Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Ethiopia – Land for Sale

( Al Jazeera ) As the economy thrives, we examine the plight of Ethiopians forced from their land to make way for foreign investors.Just a few decades ago, Ethiopia was a country defined by its famines, particularly between 1983-1985 when in excess of half a million people starved to death as a consequence of drought, crop failure and a brutal civil war.

Against this backdrop, it is impressive that in recent years, Ethiopia has been experiencing stellar economic growth. The headline statistics are certainly remarkable: the country is creating millionaires faster than any other in Africa; output from farming, Ethiopia’s dominant industry, has tripled in a decade; the capital Addis Ababa is experiencing a massive construction boom; and the last six years have seen the nation’s GDP grow by a staggering 108 percent.

But it is not all positive news, because for all the good figures there are still plenty of bad ones.
Around 90 percent of the population of 87 million still suffers from numerous deprivations, ranging from insufficient access to education to inadequate health care; average incomes are still well below $1500 a year; and more than 30 million people still face chronic food shortages.
And while there are a number of positive and genuine reasons for the growth spurt – business and legislative reforms, more professional governance, the achievements of a thriving service sector – many critics say that the growth seen in agriculture, which accounts for almost half of Ethiopia’s economic activity and a great deal of its recent success, is actually being driven by an out of control ‘land grab’, as multinational companies and private speculators vie to lease millions of acres of the country’s most fertile territory from the government at bargain basement prices.
At the ministry of agriculture in Addis Ababa, this land-lease programme is often described as a “win-win” because it brings in new technologies and employment and, supposedly, makes it easier to improve health care, education and other services in rural areas.
“Ethiopia needs to develop to fight poverty, increase food supplies and improve livelihoods and is doing so in a sustainable way,” said one official.
But according to a host of NGO’s and policy advocates, including Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and the Oakland Institute, the true consequences of the land grabs are almost all negative. They say that in order to make such huge areas available for foreign investors to grow foodstuffs and bio-fuels for export – and in direct contravention of Ethiopia’s obligations under international law – the authorities are displacing hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples, abusing their human rights, destroying their traditions, trashing the environment, and making them more dependent on food aid than ever before.
“The benefits for the local populations are very little,” said renowned Ethiopian sociologist Dessalegn Rahmato. “They’ve taken away their land. They’ve taken away their natural resource, because these investors are clearing the land, destroying the forest, cutting down the trees. The government claims that one of the aims of this investment was to enable local areas to benefit by investing in infrastructure, social services … but these benefits are not included in the contract. It’s only left up to the magnanimity of the investor.”
And those investors, he continued, are simply not interested in anything other than serving their own needs: “They can grow any crop they want, when they want it, they can sell in any market they want, whether it’s a global market or a local market. In fact most of them are not interested in the local markets.”
He cited as an example a massive Saudi-owned plantation in the fertile Gambella region of south west Ethiopia, a prime target area for investors: “They have 10,000 hectares and they are producing rice. This rice is going to be exported to the Middle East, to Saudi Arabia and other places. The local people in that area don’t eat rice.”
But the most controversial element of the government’s programme is known as ‘villagisation’ – the displacement of people from land they have occupied for generations and their subsequent resettlement in artificial communities.
In Gambella, where two ethnic groups, the Anuaks and the Nuers, predominate, it has meant tens of thousands of people have been forced to abandon a traditional way of life. One such is Moot, an Anuak farmer who now lives in a government village far from his home.
“When investors showed up, we were told to pack up our things and to go to the village. If we had decided not to go, they would have destroyed our crops, our houses and our belongings. We couldn’t even claim compensation because the government decided that those lands belonged to the investors. We were scared … if you get upset and say that someone stole your land, you are put in prison. If you complain about being arrested, they will kill you. It’s not our land anymore; we have been deprived of our rights.”
Despite growing internal opposition and international criticism, the Ethiopian government shows no sign of scaling the programme back. According to the Oakland Institute, since 2008, an area the size of France has already been handed over to foreign corporations. Over the next few years an area twice that size is thought to be earmarked for leasing to investors.
So what does all this mean for the people on the ground? In Ethiopia – Land for Sale, filmmakers Veronique Mauduy and Romain Pelleray try and find out.
Source :- Al Jazeera
Ze-Habesha Website may contain advice, opinions, and statements of various information and content providers. The Website neither represents nor endorses the accuracy of information or endorses the contents provided by external sources. All blog posts and comments are the opinion of the authors.

US House Appropriation Bill Requires Increased Accountability from Ethiopia as Prerequisite for Funding – SMNE

PRESS RELEASE. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, DC–. Is United States policy towards Ethiopia shifting? For years Ethiopians, social justice groups, human rights organizations and civic groups have been calling on donor countries to demand greater accountability from the Government of Ethiopia for funds received, citing the lack of political space, endemic injustice, the repression of basic freedoms and widespread human rights crimes; however, now, the people of Ethiopia have reason to expect that the climate of impunity is changing.
The United States House Appropriations Committee has included stringent new requirements of accountability from the Government of Ethiopia in a section of the new 2014 bill that directly addresses Ethiopia. (Please refer to the sub-section of the bill below.) It links the release of U.S. funds designated for Ethiopian military and police forces to Ethiopia’s implementation of corrective policies that would address the declining state of human and democratic rights in the country, including in the Somali Region of Ethiopia where access to the area must be given to human rights and humanitarian organizations. New steps are also to be required that would document actions taken by the government “to investigate and prosecute members of the Ethiopian military and police who have been credibly alleged to have violated human rights.” This is commendable because it is the accountability we have been calling for since the investigations following the Gambella massacre. The names are there but what has always been missing is the impartial judicial system.

