Monday, March 30, 2015
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
65 ኢትዮጵያውያን በኬንያ ፍርድ ቤት ቀረቡ
መጋቢት ፲፰(አስራ ስምንት) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :- የኬንያው ዘ ደይሊ ኔሽን እንደዘገበው ኢትዮጵያውያኑ ወደ አገሪቱ በህገወጥ መንገድ በመግባታቸው እያንዳንዳቸው 2 መቶ ሺ ሽልንግ እንዲከፍሉ የኢሲዮሎ ፍርድ ቤት ወስኖባቸዋል።
ሁሉ ም ስደተኞች ባለፈው ሰኞ ሳምቡሩ በተባለው ስፍራ ላይ የተያዙ ሲሆን፣ ተከሳሾች ያለፈቃድ ወደ ኬንያ መግባት እንደማይቻል ባለማወቃቸው ምህረት እንዲደረግላቸው ጠይቀዋል። ይሁን እንጅ ፍርድ ቤቱ የተጠቀሰውን ገንዘብ እንዲከፍሉ ወይም ለ3
ወር እንዲታሰሩ ውሳኔ አስተላልፎባቸዋል።
በየአመቱ በብዙ መቶዎች የሚቆጠሩ ኢትዮጵያውያን ወደ ደቡብ አፍሪካ ለመሄድ በመካከሉ ባሉ አገሮች እየተያዙ ፍርድ ቤት እየቀረቡ ከፍተኛ ቅጣት ይተላለፍባቸዋል። ይሁን እንጅ አገሪቱን እየጣሉ የሚጠፉ ኢትዮጵያውያን ቁጥር አሁንም ከፍተኛ ነው። sourse esat radio
Thursday, March 26, 2015
በኦሮሚያ እና ሌሎች አካባቢዎች የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግር ት/ቤቶችን ከማዘጋት አልፎ ለስደት እየዳረገ ነው
መጋቢት ፲፯(አስራ ሰባት) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :- 25ኛ ዓመት የምስረታ በዓሉን በመቶ ሚሊየን በሚገመት ወጪ በታላቅ ፌሽታ እያከበረ የሚገኘው የኦሮሞ ሕዝብ ዴሞክራሲያዊ ድርጅት (ኦህዴድ) አመራር በአንዳንድ የኦሮሚያ አካባቢዎች
ትምህርት ቤቶችን እስከማዘጋት የደረሰውን የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግር ሊታደግ ያልቻለ መሆኑን መረጃዎች ጠቆሙ፡፡
ከግብርና ሚኒስቴር የወጣ አዲስ መረጃ እንደሚያሳየው፣ በኦሮሚያ ክልል አንዳንድ አካባቢዎች የተከሰተው የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግር ሕዝብን ለከፍተኛ ችግር ከመዳረጉም አልፎ የመማር ማስተማር ስራ በማደናቀፍ ትምህርት ቤቶችን እስከማዘጋት ደርሷል።
የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግር ከገጠማቸው የኦሮሚያ አካባቢዎች መካከል በአርሲ ዞን በጎሎልቻ፣ መርቲ፣ .ዝዋይ፣ ዱግዳ፣ ሴሩና ደጁ ወረዳዎች፣ በምዕራብ አርሲ ዞን በሻላ ሲራሮና ሻሸመኔ ወረዳዎች፣ በምስራቅ ሐረርጌ ዞን በሚደጋ፣ ቁምቢያ መዩ ወረዳዎች፣ በምስራቅ
ሸዋ ዞን በቦሰት ወረዳ እና በጉጂ ዞን በሊበንና ሰባቦሩ ወረዳዎች አስከፊ የተባለ የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግር ማጋጠሙን ሚኒስቴሩ አጋልጦአል፡፡
የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግሩ በተለይ በአርሲ ዞን በዝዋይ ዱግዳና በሴሩ ወረዳዎች፣ በጉጂ ዞን በሊበን ወረዳ ት/ቤቶችን እስከማዘጋት የደረሰ ችግር መከሰቱ ተረጋግጦአል፡፡ በእነዚህ አካባቢዎች የተከሰተውን የመጠጥ ውሃ ችግር ለመቅረፍ ሚኒስቴሩ ከአጋር ድርጅቶች
ባገኘው ድጋፍ ውሃ በቦቴ የማደል ስራ እያከናወነ መሆኑ ታውቋል፡፡
በቦረና ዞን አንዳንድ ወረዳዎች ማለትም በአሬሮ፣ ድሬ፣ ዲሎ፣ ዳስ የእንስሳት መዳከምና ሞት መከሰት የጀመረ ሲሆን በአርሲና ምዕ/ሐረርጌ ዞኖች የእንስሳቱ አቋም እየተዳከመ መሆኑ፣ የእንስሳት እንቅስቃሴም ተጀምሮ በምዕ/ሐረርጌ ዞን ከቡርቃ ዲምቱና ሃዊ
ጉዲና ወደ ዱንገታና ዋቤ ወንዝ፣ በቦረና ዞን ከተልተሌ ወደ ገራንና ኮንሶ፤ ከድሬ፤ ሚዮና ሞያሌ ወደ ኬንያ (አዋሳኝ ቦታዎች) በመንቀሳቀስ ላይ መሆናቸው በሪፖርቱ ተመልክቷል።
የኦሮሚያ ክልል ገዥ ፓርቲ ኦህዴድ/ኢህአዴግ እንዲህ ዓይነቱን የህዝብ ችግር ሳይፈታ ለክብረበአል በመቶ ሚሊየን ብሮችን ሲያፈስ መታየቱ አሳዛኝ መሆኑን ዘጋቢያችን ያነጋገርናቸው የኦሮሞ ተወላጆች አስተያየታቸውን ሰጥተዋል፡፡
በአማራ ክልል ደግሞ በሰ/ሸዋ ዞን በምንጃር ሸንኮራ ወረዳ ፣ በሰ/ጎንደር ዞን በምስራቅ በለሳ ወረዳ በእያንዳንዳቸው 3 ቀበሌዎች የውሃ እጥረት፣ በዋግኸምራ ዞን በሳህላ፣ ዝቋላና ሰቆጣ ወረዳዎች፣ በሰ/ወሎ ዞን በላስታና ቡግና ወረዳዎች፣ በደ/ወሎ ዞን በመቅደላ
ወረዳ በ4 ቀበሌዎች፣ በኦሮሚያ ዞን በአ/ፉርሲ ወረዳና በምስ/ጎጃም ዞን ቆላማ አካባቢዎች የውሃ እጥረት ተከስቷል።
በሀረሪ ክልል በ5 ቀበሌዎችና በድሬዳዋ አስተዳደር ቆላማ ቀበሌዎችም ተመሳሳይ ችግር ተከስቷል። ችግሮችን ለመቅረፍ ውሃ በቦቴ ለማደል ሙከራ መደረጉም በሪፖርቱ ተጠቅሷል። sourse esat radio
Nile Dam Tripartite Agreement: who loses and who benefits? Why we should not celebrate too soon March 25, 2015 by Aklog Birara (DR) ዓምላካችን ያበረከተላትን ይህን ኃብቷን (አባይን) ለሕዝቦቻቸው ሕይወትና ደህንነት በማዋል እንዲጠቀሙበት ከጎረቤት ወዳጂ አገሮች ጋር በለጋስነት በጋራ ለመካፈል ዝግጁ ብትሆንም፤ ይህን የውሃ ንብረቷን በቁጥር እየጨመረ ለሚሄደው ሕዝቧና በማደግ ላይ ላለው ኢኮኖሚ ጥቅም እንዲውል ማድረግ የኢትዮጵያ ተቀዳሚና የተቀደሰ ግዴታዋ ነው። ቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ፤ ጥቅምት 1957 ዓም Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits there from, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse. Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN General Assembly resolution 49/52 of December 1994 I read the full text of Principles Al-Ahram, Egypt’s leading newspaper posted on the Nile Dam Agreement. The Agreement is a celebration for Egypt but of questionable efficacy for Ethiopia. This historic document was arrived at after a series of consultations at the highest levels of government and State on the Egyptian side; and signed on March 23, 2015 by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn of Ethiopia, former Field Marshall turned President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi of Egypt and President Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir of Sudan.Nile Dam Tripartite Agreement The Abbay River is dear to me and to millions of Ethiopians. In light of this, I had written a series of papers under the title ዐባይ እንደ ዋዛ in favor of Ethiopia’s fundamental rights to harness its water resources for the benefit of its own people; and urging Egypt to stop its belligerent, hostile, militaristic and bellicose approach in dealing with Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan Africa riparian states. I had urged Egypt to rejoin the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that it abandoned for five years. Refusal resulted in the unintended consequence of cementing relations among Black African riparian states. Sudan moved out Egypt’s spell and Egypt stood alone. After listening to the Egyptian position and strategy of scuttling any form of “hydropower hegemony in Africa”—a clear reference to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) —in Doha, Qatar, I came to the conclusion that Egypt would do everything in its power to preserve its colonial based agreement of “historic and natural rights.” The question in my mind was what tactic it would deploy to achieve this? Finance opposition groups as it has done in the past? Use military force as the former President of Egypt Morsi had indicated? Accept the dramatic geopolitical and economic forces that are transforming Sub-Saharan Africa and creating new alliances in place of old ones? Opt for diplomatic solutions by restoring normal relations with Sub-Saharan African countries, including its primary traditional adversary, Ethiopia? We now know the answer. For the first time in decades Egypt faces enormous challenges within and without. Renewed interest in Sub-Saharan Africa and more willingness to use diplomacy in protecting its national security interests reflects dramatic changes in the Arab world, the fragility of the country and the unease in the body politic within Egypt, and economic transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Equally, the government led by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn faces enormous political and economic challenges. Part of this challenge is perceived military threat from Egypt, internal political tensions and shortage of foreign exchange. In one of my articles on the subject, I had said the following concerning Morsi’s military solution. “Experts agree that his short-lived Presidency was well known for its frightening extremism calling for military intervention in Ethiopia and Syria. It seems to me that, in the long-run, Ethiopia and Egypt would benefit more from cooperation than confrontation. However, given the current turmoil in Egypt and continued repression in Ethiopia, no one really knows how the contentious issue of the Nile would end. One question to ponder is the extent to which the Egyptian military establishment’s position is radically different from that of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood?” It is reasonable to entertain the notion that the former Field Marshall decided to opt for diplomacy by giving a little, recognition of the GERD. Egypt’s Diplomatic Coup The “good news” is that Egypt has rejoined the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). Second, Egypt has been forced to acknowledge Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. In principle, The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement that the Ethiopian Parliament ratified in 2013 replaces the 1929 Colonial Agreement that gave Egypt and Sudan the lion’s share of Nile waters. So, in this sense history is on Ethiopia’s side. In theory, Egypt is in no position to impose all sorts of conditions on Ethiopia if it accepts the Framework; and unless the Ethiopian government falters for its own reasons. A cursory review of negotiations and studies by Egyptian experts since 2011 shows that Egypt was determined not to give an inch with regard to water flows; and, as an insurance policy, decided to have a say in the administration and monitoring of the GERD itself. Article 5 of the Agreement gives Egypt a window of opportunity to have a say in Ethiopia’s project. “The principle of the Dam’s storage reservoir first filling, and dam operation policies,” binds signatories “To apply the recommendations of the international technical experts committee and the results of the final report of the Tripartite National Technical Committee during different stages of the dam project.” It further confirms “The three countries should cooperate to use the final findings in the studies recommended by the Tripartite National Committee and international technical experts to reach: a) An Agreement on the guidelines for different scenarios of the first filling of the GERD reservoir in parallel with the construction of the dam. b) An agreement on the guidelines and annual operation policies of the Renaissance Dam, which the owners can adjust from time to time. c) To inform downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan, on any urgent circumstances that would call for a change in the operations of the Dam, in order to ensure coordination with downstream countries’ water reservoirs. –Accordingly, the three countries are to establish a proper mechanism through their ministries of water and irrigation. –The timeframe for such points mentioned above is 15 months from the start of preparing two studies about the dam by the international technical committee. My reading is that Egypt and Sudan will be in a position to exercise substantial right in the “filling of the reservoir” and the “operational policies” of the Dam. Is this not a surrender of Ethiopia’s sovereignty and national security to Egypt? What is the difference between the Colonial period protocol of giving veto power to Egypt and this Agreement? Is this not ceding Ethiopia’s sovereignty over a national project housed on Ethiopian territory and river over which Ethiopia should be the only power that