abolish or decline it through time. Scholars and researchers argue that it is the best model for the modern democracy of the world. The existing Gada system in Borana today witnesses the reliability and creditability of the scholastic argument.

Teferi Nigusse is a PHD candidate at Addis Ababa University and is also a writer. According to him, the Gada system is a typical example of popular democracy that a world must learn from and gain invaluable substance from it mainly in today’s politics. “It is a complete system and fully characterized by democratic values that undergone centuries without any internally disruptive actions and managed to get here especially among Borana and Guji Oromos,” Teferi says.

“Basically the system is democratic and endowed with overall social, economical and political developments that pass through necessary and possible stages. Power transition is smooth and free from any conflict. It is also inexpensive; it does not need any high cost, but other political democracies do,” he added.

According to Teferi, Gada remained behind the curtain due to knowledge gap. The West want Africans to see themselves the same way they see Africans. This has been a challenge for centuries and still remained to affect efforts exerted on African affairs by Africa. Researchers, academics, scholars were all foreigners who used to study historical, anthropological, geological backgrounds of Africans and these people tried to write and interpret facts about Africans according to their interests. So, it takes time to disprove all what was written then. They even never thought there were democracies or equality in Africa, they thought all in terms of virtues of Europeans or Westerners. But Gada was and still is a vibrant and workable system; of course existed in Africa for centuries.

“In my view, the Gada system should have been recognized by UNESCO as a world heritage years back, but due to unconvincing reasons UNESCO still seems reluctant to recognize it or may be there has not been adequate push from home side by concerned bodies including the government of Ethiopia,” Teferi said.

Professor Tesema Ta’a is a historian with Addis Ababa University. The writer has asked him whether the Gada system deserves inscription as an intangible socio-cultural world heritage. Tesema started his answer citing various views of writers on definition of Gada.

“The Gada system has been an egalitarian socio-economic, political and cultural system which had been practiced by the Oromo for a long time in Northeast Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular. It had been guiding and _regulating the life of the Oromo in relation to other peoples and their environment. The system has several institutions as studied by social scientists_including prominent historians and anthropologists. These scholars include Asmerom Legesse, Mohammed Hassen, Baxter, Gemetchu Megerssa, Anissa Kassam, Almagor, Lewis, Haberland and many others,” said the professor._

The Oromo have over years different institutions within the Gada system. Some of the institutions are Gudifacha and Mogassa as well as democratic governance. The Gada system follows democratic procedures such as periodic elections after every 8 years and smooth transition of power. As stated by scholars although the system of age-grade_ is followed by several Kushitic population such as the Sidama, Somali, Konso, Gedeo and others, the Oromo Gada system had attained the highest level of complexity reflecting their identity. It is the innovation of the Oromo people which has its own unique contribution to the world democracy,_ in fact, similar to _or even better than that of the Athenian democracy, which was more exclusive than inclusive. For example slaves were not part of Greek Democracy, Tesema indicated.

“As a historian who has widely read and written a few works on the Oromo,_ I fully and unequivocally recommend that the Gada system deserves to be one of UNESCO’ world heritages. It is quite long overdue to register Gada as a world heritage.

According to him, there are several reasons for Gada to fully be recommended to be a world heritage. Due to the fact that the Gada system is necessarily democratic and egalitarian, people can learn a lot from it in shaping the growth, building and developing modern democracy. The procedures of the system are attractive and trustworthy among many peoples of Northeast Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular.

The shifting of leadership and transfer of power from one to the other is periodic falling within a maximum of 8 years_like the American Democracy and the power transfer is very smooth. It respects_ individual human rights as well as that of minorities.

“If it is inscribed as UNESCO’s world heritage it will be the source of historical pride not only for the Oromo people but also for_ all peoples of_Ethiopia, Africa and the whole world at large. It will also be a center of attraction to the world tourists who would come to see and enjoy the Gada system’s tangible and intangible values. Tangible heritages are the age old Gada centers like; Hora Arsadi, Oda Nabe, Oda Bulluqi, Oda Bultum, Oda Makoo Billi, Gumii Gayyoo in Borana_and many others in western, central, eastern and southern Oromia._ It also includes reverences and ornaments of rituals, the Bokku, the Caaccu and Kalacha. Intangible heritages are ideas, thoughts and the worldview of Abba Gada elders, women, men and the youth as members of the Gada system,” he stressd.

