The Fateful Election and Ethiopia�s Sovereignty Held Hostage Under EPRDF�s Treasonous System of Government

Part I

By Laeke Gebresadik

I. The Fateful Election and Ethiopia�s Sovereignty Held Hostage

The Ethiopian people passed a verdict to kill the treasonous system of government in the May 15 national election. The early election results sent shock waves through EPRDF�s administration. The regime was caught by surprise in spite of its measures to suppress the movement for political change. In the hope of replicating a previous election process, the regime began its game plan for the sham election victory long before the election. It trampled all venues for a fair and free election, violating the rights of the young generation of its rights to vote, threatening farmers of their land and livelihood if voted for the opposition, intimidating, arresting, evicting and murdering candidates, disseminating ethnic hatred, etc. The election marred by EPRDF�s irregularities and violence logically led to the current turn of events.

Foreign observers like the Carter Center and the EU, incapable or unwilling to provide reasonable monitoring coverage through out the country, simply downplayed the oppositions� complaints of widespread violation. The credibility of the election heavily depended on the role of the observers and their decision to call it �free and fair� undoubtedly created a cloud of suspicion on the whole process. Technically, they gave the regime the endorsement and support it needed to claim a presumptuous early victory regardless of the ballots that had to be counted. The observers� partisanship in the election had part in degenerating the democratic process into violence. 

The Western media was also engaged in the business of propagating news of the EPRDF regime winning the election with absolute certainty of 85% of the total ballots coming from the rural population in spite of the absence of election results. The US and UK who painted a �visionary leader� image around Meles Zienawi, and who actively propped up his regime for years seemed rather too concerned losing a tyrant that well suits their interests. Their measured and methodical steps against the election irregularities and violence gave away their lack of interest in the democratization of Ethiopia or the African continent. They chose to play the politics of conducting the violence by refraining from any meaningful measures to stop the killing and mass imprisonment of opposition members, civilians and students. The mass political movement in the Ethiopian election resembled those seen in countries under former dictatorial regimes as in Georgia and Ukraine. Their response in Ethiopia�s case, however, is nothing like their unrelenting campaigns for democratic political changes in Georgia, Ukraine, etc. For the West, democracy is another commodity that should entail a strategic importance. Western nations involvement in the election process and mediation raise the hard question whether their interference has the good intention many had hoped.

In spite of the violence, irregularity and deception by the ruling party, the Ethiopian opposition coalitions did not face the challenge as their counter parts in the democratic world of working a long list of policy objectives in their election platform. They didn�t have to reveal the iniquity of the EPRDF regime to the Ethiopian people to win their case at the poling stations. In fact, they did not have an election platform worthy of mention that reflects the immensely huge political, social and economic crises Ethiopia faces under the criminal regime. The two coalition groups were able to lead a well-organized campaign by simply tapping into the smothered public emotions of anger and aversion to the EPRDF. 

It would be utterly na�ve, of course, to have the slightest expectation of the EPRDF regime to admit defeat in an election and relinquish power to an elected body. For the EPRDF, the democratic election was another deceptive scheme full of risks, which it had to take to legitimize its stay in power. The leadership made it clear in unwavering terms its determination to stay in power and the motives for doing so by unleashed a reign of terror around the nation. The regime defined the means for its removal to be any other means than a democratic process when it violently hijacked the election results. That is why the historical significance of this election is not in the democratization of the political system; it is rather in setting in motion the destructive forces that have yet to gather momentum to eliminate the EPRDF. Two reasons can be sighted for this: first, short of a political force to bring the regime down or a legal system to try the EPRDF leaders for their crimes, the treasons they perpetrated on the nation and its people give the ruling party neither the legal nor the moral prerogative to hold an election; second, since the democratic election did not have the constitutional guarantee under the EPRDF for a peaceful transition of political power, it served as a means in an attempt to eliminate a bad government than as a process serving the constitution to bring in a better one. 

What is unique about this election is also that it generated a stampede by all parties from the old and new political orders to seize power lumped up in a coalition. The two coalitions in this respect bring their own risk component when politically bankrupt organizations and criminals from the past use the election as a vehicle to seize power to meet their ghastly ambitions unfulfilled in their long-past era; it is only politically prudent for the legitimate political parties to disassociate themselves from contaminant organizations and criminals before the later assume control of the democratic movement. This once again gives the distressful warning that the Ethiopian public is fully engrossed in the task of removing a malevolent regime as in the previous two regimes, unable to prepare for the future by scrutinizing the opposition before it becomes a menace.  