dictates the construction and operation of its own dam as long as it is done in a responsible manner? Doesn’t Egyptian absolute oversight and interference in Ethiopia’s internal development administration reaffirm Egyptian claim of “historic and natural rights” over the Abbay River? What happens in the event that water flow to Egypt decreases during different stages of the “first filling of the GERD?” Does the Agreement not offer a free hand to Egypt to demand that Ethiopia stops building the dam? I am not an expert on the technicalities of the Dam. Nevertheless, this Agreement compromises Ethiopia’s national sovereignty, national security and long term interests. Its sets the worst precedent possible for the country. There are additional points. How do we reconcile equitable rights with an Agreement that is patently unfair and unjust? It will be inconceivable for Ethiopia or any other Sub-Saharan African riparian state to exercise oversight in the administration of the Aswan Dam or the construction of future dams by Egypt or Sudan. As far as I can tell from the document Prime Minister Hailemariam signed on behalf of Ethiopia there is no quid pro quo. Principle 5 diminishes the value contained in 9. “The principle of the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the State” offers a consolation prize. It states “The three countries cooperate on the basis of equal sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the state, mutual benefit and good will, in order to reach the better use and protection of River Nile.” An Agreement that is patently unequal among the three countries cannot, at the same time, engender “equal sovereignty.” In my estimation, it is clear that if this Agreement is ratified by Ethiopia’s single party dominated Parliament, Ethiopia will be at a huge disadvantage for decades to come. President Sisi made a brilliant move when he addressed the Ethiopian Parliament commending the Ethiopian government for its understanding, flexibility and seeking good will in support of Egypt’s water needs. He acknowledged Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. From this, let us accept his recognition as “victory” for the Ethiopian government and its supporters” during an election year with a foregone conclusion that the ruling party would win. This “victory” does not diminish the fact that Egypt has attained a diplomatic coup that will affect Ethiopia’s sovereignty, national security and economic interests for decades to come. What Egypt has failed to achieve by military means or through surrogates, the Egyptian President played the diplomatic and public relations game superbly and preserved his country’s security and economic interests. Principle 5 discussed above is illustrative of this coup. Ethiopia does not do well with regard to other binding principles either. The first principle agreed is that there will be a binding “cooperation in understanding the water needs of upstream and downstream countries across all their lands.” At face value this is fair as long as each country has the right to use its waters for its own development even if it means that there will be some decrease in water flows to Egypt. Is this a trick? For example, will Ethiopia be in a position to build dams for irrigation purposes in accordance with this principle? We do not know. This concern is expressed more fully in Principle 3, “Principle of not causing significant damage.” It says that “The three countries will take all necessary procedures to avoid causing significant damage while using the Blue Nile (Abbay…In case significant damage is caused to one of these countries, the country causing the damage is to take all the necessary procedures to alleviate this damage and discuss compensation whenever convenient.” Just think of this. Both Egypt and Sudan have established enormous irrigated-agriculture employing millions of people and producing food. Egypt not only produces some of its food supplies; it produces the finest cotton on the planet, a gift from Ethiopia. It has built state of the art textile factories that produce garments and other products for the domestic and global market. Ethiopia is no position to dictate to these countries that irrigated farming is water intensive and that, this tradition is no longer sustainable. The greater concern I express is that Ethiopia’s right to use the GERD for some irrigation is not allowed. Further, this precedent might offer Egypt a legal agreement in preventing Ethiopia to build irrigation dams. What do I conclude? Two policy issues in the Agreement distress me most. First, the total abandonment of Ethiopia’s sovereignty with regard to the construction, fill of the water reservoir and operation of the GERD whose construction I supported from its inception with substantial critique on ownership and social value added. Second, the fact that Ethiopia is disallowed to use any portion of the waters from the GERD and other future dams for irrigation. The Ethiopian government signed an Agreement that says in effect the following. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to produce hydro power for export but illegal for Ethiopia to use its waters for irrigation. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to build the GERD as long as Egypt exercises overwhelming oversight. I ask myself “How does the Ethiopian government justify binding itself and future governments and generations from managing its own epic hydroelectric power project without interference by Egypt and experts that Egypt approves; and from using waters within Ethiopia’s own boundaries for irrigation that would meet the food requirements of 100 million Ethiopians and growing? This is patently unfair, unjust and unacceptable. President Sisi signed the Agreement after thorough review of the Principles and substantial consultation with Egyptian experts. His decision was backed by enormous amounts of rigorous research and recommendations. Upon closer reading, I find interesting similarities between elements of the Agreement and Egyptian expert recommendations. I wonder if the same rigor occurred in support of the Ethiopian side. I do not know. I recall a group called the Group of the Nile Basin (GNB) “composed of Professors from Engineering, Irrigation and Hydraulics” who took matters to the next level. Their ultimate objective was to “support the effort of the Egyptian Government and decision-makers” through scientific research, scenarios and policy options. Their studies showed that Ethiopia’s four large dam projects including the Renaissance Dam posed threats to Egypt’s security. They accused the Ethiopian government of failure “to conduct “sufficient structural and hydrologic studies and environmental assessments.” These experts agreed that the Egyptian government should try to adhere to Agreements of 1929 and 1959 in any negotiation. They concluded, “Reduction in the water share of Egypt will result in abandoning huge areas of agricultural lands and scattering millions of families. It would result in in increasing the pollution of the water streams and creating problems in the supply of water for drinking and industry.” They offered the following recommendations to the Egyptian government thereby undermining Ethiopia’s national interests in advance of the Agreement. “Request stopping the construction of the Dam until completion of negotiations Insist that the maximum size of the Ethiopian Dam must not exceed 14 billion cubic meter compared to the 74 billion cubic meter” designed and under construction by Ethiopia Insist that Ethiopia commit officially not to use the water behind the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for irrigated agriculture Insist that Ethiopia commit to give advance notice of future projects it has in mind Insist that the design and modification of the GERD be reviewed by Egyptian and international experts Insist that Ethiopia’s Dam must be used solely for electric power generation and never for irrigation Negotiate so that the price of electricity sold to Egypt and Sudan would be at cost thereby nullifying the value added from the project and negating the market itself Insist that filling the waters of the Dam’s reservoir should be staggered over 6 years to reduce disruption to Egypt’s supply and Insist that the operation of the hydro plant should be coordinated with Egypt,” thereby undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and diminishing its power. We therefore knew well in advance that these recommendation offered by Egyptian experts were incongruent with a rising and assertive Sub-Saharan Africa of which Ethiopia is a part. These lop-sided solutions undermine the entire intent of the GERD and Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness its waters without undue influence and pressure from Egypt or other third parties. Egyptian experts had told the Ethiopian government repeatedly that nothing of substance that will affect the flow of water from the Blue Nile to Egypt would be allowed through negotiation either. President Sisi went to Ethiopia and lived up to the standard of successive Egyptian governments that their primary responsibility is to defend this sacred water—the source of life—by any means necessary. The Ethiopian people have the right to know specifics of the deal. March 25, 2015
March 25, 2015
by Aklog Birara (DR)
ዓምላካችን ያበረከተላትን ይህን ኃብቷን (አባይን) ለሕዝቦቻቸው ሕይወትና ደህንነት በማዋል እንዲጠቀሙበት ከጎረቤት ወዳጂ አገሮች ጋር በለጋስነት በጋራ ለመካፈል ዝግጁ ብትሆንም፤ ይህን የውሃ ንብረቷን በቁጥር እየጨመረ ለሚሄደው ሕዝቧና በማደግ ላይ ላለው ኢኮኖሚ ጥቅም እንዲውል ማድረግ የኢትዮጵያ ተቀዳሚና የተቀደሰ ግዴታዋ ነው።
ቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ፤ ጥቅምት 1957 ዓም
Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits there from, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse.