“Some people and particularly those in UNESCO claim that the Gada system does not involve Women. This is _not at all true. The various Gada rituals and celebrations can never be conducted without the full participation of women. Assemblies cannot be held without their knowledge and consent. Decisions passed by the assembly necessarily must protect the rights of women. Even war and peace deals cannot be decided upon without the participation of women. There are institutions recognized by the Gada which are_solely run by women. These include Sinqee, Ateetee and others. Those who say the Gada does not include or involve women have not read or studied about the system. Here, I shall ask such people: Was the Athenian Democracy inclusive? When did the West_start considering the rights of women? As far as I am concerned women were part of the Gada system and they remain so wherever it has survived fully among the Borana and the Guji,” Tesema added.

Heritage and tourism destinations research expert with Oromia Bureau of Culture and Tourism Dr. Solomon Degefa on his part said that draft proposal that demands Gada system to be inscribed as the world intangible heritage was sent to UNESCO years back. “Obviously, there are certain bodies who recommend the acceptability of the proposal: the academics, the jury, among others are these bodies. As a result, the academics recommended, but the jury didn’t because of the absence of Ethiopian government representative to defend or persuade the jury at that time,” Solomon said.

He further said that it is a national affair, but as Oromia state government in general and as a bureau of Culture and Tourism in particular are concerned, there is a plan to urge both the Ethiopian Heritage Development Authority and the UNESCO to reconsider the case of the Gada system .

“It is to be recalled that Bale Mountains National Park, Dirre Sheik Hussein Religious, Cultural and Historical Site and Holqa Sof Omar: Natural and Cultural Heritage (Sof Omar: Caves of Mystery) were included in the Tentative List of UNESCO,” he said.

Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (AARCCH) General Director Yonas Desta said to register Gada system as a world heritage, efforts have been exerted though minimal. However, there must be adequate and persuasive articulation to get it registered. It needs to be demonstrated in a way that others perceive it as a value worth of due regard.

“Regional government, elite in the Oromo community who articulate it very well, researchers are all required to further strengthen their effort and then will hopefully present the agenda to UNESCO and once again in the modest fashion we will manage the issue and make it well perceived and succeed the target of world heritage value,” said Yonas.

Whatsoever, the Gada system deserves recognition as both tangible and intangible cultural heritage of the world that the Oromo as the owner and Ethiopia as a country will benefit a lot from it. Adequate and telling researches have been conducted and many tangible evidences are in place that manifest that the Gada existed over centuries being democratic system of administration and a source of a guiding life principle.

http://www.gulelepost.com/2013/03/29/the-gada-system-why-denied-recognition-to-be-a-world-heritage/

ODF, a democratic alternative for Ethiopia

Created on Friday, 29 March 2013 01:30

inShare

(OPride) — After an intense week of discussions in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the activist group Oromo Dialogue Forum on Thursday announced the formation a new political party, the Oromo Democratic Front.

This came after a year long deliberations on the direction of the Oromo people’s struggle in Ethiopia, a series of media interviews, and meetings across continents.

Leenco Lata, an intellectual and founder of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), a rebel group formed in 1973 by Oromo nationalists to fight for the self-determination of the Oromo people, was elected the chairman of the new organization.

OLF has fought a low key guerrilla warfare against three successive Ethiopian regimes, including the current one. But its influence waned in recent years as the organization battled numerous internal splits amid a dwindling support from the Oromo diaspora.

There are many old OLF faces in the leadership of the new political party. For instance, all but three of the nine-member executive committee of the Oromo Democratic Front (ODF) were, at one point or another, former high ranking OLF officials. ODF Vice President Dr. Dima Noggo Sarbo was among its founders, and briefly, the first chairman of OLF.

What is new, however, is perhaps their political program.

ODF "advocates justice for the Oromo and all persons and nations in Ethiopia," the party's declaration reads. “The founding of ODF ushers in a new phase in the Oromo nationalist struggle with the objective of working for the transformation of the Ethiopian Empire into a truly democratic multinational federation of all the concerned nations.”

The birth of ODF as an independent political party run by former OLF leaders and supporters is a clear break with the recent practice of forming a splinter of OLF which has nearly crippled the movement. The group’s bold decision to depart from the usual business, whereby different factions compete on who is more committed to the "original program" of forming an independent Oromo state than the other, is expected to force the Oromo nationals to look into the future.

Nonetheless, ODF faces a crucial test in lifting the Oromo people's political struggle from its current dismal state. In addition, as has been evidenced over last year, a sizable number of Oromo activists continue to insist on the formation of independent Oromia state as the only answer to the Oromo question in Ethiopia. It remains to be seen if ODF can win their endorsement.

