Saturday, January 31, 2015

የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ኖሮ አያውቅም (ecadforum.com ኢዲቶሪያል)


January 31, 2015
(ecadforum.com ኢዲቶሪያል)
ሰሞኑን ወያኔ/ኢህአዴግ በህግ ተመዝግበው በሀገር ውስጥ የሚንቀሳቀሱ የተቃዋሚ ፖለቲካ ድርጅቶችን ለማጥፋትና በመጪው ምርጫ ላይ እንዳይሳተፉ ለማድረግ በርትቶ እየሰራ መሆኑ ይታወቃል።ECADF Ethiopian News editorial
እስካሁን መኢሕአድ እና አንድነት ፓርቲ የዚሁ የወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ የቅድመ ምርጫ “ተቃዋሚዎችን የማዳከም እና የማጥፋት ዘመቻ” ሰለባ ሆነዋል።
በቅርቡ ራድዮ ፋና እና ኢቲቪ ከሰማያዊ ፓርቲ አመራሮች ጋር አድርገውት የነበረውን ቃለ-ምልልስ (በኋላ የቃለ-ምልልሱ ድምጽ ጠፋብን ማለታቸው ይታወሳል፣ ይሁንና ኢሳት ቴሌቪዥን ጠፋ የተባለው ቃለ-ምልልስ በእጁ ገብቶ ኖሮ እያሰራጨው ይገኛል) ቃለ-ምልልሱን ለማዳመጥ እዚህ ይጫኑ። ከቃለ-ምልልሱ መረዳት እንደሚቻለው ፖሊስ ቀመሱ የወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ ጋዜጠኛ ምን ያህል ሰማያዊ ፓርቲን የሚያስወነጅሉ ነገሮች ፍለጋ ይባዝን እንደነበር ነው። ይህ የሚያመለክተው ሰማያዊ ፓርቲ ቀጣዩ የወያኔ/ኢህአዴግ “ተቃዋሚዎችን የማዳከም እና የማጥፋት ዘመቻ” ሰለባ እንደሚሆን ነው።
ወደ ተነሳንበት ርዕስ ስንመለስ፣ ከላይ የተጠቀሱትን ሁነቶች ከግምት ውስጥ በማስገባት፣ አንዳንድ በተቃውሞ ጎራ የተሰለፉ ፖለቲከኞች እና ለውጥ አራማጆች “ወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓትን እያቀጨጨ ነው፣ ገዢው ፓርቲ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓትን እያጠፋ ነው፣ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት አከተመለት…” ሲሉ ይደመጣሉ።
ለመሆኑ ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት ኖሮ ያውቃል? አይደለም የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት ሊኖርና ወያኔ/ኢህአዴግ ወደፊትም የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓትን ለመገንባት ፍላጎት የለውም።
ምርጫ በተቃረበ ቁጥር ፖለቲከኞች፣ ጋዜጠኞችና የሰብአዊ መብት ተሟጋቾች ይታሰራሉ፣ ይደበደባሉ፣ ይዋከባሉ፣ ሲከፋም ይገደላሉ። የፖለቲካ ድርጅቶችም ይፈርሳሉ፣ በተለጣፊም ይቀየራሉ። እውነታው ይህ ነው፣ ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት ኖሮም አያውቅም።
ይልቁኑ ወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ “ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት አለ” ብሎ ማሳመን ችሎ ኖሯል።
በመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት የበለጸጉት ምዕራባውያን የወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ ግብረ-አበሮችም የሚፈልጉት ነገር ቢኖር ወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ በተቻለው መጠን የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት አንዳለ እንዲያስመስልና ይህንኑ እንዲደሰኩር እንጂ ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት እንደሌለና ወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግ ወደፊትም የመድበለ ፓርቲ ሥርዓት ለመገንባት ዝግጁ እንዳልሆነ በሚገባ ያውቃሉ።
ኢትዮጵያ በአምባገነን ሥርዓት ቁጥጥር ስር የምትገኝ ሀገር ናት፣ ዜጎቿም በአምባገነኖች ተረግጠው እየተገዙ ነው። ማንኛውም ለውጥ አራማጅና ለውጥ ፈላጊ በቅድሚያ ከዚህ እውነታ ጋር መታረቅ ይሆርበታል/ይኖርባታል። ይህ ሲሆን ብቻ ነው በምን አይነት መንገድ ታግሎ የወያኔ/ኢሕአዴግን የአምባገነን ሥርዓት ማስወገድ እንደሚቻል መቀመር የሚቻለው።sourse ecdef

በክልሎች የሚገኙ የአንድነት አመራሮች ጽ/ቤታቸውን በአቶ ትእግስቱ ለሚመራው ቡድን እንዳያስረክቡ ተጠየቁ




ጥር ፳፪(ሃያ ሁለት) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :-በአቶ በላይ ፍቃዱ የሚመራውና  በምርጫ ቦርድ ዕውቅና የተነፈገው የአንድነት አመራር ጥር 29 ቀን 2007 ዓም የብሄራዊ ምክር ቤት ሰብሰባ ለማካሄድ እንዲሁም ከቀኑ 9፡00 ሰዓት ቀበና በሚገኘው ቢሮ ጋዜጣዊ መግለጫ ለመስጠት ቀጠሮ ተይዞ የነበረ ቢሆንም፣ ቢሮው በፖሊስ በድንገት በመከበቡ ሳይሳካ ቀርቷል። የብሄራዊ ምክር ቤቱ ሰብሳቢ አቶ አበበ አካሉ ለኢሳት እንደገለጹት ስብሰባውን ለማካሄድ ታስቦ የነበረው በሂደት ስለሚወሰዱት እርምጃዎች ለመነጋገር ቢሆንም  በፖሊስ ህገወጥ ድርጊት የተነሳ አልተሳካም። ይሁን እንጅ በክልሎች የሚገኙ የአንድነት አመራሮችና አባላት ጽህፈት ቤቶቻቸውን የኢህአዴግ ተለጣፊ ናቸው ላሉዋቸው አቶ ትእግስቱ አወሉ ሰዎች እንዳያስረክቡ ትእዛዝ መተላለፉን ተናግረዋል።
አንድነት ከመታገዱ በፊት የፊታችን እሁድ ጥር 24 ቀን 2007 ዓ.ም ለሁለተኛ ጊዜ ሰላማዊ ሰልፍ ለማካሄድ ጥሪ አስተላልፎ ዝግጅት እያደረገ የነበረ ሲሆን በተመሳሳይ ቀንም በደሴ ከተማ የተቃውሞ ሰልፍ ለማካሄድ እየተዘጋጀ ነበር፡፡
ፓርቲው ዕውቅና መነፈጉን ተከትሎ በአንድነት ስም የሚያንቀሳቅሳቸው የሚሊዮኖች ድምጽ እና ፍኖተ ነጻነት ጋዜጦችና ድረገጾች ሕትመትና ስርጭት መቋረጡ የግድ ሆኗል፡፡ በተመሳሳይ መንገድም የመኢአድ ጽህፈት ቤት በፖሊሶች ጥበቃ ስር በመዋሉ ሰራተኞች ስራቸውን ለመስራት አለመቻላቸውን የመኢአድ ዋና ጸሃፊ ተናግረዋል
አንድነትና መኢአድ የምርጫ ቦርድን ትእዛዝ ለሚያከብሩ ሰዎች ተሰጥተዋል ተብሎ በምርጫ ቦርድ ሊቀመንበር ፕ/ር መርጋ በቃና መነገሩ በርካታ ኢትዮጵያውያንን እያነጋገረ ይገኛል።  sourse esat radio

Friday, January 30, 2015

Boycotting Ethiopian National Elections: Damn if You Do, Damn if You Don’t!


