Sunday, November 22, 2009


Mankelklot Haile Selassie (PhD) November 21, 2009
Note from the Editore:
The following comment was sent to comment page Dr.Mankelkilot Haileselassie as a reaction to the different opinions posted on diffrenet webistes as well and here in our web log. Unfortunately, the commnet page can't allow long written views, therefore, I decided to post his excellent timely view, advice on the current situation and the available-solution-to tacle-the-current-difficulties-in-the-country.
here is his comment. Read:-
Think about it. Of all the people, Tecola Hagos, who was the advisor of TPLF’s leadership, is challenging the political, perhaps, as well as the moral integrity of Eng. Hailu Shawel, the president of All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP). Eng. Hailu shawel was the major role player in organizing the most effective and efficient party that handedly beat Meles Zenawi and his collaborators in the election of May 15, 2005. Tecola Hagos, instead of analyzing the signed document went after the individual who performed so well in the election of May 15, 2005. In addition to that achievement, he is a strong nationalist, defender of Ethiopian sovereignty, who also defended the green-yellow-red flag of Ethiopia to the hilt. By his own admission, Tecola Hagos was advising TPLF’s leadership from 1991 to 1993. Now. Here are the most revealing questions for Tecola Hagos. Was he aware of : a) the massacre of thousands of young, old, and babies carried on the back of their mothers at Hausin market; and, b) capitalizing on the misery caused by the famine of 1977, by selling the dead and dying, skinny-hungry, young and old, and skinny babies sucking the breast of their dead or dying mothers, that made the TPLF leadership millionaires, money soaked with blood. And, c) was Tecola Hagos aware of the three criteria used by TPLF’s leadership when recruiting fighters? To refresh his memory, the paraphrased criteria were, a) believing and accepting the independence of Eritrea, b) accepting the independence of Tigry, and c) accepting that Amaras are the avowed enemies who brought all the miseries upon Tigry people. He cannot deny, at least the knowledge, if not him being one of the participants, of the above information when he was assuming the advisory position. Then the follow up question for Tecola Hagos would be: what was the relationship between TPLF’s leadership and him before 1991? Without a very strong relationship between the two, and, intimate knowledge of each other, they would have not positioned him at the advisory level. One can reasonably assume that the duration between 1991 and 1993 was extremely important, where inputs were needed, to systematically lay down the detailed process for implementing, a) Ethiopia’s division along ethnic and language lines, b) the creation of regions where the division along ethnic and language lines would be effected, c) the insertion of article "39" in the constitution, and d) above all, how the party’s program, namely, the revolutionary democracy, aught to be implemented to the letter. The insertion of article "39" is, in my opinion, to constitutionalize items "a" and "b" above, as well as, the result of the three of the recruiting criteria mentioned above. One can see that his input was needed at the time when the foundation for TPLF leadership’s future detailed activities were being laid down. Tecaola Hagos, the provider of that input, during that time, was part and parcel of the above itemized destructive processes. Now he is a fallen human being who was denied the luxury of intimate relationship. This lone ranger was chewed and told to leave the stage. Given the above facts, he has no moral or political standing to involve in any political process of Ethiopian society whom he tried to destroy. To be involved, first he has to apologize to Ethiopian people, openly. Or, confess what he did during the years between 1991 and 1993. Coming back to what prompted me to write this article, at least, it would have been an intellectually proper thing to do for Tecola Hagos, first to critically analyze the sighed document in terms of whether it would benefit the Ethiopian society or not, and then critically criticize Eng. Hailu Shawel for signing a document that he (Tecola Hagos) found it deficient. Instead of pointing out to specific deficiencies of the signed document, if found, he laymanishly, if you will, dismissed it by saying, "…which is a meaningless document." For the kind of individual like him, this kind of generalized statement is intolerable, in fact, it is evading the core issue--that is exactly what he did-- when specifically numbered items are provided to refer to. He also tried to save his skin by telling what we have already known, thanks to those brave Ethiopians from among his colleagues. He even tries to kind of expose the "game play" that he claimed he had observed. How he quickly forgets the "game play," to use his own term, that he was part and parcel of, in the years between 1991 and 1993, and, I might daringly add, before 1991. Hence, Dr. Tecola, what about the "game play" you were part and parcel of, in the years between 1991 and 1993? Think deeper. The "game play" that Meles and his collaborators are executing now are the "game play" coordinated and organized by your advisor-ship, that took place, at least between 1991 and 1993. In my opinion, there is the potential for him to be included in the genocide and treason committed by Meles Zenai and his collaborators against Ethiopian people and the country Ethiopia itself, respectively. Now, the most serious question for him to answer is, where, when and how would he match the activities of Eng. Hailu Shawel to the scheme of things that he collaborated with Meles and his collaborators, that started and developed in the forest of Ethiopia? Which is a separate crime by itself for using Ethiopia’s forest to incubate and hatch out forces against itself. Do you see how your criticism of Eng. Hailu Shawel, including the premise of your argument, becoming absolutely irrelevant? THE CASE OF AEUP AND ENG. HAILU