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN General Assembly resolution 49/52 of December 1994
I read the full text of Principles Al-Ahram, Egypt’s leading newspaper posted on the Nile Dam Agreement. The Agreement is a celebration for Egypt but of questionable efficacy for Ethiopia. This historic document was arrived at after a series of consultations at the highest levels of government and State on the Egyptian side; and signed on March 23, 2015 by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn of Ethiopia, former Field Marshall turned President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi of Egypt and President Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir of Sudan.
The Abbay River is dear to me and to millions of Ethiopians. In light of this, I had written a series of papers under the title ዐባይ እንደ ዋዛ in favor of Ethiopia’s fundamental rights to harness its water resources for the benefit of its own people; and urging Egypt to stop its belligerent, hostile, militaristic and bellicose approach in dealing with Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan Africa riparian states. I had urged Egypt to rejoin the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that it abandoned for five years. Refusal resulted in the unintended consequence of cementing relations among Black African riparian states. Sudan moved out Egypt’s spell and Egypt stood alone.
After listening to the Egyptian position and strategy of scuttling any form of “hydropower hegemony in Africa”—a clear reference to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) —in Doha, Qatar, I came to the conclusion that Egypt would do everything in its power to preserve its colonial based agreement of “historic and natural rights.” The question in my mind was what tactic it would deploy to achieve this? Finance opposition groups as it has done in the past? Use military force as the former President of Egypt Morsi had indicated? Accept the dramatic geopolitical and economic forces that are transforming Sub-Saharan Africa and creating new alliances in place of old ones? Opt for diplomatic solutions by restoring normal relations with Sub-Saharan African countries, including its primary traditional adversary, Ethiopia?
We now know the answer. For the first time in decades Egypt faces enormous challenges within and without. Renewed interest in Sub-Saharan Africa and more willingness to use diplomacy in protecting its national security interests reflects dramatic changes in the Arab world, the fragility of the country and the unease in the body politic within Egypt, and economic transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Equally, the government led by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn faces enormous political and economic challenges. Part of this challenge is perceived military threat from Egypt, internal political tensions and shortage of foreign exchange. In one of my articles on the subject, I had said the following concerning Morsi’s military solution. “Experts agree that his short-lived Presidency was well known for its frightening extremism calling for military intervention in Ethiopia and Syria. It seems to me that, in the long-run, Ethiopia and Egypt would benefit more from cooperation than confrontation. However, given the current turmoil in Egypt and continued repression in Ethiopia, no one really knows how the contentious issue of the Nile would end. One question to ponder is the extent to which the Egyptian military establishment’s position is radically different from that of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood?”
It is reasonable to entertain the notion that the former Field Marshall decided to opt for diplomacy by giving a little, recognition of the GERD.
Egypt’s Diplomatic Coup
The “good news” is that Egypt has rejoined the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). Second, Egypt has been forced to acknowledge Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. In principle, The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement that the Ethiopian Parliament ratified in 2013 replaces the 1929 Colonial Agreement that gave Egypt and Sudan the lion’s share of Nile waters. So, in this sense history is on Ethiopia’s side. In theory, Egypt is in no position to impose all sorts of conditions on Ethiopia if it accepts the Framework; and unless the Ethiopian government falters for its own reasons. A cursory review of negotiations and studies by Egyptian experts since 2011 shows that Egypt was determined not to give an inch with regard to water flows; and, as an insurance policy, decided to have a say in the administration and monitoring of the GERD itself. Article 5 of the Agreement gives Egypt a window of opportunity to have a say in Ethiopia’s project. “The principle of the Dam’s storage reservoir first filling, and dam operation policies,” binds signatories “To apply the recommendations of the international technical experts committee and the results of the final report of the Tripartite National Technical Committee during different stages of the dam project.” It further confirms “The three countries should cooperate to use the final findings in the studies recommended by the Tripartite National Committee and international technical experts to reach:
a) An Agreement on the guidelines for different scenarios of the first filling of the GERD reservoir in parallel with the construction of the dam.
b) An agreement on the guidelines and annual operation policies of the Renaissance Dam, which the owners can adjust from time to time.
c) To inform downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan, on any urgent circumstances that would call for a change in the operations of the Dam, in order to ensure coordination with downstream countries’ water reservoirs.
–Accordingly, the three countries are to establish a proper mechanism through their ministries of water and irrigation.
–The timeframe for such points mentioned above is 15 months from the start of preparing two studies about the dam by the international technical committee.
My reading is that Egypt and Sudan will be in a position to exercise substantial right in the “filling of the reservoir” and the “operational policies” of the Dam. Is this not a surrender of Ethiopia’s sovereignty and national security to Egypt? What is the difference between the Colonial period protocol of giving veto power to Egypt and this Agreement? Is this not ceding Ethiopia’s sovereignty over a national project housed on Ethiopian territory and river over which Ethiopia should be the only power that dictates the construction and operation of its own dam as long as it is done in a responsible manner? Doesn’t Egyptian absolute oversight and interference in Ethiopia’s internal development administration reaffirm Egyptian claim of “historic and natural rights” over the Abbay River? What happens in the event that water flow to Egypt decreases during different stages of the “first filling of the GERD?” Does the Agreement not offer a free hand to Egypt to demand that Ethiopia stops building the dam? I am not an expert on the technicalities of the Dam. Nevertheless, this Agreement compromises Ethiopia’s national sovereignty, national security and long term interests. Its sets the worst precedent possible for the country.
There are additional points. How do we reconcile equitable rights with an Agreement that is patently unfair and unjust? It will be inconceivable for Ethiopia or any other Sub-Saharan African riparian state to exercise oversight in the administration of the Aswan Dam or the construction of future dams by Egypt or Sudan. As far as I can tell from the document Prime Minister Hailemariam signed on behalf of Ethiopia there is no quid pro quo.
Principle 5 diminishes the value contained in 9. “The principle of the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the State” offers a consolation prize. It states “The three countries cooperate on the basis of equal sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the state, mutual benefit and good will, in order to reach the better use and protection of River Nile.” An Agreement that is patently unequal among the three countries cannot, at the same time, engender “equal sovereignty.” In my estimation, it is clear that if this Agreement is ratified by Ethiopia’s single party dominated Parliament, Ethiopia will be at a huge disadvantage for decades to come.
President Sisi made a brilliant move when he addressed the Ethiopian Parliament commending the Ethiopian government for its understanding, flexibility and seeking good will in support of Egypt’s water needs. He acknowledged Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. From this, let us accept his recognition as “victory” for the Ethiopian government and its supporters” during an election year with a foregone conclusion that the ruling party would win. This “victory” does not diminish the fact that Egypt has attained a diplomatic coup that will affect Ethiopia’s sovereignty, national security and economic interests for decades to come. What Egypt has failed to achieve by military means or through surrogates, the Egyptian President played the diplomatic and public relations game superbly and preserved his country’s security and economic interests. Principle 5 discussed above is illustrative of this coup.
Ethiopia does not do well with regard to other binding principles either. The first principle agreed is that there will be a binding “cooperation in understanding the water needs of upstream and downstream countries across all their lands.” At face value this is fair as long as each country has the right to use its waters for its own development even if it means that there will be some decrease in water flows to Egypt. Is this a trick? For example, will Ethiopia be in a position to build dams for irrigation purposes in accordance with this principle? We do not know. This concern is expressed more fully in Principle 3, “Principle of not causing significant damage.” It says that “The three countries will take all necessary procedures to avoid causing significant damage while using the Blue Nile (Abbay…In case significant damage is caused to one of these countries, the country causing the damage is to take all the necessary procedures to alleviate this damage and discuss compensation whenever convenient.” Just think of this. Both Egypt and Sudan have established enormous irrigated-agriculture employing millions of people and producing food. Egypt not only produces some of its food supplies; it produces the finest cotton on the planet, a gift from Ethiopia. It has built state of the art textile factories that produce garments and other products for the domestic and global market. Ethiopia is no position to dictate to these countries that irrigated farming is water intensive and that, this tradition is no longer sustainable. The greater concern I express is that Ethiopia’s right to use the GERD for some irrigation is not allowed. Further, this precedent might offer Egypt a legal agreement in preventing Ethiopia to build irrigation dams.
What do I conclude?
