U.S. Double-talking Human Rights in Ethiopia, Again!

June 30, 2013

by Alemayehu G. Mariam

As my readers know, I enjoy watchin’ American diplomats chillin’ out and kickin’ it with African dictators. I like watchin’ ‘em kumbaya-ing, back-pattin’ and fist bumpin’. I have trained myself to decipher their cryptic diplomatese spoken with forked tongue. I have also learned chew on their indigestible words with a whopping spoonful of salt and pepper.

Despite years of relentless effort, I have been unable to fathom their mendacity. I am mystified and spellbound by the depth of their duplicity and height of hypocrisy. Bewildered and frustrated, I was compelled to engage in a neologistic exercise and create a word that captured their culture of mendacity. I coined the term “diplocrisy” to refer to the deliberate and calculated use of double-talk, double-speak and double-dealing to misrepresent facts and mislead the inattentive public about what the U.S. is doing to actively promote human rights in Africa.

Diplocrisy is diplomatic hypocrisy in “lights, camera and action”. For instance, the diplocrites say, “We will work diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people…” Yet they turn a blind eye (or pretend to be legally blind) to the complete “closure of political space” in Ethiopia. (The euphemism “closure of political space” is what used to be called in the old days, oppression, repression and suppression.) The diplocrites promise to “work for the release of jailed scholars, activists, and opposition party leaders…”, but when Africa’s ruthless dictators tongue-lash them, the diplocrites become tongue-less (or tongue-tied) and their lips are sealed.

The diplocrites say, “When a free media is under attack anywhere, all human rights are under attack everywhere. That is why the United States joins its global partners in calling for the release of all imprisoned journalists in every country across the globe and for the end to intimidation.” The truth is they plug their ears to avoid hearing the pained whimpers of heroic journalists like Eskinder Nega, Reeyot Alemu, Woubshet Taye and so many other political prisoners chained deep in the bowels of Meles Zenawi Prison in Ethiopia. When they proclaim, “History is on the side of brave Africans…” and conveniently position themselves on the right side of the bed with Africa’s brutal dictators, I marvel at the height of their diplocrisy.

On June 20, 2013, I had another distressing opportunity to witness American diplocrisy in lights, camera, action when Donald Yamamoto, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs (and former ambassador to Ethiopia) testified before the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. Yamamoto presented testimony to answer a single question:  What is the U.S. prepared to do to improve the prospects for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia following the death of dictator Meles Zenawi?

Mr. Yamamoto’s answer, ungarnished with the sweet ambiguity of diplomatic argot, was “Not a damn thing!!!”

I find nothing surprising in U.S. inaction and aversion to action to help improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia or elsewhere in Africa. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Obama Administration does not give a rat’s behind about Ethiopian or African human rights. That does not bother me anymore. I am cool with it! I also do not mind if the diplocrites think we are “fools and idiots”, as the former U.S. U.N. Ambassador (currently National Security Advisor) Susan Rice chose to vicariously describe those of us who opposed the regime of Meles Zenawi. But I do mind when we are treated as “fools and idiots.” What I find outrageous is the audacity of diplocrites who give testimony under oath which insults our intelligence (or what little scrap of gray matter they think we have).

On January 20, Mr. Yamamoto gave testimony which went beyond insulting our intelligence. He testimony gave new meaning to the phrase “speaking with forked tongue.” When Mr. Yamamoto was an ambassador in Ethiopia in 2009, his position on what could and should be done to improve human rights in that country was crystal clear and radically different than was revealed in his testimony in 2013.

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto was confident, forthright, frank, veracious and scrupulous as he advised Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew about what could and should be done to promote human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia. In June 2013, Yamamoto’s testimony before the House Subcommittee on Africa  evasive, patronizing, platitudinous and clichéd and amounted to nothing more than an elaborate obfuscation of the truth about what the U.S. needs and has the capacity to do to help improve human rights in Ethiopia. In effect his entire testimony before the Subcommittee could be reduced to one simple proposition: The U.S. is not able, willing or ready to use its resources to help improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia!

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (6/23/2009):

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto, assessing the political and human rights situation, instructed Deputy Secretary Jacob Lew:

Your visit to Ethiopia comes at a time when the Ethiopian Government’s (GoE) growing authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, and ideological dominance over the economy since 2005 poses a serious threat to domestic stability and U.S. interests.  The GoE has come to believe its own anxieties about a fundamental shift in U.S. policy against it.  This self-induced crisis of confidence has exacerbated the GoE’s natural tendency of government control over politics, the economy and personal freedoms.  To pre-empt retaliation, the GoE has increasingly purged ethnic Oromos, Amharas, and others perceived as not supporting the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) from the military, civil service, and security services…

… The May 2005 elections and their aftermath continue to weigh heavily on Ethiopia’s domestic political scene, and as a result, the government is systematically closing political space in Ethiopia.  The U.S. Embassy has taken the lead in advocating for transparent and open national elections in 2010, the next major milestone in Ethiopia’s democratization process… Since 2005, the government has enacted laws which limit and restrict party politics, the media, and civil society… The April 2008 local elections saw the ruling party take over all but three of over three million seats…

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/2013):

In assessing the political and human rights situation in Ethiopia in 2013 for the Subcommittee on Africa, Mr. Yamamoto stated:

Ethiopia’s weak human rights record creates tension in our relationship and we continue to push for press freedom, appropriate application of anti-terrorism legislation, a loosening of restrictions on civil society, greater tolerance for opposition views, and religious dialogue. The ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) controls all aspects of government, including the legislative branch where the EPRDF and its allies hold 545 of 547 parliamentary seats. Political space in Ethiopia is limited and opposition viewpoints are generally not represented in government. In recent years, Ethiopia has passed legislation restricting press freedoms and NGO activities. 

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

Is the “Ethiopian government” less intolerant of dissent and less authoritarian and less ideologically dominant over the economy in 2013 than it was in 2009?

Does the “Ethiopian government” in 2013 have any “anxieties about a fundamental shift in U.S. policy against it”?