January 30, 2015
by Messay Kebede
I maintain that the upcoming elections will be a turning point for Ethiopia, not because they will result in a major change of policy subsequent to a renovation of the ruling elite but because the absence of change will compel opposition groups to reassess their strategies and the country as a whole will plunge further into the abyss of despair. While most reasonable people and opposition parties never contemplated the possibility of wining the elections and becoming the new ruling majority, nevertheless the expectation was—since the death of Meles Zenawi—for some opening, however narrow, to accommodate opposition groups. In light of the prevailing heightened repression and disqualification of some opposition parties from the competition by concocting bogus charges, the expectation proved utterly naïve. It is now patently clear that the EPRDF will use all available means to preserve the status quo indefinitely.
Opposition parties are already variously reacting to the perceived decision to exclude them once again. Some areBoycotting Ethiopian National Elections making their participation conditional on the change of policy of the National Election Board toward a neutral stand guaranteeing a level of playing field. Others have decided to participate regardless of the prevailing conditions because they believe that nothing can be achieved by shunning the elections. Still others seem undecided or are waiting for the development of the situation before taking a definitive stance. This article analyzes the cons and pros of participating in the upcoming elections with the view of showing the realistic alternative that emerges from taking part in the elections or boycotting them.
Let us state plainly the emerging quandary. Admittedly, the goal of participation is not to win, not because the regime is popular and has the allegiance of the majority of voters, but because it will use threat, harassment, deceit, and even violence to retain its present position, which is that only one parliament member is representing the opposition. The opposition may even lose this one seat or add some more, but the retention of an overwhelming majority will be the inevitable outcome of the elections. If so, why then participate when there is no the slightest opportunity to perform better?

Expected Gains from Participation

Those who opt for participation argue that winning has many forms. Indeed, elections, even if they are unwinnable, provide a good opportunity to denounce the regime. They supply a convenient platform to openly expose the failures and injustice of the regime at a time when popular attention and expectations are activated by the government’s own propaganda and its desire for renewed legitimacy. Exposing the regime is a vital component of nonviolent opposition. It is inconsistent to stay away from elections because the regime in place does not allow a fair playing field even as the purpose of peaceful struggle is, precisely, to mobilize voters to protest against the unfair conditions of political competition. Only such protests can bring about change, not boycott.
Parties that participate in elections find a good opportunity to promote themselves and make their program known to the public. Not only does participation help the recruitment of new members, but it also engages the party in the typical task of organizing and mobilizing the people. A party that is absent from the battle field on the pretext that conditions are highly unfavorable does not deserve to be called an opposition party, all the more so as it came into existence primarily to fight for the democratic opening of the political system.
To encourage people to oppose the regime, it is imperative to show the availability of an alternative program. If people are not exposed to the ideas of a viable organization and alternative policy, their legitimate fear of the unknown, including the possibility of a chaos, will prevail over their frustrations and make them stick to the status quo. Nothing extends more the life of unpopular governments than the lack of an alternative: such governments will always claim that the opposition is fearful to participate because it is too weak or has no viable rival program. And nothing shortens more their existence than the presence of a party that continues to fight against all odds. So that, in willingly participating in elections that are decided in advance, the opposition party demonstrates its full commitment, thereby changing its alleged weakness into the strength of steadfastness.
There is no telling in advance whether participation does not result in the gain of some seats. However limited, seats in the parliament offer the opportunity of voicing opposition from within the system, not so much to change the ongoing policy as to give more credibility to the availability of an alternative path. Parliamentary representation officializes opposition in the eyes of the people as well as of the government, forcing the latter to respond to criticisms instead of simply dismissing them as the views of outcasts.
To sum up, participation in elections, even when they are completely unfair, is not devoid of appreciable gains. In addition to being consistent with the choice of nonviolent opposition, it provides a much needed forum for opposition parties to convey their messages, mobilize voters, and strengthen their standing. By contrast, the rejection of elections until acceptable conditions emerges is defeatist and inconsistent with peaceful opposition, not to mention that it obtains and change nothing.

Expected Gains from Non-Participation

Naturally, those who favor boycotting the elections are not without some expectations of gains as well. To the extent that their decision is a political one, it must contain the possibility of advancing their cause in some way. So what do they expect to achieve in shining the elections?
Their main argument is that non-participation of opposition parties deprives the government of the legitimacy that it seeks by organizing these elections. Participating without the chance of winning even one seat is nothing but a free gift to the government. In advertising the pitiful result of the opposition, the government will have the easy game of declaring a crushing victory and portraying the opposition as irrelevant, nonexistent.
To take part under the existing conditions is to encourage the government to continue the same electoral policy. The only leverage that opposition parties have is that the government wants popular legitimacy by all means so that it is suicidal to give it up for what is nothing but a staged show to fool the Ethiopian people as well as the international community. Since opposition parties cannot expect anything unless existing conditions change, the kind of pressure liable to yield some results is precisely to make their participations conditional on some concessions on the part of the government. For this pressure to succeed, there is one and only one condition: the boycott must be unanimous and firm.
Experience teaches us that taking part in the elections under existing conditions will not result in any gain of parliamentary seat. Recall what happened to the All Ethiopian Unity Party in the 2010 elections: it broke away from the rest of the opposition by agreeing to participate without any tangible reforms of the electoral process only to find out that it was unable to secure even one seat despite its undeniable popularity in the Amhara region. What is more, opposition parties that already had some seats were completely wiped out. Obviously, the refusal of the government to make changes in the electoral process is motivated by a deliberate policy of expulsion of the opposition, and not by the precaution of having a sizeable majority.
As to exposing the anti-democratic nature of the regime, what else is more resoundingly revealing it than the refusal to participate in fake elections? By openly stating that participation depends on the creation of a level playing field, opposition parties do their primary job, namely, the presentation of reasonable and expected demands that normally go along with the very idea of holding elections. If elections do not have a minimum of fairness, they cease to be elections and turn into an exercise of canonization. The least that opposition parties can do is to put an end to this quinquennial farce.

