Neglected Identity – A Special Issue of Biftuu – Barii: Seenaa as Sanait

By Seenaa Jimjimo* | April 10, 2014

Even though my story is not as compelling and thrilling as the story of “Chaltu as Helen,” I still find it perplexing to see some Oromos introduce themselves in two characters. Perhaps, you are wondering what I am referring to. Let me take you through the story. It was just this past Sunday; I ran into a beautiful young Oromo woman. Just after she had walked in through the doors with her husband, she introduced herself to me with a typical Habesha name. I couldn’t pronounce her name, but I introduced myself as well. With excitement on her face, she told me her real name was … (let me just say, another typical Oromo name). Now, I am not in any way denigrating her for falling short of stating her real name to herHabesha friends; I was rather heartbroken and saddened by the fact this happened too often.

It is no surprise to me, as it is no surprise to you, that there are too many Oromo men and women who simply want to blend with Habesha identities easily by neglecting who they are. In fact, I have no problem using the name Ethiopia to define where you have come from. I understand it is the easiest and shortest thing to say to non-Ethiopians, and to receive warm welcome from your best “Habesha” friends, whom some of us dearly want.

However, have you considered the other side, the damages you are causing? Perhaps not; if you have done that, I believe that you will most likely make a better choice. The simple statement of your Ethiopianizationdoes not only renounce your Oromummaa, but it also leads you to lose the priceless opportunity to teach your true identity to others. Your statement makes you to acknowledge that you are indeed just another Habesha from that country. Remember the notion of “Ethiopianization” will force you to lose the noble opportunity of becoming a role model to the young generation, that looks up to you and to your peers, to claim who they are as Oromos. You know more than anyone, your people and your nation were (are being) persecuted and killed for simply being Oromos. In fact, most us come to this country claiming the Ethiopian government persecuted our parents or us ourselves.

I recommend each Oromo person to speak your mother tongue aroundHabeshas. For some reason, the best-friend, whom you have known too well, will show you their different side, the side you have never thought they have in them; perhaps, you already know that, maybe that is why you want to avoid bringing up your identity. For me, I have seen it too many times;Habeshas acting surprised that I am an Oromo, and that I don’t speak their language, or even worst, giving me the “eye” because I have announced I am proud to be an Oromo.

On the other hand, I’m a witness to the changes in the country so calledEthiopia. It was just eight years ago that the Ethiopian embassy staffer thought it was funny an Oromo person requested for a translator. Eight years later, I have witnessed great changes and pride to be an Oromo. Here at home, where I have lived for over half of my life, I have met so many young Habesha men who claim to be mixed/half-Oromos. Perhaps, some of these men are motivated to get my number; nevertheless, it makes me happy to know that the once-illegal identity has finally become a popular thing. I just want to acknowledge those changes have come with so much blood and struggle of the Oromo.

While our battles are far from being over, I would like to state that I understand the argument some of us (Oromos) make. Some of us will say, “Our problem is not with the name Ethiopia, rather the Ethiopian government, or even worst, not the Ethiopians, rather their leaders.” I say to you that the name Ethiopia and the government are one and the same. Whether it is the Tigrayan or the Amhara leaders, or their kin foot-soldiers, all have committed the same crimes against the Oromo. When their leaders mutilated and murdered our innocent men and women in such places as Aannolle and Calanqoo, their kin foot-soldiers supported them. Even today, over a century later, their kin foot-soldiers celebrate the leader that had committed numerous crimes against humanity against the Oromo people. Habeshas want the millions of Oromo lives lost by their genocide to be forgotten; our identity to be lost so we can accept Ethiopianization to become Amharas when they dream wildly. Remember, not a century ago, but today, Oromos are still being persecuted for simply being born as Oromos.

Amazingly, here in the West, far away from home, they still seem to control some of us with their spell. The American saying goes, “if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and tastes like a pig, chances are ‘it is a pig’.” Remember, if we talk like them; dress like them or name our kids like them, then we have become them. The difference between them and us is just our culture, language and religions. With so much complexity in modern religions; truly, it is just our culture and language that differentiate us. In 2014, Habeshas expect us and our kids to speak their language. When we don’t, they ask “Why?!” – as if we are one and the same; worse, they make us feel inferior as we have failed to learn some important language. More importantly, we fail to ask them how come they don’t speak Afan Oromo when they were born and raised with Oromian milk and honey. What happens to the audacity, learning the culture and language of the country you reside? Of course, that does not apply to the Habeshas; they are the “chosen.”