The law also prohibits funds appropriated to Ethiopia under the headings, “Development Assistance” and “Economic Support Fund” that are available for the lower Omo Valley and the Gambella region to be used directly or indirectly in the forced evictions of the people. Rather, it is to be used to “support initiatives of local communities to improve their livelihoods” and requires that these initiatives “be subject to prior consultation with affected communities.”
Additionally, it requires the Secretary of the Treasury “to instruct the United States executive director of each international financial institution, like USAID (United States Agency for International Development), the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund), to oppose financing for any activities that directly or indirectly involve forced evictions in Ethiopia.” This means in any area of the country. Finally the people of Ethiopia have been heard. The United States’ decision, as the largest donor to Ethiopia, will make a difference; hopefully, other donor countries will follow.
If this had been a jury hearing, the burden of proof would have been established. We want to thank those on the House Appropriations Committee for including this in the bill. We also want to thank those in the House and Senate who are responsible for passing this section of the bill, finally pressuring the Government of Ethiopia to be more accountable for its use of U.S. taxpayer funds and more accountable to its own citizens.
Others within the U.S. House, like Congressman Christopher Smith, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, should also be lauded for his continued work which is still in process. Reportedly, that bill will call for democratic reforms in Ethiopia and is a result of the House Sub-committee hearing on Ethiopia last June.
We also want to recognize the work of many different organizations and individuals who have contributed to this outcome through advocacy, research, investigation, documentation, appeals, legal actions, organizing and networking. Such efforts take commitment, resources, perseverance and time, but eventually these efforts can become the leverage necessary for meaningful changes in Ethiopia, like have been accomplished after years of work in countries like South Africa, Chile, and Ghana.
This should encourage Ethiopians and those fighting for reforms in Ethiopia to do more and to not give up. Even with this new law in place, individuals, communities and organizations—both Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian—are critically needed to monitor the situation on the ground; otherwise, compliance may only be rhetoric or on paper. We are hopeful other countries will follow suit.
We know donor countries have a history of aligning with Ethiopia, despite its democratic failings, because it has been the most stable country in a neighborhood of failing and failed states; however, overlooking its deficiencies has weakened its prospects for sustainable stability, increasing the risk that simmering tensions and ethnic divisions within the country could erupt into ethnic violence that could destabilize the entire region. On the other hand, due to Ethiopia’s strategic position in the Horn of Africa and its central importance to Africa, a more democratic Ethiopia could offer much to the continent as well as to global partners. Internal corrections will move the country in the right direction.
Over the coming year or more leading up to the next election in Ethiopia, Ethiopians must be working hard to press for the opening up of greater political space, the implementation of meaningful reforms and engaging in more dialogue across lines of isolation and alienation. This means that reconciliation efforts must come to the forefront. It is a time for truth-tellers, reconcilers and agents of change. This cannot be left in the hands of a few. Yes, Ethiopians should be grateful to those supporting the passage of this bill and for those advocates of freedom, justice and human rights in the world who have helped us and continue to do so; however, ultimately, with God’s help, we Ethiopians must free ourselves.
For those within the TPLF/EPRDF- led government who may not initially be pleased with this new bill or the one being advanced by the House, we encourage you to think forward to an Ethiopia that has a place for both “our children” and “your children” only because meaningful reforms were implemented. Come to your senses. Let us implement it with genuine diligence. We the people will do our share. We urge you to do the same.
The freedom we envision in a New Ethiopia is not only for those living under oppression, but it is also for those who are doing the oppressing for “no one is free until all are free.” If meaningful reforms are to happen, we must start talking with each other rather than about each other, even if we disagree. Let us start the discussions with the following critical issues which have kept our country in shackles:
1. Release political prisoners and journalists
2. Repeal the Anti-terrorism law
3. Repeal the Societies and Charities Proclamation
4. Open up political space and restore basic freedoms such as of expression, association and religion
5. Re-establish an independent media and judiciary
No society is at peace until the basic rights of all of the people are observed; not given to only a few based on someone’s favored ethnicity, gender, political viewpoint, religion or other distinction, but given equally because we are all human beings, given life, dignity and value by our Creator God. The New Ethiopia has to start in the hearts, souls and minds of the people, not only of the oppressed, but also of the oppressor. This new bill requiring more justice for all people in Ethiopia is a gift to all of us! Let us use this God-given opportunity for the common good of the Ethiopian people of today and tomorrow! ======================= =====================
For media enquiries, more information including interview requests, contact Mr. Obang Metho, Executive Director of the SMNE. Email: Obang@solidaritymovement.org
SMNE ( www.solidaritymovement.org ), is a non-political and non-violent social justice movement of diverse people that advocates for freedom, justice, good governance and upholding the civil, human and economic rights of the people of Ethiopia, without regard to ethnicity, religion, political affiliation or other differences. The SMNE believes a more open, transparent and competitive market economy, supported by viable institutions and reasonable protections, which provides equal opportunity, will result in greater prosperity to the people rather than keeping it in the hands of a few political elites.
————————————————————————————–
A copy of the sub-section of the House Appropriations Bill (2014):
AFRICA (p. 1294)
SEC. 7042.
(d) ETHIOPIA.—Funds appropriated by this Act that are available for assistance for Ethiopian military and police forces shall not be made available unless the Secretary of State—
(A) certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Ethiopia is implementing policies to—
(i) protect judicial independence; freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion; the right of political opposition parties, civil society organizations, and journalists to operate without harassment or interference; and due process of law; and (ii) permit access to human rights and humanitarian organizations to the Somali region of Ethiopia; and (B) submits a report to the Committees on Appropriations on the types and amounts of United States training and equipment proposed to be provided to the Ethiopian military and police including steps to ensure that such assistance is not provided to military or police personnel or units that have violated human rights, and steps taken by the Government of Ethiopia to investigate and prosecute members of the Ethiopian military and police who have been credibly alleged to have violated such rights.
(2) The restriction in paragraph (1) shall not apply to IMET assistance, assistance to Ethiopian military efforts in support of international peacekeeping operations, countering regional terrorism, border security, and for assistance to the Ethiopian Defense Command and Staff College.
(3) Funds appropriated by this Act under the headings ‘‘Development Assistance’’ and ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ that are available for assistance in the lower Omo and Gambella regions of Ethiopia shall—
(A) not be used to support activities that directly or indirectly involve forced evictions; (B) support initiatives of local communities to improve their livelihoods; and (C) be subject to prior consultation with affected populations.
(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director of each international financial institution to oppose financing for any activities that directly or indirectly involve forced evictions in Ethiopia
Ze-Habesha Website may contain advice, opinions, and statements of various information and content providers. The Website neither represents nor endorses the accuracy of information or endorses the contents provided by external sources. All blog posts and comments are the opinion of the authors.

በልቡ የሸፈተ ህዝብ የካድሬዎች ጋጋታና ሽብር አይገታውም!