The idea of Oromos having a democratic political force in Ethiopia was first brought to light by the ODF Chairman Lata in his speech in July 2000 at Oromo Studies Association in Toronto. His idea of democratizing Ethiopia has since divided the opinion of the vast Oromo diaspora. Some continue to be preoccupied with denunciation of Lata, albeit without a discernible alternative political agenda of their own.

But the formation of ODF, in large part the realization of an idea he put forth in 2000 and two subsequent books he has written, is being hailed as the first bold move by architects of the mainstream Oromo nationalist camp in re-articulating the goals of the Oromo movement crafted in OLF's program of 1976.

The news of the formation of the new political party for the Oromo people comes as Ethiopia is going through a set of leadership transitions since the death of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi last year.  At its 9th congress, held in the tourist city of Bahir Dar, the ruling party Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front formally elected Hailemariam Desalegn as its chairman and introduced a number of new faces to Ethiopia's political scene.

It is not immediately clear if ODF is looking to make a leap toward participating in the 2015 general election in Ethiopia. But it's success is likely to be dependent on whether it would become another Diaspora-based outfit or one rooted inside the country.

Here are few excerpts from the announcement:

On Structuring Ethiopia as a Federation

We start from the simple premise that the post-1991 policy of structuring Ethiopia as a federation of its diverse nations is a move in the right direction. The adoption of this policy is attributable neither to the ill-intentions nor generosity of the TPLF but became mandatory as a response to the mounting pressures of the struggles for self-determination by the Oromo and other oppressed nations.
The OLF played an active role in proposing the restructuring of Ethiopia into a multinational federation as a means to end the injustices stemming from the imperial character of the Ethiopian state. Unfortunately, implementing a genuine federal order completely contradicted the present ruling elite’s aspiration of emerging and permanently remaining as a new dominant group by simply stepping into the shoes of those that it replaced. We now stand for correcting the aberrations resulting from the abuse of the federation as a policy of domination by the present ruling elite.  
Federations serve the purpose of facilitating the simultaneous exercise of self-rule and shared-rule and become necessary in order to reconcile unity with diversity. In the present political dispensation, however, communities exercise neither self-rule nor shared-rule but have been enduring the TPLF/EPRDF’s tyrannical rule for more than two decades. The ruling party directly and centrally micro-manages all communities by pre-selecting its surrogates that the people are then coerced to “elect” at elections that are neither free nor fair. Ending this charade by enabling all communities to elect their representatives in fair and free elections is the only way of finally putting Ethiopia on a path to democracy, stability, peace, justice, and sustainable development.

On the Struggle for Self-Determination
The official title of Ethiopia has gone from the Empire of Ethiopia to the People’s Democratic Republic and to the current one of Federal Democratic Republic. Despite some of the changes that accompanied these name-changes, the custodians of the state behave as if the country is their imperial inheritance. Consequently, the struggle for self-determination by the Oromo and other oppressed nations remains legitimate.
On the Exercise of Self-Determination
We aspire to build on the positive aspects of Ethiopia’s current federal set-up. However, to make the simultaneous exercise of self-rule and shared-rule possible it is necessary to remove the procedural and substantive shortcomings that stand in the way of democracy and federalism.
This can be accomplished by exercising self-determination in a multidimensional fashion whereby subject nations, in due course, freely elect delegates to their respective state and central constitutional assemblies. When this process is completed, the present “holding together” type of bogus federalism will be transformed into a genuine “coming together” variety.
On the Issue of Ethiopian Unity

There are those who perceive themselves as the sole defenders and definers of Ethiopian unity. We reject such a stand since the essential precondition for unity is the emergence of a community of empowered citizens. As we have witnessed for more than a century, invoking a common history, culture or language has not guaranteed unity.
We similarly reject the present ruling party’s presumption that it serves as the sole embodiment and defender of the so-called “revolutionary democratic unity.” Such a system has ended in disaster elsewhere. We also disagree with the ruling party’s illusory expectation that the promotion of economic development would serve as an alternative source of unity in the absence of democratic participation.
Consequently, we propose and struggle for the alternative of deliberately forging constitutional patriotism by inaugurating and entrenching societal commitment to their shared and separate political institutions as the more promising and enduring uniting factor. We believe that it will be this commitment that will bind the diverse nations into a united political community willing to protect these institutions from internal and external enemies.