In the April 2008 local elections, the ruling party in Ethiopia took all but three of over three million seats. In 2010, the ruling party won 545 of 547 parliamentary seats (99.6 percent). What result does the U.S. expect in a “post-Meles” 2015 election?

In light of the “GoE’s natural tendency” to exercise total “control over politics, the economy and personal freedoms”,  when did the “GoE” stop its “preemptive retaliation of purging ethnic Oromos, Amharas, and others perceived as not supporting the ruling party from the military, civil service, and security services”?

In 2009, the “U.S. Embassy took a leading role in advocating for transparent and open national elections in 2010” which it described as “the next major milestone in Ethiopia’s democratization process”. The ruling party claimed victory in the 2010 election with a margin of  99.6 percent. Does the U.S. expect a 100 percent victory margin for the ruling party in the “next major milestone in Ethiopia’s democratization process” in 2015?

What specific measures or steps has the U.S. taken since 2009 in its “continued push for press freedom, appropriate application of anti-terrorism legislation, a loosening of restrictions on civil society, greater tolerance for opposition views, and religious dialogue” in Ethiopia?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (6/23/2009)

In 2009, Mr. Yamamoto advising Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew argued for swift, decisive and forceful action and urged a no-nonsense approach to dealing with the “Ethiopian Government” on the issue of human rights:

 …   Since 2005, the government has enacted laws which limit and restrict party politics, the media, and civil society… Laws have been passed regulating political financing, access to the press, and ability of civil society organizations (NGOs) to receive funding from foreign sources and participate in the political process… Without significant policy reform to liberalize the economy and allow mounting political dissent to be vented… [there could be] major civil unrest.  

The United States can induce such a change, but we must act decisively, laying out explicitly our concerns and urging swift action.  Because the GoE has enjoyed only growing international assistance and recognition despite its recent record, it currently has no incentive to veer from the current trajectory to which the EPRDF is so committed.  If we are to move the GoE, we must be willing to use USG resources (diplomatic, development, and public recognition) to shift the EPRDF’s incentives away from the status quo trajectory….

If we are to move them, though, we need to deliver an explicit and direct (yet private) message that does not glad-hand them.  We must convey forcefully that we are not convinced by their rhetoric, but rather that we see their actions for what they are…  We should [assure them]… that we are not trying to promote regime change, and that we are delivering a similarly explicit message of the need for change to opposition groups.

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/13):

In June 2013, Mr. Yamamoto told the Subcommittee on Africa that the best the U.S. could do was to “encourage Ethiopia to improve its human rights record”:

Post-Meles Ethiopia presents the United States with a significant opportunity to encourage Ethiopia to improve its human rights record, liberalize its economy, and provide increased space for opposition parties and civil society organizations. Post-Meles Ethiopia also presents a significant challenge since Ethiopia plays an important role in advancing regional integration and mitigating regional conflict in Somalia and Sudan. Our partnership with Ethiopia balances these interests by focusing on democracy, governance, and human rights; economic growth and development; and regional peace and security.

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

What “significant policy reform” has been taken by the “GoE” since 2009 to liberalize the economy and allow mounting political dissent to be vented?

In what ways has the U.S. acted decisively to get the “GoE” to relax application of its draconian media, civil society and other repressive laws in Ethiopia?  Have any of the “laws enacted in Ethiopia after 2005 limiting and restricting party politics, the media, and civil society” been repealed, modified or in any way tempered or mitigated?

Since 2009, what “incentives” (or disincentives) (including “diplomatic, development, and public recognition”) has the U.S. used to “induce change” or redirect the “GoE from the status quo trajectory”? Alternatively, how has the U.S. “acted decisively, laying out explicitly our concerns and urging swift action” by the “Ethiopian Government”?

Could Ethiopia experience a “spark of major civil unrest” in 2013-14 if the “GoE does not undertake significant policy reform to liberalize the economy, allow mounting political dissent to be vented”, competently manage the economy and “control inflation”?

When and why did the U.S. stop trying to promote “regime change” in Ethiopia?

When did the U.S. stop “glad-handing” and start fist bumping with the leaders of the regime in Ethiopia?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6/23/2009

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto told Deputy Secretary Lew that the “Ethiopian government” maintained a chokehold on the economy and that its claims of double-digit growth are fabrications:

Foreign investment restrictions are widespread, including key sectors such as banking, insurance, and telecommunications.  The state-owned Ethiopian Telecommunications Corporation (ETC) is the only service provider in the sector, creating an environment of poor telecom service and access.  In a country of nearly 80 million people, there are only 920,000 fixed phone lines, 1.8 million cell phones, and 29,000 internet connections.  The GOE maintains a hard line stance on these key sectors…

The GOE publicly touts that Ethiopia has experienced double-digit real GDP growth of over 11 percent in recent years.  The GOE predicts real GDP growth of 10 percent this year.  Many institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, dispute the GOE’s growth statistics, stating that Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate will most likely range between six and seven percent this year.

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/2013)

In June 2013, Mr. Yamamoto told the Subcommittee on Africa that

Ethiopia ranks among the ten fastest-growing economies in the world, averaging 10 percent GDP growth over the last five years. State-run infrastructure drives much of this growth. Our bilateral trade and investment relationship is limited by investment climate challenges and the lack of market liberalization… Currently about 100 U.S. companies are represented in Ethiopia. Total U.S. exports to Ethiopia in 2012 were $1.29 billion; imports from Ethiopia totaled $183 million.

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

Mr. Yamamoto: Which one of the following statements is false: 1) “Ethiopia ranks among the ten fastest-growing economies in the world, averaging 10 percent GDP growth over the last five years.” 2) Over the past five years, “Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate  most likely ranged between six and seven percent.”

Why is “foreign investment” from China (instead of the U.S.) more widespread in Ethiopia in 2013?