The hardcore that I seem …
To give you an example of my experience, which had led me to who I am today, I would like to take you back to the Spring of 2013. As a last year graduate student in small town Illinois, I ran into a group of students – some of whom I knew, and others new faces. As I got close to the group of students, I noticed an unfamiliar face speaking directly at me in the language that seemed too familiar. Shortly after he had finished his statement, I told him that I did not speak that language. Angry and disappointed as he was, he walked away really fast. Everyone in the group (six people to be exact) smiled. Two second later, he returned with more of his language. Again, I said to him, “no offense, but I think I have told you I do not speak that language.” A good friend of mine, who knew me for almost three years, said, “I told you; she is not an Ethiopian; she is an Oromo.” Surprised and amused, he started laughing.

My colleagues and friends were so surprised by his act; they asked if we knew each other. While I understood my colleague’s confusion, I knew too well what his real aches were. I walked away with a smile on my face, saying to my friend, “clearly, he has a problem.” My friends shook their heads in agreement. Later that evening, two of my colleagues told me some of the things he was saying about me. He said, “He knows I speak the language, but I am trying to act American.” What he did not realize was that those people knew me, way long before he came, and everyone who had a chance to interact with me either as a classmate or a Student Representative (a Senator at Large) knew that I was always Oromo. Even though he failed to learn I was Oromo from his fellow classmates, the following week I taught him a lesson he would never forget. I am sure he had taken the lesson well, and he would never violate anyone else’s identity.

We are in America – the land of the free. It should not be up to someone, like the guys I mentioned, to tell us who we are. No one should define you; that time has passed. We should never alter our identity to please someone, and become something we are not. To some of us, it is time we face our darkest fear. There are far too many of us that believe in being Oromo, but continue to claim someone else’s identity. Our reasons might be different, perhaps many, but if not now, then when? Always remember, you can only overcome your fear only by facing it. To go back to my “little friend,” he later tried to tell me that he was in fact an Oromo from his dad’s side. He didn’t speak the language because he was born and raised in “Addis.” I think we all know what that means.

If you have read this far, you are probably wondering why I am writing about this now. I guess my answer would be, it is because of my recent encounter with the young Oromo lady whom introduced herself asHabesha, I mentioned above, and the place this month holds in my heart. I am not sure if everyone knows what the month of April represents. As the saying goes, it is no brainer to know little about your history. April 15^th is the day all Oromos should remember. It is Oromo Heroes/Heroines Day(Guyyaa Gootataa Oromoo), or the day we commemorate those who had fallen while paving the path to freedom for us. If you cannot celebrate this day for whatever reason, it is your duty to remember the men and women who sacrifices their precious lives to survive our identity, which we enjoy today. It is your responsibility to educate your fellow Oromos and non-Oromos what this day means to you and your people. The best way to represent your identity is through culture; culture is best kept by practice. As an Oromo, if we cannot agree on everything politically, I am certain that we can all come together to celebrate the national April 15^th.

Happy “Guyyaa Gootataa Oromoo!”

——————
* Seenaa Jimjimo is an Oromo Activist and can be reached at sjimjimo@gmail.com

=>gadaa

Two Sides to Ethiopia – the Plea for Press Freedom

BY JEAN-PAUL MARTHOZ | April 11, 2014

There are two Ethiopias. Or better said there are two narratives about Ethiopia.

On one side, there is the Ethiopia as celebrated by the international aid community and the European Union : a country which is growing fast and seriously fighting poverty, a country which wisely uses the considerable international assistance that it receives to channel it towards sustainable development.

On the other side there is the Ethiopia as criticized by press freedom and human rights groups. A country ruled by an authoritarian regime, the second largest jailer of journalists in Africa, a country which misuses laws on anti-terrorism and civil society regulation to chill speech and prevent journalists from doing their legitimate watchdog work.

Press freedom groups do not deny the economic and social realities of Ethiopia, but they also warn about the negative effects and features of the current model that Ethiopia’s sycophants do not want to address.

“In Ethiopia,” writes Committee to Protect Journalists Africa advocacy coordinator, Mohamed Keita, “the leadership is often credited with fast economic growth, strides in health and education, and bold policies to modernize infrastructure and agriculture. Yet, this misses a wider context… Ordinary Ethiopians face a rising cost of living, joblessness, and a stranglehold on the economy by the ruling party… ”

In fact, adds Mohamed Keita, “the international perception of Ethiopia has been distorted by the government’s tight control of information, including the banning of independent journalists and the imprisonment of prominent journalists. ”

The troubling element in the first vision is that it seems to imply that the lack of a vibrant press and civil society to some extent explains the good economic fortunes of the country. If you want to grow, shut watchdog journalism under the accusation that it is irresponsible and inflammatory, and promote lapdog media, under the argument that it is contributing to development by writing positively about the government’s policies and hiding internal tensions and disagreements.