On Citizenship Rights
In order for the present subjects of the Ethiopian state to be transformed into empowered citizens, all their citizenship rights must be recognized and respected. In situations where the simultaneous exercise of self-rule and shared-rule needs to be upheld, citizenship also needs to be entrenched at both the national homeland and federal levels. The bundle of rights that make such a layered enjoyment of citizenship is as follows:

1. Civic rights; that is, the freedom and inviolability of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, origins, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc.
2. Political rights; that is, the right to vote and stand for public office, as well as freedom of assembly, association, and information.
3. Social rights; that is, the right to work, equality of opportunity, entitlement to health services, provision of free education of a high standard to the extent that the resources of the country allow.
4. Cultural and language rights; the right to take pride in the redemptive aspects of one’s culture, the right to publicize one’s particular history and the right to use one’s language for education, administration, commerce, and the provision of judicial services.

On Disentangling the Private Sphere from the Public
The elite that have dominated Ethiopia to date have fused public and private institutions in order to advance and serve their partisan and sectarian interests. This shall come to an end by turning all state institutions into the common servants of all regardless of their political allegiance and national identity:

1. The civil service shall be overhauled in order to end its subordination to the ruling party.
2. The military shall be transformed into a neutral defender of all by enacting a concordance model of civil-military relations.
3. The intelligence services shall not be used for monitoring the political and private activities of citizens.
4. Public media shall come under the supervision of a neutral public authority that oversees their work of providing education, entertainment, and information.

On Economic and Social Policy

The regime’s economic and social policies leave much to be desired. Its economic policies have exacerbated inequality, eviction from ancestral lands of indigenous populations, and environmental degradation. Its social policies have created deterioration in educational standards, health disparities and massive youth unemployment. In addition, its interference in the exercise of religious freedom has created unwarranted social tension.
The ODF stands to correct these lopsided policies and upholds inclusive, balanced and sustainable development aimed at curbing growing inequality, protecting the environment, and advancing the rights of indigenous peoples, and promoting employment. It would promote a mass education policy coupled with the development of technical know-how and scientific progress. The ODF would also promote a health policy integrating health education, prevention, cure and care measures. Furthermore, it respects and upholds religious freedoms and equality.

On Mobilizing Stakeholders
We believe that a country-wide movement sharing the preceding vision, principles and policies is indispensable for propelling Ethiopia forward and ending the current political paralysis. To this effect, we will exert all efforts in order to pull together as many advocates and promoters of the interests of diverse social sectors as possible in order to popularize and refine the principles and processes that would transform Ethiopia into a genuinely democratic multinational federation.
A call to all Oromo Organizations and Groups

We believe that ending more than a century old subjugation of our people should be of a paramount interest than dwelling on trivial political wrangling. The prevailing condition of our people demands the Oromo political organizations and groups pulling together our efforts to strengthen and consolidate our struggle to achieve our people’s national aspiration. Thus, we call upon all of you to join hands with us in strengthening our camp to intensify our legitimate struggle and put an end to sufferings of our people.

A Call on TPLF/EPRDF
We call up on the ruling regime to reconsider its ultimately counterproductive policy of aspiring to indefinitely stay in power by fanning inter communal and inter-religious suspicion and tension. We call on the regime to join us in articulating and implanting policies that create sustainable stability.
A call to International Community

The ODF calls on the international community and all other friends concerned with the suffering of the Ethiopian people, to stand with us in implementing our vision and proposal of transforming the Ethiopian state to bringing peace and sustainable stability in Ethiopia and Horn of Africa.

Full Announcement: Oromo Democratic Front

In Afaan Oromoo: Labsa Kora bu'ureessaa ODF

The Dragon Eating the Eagle’s Lunch in Africa?

Flight of the Eagle and pursuit of the Dragon

By: Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam

MARCH 25, 2013 12:06AM

In June 2011, during her visit to Zambia U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton pulled the alarm bell on a creeping “new colonialism” in Africa. While dismissing “China’s Model” of authoritarian state capitalism as a governance model for Africa, she took a swipe at China for its unprincipled opportunism in Africa. “In the long-run, medium-run, even short-run, no I don’t [think China is a good model of governance in Africa]…We saw that during colonial times, it is easy to come in, take out natural resources, pay off leaders and leave, …And when you leave, you don’t leave much behind for the people who are there. We don’t want to see a new colonialism in Africa…”

It seems the Eagle has finally taken a good look at the sidewinding Dragon eating its lunch in Africa. The U.S. is in stiff competition not only in Africa but also in the “world’s least explored” country. Clinton minced no words in telling the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We are in a competition for influence with China; let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in, and let’s just talk straight realpolitik… Take Papua New Guinea: huge energy find … ExxonMobil is producing it. China is in there every day in every way, trying to figure out how it’s going to come in behind us, come under us.”