Two policy issues in the Agreement distress me most. First, the total abandonment of Ethiopia’s sovereignty with regard to the construction, fill of the water reservoir and operation of the GERD whose construction I supported from its inception with substantial critique on ownership and social value added. Second, the fact that Ethiopia is disallowed to use any portion of the waters from the GERD and other future dams for irrigation. The Ethiopian government signed an Agreement that says in effect the following. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to produce hydro power for export but illegal for Ethiopia to use its waters for irrigation. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to build the GERD as long as Egypt exercises overwhelming oversight. I ask myself “How does the Ethiopian government justify binding itself and future governments and generations from managing its own epic hydroelectric power project without interference by Egypt and experts that Egypt approves; and from using waters within Ethiopia’s own boundaries for irrigation that would meet the food requirements of 100 million Ethiopians and growing? This is patently unfair, unjust and unacceptable.
President Sisi signed the Agreement after thorough review of the Principles and substantial consultation with Egyptian experts. His decision was backed by enormous amounts of rigorous research and recommendations. Upon closer reading, I find interesting similarities between elements of the Agreement and Egyptian expert recommendations. I wonder if the same rigor occurred in support of the Ethiopian side. I do not know.
I recall a group called the Group of the Nile Basin (GNB) “composed of Professors from Engineering, Irrigation and Hydraulics” who took matters to the next level. Their ultimate objective was to “support the effort of the Egyptian Government and decision-makers” through scientific research, scenarios and policy options. Their studies showed that Ethiopia’s four large dam projects including the Renaissance Dam posed threats to Egypt’s security. They accused the Ethiopian government of failure “to conduct “sufficient structural and hydrologic studies and environmental assessments.” These experts agreed that the Egyptian government should try to adhere to Agreements of 1929 and 1959 in any negotiation. They concluded, “Reduction in the water share of Egypt will result in abandoning huge areas of agricultural lands and scattering millions of families. It would result in in increasing the pollution of the water streams and creating problems in the supply of water for drinking and industry.” They offered the following recommendations to the Egyptian government thereby undermining Ethiopia’s national interests in advance of the Agreement.
- “Request stopping the construction of the Dam until completion of negotiations
- Insist that the maximum size of the Ethiopian Dam must not exceed 14 billion cubic meter compared to the 74 billion cubic meter” designed and under construction by Ethiopia
- Insist that Ethiopia commit officially not to use the water behind the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for irrigated agriculture
- Insist that Ethiopia commit to give advance notice of future projects it has in mind
- Insist that the design and modification of the GERD be reviewed by Egyptian and international experts
- Insist that Ethiopia’s Dam must be used solely for electric power generation and never for irrigation
- Negotiate so that the price of electricity sold to Egypt and Sudan would be at cost thereby nullifying the value added from the project and negating the market itself
- Insist that filling the waters of the Dam’s reservoir should be staggered over 6 years to reduce disruption to Egypt’s supply and
- Insist that the operation of the hydro plant should be coordinated with Egypt,” thereby undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and diminishing its power.
We therefore knew well in advance that these recommendation offered by Egyptian experts were incongruent with a rising and assertive Sub-Saharan Africa of which Ethiopia is a part. These lop-sided solutions undermine the entire intent of the GERD and Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness its waters without undue influence and pressure from Egypt or other third parties. Egyptian experts had told the Ethiopian government repeatedly that nothing of substance that will affect the flow of water from the Blue Nile to Egypt would be allowed through negotiation either.
President Sisi went to Ethiopia and lived up to the standard of successive Egyptian governments that their primary responsibility is to defend this sacred water—the source of life—by any means necessary. The Ethiopian people have the right to know specifics of the deal.
March 25, 2015
by Aklog Birara (DR)
ዓምላካችን ያበረከተላትን ይህን ኃብቷን (አባይን) ለሕዝቦቻቸው ሕይወትና ደህንነት በማዋል እንዲጠቀሙበት ከጎረቤት ወዳጂ አገሮች ጋር በለጋስነት በጋራ ለመካፈል ዝግጁ ብትሆንም፤ ይህን የውሃ ንብረቷን በቁጥር እየጨመረ ለሚሄደው ሕዝቧና በማደግ ላይ ላለው ኢኮኖሚ ጥቅም እንዲውል ማድረግ የኢትዮጵያ ተቀዳሚና የተቀደሰ ግዴታዋ ነው።
ቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ፤ ጥቅምት 1957 ዓም
Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits there from, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse.
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN General Assembly resolution 49/52 of December 1994
I read the full text of Principles Al-Ahram, Egypt’s leading newspaper posted on the Nile Dam Agreement. The Agreement is a celebration for Egypt but of questionable efficacy for Ethiopia. This historic document was arrived at after a series of consultations at the highest levels of government and State on the Egyptian side; and signed on March 23, 2015 by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn of Ethiopia, former Field Marshall turned President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi of Egypt and President Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir of Sudan.
The Abbay River is dear to me and to millions of Ethiopians. In light of this, I had written a series of papers under the title ዐባይ እንደ ዋዛ in favor of Ethiopia’s fundamental rights to harness its water resources for the benefit of its own people; and urging Egypt to stop its belligerent, hostile, militaristic and bellicose approach in dealing with Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan Africa riparian states. I had urged Egypt to rejoin the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that it abandoned for five years. Refusal resulted in the unintended consequence of cementing relations among Black African riparian states. Sudan moved out Egypt’s spell and Egypt stood alone.
After listening to the Egyptian position and strategy of scuttling any form of “hydropower hegemony in Africa”—a clear reference to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) —in Doha, Qatar, I came to the conclusion that Egypt would do everything in its power to preserve its colonial based agreement of “historic and natural rights.” The question in my mind was what tactic it would deploy to achieve this? Finance opposition groups as it has done in the past? Use military force as the former President of Egypt Morsi had indicated? Accept the dramatic geopolitical and economic forces that are transforming Sub-Saharan Africa and creating new alliances in place of old ones? Opt for diplomatic solutions by restoring normal relations with Sub-Saharan African countries, including its primary traditional adversary, Ethiopia?
We now know the answer. For the first time in decades Egypt faces enormous challenges within and without. Renewed interest in Sub-Saharan Africa and more willingness to use diplomacy in protecting its national security interests reflects dramatic changes in the Arab world, the fragility of the country and the unease in the body politic within Egypt, and economic transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Equally, the government led by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn faces enormous political and economic challenges. Part of this challenge is perceived military threat from Egypt, internal political tensions and shortage of foreign exchange. In one of my articles on the subject, I had said the following concerning Morsi’s military solution. “Experts agree that his short-lived Presidency was well known for its frightening extremism calling for military intervention in Ethiopia and Syria. It seems to me that, in the long-run, Ethiopia and Egypt would benefit more from cooperation than confrontation. However, given the current turmoil in Egypt and continued repression in Ethiopia, no one really knows how the contentious issue of the Nile would end. One question to ponder is the extent to which the Egyptian military establishment’s position is radically different from that of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood?”
It is reasonable to entertain the notion that the former Field Marshall decided to opt for diplomacy by giving a little, recognition of the GERD.
Egypt’s Diplomatic Coup
The “good news” is that Egypt has rejoined the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). Second, Egypt has been forced to acknowledge Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. In principle, The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement that the Ethiopian Parliament ratified in 2013 replaces the 1929 Colonial Agreement that gave Egypt and Sudan the lion’s share of Nile waters. So, in this sense history is on Ethiopia’s side. In theory, Egypt is in no position to impose all sorts of conditions on Ethiopia if it accepts the Framework; and unless the Ethiopian government falters for its own reasons. A cursory review of negotiations and studies by Egyptian experts since 2011 shows that Egypt was determined not to give an inch with regard to water flows; and, as an insurance policy, decided to have a say in the administration and monitoring of the GERD itself. Article 5 of the Agreement gives Egypt a window of opportunity to have a say in Ethiopia’s project. “The principle of the Dam’s storage reservoir first filling, and dam operation policies,” binds signatories “To apply the recommendations of the international technical experts committee and the results of the final report of the Tripartite National Technical Committee during different stages of the dam project.” It further confirms “The three countries should cooperate to use the final findings in the studies recommended by the Tripartite National Committee and international technical experts to reach:
a) An Agreement on the guidelines for different scenarios of the first filling of the GERD reservoir in parallel with the construction of the dam.
b) An agreement on the guidelines and annual operation policies of the Renaissance Dam, which the owners can adjust from time to time.
c) To inform downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan, on any urgent circumstances that would call for a change in the operations of the Dam, in order to ensure coordination with downstream countries’ water reservoirs.
–Accordingly, the three countries are to establish a proper mechanism through their ministries of water and irrigation.
–The timeframe for such points mentioned above is 15 months from the start of preparing two studies about the dam by the international technical committee.
My reading is that Egypt and Sudan will be in a position to exercise substantial right in the “filling of the reservoir” and the “operational policies” of the Dam. Is this not a surrender of Ethiopia’s sovereignty and national security to Egypt? What is the difference between the Colonial period protocol of giving veto power to Egypt and this Agreement? Is this not ceding Ethiopia’s sovereignty over a national project housed on Ethiopian territory and river over which Ethiopia should be the only power that dictates the construction and operation of its own dam as long as it is done in a responsible manner? Doesn’t Egyptian absolute oversight and interference in Ethiopia’s internal development administration reaffirm Egyptian claim of “historic and natural rights” over the Abbay River? What happens in the event that water flow to Egypt decreases during different stages of the “first filling of the GERD?” Does the Agreement not offer a free hand to Egypt to demand that Ethiopia stops building the dam? I am not an expert on the technicalities of the Dam. Nevertheless, this Agreement compromises Ethiopia’s national sovereignty, national security and long term interests. Its sets the worst precedent possible for the country.
There are additional points. How do we reconcile equitable rights with an Agreement that is patently unfair and unjust? It will be inconceivable for Ethiopia or any other Sub-Saharan African riparian state to exercise oversight in the administration of the Aswan Dam or the construction of future dams by Egypt or Sudan. As far as I can tell from the document Prime Minister Hailemariam signed on behalf of Ethiopia there is no quid pro quo.