January 27, 2014


    በዲያስፖራ የአረና ትግራይ ድጋፍ አስተባባሪ ኮሚቴ የተሰጠ መግለጫ

    ሰሞኑሰሞኑን በትግራይ የህወሓት መሪዎችና ካድሬዎቻቸው ከየመንደሩ የተውጣጡ ነብሰ ገዳይ፣ ስብሰባ በታኝና አፋኝ የዱሪየ ቡድኖችን በተለያየ መልኩ በማደራጀት በአረና ትግራይ አባላትና አመራር ላይ የከፈቱትን አዲስ የመንጥርና የድብደባ ዘመቻን አስመልክቶ

    ህወሓት/ኢሕአዴግ በትረ ስልጣኑን ከተጎናፀፈና ካደላደለ ወዲህ ከሱ የተለየ አመለካከትና ሃሳብ ያላቸው ወገኖች ሁሉ የተለያዩ ቀለማ ቀለሞችን በመቅባት፣ የፈጠራ ስም በመለጠፍና ሰበብ አስባብ በመፈለግ በቀጥታም ሆነ በረቀቀ መንገድ የመመንጠር፣ የማፅዳት፣ የመሰወር፣ የማሰር፣ የመግደልና እርስ በርስ የማናቆር ስራ ዋነኛ የስርዓቱን ባህርይ መገለጫ ሆኖ መቆየቱ እሙን ነው። የእርምጃው ዋናው ምክንያትም እውነት ተቃዋሚዎቹ የሀገርና የህዝብ ጠላቶች ስለሆኑ አይደለም። ነገር ግን ጥያቄያቸው “ስለ ሀገራችንና ህዝባችን ጉዳይ እኛም ያገባናል!! አባቶቻችን ደም ከፍለው ያቆዩልንን ሀገር የመጠበቅ የኛም ግዴታ ነው!! ዘላቂ ልማትና ዕድገት የሚመጣው እውነተኛ ዲሞክራሲ፣ የሕግ ልዕልና፣ ፍትሕ፣ ነፃነት፣ ሰላምና አንድነት ሲረጋገጥ እንጂ በጡንቻ አይደለም!! ሕገ መንግስቱ የሰጠንን የመናገር፣ የመፃፍ፣ የመደራጀት፣ የመንቀሳቀስ፣ የእምነት፣ የመምረጥና የመመረጥ ነፃነታችንን ይከበር!!” ብለው ሰላማዊና ሕጋዊ መንገድን ተከትለው በቆራጥነት ስለተንቀሳቀሱና ስለጠየቁ ብቻ መሆኑን ማንም ቅን ህሊና ያለው ኢትዮጵያዊ ሊገነዘበው የሚችል ጉዳይ ነው።
    ሰሞኑን የመድረክ አባል ከሆኑት የፓለቲካ ድርጅቶች አንዱ “በአረና ትግራይ ለሉዓላዊነትና ለዲሞክራሲ” አባላትና ከፍተኛ አመራር ላይ እየደረሰ ያለው ግፍና አፈና ማየቱ በቂ ይመስለናል። የአረና ትግራይ ፈጣን ዕድገትና በህዝቡ ዘንድ ተቀባይነት እያገኘ መሄድ ያስደነጋጣቸው የህወሓት ካድሬዎችና መሪዎቻቸው እንቅስቃሴውን ለመግታት የማይፈንቅሉት ድንጋይና የማይሸርቡት ተንኰል እንደሌለ በተደጋጋሚ አይተናል። ዛሬም እንደለመዱት አዲስ የማጥቃት ስልት በመቀየስ ነብሰ ገዳይ፣ በታኝና አፋኝ የዱሩየዎች ቡድን በተለያየ መልኩ በሕቡእና በግልፅ በማደረጃት በአረና አባላትና መሪዎች ላይ አዲስ የመንጥር ዘመቻና ጥቃት ጀምሯል።
    የማጥቃት ዘመቻው ቀደም ብሎ በሽሬ እንዳስላሴ የተጀመረ ሲሆን ሰሞኑን ደግሞ በባሰ መልኩ በአዲ ግራት ከተማና በሌሎች አካባቢዎችም በስፋት ቀጥሏል። በዚሁ ተከታታይ ዘመቻቸው ያነጣጠሩት አረና ትግራይ የጠራውን ስብሰባ እየተከታተሉ መበተን፣ ህዝቡን ወደ ስብሰባው እንዳይሄድ በተለያዩ ዘዴዎች ማስፈራራትና ማሰናከል፣ በታኝ የዱሩየዎች በዱን በማደራጀት ለመበጥበጥና ለማወክ ያለ የሌለ ሀይላቸውን በማንቀሳቀስ ስብሰባዎችን እንዲቋረጡ አድርጓል።
    ጉዳዩን በቅርብ ተከታትለን እንዳረጋገጥነው የሚያሳዝነውና የሚያስገርመው ስብሰባውን መበተኑና መቋረጡ ብቻ ሳይሆን ህዝቡን ለመቀስቀስ በአካባቢው የተሰማሩ በሶስት ከፍተኛ የአረና ትግራይ መሪዎች በአፋኝና በታኝ ቡድን እንዲደበደቡ ማደረጋቸውና ማሰራቸው ነው። የዚሁ ጥቃት ሰለባ ከሆኑት ሰዎች ውስጥ አቶ አስገደ ገብረስላሴ የቀድሞ የህወሓት መስራችና አስልጣኝ የነበሩ፣ አቶ አብርሃ ደስታ የመቀሌ ዩኒቨርሲቲ የፓለቲካ ሳይንስ መምህርና ተመራማሪ፣ አቶ ዓንዶም ገብረስላሴ የዓረና ማእከላይ ኮሚቴ አባልና የህዝብ ግንኙነት ሃላፊ ይገኙባቸዋል።
    በአንጋፋ ወንድሞቻችን ላይ የደረሰባቸው ኢ ሰብኣዊ ጥቃት እጅጉን ያስቆጣንና ያስገረመን ቢሆንም በኛ እምነት ይህ ሁሉ ግፍና መሰሪ ተግባር በድምር ሲታይ የሚከተሉትን ሓቆችንና ክስቶችን የሚያመላክቱ የስርዓቱን ባህርይ ገላጭ ናቸው ብለን እናምናለን።
    1. ህወሓት ታሪክ፣ ባህልና ሕግ የማይገዛው፣ መሰረታዊ እውነታዎችንና ዲሞክራሲያዊ መርሆዎችን የሚፃረርና የህዝቡን ሉዓላዊ ህልውና የሚያፈርስ የጥፋት መንገድ እየተከተለ በመሄድ ላይ እንደሆነ የሚያሳይ የቀቢፀ ተስፋ እርምጃ መሆኑን ራሱ በራሱ ጋሃድ እየሆነ መምጣቱ የሚያመላክት ነው።
    2. ይህ ዓይነቱ ጭካኔ የተሞላበት ድርጊት የሚያሳየን ህወሓት ራሱን ከመንግስትነት ወደ ተራ ዘራፊነትና ማፊያነት በመቀየር የዜጎችን ድህንነት ለመጠበቅ የማይችል ሕገ አልባና የሻገተ ስርዓት መሆኑን ራሱን በራሱ እያስመሰከረ ያለ ድርጅት መሆኑን እንገነዘባለን። አንድ መንግስት በራሱ ህዝብና በገዛ ወገኑ ላይ ነብሰ ገዳይና አፋኝ ቡድንን በማደራጀት ዜጎቹን በአደባባይ ማስደብደብ ማለት የባዕድ ወራሪ እንኳን ያላደረገው ከዚህ የባሰ ጭካኔ፣ ውድቀትና ዝቅጠት አለ ብለን አናምንም።
    3. የህወሓት ፀረ ህዝብ ተግባር ለይስሙላ ስለዲሞክራሲና ስለየብዙሃን ፓርቲ ስርዓት ይናገር እንጂ በተግባር በህዝብ ፊት ቀርቦ ለመከራከርና ለመዳኘት አቅምና ሞራል የሌለው፣ በህዝቡ ዘንድ ምን ያህል የተተፋና ጊዜ የጣለው ድርጅት መሆኑን ቁልጭ አድርጎ የሚያሳይ ነው። ህወሓት የትግራይ ህዝብን ነፃነትና ደህንነት ጠባቂ ለመሆን ቀርቶ የነገ የሀገር ተረካቢና ተስፋ የሆነውን ወጣት በነፃነት አየር ተኰትኵቶና የወገንና የሀገሩን ፍቅር ተላብሶ እንዳያድግ ወኔን የሚያኰላሽ ትውልድ ገዳይ ድርጅት መሆኑን ከተግባሩ በላይ ሌላ ምስክር የሚያሻ አይደለም።
    4. ህወሓት የትግራይ መንግስት ነኝ ይበል እንጂ ራሱ የፃፈውን ሕገ መንግስት እንኳ ጠንቅቆ የማያውቅ፣ በተግባር የሕገ መንግስቱን መሰረታዊ መርሆዎችን የሚፃረር ስራ የሚሰራ አፍራሽ ድርጅት መሆኑን ራሱን በራሱ እያስመሰከረ ይገኛል። የትግራይ ህዝብ እየተዳደረ ያለው ራሱ ባፀደቀው ሕገ መንግስት መሰረት ሳይሆን ገና በበረሃ የነበረው የደደቢት የካድሬ ሕግ መሆኑን ካለው ተጨባጭ ሁኔታና ከተግባራቸው መረዳት ይቻላል።