Ethiopia has “invested some US$14 billion in infrastructure development between 1996 and 2006 and made “exceptionally heavy recent investment in its telecoms infrastructure” and made “exceptionally heavy recent investment in its telecoms infrastructure”? What accounts for the fact that Ethiopia has the worst “telecom service and access” in all of Africa and quite possibly the entire world?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6/23/2009

In June 2009, Mr. Yamamoto advised Deputy Secretary Lew how to leverage U.S. aid to bring about human rights improvements in Ethiopia:

Ethiopia is now the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the preponderance of this assistance is humanitarian, including food aid… of which a significant share supplements the Government of Ethiopia budget…. The increasingly difficult operating environment and growing transaction costs for non-budgetary foreign aid and, in particular, the proposed tight restrictions on non-governmental organization (NGO) implementing partners, call for a reassessment of the mix and effectiveness of U.S. assistance to Ethiopia in order to support U.S. foreign policy objectives…

Dateline: Washington, D.C. (6/20/2013)

In June 2013, Mr. Yamamoto told the Subcommittee on Africa one of the proudest achievements of U.S. human rights policy in Ethiopia:

On democracy and human rights, we recently secured agreements to do media development training and open two community radio stations. Mechanisms such as our bilateral Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights Working Group, bilateral Economic Growth and Development Working Group, and Bilateral Defense Committee are useful tools for advancing our policy objectives in our three focus pillars. At the same time, we are public in our support for an improved environment for civil society, those we believe to have been subjected to politically motivated arrests, inclusive democratic processes, and rule-of-law. Making progress on this area will continue to be challenging and will require a great deal of creativity…. Ethiopia is a significant recipient of U.S. foreign aid, having benefited from over $740 million in FY 2012 assistance…

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

In 2009, you stated that a significant amount of U.S. humanitarian aid “supplemented the Government of Ethiopia’s budget….” Doesn’t use of “humanitarian aid” to “supplement the Government of Ethiopia’s budget” flagrantly violate 22 USC § 2151n et seq. (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) which provides in relevant part:

No assistance may be provided under subchapter I of this chapter to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.

Do you deny that the “Government of Ethiopia” has engaged and continues to “engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights”?

Is U.S. “humanitarian aid” still used in 2013 to “supplement the Government of Ethiopia’s budget”?

If the U.S. could use its aid leverage (through “a reassessment of the mix and effectiveness of U.S. assistance”) to bring about improvements in human rights in Ethiopia in 2009, why can’t it do the same in 2013?

You stated, “On democracy and human rights, we recently secured agreements to do media development training and open two community radio stations.” Is this the singularly proud outcome of “working diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people”?

Dateline: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 6/23/2009

In June 2009, Yamamoto cautioned Deputy Secretary Lew to understand the “Ethiopian Leadership’s Guiding Philosophy”:

Understanding Ethiopia’s domestic political and economic actions, and developing a strategy for moving the ruling party forward democratically and developmentally, requires understanding the ruling Tigrean People’s Liberation Front’s (TPLF) prevailing political ideology: Revolutionary Democracy. Hard-line TPLF politburo ideologues explain the concept in antiquated Marxist terms reminiscent of the TPLF’s precursor Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray…. As an extension of this philosophy, to the ruling party, development is their gift to Ethiopia, and their first priority.  While they accept assistance from the international community, they resent attempts by donors to tell them how development should be done.  The leadership believes that only they can know what is best for Ethiopia, and if given enough time, Ethiopia will transform itself into a developed nation.

Questions for Mr. Yamamoto:

Has the “Ethiopian leadership’s guiding philosophy” changed since the passing of Meles Zenawi?

Is the “Tigrean People’s Liberation Front’s prevailing political ideology of Revolutionary Democracy” compatible with the values of the Founders of the American Republic?

You stated that “while the GoE accepts assistance from the international community, they resent attempts by donors to tell them how development should be done.  The leadership believes that only they can know what is best for Ethiopia.” Does the TPLF “leadership” in 2013 believe that “only they can know what is best for Ethiopia”?

Does the U.S. share the TPLF “leadership’s” belief that “only the TPLF can know what is best for Ethiopia?

Of Fools and Idiots

I don’t mind them double-talking us as though we are “fools and idiots”. If they must relate to us as such, we demand to be treated as “Shakespearean fools”. Our silence in the face of outrageous lies may give the misimpression that we are ignorant, witless, fainthearted and without much sense or sensibility. But we know the simple truth; and that truth is human rights in Ethiopia is an afterthought for the Obama Administration. There is no need to double-talk us on human rights anymore. Just tell us straight that human rights in a world in which the U.S. is at war with terrorism is for the birds, not Ethiopians! We’d understand. In the final analysis, in the struggle for human rights in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa, we must draw our inspiration from our tower of power Nelson Mandela and keep walking that long road.  We keep on walking, let them keep on talking, double-talking…!

Does President Obama care for Africa?

June 27, 2013

by Dula Abdu

In June 2009, I wrote an article complaining that President Obama is ignoring Africa. Now, he has made this momentous trip does that mean he is paying attention to Africa. Hardly so.

What is bedeviling Africa is poor leadership and dictators? President George Bush gave more lip service than Obama in promoting democracy in Africa.  Africa has all the resources to be a politically stable and economically viable continent if it were not for the prevalence of corruption and dictators from Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea.

His primary focus has been in the Middle East and Afghanistan. He appears genuinely interested in disentangling the deeply rooted political problems of the Middle East and improving Muslim and Arab relations with America; however, can all this be at the expense of Africa?

The gross human rights violation in Africa pale to that of the Middle East and the plight of 800 million African masses remains totally in the back burner. President Obama has seen many of the leaders of the Middle East and has denounced the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and more but he has yet to fire any warning shot to the dictators of Africa.

President Obama is perceived as a transformation figure in Africa, as well as in the rest of the world. It will be a historical disaster if he does not take bold steps to transform Africa; most of all help it get rid of its worst enemy, the unaccountable, unelected and murderous dictators and vigorously promote the establishment of democratic foundation.