Critical Assessment

What is striking about the above position is the belief that the refusal to participate puts pressure on the government. It would have been so if the opposition were united and the boycott unanimous. But to expect unity and a unanimous position is to assume solved the very problem that keeps the TPLF in power. Those who speaks of pressure put the cart before the horse by forgetting that the persistence of the hegemony of the TPLF is due to the success of its divide-and-rule policy, essentially manifested by the ethnicization of Ethiopia. Moreover, I do not remember a case where this government changed its opinion because of popular protests, let alone because of complaints from opposition parties. In other words, as hard as it may seem to accept, opposition parties have no leverage on this government.
True, the government wants legitimacy, but it can obtain it in various ways. For instance, it can force people to vote in great number so as to compensate the lack of opposition parties with a massive popular endorsement. Dictatorial regimes have practiced and refined this method for quite some time. If at all costs the presence of an opposition is required, the government can create fake opposition parties or divide existing parties by means of threats and bribes. This should not come as a surprise since the government has already given us the taste of such methods, just as it is presently doing it by prohibiting two major opposition parties, namely, Unity for Democracy and Justice Party and All Ethiopian Unity Party.
Given these available recourses, we can say that the government wants legitimacy, but not to the point of making concessions to the opposition. All the more reason for saying so is that legitimacy is essentially sought to shore up its international reputation, especially in the eyes of donor countries. Unfortunately, we have seen time and again that foreign countries, including democratic countries, are more interested in doing business than in denouncing and punishing undemocratic regimes.
To demand repeatedly for something and repeatedly obtain nothing, to the extent that it reveals the absence of leverage on the government, is easily construed as a demonstration of insurmountable weakness and inability to emerge as an alternative. What else can the people conclude from this constant failure to put pressure on the government but the utter weakness and irrelevance of the opposition? Since the opposition cannot extract the slightest concession from the government, there is no reason for the people to side with the opposition and become the target of government retaliation. Voting for the government may not bring change but at least it protects against retaliation.
As a matter of fact, neither participation nor boycott adds anything to the goal of denunciation for the simple reason that the anti-democratic nature of the regime has long ceased to be a mystery to foreigners or natives. If we still find Ethiopians who are not aware of its real nature, such people are better left alone since they are either irremediably apolitical or indifferent to what is going around them.
What about mobilization and organization? Does participation, as claimed by those opposing boycott, serve to strengthen opposition parties? It would have been so if the government would allow freedom of expression and organization. Such disposition would mean that the government is ready to face opposition in a level playing ground. But the very dilemma over participation stems from the knowledge that the government will not allow a condition of fair competition, that it will paralyzed the opposition by restrictions, harassments, and imprisonments, not to mention the silencing of the free press. To expect the strengthening of the opposition as a result of participation is just a wishful thinking.
The likely outcome being that participation will not bring any result, it removes the grounds for complaint about the lack of democracy. Your participation was a defiance intent on showing that you can pierce the barrier of exclusion. Your failure to do so only exposes your weakness and irrelevance. The aim of the government is not to show its strength by winning elections; rather, it is to display overtly that it has no real rivals worthy of that name. It does not want to win majority votes; it wants to ridicule the opposition by a crushing victory, thereby showing that there is no alternative to its rule. The proper analogy expressing Ethiopian elections is two soccer teams competing with the players of one of the teams being blindfolded.
In fact, a clear pattern emerges from the manner the government deals with opposition parties. Plainly, the government steps up its repressive power when it confronts unitary parties, such as the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party and All Ethiopian Unity Party, while being more tolerant of opposition parties with an ethnic banner. In ruthlessly repressing unitary parties, the government wants to bring about their final demise. The relative tolerance of the government to ethnicized opposition parties is, for sure, due to the perception of some affinity with its own policy; more importantly, however, it originates from the conviction that ethnic parties, fragmented as they are, can never become a threat to the hegemony of the TPLF. Add to this that it is simply easy to create hostility between these parties and reduce them to the permanent status of a negligible opposition.
The real threat, if fair elections were held, comes from unitary parties, as demonstrated by the success of Kinijit in 2005. In the eyes of the TPLF, Ethiopian nationalist parties cannot be allowed to grow, for the real enemy to its hegemony–which rests on the efficient implementation of divide-and-rule policy–is none other than Ethiopian nationalism. It is amazing that more than 20 years of uninterrupted attack and stifling have not succeeding in weakening Ethiopian nationalism. It has become the forbidden fruit: the more you want to muffle it, the more people want it.

Who Wins?

What springs from all is clear enough: opposition parties, whether they participate or not, lose in that none of the projected goals ascribed to participation or boycott is achievable. Neither participation nor boycott affects the standing of the government or the state of opposition parties in any meaningful way. Does this mean that the government win?
One thing is sure: after the elections, the government will not be better off. Not only will it face the same problems, but also its intransigence and repressive policy will heighten popular frustration and instill the sense of a political deadlock in the county. In other words, there is no winner, but only a huge loser, namely, nonviolent, peaceful opposition. Seeing the complete ineffectiveness of participation or boycott, people, especially the young, are increasingly bound to question the wisdom of peaceful opposition. The more repression continues, the more the deadlock over the possibility of change thickens, and the higher becomes the disposition toward uprising as the only alternative left. This is the iron law of all social blockage: Ethiopia will not be an exception.
When uprising becomes the only way out, young activists go underground or join armed struggle. Exciting nonviolent parties, too, to the extent that they are serious about the struggle for change, will be compelled to have a hard look at their strategy. Even if they continue to operate in a legal manner, it is no longer to win seats in the parliament. Instead, they anticipate uprising and hope to take its leadership when it erupts. Without doubt, the present attitude of the TPLF gives Ethiopians no other choice than revolution with, alas, the unpredictable but certainly severe and uncontrollable consequences that confrontation or civil war will have in present-day Ethiopia. Ethiopians, gear up for the worst!    sourse ecdef

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Internet censorship: The worst offenders By Barclay Ballard January 29, 2015