Principle 5 diminishes the value contained in 9. “The principle of the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the State” offers a consolation prize. It states “The three countries cooperate on the basis of equal sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the state, mutual benefit and good will, in order to reach the better use and protection of River Nile.” An Agreement that is patently unequal among the three countries cannot, at the same time, engender “equal sovereignty.” In my estimation, it is clear that if this Agreement is ratified by Ethiopia’s single party dominated Parliament, Ethiopia will be at a huge disadvantage for decades to come.
President Sisi made a brilliant move when he addressed the Ethiopian Parliament commending the Ethiopian government for its understanding, flexibility and seeking good will in support of Egypt’s water needs. He acknowledged Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. From this, let us accept his recognition as “victory” for the Ethiopian government and its supporters” during an election year with a foregone conclusion that the ruling party would win. This “victory” does not diminish the fact that Egypt has attained a diplomatic coup that will affect Ethiopia’s sovereignty, national security and economic interests for decades to come. What Egypt has failed to achieve by military means or through surrogates, the Egyptian President played the diplomatic and public relations game superbly and preserved his country’s security and economic interests. Principle 5 discussed above is illustrative of this coup.
Ethiopia does not do well with regard to other binding principles either. The first principle agreed is that there will be a binding “cooperation in understanding the water needs of upstream and downstream countries across all their lands.” At face value this is fair as long as each country has the right to use its waters for its own development even if it means that there will be some decrease in water flows to Egypt. Is this a trick? For example, will Ethiopia be in a position to build dams for irrigation purposes in accordance with this principle? We do not know. This concern is expressed more fully in Principle 3, “Principle of not causing significant damage.” It says that “The three countries will take all necessary procedures to avoid causing significant damage while using the Blue Nile (Abbay…In case significant damage is caused to one of these countries, the country causing the damage is to take all the necessary procedures to alleviate this damage and discuss compensation whenever convenient.” Just think of this. Both Egypt and Sudan have established enormous irrigated-agriculture employing millions of people and producing food. Egypt not only produces some of its food supplies; it produces the finest cotton on the planet, a gift from Ethiopia. It has built state of the art textile factories that produce garments and other products for the domestic and global market. Ethiopia is no position to dictate to these countries that irrigated farming is water intensive and that, this tradition is no longer sustainable. The greater concern I express is that Ethiopia’s right to use the GERD for some irrigation is not allowed. Further, this precedent might offer Egypt a legal agreement in preventing Ethiopia to build irrigation dams.
What do I conclude?
Two policy issues in the Agreement distress me most. First, the total abandonment of Ethiopia’s sovereignty with regard to the construction, fill of the water reservoir and operation of the GERD whose construction I supported from its inception with substantial critique on ownership and social value added. Second, the fact that Ethiopia is disallowed to use any portion of the waters from the GERD and other future dams for irrigation. The Ethiopian government signed an Agreement that says in effect the following. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to produce hydro power for export but illegal for Ethiopia to use its waters for irrigation. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to build the GERD as long as Egypt exercises overwhelming oversight. I ask myself “How does the Ethiopian government justify binding itself and future governments and generations from managing its own epic hydroelectric power project without interference by Egypt and experts that Egypt approves; and from using waters within Ethiopia’s own boundaries for irrigation that would meet the food requirements of 100 million Ethiopians and growing? This is patently unfair, unjust and unacceptable.
President Sisi signed the Agreement after thorough review of the Principles and substantial consultation with Egyptian experts. His decision was backed by enormous amounts of rigorous research and recommendations. Upon closer reading, I find interesting similarities between elements of the Agreement and Egyptian expert recommendations. I wonder if the same rigor occurred in support of the Ethiopian side. I do not know.
I recall a group called the Group of the Nile Basin (GNB) “composed of Professors from Engineering, Irrigation and Hydraulics” who took matters to the next level. Their ultimate objective was to “support the effort of the Egyptian Government and decision-makers” through scientific research, scenarios and policy options. Their studies showed that Ethiopia’s four large dam projects including the Renaissance Dam posed threats to Egypt’s security. They accused the Ethiopian government of failure “to conduct “sufficient structural and hydrologic studies and environmental assessments.” These experts agreed that the Egyptian government should try to adhere to Agreements of 1929 and 1959 in any negotiation. They concluded, “Reduction in the water share of Egypt will result in abandoning huge areas of agricultural lands and scattering millions of families. It would result in in increasing the pollution of the water streams and creating problems in the supply of water for drinking and industry.” They offered the following recommendations to the Egyptian government thereby undermining Ethiopia’s national interests in advance of the Agreement.
- “Request stopping the construction of the Dam until completion of negotiations
- Insist that the maximum size of the Ethiopian Dam must not exceed 14 billion cubic meter compared to the 74 billion cubic meter” designed and under construction by Ethiopia
- Insist that Ethiopia commit officially not to use the water behind the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for irrigated agriculture
- Insist that Ethiopia commit to give advance notice of future projects it has in mind
- Insist that the design and modification of the GERD be reviewed by Egyptian and international experts
- Insist that Ethiopia’s Dam must be used solely for electric power generation and never for irrigation
- Negotiate so that the price of electricity sold to Egypt and Sudan would be at cost thereby nullifying the value added from the project and negating the market itself
- Insist that filling the waters of the Dam’s reservoir should be staggered over 6 years to reduce disruption to Egypt’s supply and
- Insist that the operation of the hydro plant should be coordinated with Egypt,” thereby undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and diminishing its power.
We therefore knew well in advance that these recommendation offered by Egyptian experts were incongruent with a rising and assertive Sub-Saharan Africa of which Ethiopia is a part. These lop-sided solutions undermine the entire intent of the GERD and Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness its waters without undue influence and pressure from Egypt or other third parties. Egyptian experts had told the Ethiopian government repeatedly that nothing of substance that will affect the flow of water from the Blue Nile to Egypt would be allowed through negotiation either.
President Sisi went to Ethiopia and lived up to the standard of successive Egyptian governments that their primary responsibility is to defend this sacred water—the source of life—by any means necessary. The Ethiopian people have the right to know specifics of the deal.
March 25, 2015
March 25, 2015
by Aklog Birara (DR)
ዓምላካችን ያበረከተላትን ይህን ኃብቷን (አባይን) ለሕዝቦቻቸው ሕይወትና ደህንነት በማዋል እንዲጠቀሙበት ከጎረቤት ወዳጂ አገሮች ጋር በለጋስነት በጋራ ለመካፈል ዝግጁ ብትሆንም፤ ይህን የውሃ ንብረቷን በቁጥር እየጨመረ ለሚሄደው ሕዝቧና በማደግ ላይ ላለው ኢኮኖሚ ጥቅም እንዲውል ማድረግ የኢትዮጵያ ተቀዳሚና የተቀደሰ ግዴታዋ ነው።
ቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ፤ ጥቅምት 1957 ዓም
Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits there from, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse.
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN General Assembly resolution 49/52 of December 1994
I read the full text of Principles Al-Ahram, Egypt’s leading newspaper posted on the Nile Dam Agreement. The Agreement is a celebration for Egypt but of questionable efficacy for Ethiopia. This historic document was arrived at after a series of consultations at the highest levels of government and State on the Egyptian side; and signed on March 23, 2015 by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn of Ethiopia, former Field Marshall turned President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi of Egypt and President Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir of Sudan.
The Abbay River is dear to me and to millions of Ethiopians. In light of this, I had written a series of papers under the title ዐባይ እንደ ዋዛ in favor of Ethiopia’s fundamental rights to harness its water resources for the benefit of its own people; and urging Egypt to stop its belligerent, hostile, militaristic and bellicose approach in dealing with Ethiopia and other Sub-Saharan Africa riparian states. I had urged Egypt to rejoin the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) that it abandoned for five years. Refusal resulted in the unintended consequence of cementing relations among Black African riparian states. Sudan moved out Egypt’s spell and Egypt stood alone.
After listening to the Egyptian position and strategy of scuttling any form of “hydropower hegemony in Africa”—a clear reference to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) —in Doha, Qatar, I came to the conclusion that Egypt would do everything in its power to preserve its colonial based agreement of “historic and natural rights.” The question in my mind was what tactic it would deploy to achieve this? Finance opposition groups as it has done in the past? Use military force as the former President of Egypt Morsi had indicated? Accept the dramatic geopolitical and economic forces that are transforming Sub-Saharan Africa and creating new alliances in place of old ones? Opt for diplomatic solutions by restoring normal relations with Sub-Saharan African countries, including its primary traditional adversary, Ethiopia?
We now know the answer. For the first time in decades Egypt faces enormous challenges within and without. Renewed interest in Sub-Saharan Africa and more willingness to use diplomacy in protecting its national security interests reflects dramatic changes in the Arab world, the fragility of the country and the unease in the body politic within Egypt, and economic transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Equally, the government led by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn faces enormous political and economic challenges. Part of this challenge is perceived military threat from Egypt, internal political tensions and shortage of foreign exchange. In one of my articles on the subject, I had said the following concerning Morsi’s military solution. “Experts agree that his short-lived Presidency was well known for its frightening extremism calling for military intervention in Ethiopia and Syria. It seems to me that, in the long-run, Ethiopia and Egypt would benefit more from cooperation than confrontation. However, given the current turmoil in Egypt and continued repression in Ethiopia, no one really knows how the contentious issue of the Nile would end. One question to ponder is the extent to which the Egyptian military establishment’s position is radically different from that of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood?”
It is reasonable to entertain the notion that the former Field Marshall decided to opt for diplomacy by giving a little, recognition of the GERD.