The old paradigm in the United States is that Africa is hopeless as it struggles with a massive epidemics, famine and ethnic conflicts often fanned by its own leaders, as in the case of Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Congo and others. To totally ignore the continent would imperil hundreds thousands of U.S. jobs, approximately 20 percent of Africa’s oil supply and an emerging market of close to a billion consumers.

Unfortunately, failure by the Bush administration to vigorously promote democracy promoted a number of dictators to emerge especially in East Africa with potential economic and political disaster for the region and the world. President Bush was more motivated in fighting terrorism than promoting democracy in the region.  However, dictatorship is the seed for terrorism, but most western leaders ignore it at their own peril.

Total ambivalence under President Bush and winning and dinning of Africa’s dictators by President Clinton has progressively made the plight of African people worse. The death, destruction, the suffering and the gross human rights violations arising from conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, Congo,  Gambela, Chad and other places far exceed the level of suffering experienced in the Middle East or Asia minor.

Raging ethnic tension primarily instigated by the divide and conquer policy of ruling oligarchy, combined with corruption and misapplication of resources are slowly killing the economy and the political viability of the continent. The biblical suffering in many countries, primarily manmade disasters have gotten so bad, a Marshall Plan is necessary to save Africa from political and economic collapse.

Currently, besides the political oppression, and ethnic tensions, some regimes have strangled the people and the economy through government ownership of land, Internet, telephone, and other vital industries leading to massive unemployment.

hrive and survive with U.S. largesse. For example, the regimes in Ethiopia will go by the wayside without massive U.S. aid. This gives the U.S. tremendous advantage to force democratic and economic changes in the continent.

Human rights records in many African countries are abysmal and are well documented by Amnesty International, the U.S. Congress, Human rights Watch, and independent media. Last year, some of the African dictators such as the one in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Eritrea appeared along with North Korean dictator in the Dictators of the Month Magazine. Unfortunately, in Washington some of them are beholden, wined and dined, as they disguise their “vicious dictatorship” by ingratiating themselves with the U.S. State Department and by hiring high power lobbyist using the money collected from the impoverished people of Africa. According to Ken Silverstein of Harper Magazine, Ethiopia spends $50,000 a month to make sure Washington does not notice the cruel and evil system and to portray the regime incorrectly anti-terrorist and democratic.

President Obama has also to avoid past pitfalls.

 In his book Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, journalist Keith Richburg rebukes some African-Americans for being too cozy with African dictators who bring untold misery to their own people.

In the Sudan, the U.S. should push vigorously for the genocide and war crime prosecution of Dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir and ratification of 1998 Rome treaty, which established the International Criminal Court . The successful prosecution of Milosevic and Charles Taylor demonstrated that nobody even a head state is not above the law.

I am sure President Obama can rise to the challenge if he dared too. Pushing democratic values and correct economic development strategies are critical to save the continent. With an investment of $13.3 billion under the Marshall Plan from 1948 to 1952, President Truman provided a lifeline to a devastated Europe and created strong ally for the U.S. At the end of the Marshall Plan in 1952, Europe recorded the fastest economic growth in history. President Obama can embark on the same mission to save Africa from economic and social collapse and open a huge market three times that of Europe for American businesses.

Dula Abdu, originally from Africa, is a U.S-based writer on foreign policy (note article was adopted from 2009 article from a similar topic).

.Egyptians, manipulated to revolt?

July 4, 2013

by Kiflu Hussain

If the detest for Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood came genuinely from Egyptians, I would welcome it since I detest ideologies constructed around ethnicity and religiosity.

However, I simply can’t buy the economy as an excuse to sack Morsi.Even angels can’t sort out a shambolic economy botched up by a half century military dictatorship within a decade let alone in a year. Of course, I heard the narrative that Egyptians got irritated with Morsi because he was busy propagating his Islamic ideology within Egypt and beyond instead of focusing on the economy that creates jobs and put food on the table.

That shouldn’t have been a surprise, or a disappointment in an Arabic world where Islam reigns with an iron fist.Hence, after electing a leader who campaigned on a Muslim brotherhood ticket, it’s certainly not fair to expect him not to do that. I also heard criticism that Morsi incurred the wrath of Egyptians by appointing unpopular figures thereby polarizing the nation.Ironically,many democratically elected leaders do that.Barack Hussein Obama of the US managed to retain Susan Rice, unpopular both in the US and overseas such as Africa,as his adviser and life still goes on.

What I fear happened is Morsi might have shown a tendency of promoting that brand of Islam as opposed to the brand in Saudi Arabia and the like that’s cozy with the West.Otherwise,we had been told, not so long ago, that he came to power by the ballot unlike the decadent sheikhdoms littering the Arabian land.And,since it’s not pragmatic anymore to prevent Muslim Brotherhood from coming to power through the democratic means like it was done in Algeria decades ago; and since outright coup d’ etat is no longer in vogue, you apply your expertise from centuries of experience in deception.Therefore,you galvanize the gullible public into a “revolution.”Then, in order to avert disaster and maintain “stability,” you unleash the military which you trained and armed to the teeth with a “road map.”

Like I said, I have no sympathy for any group anywhere that seeks power from narrower viewpoints such as ethnicity or religion. So this is not a requiem for Mohamed Morsi.However, as one ordinary Egyptian said on Aljazeera, “Morsi came by the ballot. And he should have left by the ballot not by force,” or at least unceremoniously like this which paves the way for more polarization. At any rate, if Egyptians found themselves to be manipulated in overthrowing Mohamed Morsi for other sinister forces like my runaway imagination smells conspiracy theory anywhere these days; I implore them to remember Alexander Pushkin’s words. This is what he’s said to have said in writing about “Delusions of Love.”

“It is not hard to deceive me; I am only too happy to be deceived.”

I expect Egyptians and all people under repression to continue showing the same spirit instead of disillusionment until their aspirations for freedom, justice and equality are met.