In the UK, policies that restrict the flow of information across the Internet are generally met with outcry and consternation for contradicting our fundamental right of free speech, but for many individuals widespread Internet censorship is the norm.
However, online censorship is much more pervasive than one might initially think, with Ethiopia, Russia and even the UK currently listed as Enemies of the Internet by the French non-governmental group Reporters without Borders (RWB).
The most high-profile example remains of course China, which has monitored and regulated online use almost since the Internet's introduction in the country back in 1994. The Golden Shield Project, often referred to as the Great Firewall of China, was officially begun in 1998 and attempts to restrict the distribution of what it calls "sensitive" information.
Websites referring to Tibetan or Taiwan independence, the Tiananmen Square protests or freedom of speech, amongst other topics are all outlawed. Well-known Western sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are also banned. Despite the rise of domestic social media platforms like Sina Weibo and attempts to circumvent censorship via VPNs and proxy servers, China remains one of the most stringently censored countries in the world.
Another country influence by a Communist regime, North Korea's general level of secrecy may make its censorship programme less well-known, but in many ways it is even more authoritarian. All media is controlled by the government and estimations suggest that just four per cent of the population have Internet access.
Aside from high-ranking government officials, most citizens must use the national intranet Kwangmyong. Unsurprisingly, Kwangmyong is a heavily watered-down version of the World Wide Web, containing between 1,000 and 5,500 websites compared to a figure of more a billion than for the global Internet. As a result, the head of the Internet desk at RWB Julian Pain described North Korea as "by far the worst Internet black hole".
Aside from issues of political sensitivity, the Internet's free exchange of ideas can also place it at odds with countries that have a more strictly religious society.In Saudi Arabia, for example, all Internet traffic first goes through a government run filter which, according to the country's Internet Services Unit , blocks all material of an "offensive or harmful nature to the society, and which violate the tenants of the Islamic religion or societal norms". In reality this often means any sites of a pornographic nature or which are supportive of LGBT rights, any found to be promoting Shia ideology, and any that are critical of the national government.
Interestingly, the government encourages the Saudi people to be complicit in the censorship programme by asking them to actively report immoral pages to the government's website. Other Middle Eastern nations known to implement at least some form of online censorship include Syria, Iran, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
While large scale censorship programmes may be restricted to a few high-profile countries, many nations have blocked or threatened to block popular websites in isolation. Social media is often targeted due to the way it encourages discussion and the transfer of information. In the past year for example, Pakistan, Iran, Eritrea, Turkey and Vietnam, alongside China and North Korea, have all blocked Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.
However, while Western nations generally allow their citizens to freely browse social networks and the majority of other sites, it is easy to forget that many of these countries have experienced some form of online censorship in recent times. For example, both the United Kingdom and the US were listed as "Enemies of the Internet" by RWB in 2014, with the former dubbed the "world champion of surveillance".
The UK's use of a web filter known as Cleanfeed to block child pornography is surely beyond criticism, but over the last couple of years the UK government has taken steps to increase its control over the World Wide Web. Since 2011, UK ISPs have been ordered to block websites that infringe upon copyright laws such as file sharing site the Pirate Bay.
However, it is Prime Minister David Cameron's controversial decision to enforce a filter on pornography as well as abusive material such as violent and suicide-related content, that has drawn the most criticism. For many, censoring what content an individual can privately access is a slippery slope to more proactive Internet control.
Worryingly, Cameron looks set to continue on this path, telling the Australian parliament in November that "we must not allow the Internet to be an ungoverned space", if the threat of religious extremism is to be thwarted. With British citizens continuing to join the extremist group Islamic State in Iraq, a government-backed decision to place further limits on this kind of narrative is not entirely unfeasible.
It is clear that Internet censorship is not an issue restricted to China, the Middle East or even countries that unashamedly place limits upon freedom of speech. When Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales questioned whether the West was losing its "moral leadership" regarding online censorship, he hit upon a very pertinent point. It is the responsibility of every nation to appraise its barriers to free speech so that, not only the safety, but also the freedom of its citizens is ensured.
Published under license from ITProPortal.com, a Net Communities Ltd Publication. All rights reserved.




Ethiomedia.com - An African-American news and views website.
Copyright 2013 Ethiomedia.com. 
Email: editor@ethiomedia.com

OMN: Amharic News Jan 24, 2015

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

የሌ/ጀኔራል ጃገማ ኬሎ 94ኛ የልደት በዓል ተከበረ


January 28, 2015
በነገረ ኢትዮጵያ ሪፖርተር
Ethiopian Hero Lt. General Jagama Kello
በጣሊያን ዳግም ወረራ ወቅት በ15ኛ አመታቸው ከፋሽስት ወራሪ ጦር ጋር በተለያዩ አውደ ግንባሮች ተፋልመው ከፍተኛ ጀብዱ የፈፀሙት እና ጣሊያን ከአገር ተሸንፎ ከወጣ በኋላም የአገር ዳር ድንበርን በማስጠበቅ ከፍተኛ ጀግንነት የፈፀሙት የሌ/ጀኔራል ጃገማ ኬሎ 94ኛ የልደት በዓል ዛሬ ጥር 20 ዓ.ም ተከበረ፡፡
በ1929 ዓ.ም ጣሊያን ኢትዮጵያን በወረረበት ወቅት ገና በወጣትነታቸው የራሳቸውን ጦር በማደራጀት ጠላትን የተዋጉት ሌ/ጀኔራል ጃገማ ኬሎ በወቅቱ በተለያዩ የጦር ውሎዎች በጠላት ላይ ከፍተኛ ጀብዱን ተቀዳጅተዋል፡፡ ከዚህም ባሻገር ሶማሊያ ኢትዮጵያን በወረረችበት ወቅት የአገርን ዳር ድንበር በማስጠበቅ ከፍተኛ አስተዋጽኦ አበርክተዋል፡፡
ሌ/ጄኔራል ጃገማ ኬሎ ጥር 20/1913 ዓ.ም የተወለዱ ሲሆን በዛሬው ዕለት ቀበና አካባቢ በሚገኘው የልጃቸው የትምወርቅ ጃጋማ ቤት የተለያዩ እንግዶች በተገኙበት 94ኛ አመት የልደት በዓላቸውን አክብረዋል፡፡ የሰማያዊ ፓርቲ ወጣቶችም የሌ/ጀኔራል ጃገማ ኬሎ 94ኛ የልደት በዓል ላይ ተገኝተው አክብረዋል፡፡
ሌ/ጀኔራል ጃገማ ኬሎ በአጼ ኃይለስላሴ ዘመን ከነበሩት ሌ/ጀኔራሎች መካከል በህይወት የሚገኙት ብቸኛው ጀኔራል ሲሆኑ አንድ ወንድና አምስት ሴት ልጆች፣ አምስት የልጅ ልጆችና አራት የልጅ ልጅ ልጆችን አፍርተዋል፡፡sourse ecdef

ጎጃምን ከጎንደር የሚያገናኘው የአባይ ድልድይ ትክ የሚሰራበት የቆይታ ጊዜ በመርዘሙ አደጋ ያደርሳል በሚል ስጋት ላይ መሆናቸውን የባህርዳር ከተማ ነዋሪዎች ገለጹ፡፡