For the past decade, the U.S. has been nonchalant and complacent about China’s “invasion” and lightning-fast penetration of Africa. It was a complacency born of a combination of underestimation, miscalculation, hubris and dismissive thinking that often comes with being a superpower. But the U.S. is finally reading the memo.

Meanwhile, China is zooming along the African highway of “opportunism” with steely resolve and an iron fist sheathed in velvet gloves lined with loans, aid and expensive gifts.  In July 2012, Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Opening Ceremony of the Fifth Ministerial Conference of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation proudly proclaimed his country’s economic prowess in Africa. “China’s trade with and investment in Africa have been expanding. In 2011, our two-way trade reached 166.3 billion U.S. dollars, three times the figure in 2006. Cumulative Chinese direct investment in Africa has exceeded 15 billion U.S. dollars, with investment projects covering 50 countries.” He added, “China and Africa have set up 29 Confucius Institutes or Classrooms in 22 African countries. Twenty pairs of leading Chinese and African universities have entered into cooperation under the 20+20 Cooperation Plan for Chinese and African Institutions of Higher Education.” 

In 1980, China’s total economic investment in Africa hovered around $USD1 billion; and 20 years later rose only to $USD10 billion. In 2010, China and Ghana signed infrastructure-related loans, credits and made other arrangements valued at about $15 billion. In 2009, China signed a $6 billion loan agreement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo for infrastructure projects. In 2010, Chinese banks extended nearly $9 billion in loans and other types of financing to Angola for various projects. The Angolan government in turn used its oil credit line to commission the State-owned China International Trust and Investment Corporation to build a ghost town outside of the capital at a cost of $USD3.5 billion.  (To see the video of the Angolan ghost town click here.)  In 2011, Chinese firms accounted for 40% of the corporate contracts in Africa compared to only 2 percent for U.S. firms.  According to a report issued by the South African Institute of International Affairs, between 2003-2009, there were between 583,050–820,050 Chinese living, working and doing business in 43 African countries. Today China is Africa’s largest trading partner as the U.S. recedes fast in the rear view mirror.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?

China’s official policy statement on its trade and aid relationship with Africa derives from the first of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. China “respects African countries’ choice in political system and development path suited to their own national conditions, does not interfere in internal affairs of African countries, and supports them in their just struggles for safeguarding their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” China rejects accusations of neocolonial ambitions in Africa. President Hu Jintao explained that Africa and China are building a “new type of China-Africa strategic partnership… China and Africa have deepened practical economic cooperation featuring mutual benefit.”

But many critics are quick to point out that China’s assertion of a “strategic partnership” cleverly camouflages its calculated strategic ambition to suck out African natural resources on a long-term basis, cultivate African markets as dumping grounds for its cheap manufactured goods and gradually impose its hegemony over the continent. The policy of “noninterference” is said to be an elaborate and shameless ploy used by China to pacify and anesthetize witless African dictators and secure lucrative long-term contracts for raw materials.

Kwame Nkrumah coined the term “neo-colonialism”, the eponymous title to his book, to describe the socio-economic and political control exercised by the old colonial countries and others to perpetuate their economic dominance in the former colonies through their multinational corporations and other cultural institutions. He wrote, “Neo-colonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress. In the days of old-fashioned colonialism, the imperial power had at least to explain and justify at home the actions it was taking abroad. In the colony those who served the ruling imperial power could at least look to its protection against any violent move by their opponents. With neo-colonialism neither is the case...”

Is there Chinese “neocolonialism” in Africa? Is China exercising “power without responsibility” in Africa “causing exploitation without redress” for Africans? 

China is in Africa in full force with traders, investors, lenders, builders, developers, laborers and others. But gnawing questions linger. For instance, is China’s “gift” of the $USD200 million African Union (AU) building in Addis Ababa in 2011 a public demonstration of its good faith, good will and good works in Africa or a subtle hint of its neocolonial ambitions and hegemonic designs? Is China’s aid for the construction of roads, rail lines, bridges, dams and other public works projects evidence of an altruistic commitment to improve communication and commerce within Africa or a calculated strategy to further facilitate China’s deep penetration into the African hinterlands for raw materials (not unlike the European colonialists who built rail lines and ports to export Africa’s mineral wealth)? Is China fully supporting corrupt-to-the-core African dictators because it does not want to “interfere” in local politics or is “noninterference” its way of maintaining a chokehold on African dictators to protect its long-term interests in Africa? Does China want to do business in Africa in the short term and control its destiny in the long term?  