The Nile River is African and Ethiopia is its hub

July 2, 2013

Part one of five
By Aklog Birara, PhD

“ዓምላካችን ያበረከተላትን ይህን ኃብቷን (አባይን) ለሕዝቦቻቸው ሕይወትና ደህንነት በማዋል እንዲጠቀሙበት ከጎረቤት ወዳጂ አገሮች ጋር በለጋስነት በጋራ ለመካፈል ዝግጁ ብትሆንም፤ ይህን የውሃ ንብረቷን በቁጥር እየጨመረ ለሚሄደው ሕዝቧና በማደግ ላይ ላለው ኢኮኖሚ ጥቅም እንዲውል ማድረግ የኢትዮጵያ ተቀዳሚና የተቀደሰ ግዴታዋ ነው።”
ቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ፤ ጥቅምት 1957 ዓም

“Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits there from, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse.”

Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN General Assembly resolution 49/52 of December 1994

At the height of the Arab Spring in 2011, Al-Jazeera requested that I write commentaries on Ethiopian perceptions of the largely youth led and socially motivated revolution that was turning dictatorial societies upside down. I felt strongly then as I do now that beyond Ethiopian fascinations with popular revolutions in the Maghreb and especially in Egypt—whose ultimate outcomes are still uncertain–there are monumental and risk-prone strategic economic, existential and diplomatic dimensions with far reaching implications at play. 

Behind the respective societies and actors are external vested interested that wish to influence outcomes, namely, who wins and who loses in the process. As the sometimes violent demonstrations at Tahrir Square suggest, Egyptian society is torn apart into different directions. The military, the only Egyptian institution that remains intact and trusted by most Egyptians, has given the elected government and the opposition to resolve their quarrels. The contrast is that, such public demonstrations in search of justice, human dignity, genuine participation and democracy are disallowed in Addis Ababa. Ironically, both Egypt and Ethiopia are America’s friends; with Egypt’s current government leadership under President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood under heavy scrutiny in the West and in Israel. No one really knows where Egypt is heading.

In light of the dynamic changes in international relations and given material changes in the political economies of Sub-Saharan African countries, the future role of the Nile River and its major tributaries require deeper analysis and understanding, with a special focus on the adversarial relations of Ethiopia and Egypt. These are the two most significant countries in the Region with enormous potential to shape the future. These adversarial relationships have always revolved around one natural resource, namely, control of the Nile River, to which Ethiopia’s waters contribute slightly more than 85 percent. Historically, Egypt has managed to manipulate one super power against another–the Soviet Union against the US. It built the High Aswan Dam by persuading the USSR to finance it; and then switched sides and became America’s ally under Anwar Sadat.

 Ethiopia squandered its friendship with the US during the Dergue and the TPLF/EPRDF emerged as the lead beneficiary. In the process, Ethiopia lost Eritrea and its access to the sea. It is ironic that a ruling party that secured financing and diplomatic support from Egypt and other Arab countries as well as the US and that turned over Assab and other seaports to Eritrea is now determined to assert Ethiopia’s right over the Nile waters. Who would America support this time and why?More than 1,400 miles upstream in Ethiopia, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) that dominates the ethnic-coalition government of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) public dissent, expression of outrage for indignities, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement of indigenous people from their lands, nepotism, favoritism, administrative mismanagement, corruption and other forms of bad governance are virtually institutionalized and condoned by the governing party that has ruled the country for 22 years and intends to continue for more.

 President Barack Obama of the USA visited Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania and talked a lot about youth, the private sector, democracy, American investment, environmental sustainability and the like. He did not say much about repression, human rights violations, corruption, ethnic cleansing, the quarrel between Egypt and Ethiopia on the Nile or any hot issue that may anger dictatorships. However, the visit underscores America’s growing interest in the future of the African continent. This interest is more than commercial. It is strategic and long-term pivoted. Whatever has happened in the past, the Nile River and its future development and use are part of the American calculation. In the old days—under Haile Selassie and the Military Junta—any move on the part of Ethiopia to build a monumental dam on the Abay River would have been scuttled by the US either directly or indirectly. Things have changed dramatically. Although the degree of friendship may be different, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, South Sudan and Uganda—among the key upstream riparian countries—are America’s emerging strategic friends.

The key point here is that Ethiopia has benefitted the least from this enormous natural resource; but has an unquestionable right to do so in the future. Ethiopia’s future security and the prosperity of its growing population will depend on its readiness and capacity to harness its natural resources, especially its rivers and farmlands for the benefit of its people. Given increased demand for food and water, growing population, urbanization and industrialization, experts agree that water will be among the most critical sources of conflict in the future.

The above quotes from Emperor Haile Selassie and the UN General Assembly indicate that Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan African countries with stake in the Nile are on the right side of history and the world community knows and understands this. Article 5 (2) of the UN Watercourses Convention provides a legal basis or framework for equitable use of watercourses by riparian states. It further suggests that in the event of conflict, nations had an obligation to settle their dispute through the auspices of the International Court of Justice. The point of contention is that the principle of equitable use of watercourses embedded in the UN Convention conflicts directly with the Egyptian and Sudanese position of “historic rights.” These rights were conveyed to the two countries at the exclusion of and immense costs to Sub-Saharan African nations—the origins and rightful claimants of the waters of the Nile. 

This externally imposed Hegemony over the Nile was facilitated and supported by Great Britain, a world colonial power at the time. In essence, international law, agreements and norms disregarded the interests of Sub-Saharan African countries (SSA); never anticipated that these countries would grow and demand fair and equitable treatment at some point in the future.

An ancient feud

Setting aside the diplomatic haze that surrounds the issue, the growing tension over the development of the Abay River goes beyond ethnic, religious and political tensions and rivalry in Ethiopia. It is about national interest and security and future generations of Ethiopians. It is about long-term food security, employment generation, rapid modernization and prosperity. Egypt and Ethiopia have been rivals and adversaries since time immemorial. In light of this, the current tension between the two was both predictable and inevitable.