Egypt’s Diplomatic Coup
The “good news” is that Egypt has rejoined the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). Second, Egypt has been forced to acknowledge Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. In principle, The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement that the Ethiopian Parliament ratified in 2013 replaces the 1929 Colonial Agreement that gave Egypt and Sudan the lion’s share of Nile waters. So, in this sense history is on Ethiopia’s side. In theory, Egypt is in no position to impose all sorts of conditions on Ethiopia if it accepts the Framework; and unless the Ethiopian government falters for its own reasons. A cursory review of negotiations and studies by Egyptian experts since 2011 shows that Egypt was determined not to give an inch with regard to water flows; and, as an insurance policy, decided to have a say in the administration and monitoring of the GERD itself. Article 5 of the Agreement gives Egypt a window of opportunity to have a say in Ethiopia’s project. “The principle of the Dam’s storage reservoir first filling, and dam operation policies,” binds signatories “To apply the recommendations of the international technical experts committee and the results of the final report of the Tripartite National Technical Committee during different stages of the dam project.” It further confirms “The three countries should cooperate to use the final findings in the studies recommended by the Tripartite National Committee and international technical experts to reach:
a) An Agreement on the guidelines for different scenarios of the first filling of the GERD reservoir in parallel with the construction of the dam.
b) An agreement on the guidelines and annual operation policies of the Renaissance Dam, which the owners can adjust from time to time.
c) To inform downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan, on any urgent circumstances that would call for a change in the operations of the Dam, in order to ensure coordination with downstream countries’ water reservoirs.
–Accordingly, the three countries are to establish a proper mechanism through their ministries of water and irrigation.
–The timeframe for such points mentioned above is 15 months from the start of preparing two studies about the dam by the international technical committee.
My reading is that Egypt and Sudan will be in a position to exercise substantial right in the “filling of the reservoir” and the “operational policies” of the Dam. Is this not a surrender of Ethiopia’s sovereignty and national security to Egypt? What is the difference between the Colonial period protocol of giving veto power to Egypt and this Agreement? Is this not ceding Ethiopia’s sovereignty over a national project housed on Ethiopian territory and river over which Ethiopia should be the only power that dictates the construction and operation of its own dam as long as it is done in a responsible manner? Doesn’t Egyptian absolute oversight and interference in Ethiopia’s internal development administration reaffirm Egyptian claim of “historic and natural rights” over the Abbay River? What happens in the event that water flow to Egypt decreases during different stages of the “first filling of the GERD?” Does the Agreement not offer a free hand to Egypt to demand that Ethiopia stops building the dam? I am not an expert on the technicalities of the Dam. Nevertheless, this Agreement compromises Ethiopia’s national sovereignty, national security and long term interests. Its sets the worst precedent possible for the country.
There are additional points. How do we reconcile equitable rights with an Agreement that is patently unfair and unjust? It will be inconceivable for Ethiopia or any other Sub-Saharan African riparian state to exercise oversight in the administration of the Aswan Dam or the construction of future dams by Egypt or Sudan. As far as I can tell from the document Prime Minister Hailemariam signed on behalf of Ethiopia there is no quid pro quo.
Principle 5 diminishes the value contained in 9. “The principle of the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the State” offers a consolation prize. It states “The three countries cooperate on the basis of equal sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the state, mutual benefit and good will, in order to reach the better use and protection of River Nile.” An Agreement that is patently unequal among the three countries cannot, at the same time, engender “equal sovereignty.” In my estimation, it is clear that if this Agreement is ratified by Ethiopia’s single party dominated Parliament, Ethiopia will be at a huge disadvantage for decades to come.
President Sisi made a brilliant move when he addressed the Ethiopian Parliament commending the Ethiopian government for its understanding, flexibility and seeking good will in support of Egypt’s water needs. He acknowledged Ethiopia’s right to build the GERD. From this, let us accept his recognition as “victory” for the Ethiopian government and its supporters” during an election year with a foregone conclusion that the ruling party would win. This “victory” does not diminish the fact that Egypt has attained a diplomatic coup that will affect Ethiopia’s sovereignty, national security and economic interests for decades to come. What Egypt has failed to achieve by military means or through surrogates, the Egyptian President played the diplomatic and public relations game superbly and preserved his country’s security and economic interests. Principle 5 discussed above is illustrative of this coup.
Ethiopia does not do well with regard to other binding principles either. The first principle agreed is that there will be a binding “cooperation in understanding the water needs of upstream and downstream countries across all their lands.” At face value this is fair as long as each country has the right to use its waters for its own development even if it means that there will be some decrease in water flows to Egypt. Is this a trick? For example, will Ethiopia be in a position to build dams for irrigation purposes in accordance with this principle? We do not know. This concern is expressed more fully in Principle 3, “Principle of not causing significant damage.” It says that “The three countries will take all necessary procedures to avoid causing significant damage while using the Blue Nile (Abbay…In case significant damage is caused to one of these countries, the country causing the damage is to take all the necessary procedures to alleviate this damage and discuss compensation whenever convenient.” Just think of this. Both Egypt and Sudan have established enormous irrigated-agriculture employing millions of people and producing food. Egypt not only produces some of its food supplies; it produces the finest cotton on the planet, a gift from Ethiopia. It has built state of the art textile factories that produce garments and other products for the domestic and global market. Ethiopia is no position to dictate to these countries that irrigated farming is water intensive and that, this tradition is no longer sustainable. The greater concern I express is that Ethiopia’s right to use the GERD for some irrigation is not allowed. Further, this precedent might offer Egypt a legal agreement in preventing Ethiopia to build irrigation dams.
What do I conclude?
Two policy issues in the Agreement distress me most. First, the total abandonment of Ethiopia’s sovereignty with regard to the construction, fill of the water reservoir and operation of the GERD whose construction I supported from its inception with substantial critique on ownership and social value added. Second, the fact that Ethiopia is disallowed to use any portion of the waters from the GERD and other future dams for irrigation. The Ethiopian government signed an Agreement that says in effect the following. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to produce hydro power for export but illegal for Ethiopia to use its waters for irrigation. It is acceptable for Ethiopia to build the GERD as long as Egypt exercises overwhelming oversight. I ask myself “How does the Ethiopian government justify binding itself and future governments and generations from managing its own epic hydroelectric power project without interference by Egypt and experts that Egypt approves; and from using waters within Ethiopia’s own boundaries for irrigation that would meet the food requirements of 100 million Ethiopians and growing? This is patently unfair, unjust and unacceptable.
President Sisi signed the Agreement after thorough review of the Principles and substantial consultation with Egyptian experts. His decision was backed by enormous amounts of rigorous research and recommendations. Upon closer reading, I find interesting similarities between elements of the Agreement and Egyptian expert recommendations. I wonder if the same rigor occurred in support of the Ethiopian side. I do not know.
I recall a group called the Group of the Nile Basin (GNB) “composed of Professors from Engineering, Irrigation and Hydraulics” who took matters to the next level. Their ultimate objective was to “support the effort of the Egyptian Government and decision-makers” through scientific research, scenarios and policy options. Their studies showed that Ethiopia’s four large dam projects including the Renaissance Dam posed threats to Egypt’s security. They accused the Ethiopian government of failure “to conduct “sufficient structural and hydrologic studies and environmental assessments.” These experts agreed that the Egyptian government should try to adhere to Agreements of 1929 and 1959 in any negotiation. They concluded, “Reduction in the water share of Egypt will result in abandoning huge areas of agricultural lands and scattering millions of families. It would result in in increasing the pollution of the water streams and creating problems in the supply of water for drinking and industry.” They offered the following recommendations to the Egyptian government thereby undermining Ethiopia’s national interests in advance of the Agreement.
- “Request stopping the construction of the Dam until completion of negotiations
- Insist that the maximum size of the Ethiopian Dam must not exceed 14 billion cubic meter compared to the 74 billion cubic meter” designed and under construction by Ethiopia
- Insist that Ethiopia commit officially not to use the water behind the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) for irrigated agriculture
- Insist that Ethiopia commit to give advance notice of future projects it has in mind
- Insist that the design and modification of the GERD be reviewed by Egyptian and international experts
- Insist that Ethiopia’s Dam must be used solely for electric power generation and never for irrigation
- Negotiate so that the price of electricity sold to Egypt and Sudan would be at cost thereby nullifying the value added from the project and negating the market itself
- Insist that filling the waters of the Dam’s reservoir should be staggered over 6 years to reduce disruption to Egypt’s supply and
- Insist that the operation of the hydro plant should be coordinated with Egypt,” thereby undermining Ethiopia’s sovereignty and diminishing its power.
We therefore knew well in advance that these recommendation offered by Egyptian experts were incongruent with a rising and assertive Sub-Saharan Africa of which Ethiopia is a part. These lop-sided solutions undermine the entire intent of the GERD and Ethiopia’s sovereign right to harness its waters without undue influence and pressure from Egypt or other third parties. Egyptian experts had told the Ethiopian government repeatedly that nothing of substance that will affect the flow of water from the Blue Nile to Egypt would be allowed through negotiation either.
President Sisi went to Ethiopia and lived up to the standard of successive Egyptian governments that their primary responsibility is to defend this sacred water—the source of life—by any means necessary. The Ethiopian people have the right to know specifics of the deal.