ጥር ፲፱(አስራ ዘጠኝ) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :-በባህርዳር ከ1949 ዓ.ም ጀምሮ ነዋሪ የሆኑት አስተያየት ሰጪ ሲናገሩ ድልድዩ ሲሰራ አለሁ የመሰረት ዲንጋዩ ሲቀመጥ ነበርኩ ካሉ በኋላ ከ25 እስከ 30 ዓመት እንደሚያገለግል በይፋ ተነግሮ እንደተሰራ  ከዚህ ዓመት በላይ ከቆየ አደጋ ለያደርስ እንደሚችል በወቅቱ በነበሩ የግንባታ ባለሙያዎች እንደተነገረ በማስታወስ ገልጸው ምንም አይነት የተሰራ አዲስ ነገር ሳይኖር ከ50 ዓመታት በላይ መቆየቱ ስጋት እንዳሳደረባቸው ተናግረዋል፡፡
ከ47 ዓመት በፊት በባህር ዳር ከተማ ነዋሪ የነበሩት ሌላው አስተያየት ሰጪ ሲናገሩ ለረዢም አመታት በድልድዩ የተመደቡ ተቆጣጣሪዎች የሚያልፉ መኪኖች ተራ በተራ እንዲጓዙ በማድረግ የድልድዩን ጤንነት ይጠብቁ የነበረው የጥበቃ አሰራር አሁን የለም፡፡ይህም በድልድዩ ላይ ከፍተኛ ጫና በማድረጉ ችግር ሊፈጠር ይችላል በሚል ስጋት በቀበሌ ህዝባዊ ስብሰባዎች ብያቀርቡም ምንም ዓይነት በጎ ምላሽ አልተሰጠንም በማለት ተናግረዋል፡፡
የገዢው ፓርቲ በየጊዜው በህዝባዊ ስብሰባዎች የሚገባውን ቃል አለመጠበቁ እንዳሳዘናቸው የሚናገሩት አስተያየት ሰጪዎች የየባህርዳሩ አባይ ድልድይ ከእድሜው መርዘም እና ስፋቱ መጥበብ የተነሳ ለልዩ ልዩ አደጋዎች በየጊዜው መከሰት ምክንያት ለእድሳት በሚል የከተማ አስተዳደሩ ከፌደራል መንግስት የሚላከውን የእድሳት ገንዘብ ለግል ጥቀም ማዋላቸው  አሳሳቢ  እየሆነ መምጣቱን ለዘጋቢያችን ገልጸዋል፡esat radio

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Police Brutally, Attack Peaceful Protesters in Addis Ababa ahead of National Election


January 27, 2015
by Betre Yacob
Police brutally attacked and dispersed peaceful demonstrators in the capital Addis Ababa on Sunday as they try to protest against the ongoing government repression on opposition political parties and dissents in run-up to the countries general election.
Ethiopia's Police Brutally
Political activists say the Sunday’s attack against the peaceful demonstrators is further evidence of the authorities’ determination to clamp down the activities of opposition political parties ahead of up-coming elections.
In this latest brutal attack against peaceful protesters, dozens of members and supporters of Unity for Democracy and Justice Party (UDJ) were seriously injured. The incident is the most blatant and massive case of non-lethal police brutality in Ethiopia.
According to reports, demonstrators were brutally beaten with baton, stick and iron rod in the head, face, hands, and legs. One of the victims is said to have been a pregnant woman. Reports show the victims were taken to hospital right away, and some of them are still receiving a medical treatment.
Among seriously injured was Sileshi Hagose, the member of the general assembly of the party and editor in chief of a news paper. Recently released photographs show that he was wonded in the face and head, and his both hands were seriously broken.
UDJ is the main opposition political party struggling in the narrowing political landscape in Ethiopia and is one of the few parties working at national level with an inclusive structure by bringing different ethnic groups all together.
Reports show in the past few weeks the party has been struggling with the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) over the case of an internal faction that is accusing the party of violating its laws.
The party claims that the faction is consisted of double agents working for the ruling party, and accuses the NEBE of fuelling the problem and using the allegation of the faction as a tactic to tackle the party in favor of the government. And one of the objectives of Sunday’s demonstration was to protest against this what the party calls “government plot.”
The Sunday’s brutal attack is the latest in a serious of similar measures against peaceful demonstrators in Ethiopia. For instance, on 6 December 2014 several people were beaten during attempts to stage a demonstration by a coalition of nine opposition political parties.
Amnesty international reported that the nine-party coalition had been attempting “to stage a demonstration as the culmination of a series of activities calling for a free and fair election.”
The group also says in a report that holding an election rally is now totally impossible as government continue to reject applications for such events and keep its brutal attack against those trying to held.
According to the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), the election will be held on May 23 across the country.
Escalating Crackdown
As the election approaches, the ruling party is intensifying its crackdown on opposition political parties and independent voices. Many claim a fair election cannot be held under the current situation in which the ruling party is violating electoral laws of the country.
In 2014 only, several opposition leaders, Journalists, bloggers, and Human Right activists were arrested with numerous publications of the free press closed. More than 30 journalists were also forced to flee the country.
Activists said at least 12 key and outspoken opposition political leaders, 6 journalists, 6 bloggers, and 2 political activists had been jailed in the capital Addis Ababa only under fabricated terrorism charges.
The ongoing crackdown has included independent civic associations that could play an important role in the upcoming election. Reports shows in 2014 two civic associations were targeted in orchestrated false accusations.
This wide array of measure, which is getting increasingly worrying, is said by oppositions to be calculated to deter challenges and eliminate the scope for the mildest expressions of opposition.
The Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has been on power since 1991, and 4 general elections have been held in the past 23 years. Yet, all those elections were abused, and failed to meet the international standards.
sourse ecdef