In my column, “The Dragon’s Dance with Hyenas”, I suggested that Africa’s dictators could not be more happy with their “new strategic partnership” with China. They claim that China is not only a good friend but also the great rescuer of Africa from the ravenous and crushing jaws of neocolonialists, imperialists, neoliberals and other such nasty creatures. AU president in 2011, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the ruthless and corrupt dictator of Equatorial Guinea since 1979, even saw “a reflection of the new Africa, and the future we want for Africa” in the Chinese-built 20-story AU glass tower. The late Meles Zenawi saw China leading Africa on a long march out of the winter of despair and desperation in to the spring of hope and renaissance. He proclaimed China brings to Africa a “message of optimism, a message that is out of the decades of hopelessness and imprisonment a new era of hope is dawning, and that Africa is being unshackled and freed…”

I disagreed with Meles Zenawi when he said he saw the “rise of Africa” and an “African Renaissance” reflected in the glass tower. I peeked behind the façade of that shiny edifice and saw standing “a giggling gang of beggars with cupped palms, outstretched hands, forlorn eyes and shuffling legs looking simultaneously cute and hungry and begging” and unable to pony up the chump change needed to put up a building that is to become their world stage.

The “China Model” and China as an ideal(less) partner for African dictators

African dictators talk about the “China Model” as a solution to Africa’s economic problems in much the same way as African sorcerers invoke voodoo incantations to heal those possessed by evil spirits. But the Chinese reject the notion of a “China Model”.  Liu Guijin, China's special representative on African affairs offered an official disclaimer.  “What we are doing is sharing our experiences. Believe me, China doesn't want to export our ideology, our governance, our model. We don't regard it as a mature model.” 

No African dictator has gone beyond phrase mongering to explain how the “China Model” applies to Africa. But the general idea in championing the “China Model” (“Beijing Consensus”)  is that Africa can be successful without following the “Washington Consensus” (a set of ten policies supported by the U.S. and the international lending institutions including “fiscal discipline (limiting budget deficits), increasing foreign direct investments, privatization, deregulation, diminished role for the state, etc.). China presumably became a global economic power in just a few decades by pursuing state controlled capitalism instead of free market capitalism, avoiding political liberalization, giving a commanding role for the ruling political party in the economy and society, heavily investing in infrastructure projects, engaging in trial and error economic experimentation, etc.  

African dictators believe they can achieve a comparable level of economic development by copycatting China. For Meles Zenawi and his disciples, the “China Model” is the magic carpet that will transport Ethiopia from abysmal underdevelopment and poverty to stratospheric economic growth and industrialization. African dictators are particularly enamored with the “China Model” because China achieved its economic “miracles” in a one-party system that has a chokehold on all state institutions including the civil service and the armed and security forces and by instituting a vast system of controls and censorship that keeps the people from challenging the government or learning about alternatives. 

In reality, the “China Model” for African dictators demonstrates not so much the success of authoritarian state capitalism but the triumph of praetorian klepto-capitalism --  a form of militarized kleptocratic capitalism in which African dictators and their cronies control the state apparatus and the economy using the military and security forces. African dictators in Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, etc. rule by coercion and their coercive power derives almost exclusively from their control and manipulation of the military, police, and security forces, party apparatuses and bloated bureaucracies which they use for political patronage. They have successfully eliminated rival political parties, civil society institutions and the independent press. 

The “China Model” is the ultimate smokescreen for African Dictators, Inc. It provides a plausible justification for avoiding transparent and accountable governance, competitive, free and fair elections and suppression of free speech and the press. Simply stated, the “China Model” in Africa is a huge hoax perpetrated on the people with the aim of imposing absolute control and exacting total political obedience while justifying brutal suppression of all dissent and maximizing the ruling class' kleptocratic monopoly over the economy.   

Could the “China Model” work in Africa? 

Stripped off its hype, the “China Model” in Africa is the same old one-man, one-party pony that has been around since the early days of African independence in the 1960s.  Time was when Zenawi, Museveni and Kagame were crowned the “new breed of African leaders” (by neoliberal imperators Bill Clinton and Tony Blair)  and given a free pass to suck at the teats of neoliberal cash cows such as the World Bank and the IMF. Today these dictators heap contempt on “neoliberalism” as a “band-aid” approach to development, criticize the “gunboat diplomacy” of the U.S. (whose hard working taxpayers have shelled out tens of billions of dollars to shore up these dictatorships in the last decade) and tongue-lash “extremist neo-liberal” human rights defenders and advocates for slamming them on their atrocious human rights record and mindboggling corruption. If neoliberalism did not work in Africa, why should the “China Model” work? 