Opposing press freedom and development is a false choice. As Rob Mahoney, deputy CPJ director writes in an essay just published in Attacks on the Press 2014, “the broader role of journalists and media organizations, as a voice for the poor and powerless, a provider of information and ideas, a forum for politics and culture, and an engine of change is acknowledged by economists and political scientist as vital to economic development and democracy.”

This equation between freedom and sustainable development is increasingly present in the international debate. The Report of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda published in May 2013 underlines that in order to reach the goal of good governance, a condition of development, two conditions have to be fulfilled : “ensure that people enjoy freedom of speech, association and peaceful protest, and access to independent media and information.” The theme will be addressed by UNESCO and international press freedom groups during the World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2014.

Governments and especially democratic governments should bridge the gap between the two visions of Ethiopia. Citizens of a democratic state have the right to expect that their governments respect the values they proclaim in all and every international forum, like this week in Brussels, at the opening of the EU-Africa summit. “Realpolitik can integrate human rights,” as renowned international lawyer Eric David said. “It just requires that governments decide to do so.”

The EU in particular should be consistent with its own statements of principles : “An accountable government, built on free speech, democratic institutions, a vibrant civil society, and respect for human rights and the rule of law are crucial for peace and stability in Ethiopia », the European Commission states on its website. The EU and Ethiopia are engaged in dialogue in the framework of article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement on those important issues, aimed at building common understanding and commitment on these values.”

As a major economic partner the EU has leverage in Ethiopia, as Ana Gomes has just stated. It should use it to ask the Ethiopian government to abide by the international rules and values that they have promised to respect by signing and ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1993, by joining the Cotonou Agreement and by being a member of the Human Rights Council.

The EU should also relay the voices of these brave Ethiopians, like Reeyot Alemu, Eskinder Negan and others who adhere to universal norms of freedom and justice. They share the values that the EU is bound to defend within its own borders and in its foreign relations.

Jean-Paul Marthoz is the Europe representative for Committee to Protect Journalists.

=>ayyaantuu

Britain funds human rights abusers in Ethiopia

The UK government is providing financial aid to human rights abusers in Ethiopia through funding training paramilitaries, who perpetrate summary killings, rape and torture in the impoverished African country, local media reported. 
Through its foreign aid budget, the UK government provides financial support to an Ethiopian government security force known as the “special police” as part of its “peace and development programme”, which would cost up to £15 million in five years, The Guardian reported. 
The Department for International Development warned in a leaked document of the "reputational risks” of working with organizations that are “frequently cited in human rights violation allegations", according to the report. 
The Ethiopian government’s counter-insurgency campaign in Ogaden, a troubled region largely populated by ethnic Somalis is being enforced by the 14,000-strong special police. 
This is while police forces are repeatedly accused by Human Rights Watch of serious human rights abuses. 
Claire Beston, the Amnesty International's Ethiopia researcher, said it was highly concerning that Britain was planning to work with the paramilitary force.

More at presstv

Report on Renaissance Dam notes concerns for Egypt, Sudan

---

A general view shows construction activity on the Grand Renaissance dam in Guba Woreda, Benishangul Gumuz region, March 16, 2014.  (photo by REUTERS/Tiksa Negeri)

AUTHOR                                   TRANSLATOR(S)
Ayah Aman                               Rani Geha
CAIRO — Al-Monitor obtained a hard copy of the final report by the International Panel of Experts (IPE) about their assessment of the effects and repercussions of building the controversial Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

Read The report was completed on May 31, 2013, and copies were delivered to the governments of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. However, the report remained confidential and its technical details undisclosed, but was particularly critical of Ethiopia’s assessment of the dam.

An Egyptian diplomatic source who is familiar with the Nile water file told Al-Monitor, “The Egyptian government has rejected publicizing the report because they were planning to use it as a pressure card in the negotiations with Addis Ababa, to reduce and modify the specifications of the dam’s construction and to reduce the expected negative impacts on Egypt. The report serves the Egyptian position even though the negotiations are stalled.”

The negotiations, which began between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia in three rounds in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, in November-December 2013 and January 2014, might be unable to reach an agreement on how to implement the recommendations contained in the IPE report. The technical negotiations were deadlocked, and Egypt has started taking legal and international escalatory steps against Ethiopia.