Monday, January 26, 2015

World Bank-ruptcy in Ethiopia January 26, 2015


The moral bankruptcy of the World Bank in Ethiopia

Ethiopians have been the object of a cruel bureaucratic joke by the World Bank. Last week, an official investigative report surfaced on line showing World Bank bureaucrats in Ethiopia have been playing  “Deception Games” of displacement, deracination, forced resettlement and a kinder and gentler form of ethnic cleansing  in the Gambella region of Western Ethiopia. Tens of thousands of Anuaks in Gambella have been removed illegally and in violation of policy from their ancestral homelands and left high and dry and twisting in the wind, courtesy and cash of the World Bank!
by Alemayehu G. Mariam
For years, the fat cat World Bank bureaucrats and their ilk in Ethiopia have categorically denied allegations of any links  between the so-called “Protection of Basic Services Project” (PBS) and the “villagization” program undertaken by the Thugtatorship of the Tigrean Peoples Liberation Front (T-TPLF). (The term “villagization” is a euphemism for “civilization” of the Anuak to live in modern villages by abandoning their “primitive” lifestyles.)  The Bank has consistently deflected criticism by claiming that it “had not encountered any evidence of human rights abuses” in its PBS programs in Gambella.World Bank in Ethiopia
Stonewalling, sandbagging, mendacity and duplicity have been the preferred strategies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the U.K’s Development for International Development and the so-called Development Assistance Group in Ethiopia  (comprising of  27 bilateral and multilateral development agencies providing assistance to Ethiopia) when it comes to accountability for their complicity in crimes against humanity in Ethiopia. Sir Malcolm Bruce, chairman of the UK parliament’s international development committee, had the audacity to declare in March 2013 that “allegations against villagisation are unsubstantiated” and that “UK programme is delivering a very good result.”
To paraphrase Abe Lincoln’s saying, “The World Bank and the gang of poverty pimps known as the “Development Assistance Group” (DAG) can fool all Ethiopians some of the time, and some Ethiopians all the time, but they can’t fool all Ethiopians all the time.” But there is no denying that because of the Deception Games played by these leeches, “Ethiopians have been had! They been took! They been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok!”, to paraphrase Malcom X. Ethiopianshave been cruelly punked and pranked by the mighty, mighty World Bank.
So spoke the “Inspection Panel” (IP), the World Bank’s independent accountability mechanism. The IP, of course, said it in the sanitized, detached and impersonal language of  “bureaucratise”.  They would never use the impassioned and fiery language of an outraged human rights advocate who is so perplexed in the extreme that he must speak out and loudly in the only language he knows, Moral Outrage. “Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while,/ Till we can clear these ambiguities…”, wrote Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet.  I need not seal up my outrage because the World Bank’s own Inspection Panel has cleared all of the ambiguities for me!
In September 2012, two dozen or so Ethiopian refugees from the Gambella Region of Western Ethiopia requested an investigation by the World Bank alleging that they had been forced off their land, “villagized”  and their ancestral lands handed over to land grabbers (investors). In a letter dated September 24, 2012, the unnamed Anuak refugees alleged that they have been severely harmed by the World Bank-financed “Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Project (PBS)” which directly supported the “Ethiopian Government’s Villagization Program in Gambella Region.” Specifically,
1)  “Through the PBS program, the Anuak Indigenous People are being forcibly transferred from their fertile ancestral land, which is then being leased to investors.”
2) “The Anuak have been relocated to infertile land, which is unsuitable for farming, and forced to build new villages there.”
3) “Mass evictions have been carried out under the pretext of providing better services and improving the livelihoods of the communities. However, once they moved to the new sites, they found not only unfertile land, but also no schools, clinics, wells or other basic services.”
4) “[The Anuak] were forced to abandon their crops just before harvest and were not given any food assistance from the government during the move, which left many relocated families facing hunger. Some vulnerable people and children died from starvation as a result of the Villagization program.
5)  “Government workers in the woredas, whose salaries are paid by the PBS project, have been forced to implement this program.
6)   “Those farmers who opposed the relocation, and government workers who refused to implement the program, including the Requesters and/or their relatives, have been targeted with arrest, beating, torture and killing.
7)  “The Requesters believe that these harms have resulted from World Bank non-compliance with its operational policies and procedures.”
In 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a 115-page report entitled, “ ‘WAITING HERE FOR DEATH’: Displacement and ‘Villagization’ in Ethiopia’s  Gambella Region”. That Report supported and vastly expanded on the Anuak allegations and documented acts and omissions of the various members of the Development Assistance Group in Ethiopia in the “villagization” fiasco. The HRW report concluded:
The Ethiopian government is forcibly moving tens of thousands of indigenous people in the western Gambella region from their homes to new villages under its villagization” program. These population transfers are being carried out with no meaningful consultation and no compensation. Despite government promises to provide basic resources and infrastructure, the new villages have inadequate food, agricultural support, and health and education facilities. Relocations have been marked by threats and assaults, and arbitrary arrest for those who resist the move. The state security forces enforcing the population transfers have been implicated in at least 20 rapes in the past year. Fear and intimidation are widespread among affected populations.
The Truth about the World Bank’s crimes against humanity in Ethiopia
The World Bank’s Inspection Panel undertook an investigation of the Anuak complaint and submitted its “OFFICIAL USE ONLY” report dated November 21, 2014, to the World Bank President, Executive Directors, Department Heads and others. The limited circulation “Investigative Report” mysteriously surfaced online for the whole world to find out the scope of dereliction of duty and depravity of the World Bank managers in Ethiopia and their bosses elsewhere.
The IP Report entitled  “Ethiopia: Promoting Basic Services Phase III Project (P128891)” enumerated findings that are absolutely shocking to the conscience. Using boldface print to underscore the gravity of its findings, the IP stated [I have used Roman numerals to identify specific findings and related particularized commentary below):
[Note to the readerI ask my readers to try and read the following findings as stated in the IP’s Report. It is likely that most readers will find the bureaucratic language confusing and hard to understand. I offer an “English translation” immediately following the official statement of findings.] 
[I] … [T]he Panel finds that Management did not carry out the required full risk analysis, nor were its mitigation measures adequate to manage the concurrent roll-out of the villagization program in four PBS III regions. The Panel finds that Management’s approach did not meet the standards of a systematic or holistic assessment of risks, as called for in the Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) Guidance, which is aimed among other objectives at identifying adequate risk management measures for affected communities. The Panel finds these omissions in non-compliance with OMS 2.20 on Project Appraisal. 
[II] … It is the view of the Panel that the lack of recognition and analysis during appraisal of the operational interface between PBS III and CDP as required by the ORAF and described above, meant that the resulting risks were not adequately taken into account, neither were they properly managed and mitigated during PBS III implementation. 
[III] … The Panel finds that, barring the triggering of OP 4.10, Management should have adopted the “functional equivalence” approach in the design of PBS III… The Panel notes that livelihoods, well-being and access to basic services, which are closely tied to the Anuak’s access to land and natural resources was not taken into account in the design of PBS III, in non-compliance with OP 4.10. 