    5. ህወሓት የትግራይ ህዝብ ነፃ አውጪ ነኝ በማለት የትግራይ ህዝብ ነብዪ መስሎ ለመቅረብ ይሞክር እንጂ በተግባር ግን የታገለለትን አላማ የሚፃረር ስራ የሚሰራና የህዝቡን ተስፋ እያጨለመ የሚገኝ ድርጅት መሆኑን ራሱ በራሱ እያስመሰከረ ይገኛል።
    6. የጥቃቱ መንሲኤ ካድሬዎቹ እንደሚሉት የአረና ትግራይ አባላትና ደጋፊዎቻቸው የህዝብ ጠላት ስለሆኑ፣ ሕግ ስለጣሱ፣ የትምክሕተኞች አመለካከት ስለሚያራምዱ ወይም የደርግ ስርዓትን ዳግም ለመመለስ የሚታገሉ ስለሆኑ አይደለም። አረና ትግራይ ሕገ መንግስቱ የሚጠይቃቸው መመዘኛዎችን አሟልቶ በሕጋዊ መንገድ ተመዝግቦ በሰላማዊ መንገድ የሚታገል ድርጅት መሆኑን ይታወቃል። ይሁን እንጂ “አያ ጅቦ ሳታማኸኝ ብላኝ” እንደሚባለው ሁሉ ከጥቃቱ በስተጀርባ ያለው ሚስጢር ግን ባንድ በኩል ገዢው ፓርቲ በሀገር ደረጃ በተለይም በትግራይ ምድር እነሱ የማይቆጣጠሩት ትርጉም ያለው ነፃ የፓለቲካ ድርጅት እንዲፈጠር ፍፁም አይፈልጉም። በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ በትግራይ ህዝብ ላይ ያላቸው ንቀትና ዝቅተኛ ግምት የሚያሳይ ነው። ሕብረተሰቡ በፓለቲካ ድርጅትና በህዝብ መካከል ያለው ግንኙነትና ነፃነት፣ የዲሞክረሲ “ሀ ሁ”፣ ሕገ መንግስታዊ መብቱንና ታሪኩን በትንሹ ያውቃል ብለው ቢገምቱት ኖሮ እንዲህ ዓይነቱ ዓይን
    ያወጣ አረሜናዊ ተግባር አይፈፁምም ነበር።
    የተከበራችሁ በሀገር ውስጥና በውጭ የምትኖሩ ውድ ኢትዮጵያውያን!!
    እኛ በዲያስፓራ የምንኖረው የአረና ትግራይ የድጋፍ አስተባባሪ ኮሚቴና መላ የትግራይ ተወላጆች በሀገራችን ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ በየማዕዝናቱ በተለይም በበንሻንጉል፣ በጋምቤላ፣ በደቡብና በሌሎች ቦታዎች በወገኖቻችን ላይ የሚፈፀሙ አፈናዎችና እንግልት በቅርብ ስንከታተልና በተለያየ መልኩ ድምፃችንን ስናሰማ ቆይተናል። በቅርቡ በሳውዲ ዓረቢያ በሚኖሩ ኢትዮጵያውያን ወንድሞቻችንና እህቶቻችን ላይ የደረሰው ልብ ሰባሪ የሆነ አሳዛኝና አሳፋሪ ዜና ስንሰማም በቁጣ ስሜት በመነሳሳት በያለንበት ከሌሎች ወገኖቻችን ጎን በአደባባይ ቆመን ጭኾናል። አውግዘናልም። ዛሬም በተመሳሳይ መልኩ እንደተለመደው በትግራይ በወገኖቻችን ላይ እየተካሄደ ያለው ጥቃትም ከዚሁ ተለይቶ የማይታይ ስለሆነ አሁንም የተሰማንን ቁጣና ብሶት ይህንን የጋራ መግለጫ በይፋ እንድናወጣ ተገደናል። ያልታደለች ሀገር ሁሉጊዜ መርዶ ነውና!!
    ትግራይ እንደነ አሉላ አባ ነጋና ዮሐንስ የመሳሰሉ የብዙ ጀግኖች ዓፅም የተቀበረባትና አኩሪ ታሪክ ያላት ምድር ብትሆንም ዛሬ ህዝብዋ በአንድ ቤተሰባዊ ቡድን ለሚመራ ፓለቲካዊ ድርጅት በሞኖፓልና በንብረትነት ለማገልገል የተፈጠረ ህዝብ አድርገው በመቁጠር እንደ ህፃን ልጅ አፍህን ያዝ እየተባለ በካድሬ ዱላ እየተኰረኰመ ሲኖር ማየች እጅግ የሚያሳዝን የታሪክ ጠባሳ ነው። ስለሆነም ህወሓት በህዝቡም ሆነ የተለየ አመለካከት ይዘው በሚንቀሳቀሱ ወገኖቻችን ላይ የሚያካሂደው የስነ ልቦናና የአክል ጥቃት የዲሞክራሲ መርህ የሚፃረር ኢ ሰብኣዊ ተግባር ብቻ ሳይሆን የዜጎች ሕገ መንግስታዊ መብት የሚጥስ ሕገ ወጥ ተግባር ስለሆነ ድርጊቱን እናወግዛን። እንዲሁም በግፍ የታሰሩ ወገኖቻችን ከእስር እንዲፈቱና በነሱ ላይ ድብደባ ያደረሱ የማፊያና የነብሰ ገዳይ ቡድን አባላትም በአስቸኳ ለፍርድ እንዲቀርቡ አበክረን እንጠይቃለን። በስልጣን ላይ ያለው ገዢው ፓርቲ ዜጎቻችንን ለያይተህ ግዛ በሚል ፈሊጥ በየተራ እንደ ፈለገ እያጠቃን እንዲኖር ምቹ ሁኔታ የፈጠርንለት እኛው ራሳችን በተለያየ ጎራ የየራሳችን ጎጆ አበጅተን በረባም ባልረባም በመነጣጠላችን መሆኑን እሙን ነው። ህዝብ ከተባበረ ምን ዓይነት ለውጥ ሊያመጣ እንደሚችል በሌሎች አጋጣሚዎች አይተናል። ስለዚህ በሀገር ቤትም በውጭም የምንኖር ኢትዮጵያውያን ሁሉ ለሀገርና ለወገን ሲባል መለስተኛ ልዩነታችንን ወደ ጎን ትተን በዜጎቻችን ላይ እየደረሰ ያለው አስነዋሪ ጥቃት በጋራ ልንቆምላቸው ይገባል። በመሆኑም ዛሬ በትግራይ ወገኖቻችን ላይ እየደረሰ ያለው በደል ነገ በሌሎች ክልሎችም የሚደርስ ጉዳይ ስለሚሆን ድርጊቱን በጋራ እንድናወግዘው ወገናዊ ጥሪያችንን እናቀርባለን።
    ጀግናው ኩሩና ታጋሽ የትግራይ ህዝብም በአካል ይቆጣጠሩት ይሆናል እንጂ የህወሓት ካድሬዎችና መሪዎቻቸው የሚሰሩትን አስቂኝና አሳዛኝ ድራማ ይስቷል ብለን አናምንም። ማን በሙሱና ተነክሮ ጨለማ ለብሶ የሀገርና የህዝብ ሀብት እየዘረፈና ወደ ዉጭ እያሸለከ እንዳለ ማን ደግሞ ለሀገሩና ለወገኑ በፅናት እየታገለ እንዳለ በውል ይገነዘባል። ትላንት ማን ከጎኑ እንደቆመ ማን ደግሞ ለሻዕቢያ ወረራ ለጅብ አሳልፎ እንደሰጠው ስለሚያስታውስ የጊዜ ጉዳይ እንጂ ልቡ ከማን ጋር እንዳለ ጠንቅቀን እናውቃለን። በአጠቃላይ የትግራይ ህዝብ ክብሩንና ማንነቱን በሻዕቢያ በመደፈሩ፣ ለም መሬቱንና አንጡራ ሀብቱን ለባዕድ አሳልፎ በመሰጠቱ፣ ራሱ የሰራውን ቤት፣ በደሙና በአጥንቱ ራሱ የገነባትን ሀገር ፈርሶ የባሕር በር የሌላት ጎራዳና ሽባ ሀገር ይዞ በመቅረቱ ደስተኛ ነው ብለን በፍፁም አናምንም።
    ስለሆነም ዛሬም ለገዢው ፓርቲ ህወሓት/ኢሕአዴግ መሪዎችና ካድሬዎቻቸው ደግመን ደጋግመን ልናስገነዝባቸው የምንፈልገው ጉዳይ አንድና አንድ ብቻ ነው። በሀገራችን ፍትሕ የጠማው፣ በረሃብ አለንጋ የሚገረፍና በልቡ የሸፈተ ህዝብ እስካለ ድረስ እናንተ የምትፈፅሙትን ጊዜው ያለፈበትና አረሜናዊ የቀቢፀ ተስፋ እርምጃ ትግሉን የበለጠ እንዲግልና እንዲጎለብት ያደርገዋል እንጂ በፍፁም አይገታውም። እኛም የበለጠ እንድንጠነክርና ቀና ብለን በፅናት ከህዝባችን ጎን እንድንቆም ያደርገናል እንጂ አንገታችንን እንደማንደፋ ደግመን ልናረጋግጥላችሁ እንወዳለን።
    ኢትዮጵያ ሀገራችን ለዘላለም ትኑር