March 25, 2015 sourse ecdef
March 25, 2015 sourse ecdef
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
“ኢህአዴግ የህዝቡ ብሶት አደጋ እንደሚያስከትል አውቋል” ስትል የአዲስ አበባ የኢህአዴግ የሴቶች ሊግ ም/ል ሊቀመንበር ተናገረች
መጋቢት ፲፮(አስራ ስድስት) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :-የሊጉ ም/ል ሊቀመንበር በመሆን ለአመታት ያገለገለችው ወ/ት እየሩሳሌም አበረ ከኢሳት ጋር ባደረገችው ቃለምልልስ “የአዲስ አበባ ህዝብ እንደሚገነፍል ድስት እፍ እፍ እየተባለ ቢያዝም፣ አሁንም
በርካታ የዲሞክራሲ እና የመልካም አስተዳደር ጥያቄዎችን እያነሳ ነው” ብላለች።
የታፈነ የመልካም አስተዳደር እና የዲሞክራሲ ጩኸት አለ የምትለው ወ/ት እየሩሳሌም፣ ገዢው ፓርቲም ህዝቡ በከፍተኛ ብሶት ላይ እንደሚገኝና አደጋ ሊያስከትል እንደሚችልም ጠንቅቆ ያውቀዋል ብላለች።
ከምርጫ 97 በሁዋላ ኢህአዴግ የተሳካለት ነገር ቢኖር ተቃዋሚዎችን ማፈን ነው የምትለው ኢየሩሳሌም፣ ህዝቡ በሚታየው ነገር ሁሉ ባለመርካቱ ገዢው ፓርቲ ቁጥጥሩን በማጥበቅ የህዝቡን ብሶት ለማፈን ይሞክራል ስትል አክላለች።
ወ/ት እየሩሳሌም ድርጅቱን ጥላ ስደትን መርጣለች። ለረጅም አመታት የአዲስ አበባ የድርጅት ጉዳይ ሃላፊ እና በሌሎችም የስልጣን ሃላፊነቶች ላይ ሲሰሩ የቆዩት የኦህዴድ ድርጅት አባል የሆኑት ወ/ሮ አበባ ገብረስላሴም በቅርቡ ኢህአዴግን በመተው፣ በአሜሪካ
ጥገኝነት ጠይቀዋል። ከወ/ት እየሩሳሌም ጋር የተደረገው ቃለምልልስ ሰሞኑን ይቀርባል sourse esat
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Misplaced Opposition to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam by Minga Negash, Seid Hassan, Mammo Muchie, Abu Girma, Aklog Birara and Getachew Begashaw March 24th, 2015
In our April 30 2014 commentary http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article50822 which appeared on several media outlets, we outlined the fallacies of the Egyptian policy towards GERD. It appears that the last few months have witnessed breath-taking diplomatic developments. For one, Egypt has returned to the African Union. It also has been reported that there were several rounds of side and formal meetings between Ministers and the Heads of States and Governments of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan. Egypt has also shown a renewed interest on Africa. A number of African leaders attended the recently held economic summit in Egypt which unveiled a new project that aims to build a new city near Cairo. Parallel to these on March 23, 2015 Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan signed a deal that “ends the Nile dispute.”
Monday, March 23, 2015
የመከላከያ ሰራዊት አባላት በተጠንቀቅ እንዲቆሙ ታዘዙ
መጋቢት ፲፬(አስራ አራት) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :-የኢሳት ምንጮች እንደገለጹት ሰሞኑን በሰሜን ጎንደር አካባቢ የታየውን የጸጥታ መደፍረስ ተከትሎ የአገሪቱ የመከላከያ ሰራዊት አባላት ካለፈው ሃሙስ ቀን ጀምሮ በተጠንቀቅ እንዲቆሙ ታዛዋል።
የኢሳት ምንጮች እንደገለጹት የአየር ሃይል አባላት ካለፈው ሃሙስ ጀምሮ ከግቢ እንዳይወጡ ሲታዘዙ የተወሰኑት ደግሞ ከደብረዘይት እና ድሬዳዋ አየር ሃይል ወደ መቀሌ አምርተዋል። ብዛት ያለው የእግረኛ ሰራዊትም ወደ ኤርትራና ሱዳን ድንበሮች አቅንቷል።
ወታደራዊ ልምምዶችና አዳዳስ ምልመላዎችም እየተካሄዱ መሆኑንም ምንጮች ገልጸዋል።
ማንነታቸው በውል ያልታወቀ የተቃዋሚ ሃይሎች ጎንደር ከተማ ውስጥ የሚሊሺያ አዛዥ የሆነውን ኮማንደር ተፈራን ገድለው ካመለጡ በሁዋላ፣ እነሱን ለመያዝ መጋቢት 12 አርማጭ ልዩ ቦታው እንኮይ ተራራ ላይ በተደረገ ጦርነት ፣ ከተቃዋሚዎች በኩል ሻምበል ይርዳውና
አዲሱ የተባሉ ሲገደሉ፣ ከመንግስት ታጣቂዎች በኩል ደግሞ የልዩ ሃይል አባል የሆነው እባበይ እንዲሁም አንድ ስሙ በውል ያልታወቀና ሁለት የሚሊሺያ አባላት ተገድለዋል። ከቀኑ ዘጠኝ ሰአት ጀምሮ እስከ ምሽት በቀጠለው የተኩስ ልውውጥ፣ አንድ ተማሪ በመንግስት
ሃይሎች ተገድሏል። የመንግስት የጸጥታ ሃይሎች ምሽት ላይ አካባቢውን ጥለው መውጣታቸውን የአይን እማኞች ገልጸዋል።
በጉዳዩ ዙሪያ የመንግስትን አስተያየት ለማካተት የተደረገው ጥረት አልተሳካም።sourse esat radio
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Statement of the Oromo Democratic Front on the Recent Visit of its delegation to Addis
A senior delegation of the Oromo Democratic Front (ODF) was dispatched to Finefinne (Addis Ababa) on March 18, 20015 to kick-start stalled peace talks with the Ethiopian government. Regrettably, despite verbal overtures, no face-to-face talks could be held. Hence, our delegates had to return prematurely to Europe on the 22nd of March 2015. After two years of relentless efforts to engage the Ethiopian government from outside, the ODF took the unilateral action ofsending a high-level delegation led by its President, Mr. Leenco Lata. The delegation arrived in Addis on 19 March 2015.
The Oromo Democratic Front (ODF) decided from its inception to pursue the path of peaceful political struggle to defend the rights of the Oromo people and secure freedom, democracy, and prosperity for all peoples in Ethiopia. Accordingly, basing itself in the country and establishing itself among its constituents at home, and registering and legalizingit as a political party able to play its part in the country’s democratization has been and continues to be ODF’s highest priority. To this principled end, we have been trying to engage all political actors in Ethiopia including the ruling party and the government. But, despite out best efforts, negotiations with the government to resolve outstanding issues and facilitate our re-entry into the political process could not commence in earnest.
This incident does not mark the end of the road but rather only the start of our efforts to ground our organization among our people in our country. Acutely realizing that the road of peace is long, treacherous, and complicated and paved with innumerable obstacles, we are determined more than ever before to stay the course. Accordingly, we would relentlessly continue with our efforts to engage all political actors in our country, in order to establish a just and genuinely democratic order and a sustainable and equitable development in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is once again at a crossroads. Preventing a relapse and moving the country along the road of peace, democracy, and sustainable development requires political will, especially on the part of the ruling party. Reaffirming our unwavering commitment for peaceful and democratic transformation, we therefore call upon all actors, the ruling party in particular, and its supporters in the international community to respond to our efforts positively and support the just demands of our peoples to live in freedom and dignity in their country.
Freedom and Justice for All!
The Executive Committee
Oromo Democratic Front
22/03/2015> <strong>
Saturday, March 21, 2015
ESAT Interview: Save me from the kindness of my friends
March 21, 2015
by Yilma Bekele
We all have a few issues. Some are real while a few are due to ignorance but somewhere in between there are some topics raised by some folks that stops you on your track. All one can do is stand back, raise an eyebrow, take a breath and exclaim ‘what is that all about?’
That was exactly my reaction after listening to a discussion about the liberation of my country. It seems to me we have developed this nasty habit of choosing who can free us from serfdom even before the real job starts. The theoretical discussion have some folks getting twisted out of shape making one wonder what would happen when we actually have a few liberated territories to administer.
The interview was bundled into a two hour forty four minutes and thirty two seconds audio clip distributed by our friends from Ethiomedia. It was titled Eritrea: A friend or foe for a democratic change in Ethiopia? The question posed is very provocative and adds unnecessary layer to our struggle. If Eritrea is considered to be a foe we will be faced with two fronts to fight in order to be free.
Most Ethiopians are not into making the job harder and heavier. It is considered good policy to make friends with others of the same interest to lighten the load. One front at a time is a good and prudent policy to follow. Some folks just try to make their issue our issue. I have no way of knowing how much editing was done before distribution.
The original program was aired by ‘Addis Dimtz Radio from Washington D.C. Calling it a discussion is a little misleading. All three guests held the same opinion and were piling on each other to see who can go out on a limb.
The original program was aired by ‘Addis Dimtz Radio from Washington D.C. Calling it a discussion is a little misleading. All three guests held the same opinion and were piling on each other to see who can go out on a limb.
The guests were German-based Leul Qesqis Ethiopian Patriotic Front (Guard), Journalist Senai Gebremedhin of Australia and Journalist Kinfu Assefa of The Netherlands.
The recent interview of President Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea by ESAT was what they were assembled to discuss. The host Ato Abebe Belew gave the panelists more than enough time to present one cohesive argument why they were opposed to the idea of accepting Eritrea’s generous offer to look the other way while we use their territory.
I watched the interview on ESAT. The Eritrean President presented a very interesting interpretation of history. It is always good to know what others think and how they process information. Most Ethiopians are familiar with President Isaias Afewerki. He is not a loved figure in Ethiopia. His image has been tarnished by over fifty years of propaganda by successive regimes all to their own end and mostly in a futile attempt to save a dying system.