 This is because the agreements reached were patently one sided and unfair not only for Ethiopia; but also for other Black African countries. In the article, “The Nile Project: a hidden bomb? Or, a promise for shared prosperity,” I opined that Egyptian hegemony over the Nile was no longer viable or acceptable or defendable. I further suggested that Ethiopian opponents of the current ruling clique in Addis Ababa ought to be careful and should refrain from confusing a government leadership that is brutal, divisive and that will inevitably change and Ethiopia’s long-term national interests that should endure and support generations to come. People will not remain oppressed forever as Egyptians are showing us. Claim over and optimal use of the Abay and other rivers and tributaries is, in my estimation, a fundamental right of the Ethiopian people regardless of who governs the state.

 This is why I suggest that harnessing any river within Ethiopia’s boundaries for the benefit of the country and its 94 million people is beyond politics, religion and ideology. In some respects, it is about national survival and sovereignty. I believe that the Ethiopia people will ultimately prevail from two hurdles: the dictatorship hurdle and the hurdle imposed by colonial powers on Ethiopia’s right to use its watercourse to advance its development. Both are winnable over time.

The entire article written on the Nile for Al-Jazeera two years ago– translated into Arabic and disseminated throughout North Africa and the Middle East– is represented below; albeit with substantial elaboration. Its original content is intact. I am told that reaction from readers was “measured and civil.”

In light of recent developments and the accelerated construction of the “Renaissance Dam” and the vitriolic reaction from the Egyptian government and civil society, I will dig deeper into the socioeconomic, diplomatic and geo-political implications for all riparian states and especially for Ethiopia and Egypt. What do these countries want?

1. Ensure drinking water security for their people; “no water; no life” argument

2. Harness their waters, irrigate their lands and feed themselves; food security argument

3. Develop hydroelectric power and provide reliable, cheap and renewable energy for their societies; and export and generate foreign exchange ; the sustainable energy argument

4. Establish agriculture based and other industries; the industrialization argument

5. Promote tourism; the eco-tourism type of argument

6. Reduce water loss from evaporation; protect the environment and secure sustainability long-term; avert or reduce climate change argument

7. Expand fish farms; the food diversification argument

8. Improve water transport; the infrastructure argument

9. Generate employment; improve the standard of living argument etc. etc.

In short, Egypt and Ethiopia have similar needs and requirements. If we assume parity and fair play, Egypt and Sudan can no longer dictate the terms of future use whether individually or together. In the event Egypt continues to insist that its “historical rights” must prevail over fair and equitable use, “Ethiopia will then have few options but to go to the International Court of Justice for a peaceful resolution; use its power of legitimacy as a major source of waters and assert its claim its water shares” with backing and support from all the upriver states which happen to be “Black African” nations that were harmed in the past; or let Egypt take punitive other actions against Ethiopia, the last a defeatist option. Ethiopia is most likely to resort to the first two options. In either or both cases, Egypt’s and Sudan’s contentious and outdated “historic rights” arguments as a foundation of negotiation in the 21st century will not hold. These options assume that the international community, especially the US and other major powers support the African “equitable use” argument over the Egyptian “historical rights” argument. My estimation is that the US would ultimately opt for a win-win solution.

Unfortunately, Egyptian technical experts, intellectuals, civil society, opposition groups, government leaders and the military appear to share the common view that Egypt must not give up its “historical rights” argument. The “Group of the Nile Basin (GNB),” composed of an assortment of Professors from technical faculties, notably Engineering, Irrigation and Hydraulics have taken matters to the next level. Their ultimate objective is to “support the effort of the Government and decision-makers” through scientific research, analytical studies, scenarios and policy options. Their studies show that Ethiopia’s four large dam projects including the Renaissance Dam pose threats to Egypt’s security. They accuse the Ethiopian government of failing to consult in advance, to conduct “sufficient structural and hydrologic studies and environmental assessments” and to carryout world class technical analysis and design of these dams. 

To my knowledge and according to experts, the Egyptian and Sudanese governments never consulted with the Ethiopian government on any water use project that had consequences on Ethiopia and other upstream riparian states. Agreements in 1929 and 1959 took place without Ethiopian participation. The Aswan High Dam was constructed without any consultation. No outside power or group of experts challenged the Egyptian government concerning the size of evaporation emanating from the Dam etc. Egypt and Sudan constructed their dams unilaterally. For example, I there was no opportunity for third parties to come up with technical studies and designs to construct dams in upstream countries. The GNB concluded, “Reduction in the water share of Egypt will result in abandoning huge areas of agricultural lands and scattering millions of families. It would result in in increasing the pollution of the water streams and creating problems in the supply of water for drinking and industry. 3/

This technical analysis which does not offer the prospect of a win-win solution was presented to the Egyptian government, opposition parties and civil society. It provided more fodder to an already tense situation between the two countries. Making matters worse, the GNB offered the following recommendations to the Egyptian government thereby undermining Ethiopia’s national interests:

• “Request stopping the construction of the Dam until completion of negotiations
• The minimum requirement for the Egyptian Government should be that the maximum size of the Ethiopian Dam should not exceed 14 billion cubic meter compared to the 74 billion cubic meter” designed and under construction by Ethiopia
• Ethiopia to commit officially not to use the water behind the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for agricultural purposes
• Ethiopia to commit to give advance notice for future projects
• The design of the GERD to be reviewed by Egyptian experts.”

These are huge and unacceptable demands by Egyptian technical experts and scholars to which there is very little current parallel or best practice. A group of experts who are partisan have effectively recommended to their own government how the Ethiopian government and Ethiopian society ought to behave with regard to the water resources Ethiopia owns. Their central thesis is that the “major threat” to Egypt is the “result of the magnified (large) size of the dam.

” Contrary to my thesis in this essay, the experts feel strongly that “It is not a secret that throughout history, Egypt has never been an obstacle preventing the development in the African countries in general and the countries of the Nile Basin in particular.” It is not true that “Egypt has always been supporting the projects of common benefits to the people of the Nile Dam” except with respect to Sudan. 