    Monday, January 27, 2014

    US Congress takes stance against land grabs

    Monday, January 27, 2014 @ 04:01 PM ed

    For Immediate Release  (Oakland Institute)

    MEDIA CONTACT:
    Anuradha Mittal, 510-469-5228; amittal@oaklandinstitute.org
    Frederic Mousseau, 510-512-5458; fmousseau@oaklandinstitute.org
    Oakland, CA – In a historic move, the US Congress has taken a stance on land grabs-related human rights abuses in Ethiopia. The 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill contains provisions that ensure that US development funds are not used to support forced evictions in Ethiopia.
    The bill prevents US assistance from being used to support activities that directly or indirectly involve forced displacement in the Lower Omo and Gambella regions. It further requires US assistance in these areas be used to support local community initiatives aimed at improving livelihoods and be subject to prior consultation with affected populations. The bill goes further and even instructs the directors of international financial institutions to oppose financing for any activities that directly or indirectly involve forced evictions in Ethiopia.
    According to Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, “We welcome this move as it aims to address one major flaw of US assistance to Ethiopia. The step taken by the US Congress is very significant, as it signals to both the Ethiopian government and the US administration that turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in the name of development is no longer an option.”
    Several reports from the Oakland Institute have raised alarm about the scale, rate, and negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions in Ethiopia that would result in the forced displacement of over 1.5 million people. This relocation process through the government’s villagization scheme is destroying the livelihoods of small-scale farmers and pastoralist communities. Ethiopian security forces have beaten, arrested, and intimidated individuals who have refused to relocate and free the lands for large-scale agricultural plantations.
    Ethiopia’s so-called development programs cannot be carried out without the support of international donors, primarily the US, one of its main donors. Oakland Institute’s on-the-ground research has documented the high toll paid by local people as well as the role of donor countries such as the US in supporting the Ethiopian policy.
    This language represents an important first step towards Congress initiating a comprehensive examination of US development practices in Ethiopia. As the oversight authority of the State Department, Congress must now ensure that the law is fully upheld and implemented. This warrants thorough scrutiny of USAID programs to Ethiopia and their contribution to forced resettlements and human rights abuses.
    With this bill, USAID, the State Department, as well as the World Bank, will have to reconsider the terms and modalities of the support they provide to the Ethiopian government. According to Frederic Mousseau, Oakland Institute’s Policy Director, “This is a light of hope for the millions of indigenous people in Ethiopia who have sought international support from the international community to recognize their very destruction as communities and people.”
    For more information, see:
    Lower Omo: Local Tribes Under Threat (video)                                                                                sourse addis voice

    Fairness in Immigration Policy (RIA)

    What would justice in the immigration policy say?