According to the report — whose 48 pages are each signed by all 10 experts on the panel — the panel noted a number of general concerns about their assessment of the studies submitted by Ethiopia. Most of those studies were completed after the project started. Moreover, environmental and social studies have not been able to demonstrate the dam’s impact on the downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan.

The report also highlighted that the engineering and safety studies have not reached the technical level to start the project, and Ethiopia did not provide feasibility and cost studies to the IPE.

The IPE was formed after negotiations and mutual visits between the prime ministers of Egypt and Ethiopia following the announcement of the construction of the Renaissance Dam. The IPE’s goal was to build trust and assess the dam’s impact on the downstream states. There was agreement on the terms of reference for the IPE’s work at a meeting of the three countries’ water ministers on Nov. 29, 2011. During the meeting, Egypt expressed its fears about the dam. They then agreed on choosing 10 experts, two from each country — Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia — and four international experts, according to the report.

Although Ethiopian and Egyptian experts signed the report and approved its content, the Ethiopian government still insisted on building the dam without waiting for the other studies to be completed, amid assurances by Ethiopian officials that the dam would not affect Egypt’s water security, without providing guarantees that allayed Egypt’s fears.

The IPE report divided its assessment of the 153 studies submitted by Ethiopia into three areas:

• Dam engineering: The IPE assessed the Ethiopian studies ​​in this area and said that the basic design criteria have only explained the general nature of the dam without giving details about whether the dam is suitable for the conditions of the region. Also, the current design did not take into account the capabilities to operate the dam during times of drought and the amount of water that can be released to produce electricity.
• Water resources and hydrology: The IPE concluded that the general plan did not present a model of operation or measures of the water flow rates to downstream countries. Thus, the IPE could not assess the real impact of the dam on the water flow to Egypt and Sudan. Also, the potential impact of climate change on the flow system was not studied.

The report pointed out that the preliminary results of a simulation study designed by Ethiopia for the storage lake indicated that the initial process of filling this lake might not affect Egypt during years with rainfall. But the report warned that filling the lake during drought years would cause the High Dam in Egypt to have lower operating levels, at least through the first four years. Moreover, there would be a strong impact on the water supply to Egypt and a loss of energy.

• Environmental and socioeconomic impact: The report said that the environmental impact assessment studies did not provide a vision about the dearth of oxygen caused by flooding the plants and organisms in the vicinity of the dam. The estimated area to be flooded with water is 1,874 square kilometers (723.5 square miles), which will present technical and financial challenges. Also, no vision was provided about how the dam would affect the environment in downstream countries, in light of expectations that it would harm agriculture in the area and the riparian forest on the Blue Nile, as well as damage groundwater supplies along the Blue Nile.

The report said that the studies provided by Ethiopia were optimistic and most should be reconsidered, which requires joint action between the three countries to resolve these outstanding technical problems.

The dispute between Cairo and Addis Ababa is still at an impasse after the intransigence of both parties. Neither agreed to new rounds of negotiations despite the passage of nearly a year since the IPE report, which recommended technical solutions to the problems that might be caused by the dam. The report also recommended that Egypt and Sudan be given clear guarantees that the dam will not harm their future. Meanwhile, the Egyptian government is escalating its campaign against Ethiopia to pressure the latter to cease construction of the dam.

Read =>al-monitor

Ethiopia: Where conscience is constantly on trial

In Ethiopia, Muslim leaders are facing an unjust trial for crimes they did not commit.