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but flattery does not get you anywhere in economic development. The great absurdity of all African dictators is that they believe they can copycat “word-for-word” ideas and practices from different countries, systems and cultures and make it work in Africa.  For instance, in February 2012, Meles Zenawi literally believed he had the most perfect antiterrorism law in the entire world. He told his rubberstamp parliament with great pride and gusto, “In drafting our anti-terrorism law, we copied word-for-word the very best anti-terrorism laws in the world. We took from America, England and the European model anti-terrorism laws. It is from these three sources that we have drafted our anti-terrorism law. From these, we have chosen the better ones.” 

One cannot pirate, copycat or cut-and-paste an economic model in the same way as one would make knockoffs of  famous fashion accessories, popular brands of electronics or machine parts. But African dictators believe they can cut-and-paste the “China Model” in Africa and create economic miracles. But what they have succeeded in creating is the optical illusion of economic development by constructing shiny glass buildings and fancy roadways that go nowhere while sucking their national economies bone dry. As Global Financial Integrity concluded, “The people of Ethiopia are being bled dry. No matter how hard they try to fight their way out of absolute destitution and poverty, they will be swimming upstream against the current of illicit capital leakage.” That is what the “China Model” means in Ethiopia, and for that matter in much of Africa where it is followed.

Fightin’ Eagle in Africa?  

So far we have heard a screaming Eagle grousing about the unfair advantage, immorality, amorality,  opportunism and new colonialism of the Dragon. But will we ever see a fightin’ Eagle standing up to a fire-breathin’ Dragon in Africa and “win”?  

The U.S. “battle plan”, other than the “moral, humanitarian, do good” human rights rhetoric, is to do too little too late. In 2000, the U.S. enacted The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) followed by the Africa Investment Incentive Act of 2006  to substantially expand preferential access for imports into the U.S. from designated Sub-Saharan African countries. These laws were intended to be substitutes for a Free Trade Agreement and enable reforming African countries the most liberal access to the U.S. market. By creating effective partnerships with U.S. firms and encouraging African governments to reform their economic and commercial regimes, the U.S. hoped to change and improve its long-term trade relations with Africa and open vast opportunities for Africans. As of  2011, U.S. trade with sub-Saharan Africa accounts for about 3 percent of total U.S. imports and 1 percent of U.S. exports. Oil makes up more than 90 percent of the $44 billion generated by U.S. imports from the AGOA countries. These laws have produced little success in achieving their aims. 

Earlier this month, U.S. Senator Chris Coons, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs released a report (“Embracing Africa’s Economic Potential”) which underscored the “clear and pressing need for increased U.S. economic engagement in sub-Saharan Africa.” The Report argued that “increased trade facilitates growth for U.S. businesses as well as our African partners, simultaneously strengthening our own economy and Africa’s emerging markets.” It made several recommendations urging the development of a comprehensive strategy for increased U.S. investment in Sub-Saharan Africa, reauthorization and strengthening of the AGOA, removal of economic barriers and engagement of the African diaspora community in the United States. It will be hard to fight a Dragon with Eagle feathers!  

How about an “Africa Model”?

I like to ask naïve questions. For instance, I ask not why China built the African Union Hall but why 53 plus African countries could not chip in or borrow the chump change needed to build the most symbolic building on the continent representing the independence, unity and hope of all African peoples?  By the same token, I do not ask why an increasing number of African countries choose to follow the “China Model” but rather why they avoid  following an African model such as the “Ghana’s Model”?

I am a big fan of Ghana. In July, 2009, in one of my weekly commentaries I asked one of my naïve questions: “What is it the Ghanaians got, we ain’t got?”. I argued that present day Ghana offers a reasonably good, certainly not perfect, template of governance for the rest of Africa. Ironically, it is to Ghana, the cradle of the one-man, one-party rule in Sub-Saharan Africa, that the rest of Africa must now turn to find a model of constitutional multiparty democracy.

Ghana today has a functioning, competitive, multiparty political system guided by its 1992 Constitution. Political parties have the constitutional right to freely organize and “disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programs of a national character”.  Tribal and ethnic parties are illegal in Ghana under Article 55 (4). That is the secret of Ghana’s political success. The Ghanaians also have an independent electoral commission (Art. 46) which is “not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority” and has proven its mettle time and again by ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

Ghanaians enjoy a panoply of political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. There are more than 133 private newspapers, 110 FM radio stations and two state-owned dailies in Ghana. Ghanaians express their opinions without fear of government retaliation. The rule of law is upheld and the government follows and respects the Constitution. Ghana has a fiercely independent judiciary, which is vital to the observance of the rule of law and protection of civil liberties. Political leaders and public officials abide by the rulings and decisions of the courts and other fact-finding inquiry commissions.