    20130315-100350.jpg
    It's nice to discuss asylum policy. It is also necessary because the conversations have the ability to provide important answers and solutions. It required all political parties and forces for good in Norway.Are you for free immigration? How to measure asylum policy has been fair? Here are some budding answer:
    Let me as Chairman of RIA share some experiences. I have lived close to other nations from 1997. First, in the east of Paris, then as a priest in Sandnes and now as head of integration through IMI Church and as Chairman of the livsynsuavhengige combat organization Fairness in asylum policy. Here are some of my suggestions:
    There are obviously people who do not have a case. I find it fast when I ask them to identify securities that refutes rejection reasons. They are not. Here I am not talking about those who have difficulty with documentation of imprisonment and torture. Here are the stories more fuzzy. Then it is important to send them back quickly. It needed new processes.
    Then there are people who are actually impossible to send home.Although voluntary return can not always do. Either because there is not adequate or because Norway did not return appointment. When such an uncertain situation gets going in 5-15 years as needed cleanup. It's not about huge number, but I think you have to say that actually it is not grounds for stay, but as a nation it is neither morally or economically viable to let people go in uncertain without being able to work in 5-15 years. The worst I've seen so far is 18. Parts of possession with tax.
    The asylum interview is also the place where we often come out crooked. Here's one from deep skeptical homeland police and many asylum seekers eludes to put all cards on the table. The interpreter is often from home and feared tysting (multiple items. At the bl.ai the Ethiopian community in Trondheim) Thus, lying on one id, one does not speak of torture. Not at once. Having been refused and had time to compose himself and understand that the cops are on our side, so get the right version. Then it is too late, they called criminal because you lied about the id and the train is good. Filming of the asylum interview that the Foreign Ministry has proposed and qualified assessor will help to a fair asylum policy. Many meetings now alone without a lawyer. In Sweden, appointed assessor from NGOs with expertise.
    Legal aid is often incomplete. 5 hours free is too small and many have never met his lawyer over the phone or at a short meeting. It will require some confidence before one talks about rape etc. Here needed change to give Norway a fair asylum policy.
    Splitting of families, distribution of converted Christians throughout Muslim countries are other problem areas requiring change. Barns best greater extent than today. It is these points RIA jobs to see the change within.
    Integration is very important. Therefore, free immigration be a bad idea and demanding. Asylum ratio is small relative to labor. It should be working for a better balance between how much space we give job seekers rather than those with protection needs. To be able to determine their own country and until Norway as an asylum seeker you have submitted a resume full of skill and initiative. We often speak highly skilled people who will be a dream for Norwegian workers.
    So it is possible in the long term, we must limit the number of new work permits per year and such industry control it. Possible changes that we make it less likely to stay on the streets until you Possibly find a job. To enable us to find space for more of the 10,000 asylum seekers every year manage to find their way to Norway. What if we even busier headhunter people from conflict areas. Syria is such an area where we as a nation of little help in dealing with the massive refugee flows because of war. Kvoteflykting system via the UN is a way to be more proactive than today.
    An interesting figure is that there are currently 50,000 lives solflyktninger from Norway in countries like Thailand and Spain. This we consider as a natural right because we have money. That we are a rich country because of the unique natural resources that we have not done anything to get on the seabed, that we have piled us handelsrettighter and benefits that closes many countries there, we basically became rich when Europe plundered Africa, Asia and South America, we forget easily.
    RIA is a common interest to all who will contribute to the Norwegian asylum policy more equitable than today. The Board and among core troops there are many kinds of age, religious and cultural backgrounds. Here is the place for you. We are agile organization, the Board's task is to cheer on the dagger initiative and assist the ideas turn into successful projects. We need your membership to gain more and more weight in the debate, we need your help with practical tasks by such mass action by the state, writing commutation petitions, help new citizens to find in Norway, visit the reception center for skjekke that conditions are satisfactory, print media, monitor social media, having duties in connection with the demonstrations and protests. We require that you register to us via blog or terje@imikirken.ni
    Your ideas and suggestions are always instructive. Feel free to comment here on the blog or email me at terje@imikirken.no (remove spaces)

    Fikirte Negasa - Ethiopian Freedom Seeker

    Kenyatta at the ICC: Is Justice Deferred, Justice Denied?