[IV] … The Panel finds that, in accordance with Bank Policies, the operational interface between CDP and PBS should have been taken into account at the PBS project level, both during the appraisal and implementation phases, especially in a region such as Gambella  where 60% of households, which are also PBS beneficiaries, were resettled as part of the Government’s CDP. The Panel finds that Management’s approach has not enabled PBS to mitigate or manage the harms described in the Request for Inspection with respect to access and quality of basic services in the agricultural sector and livelihoods of affected people in Gambella. 
[V]… Since PBS III began implementation, three “Joint Review and Implementation Support” (JRIS) missions were undertaken, but the resulting reports are silent on the issues noted above. The Panel finds that this is not consistent with the supervision provisions of the Investment Lending Policy (OP/BP 10.00). 
[VI]… The Panel finds that Management did not comply with the requirements of OMS 2.20 and OP/BP 10.02 in the design and appraisal of PBS III. The Panel notes that the Bank’s assertion that the funds can be tracked at the woreda level cannot be sustained. 
[VII] … The Panel finds that, since PDO results indicators that directly address fiduciary risks were inadequate in the initial planning, and subsequently have not been adjusted, the supervision of those risks is not in compliance with Bank policy OP/BP 10.00.
Translation of the Inspection Panel’s Report in simple English 
The language of bureaucrats is “bureaucratese” or “officialese”.  It is a special language filled with abstractions, jargon, buzzwords, fuzzwords, doublespeak, euphemisms, circumlocutions, obfuscations and acronyms. “Bureaucratese” is about vagueness, not clarity or directness. Bureaucratic reports are often stilted, convoluted, and often indecipherable.
Simply stated, the accomplished practitioner of “bureaucratese” would never call a spade a spade. S/he would describe a spade as an implement with a sharp-edged, typically rectangular, metal blade riveted or pressure fitted into an elongated wooden or hardened plastic handle and used for, among other things, spreading manure; incidentally, an activity most bureaucrats are expert at doing.
[Some may find the IP’s Report and its findings a prime example of “bureaucratese”.  Below is my “English translation” of the bureaucratese in the Inspection Panel’s findings. Reference is made to the findings of the Inspection Panel’s findings above per Roman numerals.]
[I]. The World Bank management in Ethiopia and the overseers elsewhere implemented   the  PBS program with a devil-may-care attitude.  The managers in Ethiopia were basically engaged in window dressing. They were going through the motions of implementing the program and putting on a show. The Bank’s managers did not give a rat’s ass about the effects or impact of the villagization program on the people of Gambella. They did not even look at their official policies and guidelines in assessing the risk of harmful impact on the Anuak people purportedly served by the PBS. By undertaking “concurrent rollout of the villagization program in four regions”, the mangers bit more than they can chew. By failing to comply with required Bank policies set forth in OMS 2.20 on Project Appraisal, the managers were one or more of the following: incompetent, lazy-ass, indifferent, reckless, callous, uncaring, unconcerned and morally and professionally depraved. They should get the boot right in their fat behinds!
[II]. The World Bank in-country program managers’ cluelessness about their responsibilities, their depraved indifference and lack of professional integrity is principally responsible for ignoring known and reasonably articulable and predictable risks of harm to the Anuak  communities impacted by the PBS program. Once the harm became manifest and the Bank’s managers knew they had really screwed up things badly, they could not manage their mistakes or take corrective action because they were clueless about what they needed to do. So, they sat around twiddling their thumbs hoping no one will find out the big mess they made or expose their dereliction of duty, laughable ineptitude, indolence, lethargy and shiftlessness.
[III]. Even though the World Bank managers were clueless or willfully ignorant of the Bank’s OP 4.10 [which sets guidelines and policies to ensure the Bank’s programs’ fully respect the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures], they could have still taken corrective action to improve the situation and minimize the harm on the Anuak communities by adopting a “functional equivalence” approach [which requires the managers to consult and seek broad community support from communities potentially impacted by the program, facilitating  culturally appropriate benefit sharing, processes for complaints and dispute resolution and generally making sure indigenous peoples do not get the shaft.] Because of the failure of the Bank’s managers to follow standard policies or parallel guidelines of the Bank, the Anuak people of Gambella suffered harm which, among other things,  deprived them of their rightful access to their ancestral lands and vital natural resources and inflicted upon them needless suffering.
[IV].  The World Bank managers in Ethiopia cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. Their right hand does not know what their left hand is doing. The World Bank’s Community Development Project seeks to provide sustainable ways of improving the living conditions and the economic status of disadvantaged communities by focusing on social and infrastructure development and improve access to basic education, health, and social services. PBS III in Gambella seeks to “strengthen the capacity, transparency, accountability and financial management of sub-national governments to provide such basic services as education, health, agriculture, water supply and sanitation and rural roads. Because the Bank’s mangers were sitting on their duffs and not doing their job of monitoring and coordinating the two programs, the people of  Gambella were harmed in the ways the Anuak complainants alleged. Simply stated, as a result of the Bank managers’ dereliction of duty, the Anuak people were relocated to infertile land, forced to build new villages without schools, clinics, wells or other basic services. Most importantly, “Some vulnerable Anuak people and children died from starvation as a result of the Villagization program.” Others who opposed the forced relocation of the Anuak under the World Bank program “have been targeted with arrest, beating, torture and killing.” It seems like Pompei burning and Nero fiddling, except it is Gambella and the World Bank.
There is blood on the hands of the World Bank managers in Ethiopia!
[V]. There is a conspiracy of silence to cover up the crimes against humanity committed against the Anuak people in Ethiopia with the complicity of the World Bank itself. The “main objective of the [JRIS] Mission is to review implementation progress on all components of the project and provide implementation support.” The World Bank gave $600 million for PBS III in September 2012. Three JRIS reviews were done since PBS III was implemented and all three “are silent on the issues” of harm to the Anuak people. The World Bank’s “Investment Lending Policy (OP/BP 10.00)” provides detailed and elaborate policies, procedures and instructions with “particular attention to reviewing the monitoring by the Borrower or Project Participant(s) of the performance of the Project and compliance with contractual undertakings.”  The World Bank managers were asleep at the switch in their duties or willfully ignorant of the blatant and flagrant violations of the Bank’s policies with respect to investment lending and monitoring.
[VI]. The World Bank managers in Ethiopia lied through their teeth, told tall tales when they said the Bank’s money could be tracked at the woreda level.  The World Bank’s OMS 2.20 requires the Bank, among other things, to ensure that financed activities are consistent with a borrower’s international agreements regarding its environment and the health and well-being of its citizens.” OP/BP 10.02 requires the Bank “during project implementation, [to have its] financial management staff review the continuing adequacy of the financial management arrangements.”
The Bank’s managers in Ethiopia were clueless of or willfully indifferent to these important responsibilities. The “Woredas” constitute the third level (after regions and zones) in the country’s “decentralized administrative structure”. The “Woredas” are a well-known den of corruption. It is the “Woreda Councils” that delivered a 99.6 percent electoral victory to the T-TPLF in 2010. Yet, the World Bank managers in Ethiopia have opted to abdicate their own duties and professionalism and blindly rely on the integrity and financial skills of benighted Woreda officials to fulfill their own fiduciary responsibilities. (What were they thinking? Strike that question!)