SHAWEL The move taken by Eng. Hailu Shawel, unexpectedly, went deep down to the core of an established traditional way of political struggle of the Ethiopian opposition forces particularly in the diaspora. He broke the culture of traditional struggle that pinned down the Ethiopian opposition forces to a tunnel-visioned type of political struggle. His party took an individualized independent and decisive action. By doing so, a) the rest of the opposition forces were left where they are sitting, unaware of what is being unfolding in front of their eyes; b) personally, he showed mature and far-seeing leadership qualities that are lacking in the current opposition political leaders. How about looking into this leadership qualities in relation to his business growth? Without going into detail, he achieved the level of the business he has by providing disciplined and decisive decisions followed by actions. Could one see the decisions and the actions he was and still taking to be the reflection of the experience he accumulated during the process of his business buildup? Do you see the thrust of my point? Please note this. Particularly those opposition forces in the Diaspora are becoming irrelevant and obsolete in the Ethiopian political process. Say, after 10 years, or even five years, to be in the same position as they are now is concretizing the irrelevancy and slowly but surely entering the process of being obsolete. I think they have to come to grips with this reality and remedy themselves before it is too late. The remedy could be entering Ethiopia, how to enter is their responsibility, and start communicating with the society face to face, directly. Here, the issue is not when but how to do it. How to do it is up to them. The answer for when to do it, is, a long overdue issue. As time goes by, the Diaspora political parties, it seems to me, are seen to be like sitting on the fence, by simply churning out press releases after press releases. They aught to be held accountable. AEUP has demonstrated the potential for administering Ethiopia. By signing the document, with full understanding of what shallow, irresponsible and opportunist thinkers would say about him and AEUP, he showed the courage and determination of All Ethiopian Unity Party to lead the struggle. Considering the routine political activities of the opposition forces we have been witnessing for the last nineteen years, his move could be considered a revolutionary one. However, AEUP has to realize it is only on paper, yet. And it is only the beginning of grueling and demanding struggle. What if what are on the papers of signed document would not be implemented as it is clearly stated there? What if Meles Zenawi and his collaborators did not accept the final outcome of the election 2010, as it did in 2005? Just to mention two of the major ones. Is AEUP going to sit quietly and accept or is AEUP going to hand over the responsibility to the people of Ethiopia who are ready to defend and protect their rights, provided AEUP is going to lead them. It has to be clear from the outset, that, no more backdoor dealings with Meles Zenawi as it was done immediately after the election of May 15, 2005. AEUP, has to simultaneously, while intensively organizing itself for the election, prepare the society for any adverse outcome, that could be triggered by Meles Zenawi and his collaborators.. Finally, in my opinion, it appears, the struggle to empower the people of Ethiopia is focused to rest on the shoulder of AEUP. It is the responsibility of AEUP to take the charge including bringing those opposition forces determined to lead with sacrifice, together, and beat Meles Zenawi and his collaborators in the election of 2010. In Ethiopia, today, the political ground is fertile to accept the seed and grow it, and grow it fast, as long as the farmer is there to do it. All Ethiopian Unity Party has to stop relying on the so called Ethiopian constitution, to come to its rescue, for there is no Ethiopian constitution in Ethiopia. There is only TPLF’s political program called the revolutionary democracy. The leadership of TPLF is following this program to the letter. Therefore it is very important for AEUP to stick to the internationally recognized signed document as the frame of reference for any eventualities, not the constitution. Above all, totally depending on the people of Ethiopia for it is the ultimate source of power, as opposed to the enormous power of the regime.. THE CASE OF MULTI FACETED POLITICAL STRUGGLE Almost all of the proponents of this type of struggle are the opposition political parties in Diaspora. It is the latest invention, a systematic scheme, designed to extend the political life of their parties. In my opinion, it is a scheme replacing HIBRET. HIBRET is simply mentioned as a cover. Please note this. No one would be able to challenge and pin down these proponents on any one branch of this multi-faceted-struggle, for it is deliberately fabricated to make the struggle vague. It is also a scheme to tap into the potential financial resources of the community, to survive and to stretch their opportunistic political life. I argue that, particularly these are the ones, including their supporters, who vehemently dismiss Eng. Hailu Shael’s move as non productive and against the traditional way of struggle. "Tebaberu woinim tesebaberu." This slogan, through time has turned into a rotten political culture that destroyed the spirit of struggle that we inherited from our for-fathers. It has become the cover for mediocre, sentimentalist political organizations, that infected the stronger ones. The stronger ones through time lost their immunity to this infection and flowed along. I think we have to accept this subtle dangerous reality. The proponents of this deliberately vague strategy would not sit and see while their invented method of struggle is being shattered by AEUP. They have to fight it out to the hilt for it is their survival. It is very important to critically observe these proponents of the multi-faceted- political-struggle. Mankelklot Haile Selassie (PhD) November 21, 2009 //-/-/