Awol K Allo Awol K. Allo is a Fellow in Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Currently 29 Muslim leaders are on trial in Ethiopia charged under its anti-terrorism law [AFP/Getty Images] A high profile trial against protest leaders - intellectuals, activists and elected members of "The Ethiopian Muslim Arbitration Committee" - is shaking the Ethiopian political landscape. The government argues that the accused harbour "extreme" Islamic ideologies. It accuses them of conspiracy with terrorist groups to overthrow the government and establish an Islamic state in Ethiopia. The accused have professed their innocence and denied the charges. In the courtroom, they present the prosecution's case as the continuation of repression by legal means, which resembles the totalitarian perversion of truth and justice of Stalinist and Apartheid regimes. While letting the legal process take its course, the accused are exposing the agonising and ultimately insoluble contradiction between the government and its laws. They protest the complicity of the court in the ultimate travesty, daring to speak truth to power, a la Daniel Berrigan: "You cannot set up a court in the kingdom of the blind, to condemn those who see, a court presided over by those who would pluck out the eyes of men and call it rehabilitation." The indictment In December 2011, Muslim activists began a peaceful protest against what they saw as a coerciveimposition of a little known sect of Islam called al-Ahbash and its teachings on Ethiopian Muslims and their leaders. In the following months, protesters elected a 17-member "Arbitration Committee" to lead the protest. This protest was unique in many ways: It was innovative and playful. It was a renegade movement that refused to be threatened by prosecution or persecution and appealed to ideals and values more profound than "crime and punishment". People & Power - Land for Sale After months of intrigues, negotiations, and all manners of malicious turns and twists, the government brought its fight against the community into the courtroom. By picking one of the most explosive charges available, the government transformed the political act of protest into a criminal act of terrorism. By criminalising people's cries for dignity and justice, by twisting their dissent and moral objection into a shocking security threat, the indictment transforms the proclamation of dissent into an act of terror. The trial A criminal trial "is an indictment of individual behaviour". The trial expresses and represents the normative idea of "calling to account". It marks a moment at which a body-politic calls one or more of its members to account for a violation of its norms. In "calling to account" the body politic names the accused as a party to a dispute. This act of naming signifies something central to the legitimacy of the trial: It gives the accused a "speaking position". The accused should be entitled to give an account of themselves and the dispute in which they are named; the right to contest the allegation. The notion of "calling to account" imposes a great responsibility. It means that the government must treat the suspects as responsible moral agents, and must allowed them "a voice in the interpretation of those norms". The accusers must submit themselves to the same rules they apply to the accused - even more so when the accused is a public adversary. In a proper trial, "those who conduct the trial are also on trial themselves". This trial, however, is the complete negation of these principles. In fact, it is the most outrageous fraud imaginable. It is a fraud that best represents the vile baseness and moral bankruptcy of those in power who use the authority of the law and the devices of justice to mute peoples' cries for truth and dignity. In the course of this trial, the government trampled on every facet of their fair trial rights, including their right topresumption of innocence, the right to open and public trial, the right to examine witnesses and contest evidence. It produced and broadcasted a fictitious thriller movie - Jihadawi Harekat - complete with tortured confessions, hearsays, and a nest of vile gossips - all in the name of fighting terrorism. For the accused, this is a trial of conscience - the purely moral act of dissent against the regime's outrageous attempt to convert the entire community into a new religious sect. This, then, is not a trial aimed at revealing truth and determining guilt or innocence. It is a hostile act, an individualised act of war designed to extend the state's power of prosecution and punishment beyond legal limit. To be sure, it is an authentic show trial designed to squash dignity and crush collective resistance to this revolting crime. Courting conscience For the accused, this is a trial of conscience - the purely moral act of dissent against the regime's outrageous attempt to convert the entire communityinto a new religious sect. As defendants in a show trial, they know that they could not be found innocent without the government being guilty and they insist on using the moment of the trial to proclaim, defend, and espouse those notions and ideas that compelled them to act in the face of jail and torture; to expose the indelible filth that sullied the Ethiopian justice system. They want to assume the role of prosecutor and judge, and communicate this sorry state of affairs to the public gallery - a strategy reminiscent of black liberationist movements of the last century. They insisted that their trial be held in the Millennium Hall, the largest hall in Addis Ababa, so that they would turn the event into a "repertoire of resistance". While they expect neither mercy nor decency from the court, they know that the spectre of its violence will continue to unsettle it from within and precipitate its normative renewal. As two of the prisoners, Abubaker Ahmed and Ahmedin Jebel, told the court, "We stand before the court not because we expect justice but because we wanted to bear witness to history." They know that law produces a determinate effect but its meaning and content cannot be exhausted in one single determination. They may be found guilty and condemned but they know that the conscientious subject is not totally exhausted or absorbed in this single condemnation. They know that some of the most revered individuals in the history of enlightened thought, whether historical figures such as Jesus of Nazareth and Socrates, or those who changed history in our own time such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, have been accused and condemned under the law. For subjects that are torn between obeying unjust laws and following their conscience, for those who encounter dehumanising and death-dealing legislations and institutions, dissent is an absolute calling that comes from the inner most sanctum of the spirit. When the state mobilises unjust laws to condemn the innocent, disobedience becomes an absolute responsibility that transcend all manners of private calculations. Finally, if we look beyond the surreptitious violence of adjudication; if we attend to that which escapes the innocence of courts and their symbolic personification of power; we will discern the promise of a transformative renewal made possible by these renegade claims.  Awol K Allo is a Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. =>aljazeera