[VII]. [This finding is the most interesting and astounding one from the standpoint of financial accountability.]  The World Bank’s managers in Ethiopia made no effort to protect the Bank’s money from corruption. That is what the phrase “inadequate initial planning to address fiduciary risks” means. The World Bank has policies (OP/BP 10.00) and analytical tools (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA)) to safeguard against corruption in recipient states. Even though these policies and tools do not comprehensively address corruption risks, it is generally considered that planning, monitoring and conducting such assessments has a positive impact on the recipient countries. The World Bank mangers in Ethiopia dropped the ball big time on safeguarding against “fiduciary risks” (corruption) in PBS III!
I am no stranger to the machinations of the World Bank and the Unholy Alliance of International Poverty Pimps known as the Under- “Development Assistance Group.” I have studied their reports and scrutinized their policies, operational guidelines, manuals, public statements and other publications for quite some time now. I can say I have some general  familiarity with their policies, practices and activities in Ethiopia.
I imagine I am probably the only person (other than the authors) who has read and re-read multiple times the World Bank’s  417-page report “Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia”. In fact, I have read that report so many times that I am  embarrassed to admit the actual number in public.  I used that report to write so many commentaries on corruption in various sectors of the Ethiopian economy and to criticize the Empire of Corruption of the T-TPLF.
I will admit that corruption report was a breath of fresh air. I have not seen a World Bank report of corruption of such breadth and depth on any other country. If one exists, I would like to know. I was inspired and even grateful to the World Bank for doing right by the people of Ethiopia for a change and telling the truth about the Empire of Corruption built and maintained by the T-TPLF. I really believed “Diagnosing Corruption” heralded a new era of transparency and accountability at the World Bank.
I am not accusing all World Bank employees in Ethiopia or others elsewhere who oversee the Bank’s Programs in that country. There are some genuine World Bank professionals who tell the truth about Ethiopia come hell or high water. Wolfgang Fengler, a lead economist for the World Bank, is one such individual.  In 2011 when the late Meles Zenawi was trying to deny occurrences of famine and food shortages in the country, Fengler called him out. Fengler said, “The [famine] crisis [in the Horn] is man made. Droughts have occurred over and again, but you need bad policy making for that to lead to a famine.” In other words, it is bad governance that is at the core of the famine problem in Ethiopia, not drought. That was a rare and refreshing departure from the all-too-common bureaucratic mumbo jumbo about the causes of famine often spouted by international aid agencies and multilateral organizations.
Then there are tall tale tellers like Guang Zhe Chen, World Bank Country Director for Ethiopia.   In December 2012, Chen said, “Two and a half million people in Ethiopia have been lifted out of poverty over the past five years as a result of strong economic growth, bringing the poverty rate down from 38.7 percent to 29.6 percent between 2004/05 and 2010/11 … The Government target to reduce poverty to 22.2 percent by 2014/15 is ambitious but attainable.
It is 2015 now! Is poverty reduced by 22.2 percent in Ethiopia!? 
I get it! I really do. The World Bank guys have to make the T-TPLF look good to make themselves look good. If they tell the truth about the T-TPLF, they will also be tattletaling on themselves. They don’t want to be snitches so they have (un)willingly become part of a conspiracy of silence to protect the T-TPLF.  Instead of telling the truth about the T-TPLF’s corruption, mismanagement of the economy and crimes against humanity in Gambella, they tell tall tales and fairy tales about preposterous and fictional economic growth in Ethiopia.
In its December  2012 report, the World Bank claimed, “Over the past decade, the Ethiopian economy has been growing at twice the rate of the Africa region, averaging, 10.6 percent GDP growth per year between 2004 and 2011 compared to 5.2 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa,  according to a new report by the World Bank.”
Of course, the World Bank knows that is a crock of _ _ _ T! I have shown beyond any doubt that the stratospheric claims of GDP growth and the rest of the claims were based on figures cooked up in Meles Zenawi’s Statistics Office and quietly slipped to the World Bank, the IMF and others to parrot to the rest of the world and ultimately show Meles to be the Second Coming.  I challenge the World Bank or anyone to disprove my analysis in my commentary “The Voodoo Economics of Meles Zenawi”.
Dambissa Moyo, author of Dead Aid said,  “… World Bank research has shown that 85 percent of development aid was used for other than the intended purpose. Donor countries are propping up the most corrupt regimes. From 1980 until 1996, 72 percent of World Bank aid went to countries that did not abide by the rules. The need for donor countries to just keep on giving appears to be insatiable.
The November 2014 Inspection Panel’s Report on Ethiopia discussed herein provides fresh and incontrovertible evidence in support of Moyo’s claim. How little things have changed over three decades?!
The World Bank’s hypocrisy in Ethiopia
The World Bank proclaims its mission is to “strive to end extreme poverty at the global level within a generation” and promote “shared prosperity”. The  Bank purportedly seeks to accomplish this mission in Ethiopia through its “Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Project (BPS).”  According to the World Bank, the BPS in Ethiopia has four components: 1) “maintain delivery of basic services provided by regional and local governments”, 2) “provide predictable financing for critical inputs for the primary health service delivery subprogram”; 3) “supports activities at the Regional and city Administration, Woreda and sub- Woreda levels to significantly enhance transparency around public budget procedures and foster broad engagement and citizen representation on public budget processes and public service delivery”; and 4) promote “capacity building for and piloting of selected approaches to strengthen the voice of citizens and civil society organizations and also builds the capacity of citizens to engage in public budgeting processes. The World Bank has been supporting  its PBS program in Ethiopia since May 2006 with a commitment of more than $2bn. In the last two years, the Bank has spent a cool USD$600 million.
The truth of the matter is that the World Bank’s managers have failed miserably in their mission. They have failed to “carry out the required full risk analysis to manage the concurrent roll-out of the villagization program in four PBS III regions.”  They have failed to follow or comply with the Bank’s operational policies and guidelines. They have failed to interact or consult with the Anuak communities adversely impacted by the Banks’ programs.  They are clueless about the “operational interface between PBS III and CDP as required by the Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF).” They do not give a rat’s behind about “livelihoods, well-being and access to basic services, which are closely tied to the Anuak’s access to land and natural resources.” In their  “Joint Review and Implementation Support” (JRIS) reports, they sugarcoat, finesse and massage facts or outright bury unfavorable facts to avoid transparency and evade accountability. They don’t do much planning, monitoring or supervision of the Bank’s program. They have abdicated their professional duties and obligations and transferred their fiduciary duties to corrupt woreda officials to ensure hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent properly. I am just curious: What do the World Bank managers in Ethiopia do all day, anyway?
For crying out loud, what kind of a mickey mouse operation is the World Bank running in Ethiopia? 
In December 2013, World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim declared, “In the developing world, corruption is public enemy number one…  We will never tolerate corruption, and I pledge to do all in our power to build upon our strong fight against it…  Every dollar that a corrupt official or a corrupt business person puts in their pocket is a dollar stolen from a pregnant woman who needs health care; or from a girl or a boy who deserves an education; or from communities that need water, roads, and schools. Every dollar is critical if we are to reach our goals to end extreme poverty by 2030 and to boost shared prosperity.”
I wish Kim would visit my Anuak brothers and sisters in Gambella in 2015 and tell them how many schools, hospitals, clinics, roads and water wells his Bank’s USD$600 million has provided the people of Gambella.
For crying out loud, could someone tell me if there anyone minding the World Bank store in Addis Ababa?
(To be continued…)sourse ecdef