It is possible to do business with China without following the “China Model.” Ghana has done billions of dollars worth of business with China without using the “China Model”. In 2012, Ghana snagged a loan from China for a cool USD$3 billion. In 2010, Ghana signed deals with China for various infrastructure projects valued at about $15 billion. Ghana is proof positive that Africa can do business with China without becoming “Western” China. Ghana is certainly not a utopia, but she is living proof that multiparty constitutional democracy can help salvage African countries like Ethiopia from political and economic dystopia. Why not adopt the “Ghanaian Model” continent wide?

“Let’s put aside the moral… and just talk  straight realpolitik” 

As Secretary Clinton rhetorically urged, “Let’s just talk straight realpolitik.”  In international politics, there are no moral standards. The rule is might and self-interest makes right. That principle of international amorality has been taught since the ancient Greek historian Thucydides described relations between nations as anarchic and immoral. The world is driven by competitive self-interest. Machiavelli and Hobbes warned against mixing morality in the relations between nations as did Hans Morgenthau in the mid-20th Century. He wrote, “Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place.” International amorality has its own virtues. Zeng Huacheng, a counselor at the Chinese Embassy in Ethiopia says, “It’s not China versus America. It’s whatever helps the Ethiopians. If we don’t help, Africans will suffer.” So also said the fox guarding the hens in the henhouse, “I am here only to protect and serve you.” 

There is an old African saying that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. What could happen when the Dragon and the Eagle fight in Africa? Who is likely to win? Not to worry. There will be no fight as there was no fight at the Berlin Conference in 1884; only a gentlemen’s agreement.

I believe there will be a great struggle for the destiny of Africa – a destiny that beckons Africa to take the low road of developmental thralldom and another that summons Africa to rise up and follow the high road to freedom. That struggle will be decided in a contest between the powers of “greedom” and the powers of freedom. 

Will Africa’s destiny be determined by the Dragon, the laughing-to-the-bank hyenas, the Eagle or the people of Africa? The dragon is symbol of power and strength. The Emperor of China used the image of the dragon to project his imperial ambitions and domination. The Eagle represents freedom. The Eagle can freely sweep into the valleys below or fly upward into in to the boundless sky. The hyena thrives on carrion. But the African people have the power of freedom in their hands and in their souls. 

Speaking truth to power means speaking truthfully to power and letting the chips fall where they may. I see great similarity in what the Chinese and the U.S. are doing in Africa. China gives money, loans, aid and gifts to corrupt-to-the core African governments. Doesn’t the U.S.? The only difference is that China is honest about it. China does not speak with forked tongue. It does not talk our ears off about human rights violations and crimes against humanity and turn around and reward the criminals with billions of dollars in aid and loans. For China, there is no human rights, it’s all strictly business. Aah! But isn’t U.S. talk of human rights in Africa as beautiful as the sight of the Bald Eagle in flight against the background of snow-capped mountains and the deep blue sky? But the U.S. first minds its business before minding African human rights. I am afraid human rights in Africa for both countries is a simple issue of mind over matter. They mind their businesses, don’t mind African dictators and the human rights of Africans don’t matter!

Perhaps the answer to the question of Africa’s destiny was given long ago by the man elected as the “Father of African Unity” at the 1972 Ninth Heads of States and Governments meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).  H.I.M. Haile Selassie at the 1963 inaugural O.A.U. Summit told his fellow African heads of state:

… Africa was a physical resource to be exploited and Africans were chattels to be purchased bodily or, at best, peoples to be reduced to vassalage and lackeyhood. Africa was the market for the produce of other nations and the source of the raw materials with which their factories were fed…

…The answers [to the continent’s problems] are within our power to dictate. The challenges and opportunities which open before us today are greater than those presented at any time in Africa’s millennia of history. The risks and the dangers which confront us are no less great. The immense responsibilities which history and circumstance have thrust upon us demand balanced and sober reflection. If we succeed in the tasks which lie before us, our names will be remembered and our deeds recalled by those who follow us. If we fail, history will puzzle at our failure and mourn what was lost… May [we]… be granted the wisdom, the judgment, and the inspiration which will enable us to maintain our faith with the peoples and the nations which have entrusted their fate to our hands.

Thus spoke the African Lion!