    Sunday, January 26, 2014 @ 10:01 PM Alma
    Alemayehu G Mariam
    Kenyatta ICC 1I am getting a little jittery over the repeated delays, postponements and all the backpedalling talk about “false evidence” and “lying witnesses”  in the Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta International Criminal court trial. I don’t want to say I smell a rat but I feel like I am getting a whiff. Is the stage being set to let Kenyatta off the ICC hook?
    There has been feverish efforts to defer, delay and dismiss Kenyatta’s prosecution as a sitting head of state since  January 2012 when the International Criminal Court’s  (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed charges against him.  In May 2013, Kenya’s Ambassador to the U.N. Macharia Kamau filed a 13-page “Confidential” letter with the President of the UN Security Council seeking to take the Kenyatta case out of ICC hands and directing it to relinquish  jurisdiction to Kenyan courts. In the same month, Hailemariam Desalegn, the ceremonial prime minister of Ethiopia and rotational chairman of the African Union, went on the warpath accusing the ICC of going on an African safari “race hunting” black African leaders.  In June 2013, the ICC delayed Kenyatta’s trial until November 12 having determined Kenyatta’s defense team needs adequate time to prepare for trial. In September 2013, Hailemariam formally demanded that the ICC drop charges against both Kenyatta and Ruto. At the 68th UN General Assembly, Hailemariam hectored  that the ICC is undermining the “ability of the Kenyan leaders in discharging their constitutional responsibilities” and that  dropping the charges “is very critical to support the peace building and national reconciliation processes in [Kenya].”
    In October 2013, the African Union (AU) held a special summit to discuss the Kenyata/Ruto ICC trialand to demand that the ICC relinquish jurisdiction to Kenyan courts. In the alternative, they vowed to stage a mass walk out of African countries from the Rome Statute. They gathered in Addis Ababa in a pathetic spectacle like panicked prey fleeing a stalking predator (race hunter) seeking safety in numbers. They huffed and puffed, ranted and raved against the ICC, but the threatened “mass treaty-cide” flopped . The Sturm und Drang of a mass walkout on the Rome Statute proved to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.  The AU subsequently filed a request with the Security Council to delay Kenyatta’s trial by one year. In mid-November 2013, the Security Council rejected a resolution to delay the trial. Ambassador Kamau declared, “The deferral has not been granted.  Reason and the law have been thrown out the window, fear and distrust have been allowed to prevail.” Surprisingly, the U.S. did the right thing. U.S. UN Ambassador Samantha Power affirmed, “The families of the victims of the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya have already waited more than five years for a judicial weighing of the evidence to commence. We believe that justice for the victims of that violence is critical to the country’s long-term peace and security. It is incumbent on us all to support accountability for those responsible for crimes against humanity.” Last week, it was announced that Kenyatta’s trial set to begin on February 5, 2014  has been postponed once more for three months to give the Prosecutor time to reassess evidence against Kenyatta after  “a witness withdrew and another admitted giving false evidence.”
    False evidence and lying witnesses?
    For the past month, there has been disturbing talk of “false evidence” and “lying witnesses” in the office of the ICC Prosecutor. On December 19, 2013, ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said, “On December 4, a key second witness in the case confessed to giving false evidence regarding a critical event in the Prosecution’s case. This witness has now been withdrawn from the Prosecution witness list… Having carefully considered my evidence and the impact of the two withdrawals, I have come to the conclusion that currently the case against Mr Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial… I therefore need time to complete efforts to obtain additional evidence and to consider whether such evidence will enable my office to fully meet the evidentiary threshold required at trial.” In March 2013, when the ICC prosecutor dismissed its case against former Kenya head of Civil Service and co-defendant Francis Muthaura, Bensouda said his dismissal has no impact on her case against President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta. “Logic dictates that the withdrawal of charges against one indirect co-perpetrator does not have an automatic knock-on effect with the respect to the charges against another alleged indirect co-perpetrator. The fact that multiple individuals are charged in the same Document Containing Charges under the same mode of liability does not require lock-step decisions to be taken with respect to each co-accused… Whereas Kenyatta was allegedly in charge of the provision of financial and logistical support to the direct perpetrators, Muthaura allegedly secured the support of the Mungiki and directed the latter to commit the crimes in Nakuru and Naivasha (and) provided institutional support for the execution of the crimes on behalf of the PNU Coalition.”
    Arguments to let Kenyatta and Ruto off the ICC hook
    Various legal, political and policy arguments have been advanced to get Kenyatta and Ruto off the ICC hook either by “delaying” their trial until they leave office, granting one-year “deferrals” and postponing the trial indefinitely or dismissing the ICC charges and returning the matter to the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts. Among the major arguments include the following: Prosecuting Kenyatta and Ruto violates Kenyan sovereignty. Kenyatta and Ruto are entitled to immunity from prosecution because they were found “innocent” in the March 2013 election. The evidence against Kenyatta and Ruto is “false and manufactured”. The Office of the ICC Prosecutor is unfair and has engaged in a pattern and practice of abuse of prosecutorial powers resulting in a denial of due process to Kenyatta and Ruto. The ICC and the Prosecutor have unchecked powers and are accountable to no one. By prosecuting Kenyatta and Ruto, the ICC has usurped the powers of the U.N. Security Council. The Rome Statute violates the U.N. Charter and its prosecution of Kenyatta and Ruto is illegal and beyond its legal authority (ultra vires). Kenya is ready, willing and able to prosecute violators of crimes under the Rome Statute in its own courts. The ICC prosecution of Kenyatta and Ruto is pointless.
    After the dust settles, what African dictators really want is a double standard of justice. They want the ICC to allow them to be prosecuted and adjudicated by their own hand-picked prosecutors and judges at the time of their own choosing.
    Handwriting on the wall: “Double standard of justice for African ‘leaders’ accused of crimes against humanity”
    Are all the delays, postponements and deferrals gentle hints and winks that some kind of a political “deal” has been cut between the ICC, Kenyatta, the African Union and the UN Security Council to eventually let Kenyatta off the hook?  Is all of the talk about recanting and lying witnesses a trial balloon (a way of testing public opinion and gauging potential public reaction) and part of the political theatre to prepare international public opinion for the inevitable dismissal of charges against Kenyatta for lack of evidence? Is there some sort of orchestration (I did not say conspiracy) between the ICC, the African Union, Kenyatta and the U.N. Security Council to let Kenyatta off on a legal technicality? Don’t read me wrong. I am just reading the handwriting on the wall and asking questions. That’s all.
    Kenyatta ICC Will Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta in 2014 walk out of the International Criminal Court “for lack of evidence” and declare to the world, “I told you I was innocent. The ICC’s accusations against me were nothing more than race hunting and legal lynching . The ICC is out to get black African leaders… One last thing, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is also falsely accused. Dismiss the charges against him too…”
    Call me suspicious if you like. It is a professional trait; defense lawyers are notoriously suspicious and have  hypersensitive olfactory senses to smell rats (I said I just feel like I am getting a whiff).  While I am talking about lawyers, let me say that the mantra of the criminal defense lawyer is “deny, delay and defend the case”. I am beginning to wonder in the Kenyatta trial if the ICC is getting cold feet and trying to extricate itself from a highly controversial case by adopting a new mantra: “Defer, delay and dismiss the case”.  I am just thinking out loud.  To me, justice deferred, delayed and dismissed is justice denied.
    The evidence against Kenyatta
    Just as “one swallow does not a summer make”, one or two witnesses do not a criminal case make. Kenyatta is charged in a five count indictment under article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity including murder (article 7(l)(a), deportation or forcible transfer (article 7(l)(d), rape (article 7(l)(g), persecution (article 7(l)(h), and other inhumane acts (article 7(l)(k). The allegation are based on evidence shocking to the conscience anddetailed in a 155-page document based on the testimony of hundreds of  witnesses. When the Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed the allegations against Kenyatta, it wrote, “the Prosecutor has provided sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the contextual elements common to all crimes against humanity are fulfilled…”