The Imperial regime tried all it could to secure expertise and financing from major donors including the World Bank to construct major dams after a major study was conducted by the American Bureau of Reclamation. It failed because of resistance from Egypt and its allies. The United States was reluctant to support Ethiopia’s ambitions; as were most Western governments at the time. 4/

The national security and strategy meeting called and chaired by President Morsi on June 3, 2013 surfaced the dark side of Egyptian foreign policy which has been at play ever since anyone of my generation would remember. Has Egypt ever stopped subverting and sabotaging Ethiopian unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and development, especially the harnessing of its water resources at an optimal level? The prospect of war, “bombing the dam, arming and financing opposition groups” etc. is not new; and it is not in the interest of the Egyptian or Ethiopian people. Ethiopia did not start claiming its water resources after the Egyptian revolution that toppled Mubarak. On the contrary, “In fact, Ethiopia started work on the new dam in 2011 and had ‘been planning this and other projects on the Blue Nile’ for decades.

” Ethiopia’s otherwise weak and timid parliament “unanimously ratified the Nile Basin Cooperative Agreement on June 13, 2013 and thereby annulled all treaties on the Nile signed between 1891 and 1959 which gave Egypt hegemony over the Nile.” Therefore, the recommendation offered by the Egyptian academics and experts is incongruent with a rising and assertive Sub-Saharan Africa of which Ethiopia is a part. 5/

Whatever one may want to say about the political gridlock, incompetence of government officials and turmoil in the country, the consistency and harmony of Egyptian academic and expert view on the GERD is nothing less than impressive. It shows that Egyptian nationalism is still strong and enduring. This is in contrast to Ethiopian academics, individual intellectuals, political elites and opposition parties who do not seem to show a unity of purpose on compelling national policy issues such as building the GERD. Egyptians are doing both. They are fighting an increasingly non-secular and undemocratic government; while showing solidarity on the future of the Nile. Dr. Mamdouh Hamza, “one of Egypt’s leading hydraulic engineers” who studied the blueprint of the GERDG shares many of the central policy options of the GNB and recommends that:

a) “Ethiopia’s Dam must be used for electric power generation and never for irrigation

b) The price of electricity sold to Egypt and Sudan should be at cost,” thereby nullifying the value added and the market itself. Ethiopia does not dictate at what price Egypt should sell its gas and oil and its cotton and textiles; the latter is a result of the Nile.

c) Filling the waters of the Dam’s reservoir should be staggered over 6 years to reduce disruption to Egypt’s supply and

d) The operation of the hydro plant should be coordinated with Egypt,” thereby undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and diminishing its power. 6/

In comparison to the draconian recommendations of the GNB that simply give modern languages to colonial scripts, Hamza comes across as mild and reasonable, for example, on the question of staggering the fill of the reservoir. However, his fundamental prescriptions have more in common with his compatriots. They all undermine the entire intent of the GERD and Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness its waters without undue influence and pressure from Egypt or other third parties. What they are telling us is that nothing has changed for thousands of years and nothing should change for another thousand years. 

A Washington Post article by Griff Wifle on June 13, 2013, “Egypt frets and fumes over Ethiopia’s Nile Plan” says it all. “Since long before the Pyramids towered above the rich soil of the Giza, Egyptians have given thanks to the muddy waters of the Nile,” and have been assured that nothing will change its constant flow. Successive governments have known that their primary responsibility is to defend this sacred water—the source of life—by any means necessary.

In a nutshell, this is the Egyptian position. If you are an Egyptian, you have a solemn duty to yourself and to your country to defend the status quo. However, unlike 1929, 1959 and the rest of the 20th century, maintaining the status quo is antiquated. In a rapidly changing world with new vested interests and stakeholders, and a fast changing Sub-Saharan Africa, the status quo is no longer acceptable. The other side wishes to be heard in real terms. This will be the subject of Part two of the series.

Gloomy future for Ethiopia’s press freedom

Monday, 1 July 2013

source : The Maleda Times.

PRESS FREEDOM

Committee to Protect Journalists says Ethiopia has detained a reporter for covering land evictions. The project which involves the construction of a huge hydroelectric dam had forced farmers and locals to relocate.

Ethiopian journalist Muluken Tesfahun of the privately owned weekly newspaper Ethio-Mehedar was arrested while reporting on the return of thousands of farmers who had been forced from their land near the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. The government has admitted the March evictions were illegal, but so far no charges have been brought against the reporter.
DW spoke to Mohammed Keita, Advocacy coordinator for sub-Saharan Africa at the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York.

DW: What is known about journalist Muluken Tesfahun and the circumstances that led to his arrest?
Mohammed Keita: Muluken Tesfahun had been sent by his newspaper to interview residents who had been forcefully evicted from their homes in mid-April. They were some allegations of violence and even unconfirmed reports of deaths.

For months, the Ethiopian government maintained silence over the evictions until the Prime Minister in parliament finally condemned the evictions and invited the victims to return. Muluken had been sent to speak to people and collect their testimonies and also investigate their conditions, whether their return had been peaceful or not. In the midst of talking and interviewing people, he was arrested by police. He has been under police custody without charges

and has not been taken to court which is a violation of his constitutional right.
 The Ethiopian constitution has set a limit of 48 hours for detention before being taken to a court.


Do you know where he has been detained?


He is currently being detained in Asosa, capital of the Benishangul-Gumuz region. He has been moved a couple of times, because he was actually arrested in a rural village while he was still speaking to farmers. These farmers had been forcefully displaced. To this day, local authorities have not given an explanation as to why these evictions were taking place.


He is not the first journalist to be detained while working on this story is he?


He is the first one that we have documented, there might have been others. Sometimes journalists do not report such things for fear of government reprisal.


Why are the Ethiopian authorities so anxious to keep this story under wraps?


This falls into a long standing pattern of the Ethiopian government suppressing any news that counters the official narrative and propaganda that is projected to the world. The Ethiopian government does not tolerate any criticism of any kind. It has been vindictive against journalists who have raised questions about its policies and sensitive topics like dam construction or human rights issues, political dissent or the conflict in the Ogaden. Many of these issues unfortunately are suppressed and we do not have enough information about these issues because reporters can not even carry out basic reporting on the ground.