Two have met their demise and the third one is attempting the same feat. May God save us all! Anyway Ato Isaias Afewerki has been viewed mostly as an evil figure. He has been seen as a friend only once for a brief period of time. It is a subject Woyanes’ would rather not talk about.
Two have met their demise and the third one is attempting the same feat. May God save us all! Anyway Ato Isaias Afewerki has been viewed mostly as an evil figure. He has been seen as a friend only once for a brief period of time. It is a subject Woyanes’ would rather not talk about.
I have grown up listening and reading about him and this is the first time I have sat to closely follow and see how he carries himself. His desk, his cloth, his hat and the beige background all reflected the simplified life he advocated and seems to live. I was most surprised by the absence of a big flag of Eritrea flying in the background engulfing the speaker with naked show of patriotism. I am impressed he did not need such props. It shows modesty as well as confidence.
I enjoyed his fast reply to difficult questions and the cunning way he managed to avoid the ones he did not want to answer. I am grateful to the two Journalists for raising tough questions that need to be asked and steering the conversation in a smart manner.
I did not focus much on what he has to say about the past and his opinion of Woyane. I would rather pay attention on what he has to say about the future. I am also aware that as a powerful head of state his views are very important and directly affect our country. What I totally agreed with him is the belief that a non-democratic, ethnically divided Ethiopia to be a hindrance to the development of both countries. The Woyane regime in order to hold on to power incites hatred and intolerance among people and nations of the region. The Woyane regime in Ethiopia is the cause of instability in the Horn of Africa. That fits our description of the current Ethiopian regime.
It is the same regime that deleted Andenet by using their Kangaroo court and that also denied Semayawi Party’s participation in the election process by using the Election Board to give it legality. The question becomes what exactly is wrong with Ethiopian Democratic Forces using Eritrean territory to train and prepare to topple this mafia regime? It looks like we have a mutual interest with Eritrea in the resolution of this common discomfort. Anything wrong with that?
Many have tried to operate from Eritrea. Today there are a few combatants from Ethiopia located in Eritrea to organize better. It is now two years since the formation of Ginbot7 Popular Forces that have managed to work in a stealth manner and are fine-tuning their ways make the effort match the prize. The Patriotic Front which is one of the oldest and that has faced many obstacles is still operating from Eritrea. The two organizations that is Patriotic Front and Ginbot7 have agreed to a merger. It is a great leap forward. ESAT got access to be present at such historical event due to the good will of the Eritrean Government.
It indeed is a step forward on our journey to see a free Ethiopia and the fact it was recorded by the number one weapon of our people to be free is a proud moment for us all. It was during this trip ESAT was able to secure an interview with the Eritrean head of state. And it is the news and the interview that precipitated the program by Addis Dimtz Radio.
Our panelists did not discuss the Interview. They did not discuss the historical trip by an Independent Ethiopian broadcaster going to Eritrea and witness the monumental occasion of Ethiopian Forces coming together to face the common enemy. They did not dissect the President’s speech and give us a glimpse of his thought regarding our country.
The discussion was solely on the wisdom of cooperating with Eritrea to fight the Warlords in power. The guests were there to explain why they think differently. It would have helped to have assembled folks that have differing views so the listener can hear all sides of the issue.
It is a moot point. No organization has asked for anyone’s permission to set up shop in Eritrea or anywhere. It does not work like that. Just because someone tried and failed does not mean there is no different approach that would succeed. With all due respect it is better to sit down and do an in-depth search of why it did not succeed and find a way to help others avoid failure than to be a naysayer without merit..
The panelists were setting up a warning beacon for all others to move with caution based on their failed encounter. I have no problem with that. What I object to is this idea of undermining others that are working to find their own way. Concentrating on one’s own effort and making it succeed would earn more points and move the ball.
To come on radio and disparage and question the character of others is not a winning formula. For the host to give people free rein to use the air waves to make unsubstantiated and uninformed statements bordering on slander on our struggle is not fair or a good way to make friends.
To come on radio and disparage and question the character of others is not a winning formula. For the host to give people free rein to use the air waves to make unsubstantiated and uninformed statements bordering on slander on our struggle is not fair or a good way to make friends.
After all is said the point I got was that the gentlemen were accusing Shabia for the non-activity of some of the organizations residing in Eritrea. I have no idea why. We do not have enough data to show the strength or weakness of each organization making it difficult to answer with certainty. Did they have able leaders, enough recruits, adequate training, enough weapons even for training, enough supplies, health workers, food, drink, mental fitness that is called for? Was funds collected that is enough for an army to survive until the political situation changes and critical mass is achieved?
Organizing, training and leading an army into battle is not a simple proposition. Engaging an organized force like the TPLF army is not a picnic. I am sure it requires painstaking attention to details and a highly motivated and able leaders with troops trained militarily and politically. Why our organizations have not fared well in Eritrea till now is a question they have to answer. I doubt blaming it on Eritrea is such a good idea. That is the cowards’ way out. You mean to tell me in twenty years you failed to find another way if you think that one is a dead end?
If the idea was for Shabia to feed and train Ethiopians to fight Woyane then it was a very naive assumption. To think Shabia would fight for our freedom is way off the mark. You are on your own buddy. Shabia led and fought with TPLF to achieve its goal of liberating Eritrea. They did not fight for TPLF. If Shabia is willing to give us a corridor to fight their old friend Woyane and Patriotic Front /G7 say they are determined to accept the offer and also work with many more others to bring freedom why would one object? We should find that reassuring and the road to empowerment.
Each organization leads its own sovereign existence based on its beliefs and aptitude. I have no question Ato Andargachew laid the best foundation for such life to emerge from his group. Patriotic Front /G7 are a qualitative change in our struggle. We celebrate that while we support all those arrayed against the minority based regime.
The peaceful means is still going strong in Ethiopia. Semayawi and Andenet are exposing the emptiness of the system. Slowly they are teaching their people that we do not submit easy. Their struggle is a hard as any. Their survival is challenged on a daily basis. They have no newspaper, no radio, no text messaging, nothing! They are harassed by government paid goons, their family is threatened and people are forced to stay away from them but perceiver.
The peaceful means is still going strong in Ethiopia. Semayawi and Andenet are exposing the emptiness of the system. Slowly they are teaching their people that we do not submit easy. Their struggle is a hard as any. Their survival is challenged on a daily basis. They have no newspaper, no radio, no text messaging, nothing! They are harassed by government paid goons, their family is threatened and people are forced to stay away from them but perceiver.
Kinijit, Andenet, Semayawi, Ginbot7 and more will come. What comes next should be qualitatively better than the previous one. That happens when we learn from mistakes, build on our success and celebrate our accomplishments. Our weapons should be aimed at the mafia regime not at phantom enemies and close allies. It is important we contemplate before we hold public dialogue without adequate understanding or deeper studies. What I noticed in the west is that when they want to solve a problem they usually invite experts from their think tanks so they would give the listener perspective based on solid knowledge. It usually gets better and superior results benefiting all of society without undue alarm. sourse esat
Friday, March 20, 2015
በአብርሃጅራ ከተማ ጸጉረ ልውጦች ገብተዋል በሚል ፍተሻ እየተካሄደ ነው
መጋቢት ፱(ዘጠኝ) ቀን ፳፻፯ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :-በምእራብ አርማጭሆ በአብርሃጅራሃ ከተማ ፀጉረ ልውጥ ሽፍቶችን አስገብተዋል በተባሉ ሰዎች ላይ ከፍተኛ ፍተሻ እየተደረገ መሆኑን የአካባቢው ነዋሪዎች ለኢሳት ተናግረዋል።
የከተማው ሕዝብና የአካባቢው ገበሬ በከፍተኛ ሥጋት ላይ የሚገኙ ሲሆን፣ በሆቴሎች በዋና ዋና መንገዶችና መተላለፊያዎች ላይ ፍትሻ እየተካሄ ነው። ነዋሪዎች ደግሞ በሚሄዱበት አካባቢ ሁሉ መታወቂያቸውን እየተጠየቁ ነው።
እስካሁን ድረስ በቁጥጥር ስር የዋለ አንድም ጸጉረ ልውጥ አለመኖሩን ነዋሪዎች አክለው ገልጸዋል።
እየተደረገ ያለው ፍተሻ በከተማው ውስጥ የሚኖሩ ሁለት ታዋቂ ባለሃብቶች ከ3 ቀናት በፊት አርበኞች ግንቦት7ትን መቀላለቀላቸውን ተከትሎ የተደረገ ሳይሆን እንደማይቀር ይገመታል።
ካለፈው ወር ጀምሮ ወደ አካባቢው ለስራ የሄዱም ሆነ በአካባቢው የሚኖሩ ወጣቶች ወደ ኤርትራ በመሄድ ተቃዋሚዎችን ልተቀላቀሉ ትችላላችሁ እየተባሉ በመታፈስ ላይ መሆናቸውን የአካባቢው ምንጮች ተናግረዋል።
በአሁኑ ጊዜ በጠረፍ ከተማዎችና በሰሜን አርማጭሆ ከፍተኛ ውጥረት ያለ ሲሆን፣ ገዢው ፓርቲ ካለፈው ወር ጀምሮ ከፍተኛ ቁጥር ያለው ሰራዊቱን ወደ ስፍራው አንቀሳቅሷል።
የመንግስት ከፍተኛ ባለስልጣናት በቅርቡ ወደ አካባቢው በመሄድ ህዝቡን ለማነጋገር ጥረት አድርገውነበር።source esat
Monday, March 16, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)