    Much of the testimonial evidence against Kenyatta is independently corroborated and documented.  For instance, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber  determined “there are substantial grounds to believe that on 3 January 2008 at the Nairobi Club… Mr. Kenyatta met with Mungiki members [sometimes referred to as the “Kenyan mafia”] and directed them to commit the crimes charged.” There is substantial evidence to show Kenyatta and others “agreed to pursue an organizational policy to keep the PNU [former president Kibaki’s Party of National Unity] in power through every means necessary, including orchestrating a police failure to prevent the commission of crimes”. There is substantial evidence to show Kenyatta and Co., “devised a common plan to commit widespread and systematic attacks against perceived ODM supporters by: (i) penalizing them through retaliatory attacks; and (ii) deliberately failing to take action to prevent or stop the retaliatory attacks”.
    There is substantial evidence to show Kenyatta “taking the role of mediator between the PNU and the Mungiki criminal organization, facilitated a series of meetings from November 2007” in which “senior PNU government officials, politicians, businessmen and Mungiki leaders solicit[ed] the assistance of the Mungiki in supporting the government in the December 2007 elections”. There is substantial evidence to show that in the post-election period, Kenyatta and others “facilitated the meetings with the Mungiki with a view to organizing retaliatory attacks against perceived ODM [Orange Democratic Movement] supporters in the Rift Valley [and]  strengthen the PNU’s  hold on power after the swearing in of the President”. There is substantial evidence to show  Kenyatta and others “contributed to the implementation of the common plan, by securing the non-intervention of the Kenya Police and by failing to punish the main perpetrators of the attacks.”
    It seems the ICC Prosecutor’s position is that the alleged false testimony of two witnesses completely undermines the Prosecution’s case. It is not at all clear why the two witnesses gave false testimony in the first place and how the ICC Prosecutor’s office failed to further corroborate their testimony before filing charges. It is, however, a fact that witnesses against Kenyatta have been threatened and bribed. In February 2013, Prosecutor Bensouda claimed Kenyatta bribed a witness to withdraw his testimony and not to testify in the case. Bensouda stated,  “Witness 4 revealed in May 2012 interview that he had been offered, and accepted, money from individuals holding themselves out as representatives of the accused to withdraw his testimony against Uhuru… The witness provided emails and bank records that confirmed the bribery scheme. In light of these cumulative revelations, the prosecution considers it is not useful to call him as a witness.”  Kenyatta’s defense team has also demanded the ICC turn over to Kenyan authorities the evidence given by the “self confessed criminals so they can face the full force of the law.” Prosecutor Bensouda had asked the Court to grant the witnesses courtroom protective measures, including voice and image distortion, use of pseudonyms and in camera sessions for identifying evidence. Should it come as a surprise to anyone that witnesses who face massive retaliatory actions by the Kenyan Government suddenly declare they have given false testimony to save their lives?
    I believe the whole “lying witnesses” “false evidence” talk is disingenuous. The case against Kenyatta is not based on the testimony of a couple of witnesses. There are hundreds of witnesses who gave evidence. There is “substantial evidence” to bring Kenyatta to trial and let the Court determine whether that evidence points to Kenyatta’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is incomprehensible that ICC Prosecutor should hinge her entire case on the veracity or recantation of one or two witnesses. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence against him. There is no reason not to proceed with the trial.
    Time for an ICC Witness Protection Program?
    Witness intimidation, paying off witnesses, subornation of perjury and witnesses changing stories are nothing new particularly in high profile criminal trials. It is not uncommon for witnesses to recant (take back) testimony before or after trial. It is not uncommon for intimidated witnesses not to cooperate with prosecutors or make themselves intentionally unavailable as witnesses at trial. For instance, witnesses (“snitches”) in the criminal trials of Mafia bosses and other underworld figures have been known to recant or withdraw their testimonies because of intimidation and threats to themselves and family members.  Jurors have been bribed by criminal bosses to return not guilty verdicts. In fairness, witnesses are also pressured by prosecutors who offer “cooperating” witnesses secret deals in the form of reduced charges and sentences and other benefits to give testimony. The recantation of the Kenyatta witnesses raises unsettling and puzzling questions. It seems they are withdrawing their testimonies not because they actually gave “false testimony” but because they fear certain retaliation if they appear at trial and testify. Their recantations should not be taken as genuine but as the product of fear of persecution and prosecution.
    I believe there is a reasonable solution to the problem of recanting witnesses in the Kenyatta trial: Create an “International Criminal Court Witness Protection Program” for deserving witnesses. In the U.S., the Federal Witness Protection Program provides protection to threatened witnesses before, during, and after a trial. In the program, witnesses and their family are provided new identities and documentation and relocated. Since the program was launched in 1971, nearly ten thousand witnesses and family members have been placed in the witness protection program. Incredibly, “95% of the witnesses in the program are criminals.”
    I believe the ICC should launch its own “Witness Protection Program” for witnesses coming forward to testify against suspects charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and other infamous crimes.  The numerous Munguki (“Kenya’s mafia”)  Mafia) face real (not imagined) threats of persecution and prosecution not only from the Government of Kenya but also the wrath of their  own organization for attracting such unwelcome attention of the government. The Munguki witnesses should be presented the option of testifying the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth at the trial of Kenyatta and being placed in a witness protection program outside of Kenya. Without an ICC witness protection program, it would nearly impossible to get cooperating witnesses with credible evidence to come forward. Few would be brave enough to pay the cost in their lives to bring the truth to light. Without a witness protection program, I believe many African criminals against humanity in power today would feel assured that they will laugh their way out of the International Criminal Court certain in the k nowledge that no one in their countries would dare testify against them and expect to live. The ICC should learn this fundamental lesson from the Kenyatta case.
    Could the ICC let Kenyatta off the hook?
    I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that I have no evidence or objective basis to believe or suspect the ICC will let Kenyatta off the hook for political or other reasons. I need to state no reasons in defense of my faith in the integrity of the institution as I have volunteered myself to be a “Witness for the ICC.”  I will readily accept any criticism suggesting that my anxiety about the ICC letting Kenyatta off the hook is a figment of an overactive and suspicious legal imagination. I much prefer to think that it is a product of a “thought experiment”, an exploration of hypothetical counterfactual propositions and imaginary situations to think through possible consequences and outcomes of real problems. This commentary is my “thought experiment” about thinking the unthinkable, the unimaginable: 1) “The ICC has dismissed the charges  against Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta for lack of substantial evidence.”
    I agree fully with the observations of  U.S. UN Ambassador Samantha Power: “The families of the victims of the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya have already waited more than five years for a judicial weighing of the evidence to commence. We believe that justice for the victims of that violence is critical to the country’s long-term peace and security. It is incumbent on us all to support accountability for those responsible for crimes against humanity.”  In other words, justice deferred, delayed and dismissed is justice denied!
    Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.
    Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
    http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
    www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
    Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:
    http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic
    http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24