 They are under surveillance, they are arrested as soon as they speak to people. Most people as well are afraid of speaking to reporters because they are harassed and persecuted for speaking
truthfully to media. It’s a very closed environment where independent voices are stifled and civil society has been guided by laws similar to those in Russia. The government dominates the media and the political space at such a level that it has a free range to project its narrative unchallenged.

This newspaper (Muluken Tesfahun’s) is one of the rare newspapers left. Over the last two decades, under the Ethiopian ruling party, at least 72 newspapers have been forced
to shut under political pressure from the government.


Is there any chance that things might improve anytime soon?


Things are looking rather gloomy for press freedom in Ethiopia. The government has been on a repressive bent, especially since the contested elections in 2005. It has become increasingly authoritarian, it has been deepening ties with China’s communist party CCP, it has been leading Africa in censoring the internet, and prisons are filled with journalists and dissidents.

 Ethiopia only trails Eritrea among leading jailers of journalists. But still the government is a donor darling and western partner in counter-terrorism. Western powers have basically continued to look the other way.
Mohammed Keita is the Advocacy coordinator for sub-Saharan Africa at the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York.

The True Story of Che Guevara - The Documentary

THE WOYANE and ITS ‘’law of increasing poverity’’ IN Ethiopia

by Nathnael Abate( nathy de saint)

   Mass poverty is a catastrophe which is decreasing living standard of the mass that is created artificially by greedy grabbing of all available local public resources by individuals or groups. Human beings are not naturally created to be poor or to live under the roof of poverty.  Since all mankind is equal in birth regardless of his/her race, sex or status backgrounds. Economical poverty comes from mismanagement,uneven distribution of available resources,corruption through which few individuals get rich and the public suffers ,stealing  the public resources  and political unstability. In our country Ethiopia the intense poverty caused by ruling regime which is afflicting and suffering souls of millions. Poverty ever since its created it affected the lower society class but not the groups or individuals in power. During the famous Ethiopian famine those who were died were peasants, pastoralists and people who were at lower economical level.

The current Ethiopian regime and its families, friends and messengers are getting very rich and the Ethiopian economy defined at their economic status but not by the majority living status.  The ruling minority junta and its family company EFFERT which is the richest and wealthiest company in the country.  The company started its operation with 2.7 billion birr capital in 1991 and now the stolen Ethiopian public money makes the company one of world richest companies. Without any ones questioning , permission or  decision this company can extract, exploit and steal  resources from any part of the country.

 Another public resource stealing and exploiting company called Medrock Ethiopia owned by ‘’black billionaire’’ Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi or also known as ‘’the Saudi star’’ .This man is using all the local resources without any controlled manner again from all over the country. For instance we can look at LEGADEMBI gold mine from which tons and tons of gold mined,stolen and exploited by the company every year but no infrastructure, public services or another stuffs built for local people who are living in Legadembi. Gold is a nonrenewable resource which is greatly exploited from the region by foreign man which made him the wealthiest man in the world and left the public poor .Most of this man's wealth and treasures come from unexploited regions which is property of Ethiopia and ethiopians but controlled and used by one foreign person. There are far more crimes committed by Woyane and its exploitative friend ‘’the Saudi star’’.

For instance in the name of investment,forced displacement of residents and native people from their native place in Gambella  western  Ethiopia,  ethnic cleansing of Amhara’s  from South and Gumuz regions,which is crime against humanity. The diminishing forest resource of the country is lumbered and deforested by military officials and Generals of Woyane.  The country and people are missing their green gold resource for forever but the destructive angles of woyane earning profit of million dollars from forest lumbering. Newly introduced system of privatization of public resources are another ‘’theft web of woyane’’ .

  If the privatization is used and implemented in proper manner it is better for protecting properties from damage and carelessness but the Ethiopian regime privatization is purposely planned for stealing . For instance the privatization of electric company:- here as the price of electric bill arises per kwh the public have to pay more and more per kwh and the company getting high profit. People who are able to pay the increasing price of electric bill will have an access to electric and these who are not able will eventually be excluded from the service. We can see that during the increase of price of goods (eg. inflation in 2011 was 40% and still now there is inflation) in Ethiopia there is no increase in salary or another measures taken to stabilize the situation.

Here I am not dealing about top officials of woyane or rich merchants, but I am talking about the poorest people like physical labourers, factory workers or other poorly paid people since most population of the country is categorized in lower economic level.  Woyane introduced to Ethiopian economy the system which is called Free market(sometimes known as laissez-faire) economy which refers to the price of goods and services determined by the force of supply and demand in market. This system was wrongly introduced to Ethiopia again for stealing and exploiting the poor .

 Here the government and traders ( rich merchants) share the trading techniques intentionally due to this the price of things vary from shop to shop sometimes up to 100 percent price difference could be seen for the item with the same size and length .For example you may pay for a piece of cardboard box with the same size and volume in one shop 2 birr, in next shop 5 birr or more and cost of basic goods are as high as sky touch which is uncontrolled intentionally to make life hard for poor.

 N.B:- free market system is by its self not exploitative but the system of government derives it to go to the wrong direction. The price of domestic goods cost as much as the imported goods. For example the price of basic goods such as housings, teff, berbere, coffee, sugar, beans and some rest  increased from 35 to 76 percent from the year 2007—2013. This artificial price increasing and uncontrolled system of Woyane  worsened the lives of millions and millions of Ethiopians. The woyanes ( TPLF)  immoral beasts from jungle horrifying the life of  Ethiopians by its pseudo economic development propaganda .

 The economic development of one country is improvement of the living standard of the whole people living in the territory of that country.Now a day’s life is getting harder for poor and the country is not able to feed its own people. Here the situation should be seen from the majority point of view. The woyane,its families and friends are controlling all Ethiopian economy.  Their exploitative,oppressive and theft web let them become richer and richer while the exploited and common society at lower level are getting poorer and poorer. This what is known as ‘’ law of increasing poverty’’. The basic measure of economic development certain country is not measured by economic status and richness few groups or individuals but the whole population or community of certain country with improved living standards.

                                                        DIL LE ETHIOPIA HIZB