The election that was forced on the EPRDF by political circumstances inevitably suffered death in its hands. Even so, the historic election changed the course of history and became a sacrificial lamp for what was to follow. Violation of the election gave rise to a protest by the rightful public to oppose and remove the government from power. Either the peoples� power has to prevail and annihilate the treasonous system of government or treason, if allowed to continue �business as usual� at the highest level of government, my soon prove catastrophic to the survival of the nation already threatened by it.  If an opposition led popular revolt is to take precedence, its success for the creation of a democratic and united Ethiopia will depend on the opposition�s will and genuine understanding of the EPRDF�s treasonous system of government.  

II. Implications of crimes of treason on national sovereignty

The systemic nature of EPRDF�s crimes of treason undermining Ethiopian sovereignty is an unprecedented historically anomaly. The crimes of treason continue to confound our nation�s foes and friends alike as Ethiopians grapple to find rational explanation and closure to this system in an effort to resurrect their dignity and proud history. It is of paramount importance to provide an aggregate of the ruling party�s crimes of treason for a proper consideration of their implications on the current political development and to the future of Ethiopia.  

EPRDF�s over a decade of criminal history dictates that ethnic conflict and the contrived border war with Eritrea are the two most destructive weapons in its hands to inflict irreparable damage on the nation. Ethnic tension exacerbated by the ruling party in the violent election added a new dimension to Ethiopian politics. Meles Zienawi himself and some from the opposition camp used ethnic politics as the main theme of their election campaign. Michael E. Brown describes �elite-triggered� ethnic conflicts as �criminal assaults on state sovereignty� (Brown, M. E. 1997, p.18). He gives details of how state sovereignty is challenged by drug cartels in some countries of Asia and Latin America. A parallel can be drawn between the drug cartels and the EPRDF criminal organization linked to foreign anti-Ethiopian forces in constant challenge to Ethiopia�s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  

Ethnic tensions mainly in the capital remain to be the main concern today considering the full magnitude of the conflict that could consume the entire ethnic boundaries. Ethiopians can no longer count on Ethiopia�s remarkable history of ethnic mosaic and harmony. Integration in Ethiopia�s ethnic society was mainly attributed to the nation�s highly evolved culture of mutual coexistence seasoned by its age-old political history. Unfortunately, iniquitous political views of modern times and the misdeeds of rulers as in the Mengistu era and the era of the traitors under Meles Zienawi strained this favorable culture of ethnic relations to a breaking point. Sandra Joireman and Thomas Szayna utilized a model among others on Ethiopia assessing a scenario of widespread ethnic clashes (Joireman, S. 2000); their warnings should not go unheeded. 

On the other hand, some organizations in the opposition (whether their designation is ethnic or national) are motivated by ethnic politics to exclude other ethnic groups as a matter of policy in direct reflection of EPRDF�s divisive ethnic structure; when this is not the case, their general membership fail to reflect a representation of Ethiopia�s ethnic groups. They espouse the idea that reciprocating EPRDF�s treatment of Ethiopia�s ethnic society will do justice to the ethnic political crisis that paralyzed the nation. Agitating the public with ethnically inflammatory rhetoric during the election period, they fueled ill feelings that could contribute to future reprisals between the ethnic groups. The regime�s repeated attempt to instigate ethnic strife could only succeed with the active participation of such organizations and individuals involved in the opposition in helping it to bring its agenda to a final and horrific conclusion.  

For an ulterior motive or otherwise, some prescribe to the palpable ethnic profiling of Ethiopian society as a legitimate political argument. They choose to portray the EPRDF as a Tigrean minority government imposing its rule over the rest of the ethnic groups. The following is a reflection from Mr. Carter�s report on his election observation mission: �Prime Minister Meles Zenawi represents a relatively small ethnic group from Tigray, and has had difficulty retaining political control in the face of strong opposition from the much larger Oromo and other tribal group.� (Carter, J May 19, 2005). Mr. Carter�s statement deserves special attention because not only it plays well into present day Ethiopia�s ethnic politics but also it represents a phenomena exploited on an international level since the EPRDF took power. Is Mr. Carter helping to advance western interest in the newly coined ethnic politics of �Oromo majority�? Mr. Carter�s statement should not be tolerated for the injustice it does to the people of Tigray whose land and dignity is robed by Meles Zienawi and his government, and to the Ethiopian people whose sovereign right is turned into tomfoolery on international stage and the enormous sacrifice they paid to defend it.  

It is well known that the TPLF ceased to exist as a political organization after its leadership split up in 2001. There is no denying the simmering conflict in the TPLF leadership over Ethiopian sovereignty led to wielding of state power by the ruling clique. TPLF�s political decision process even in its former existence was confined to the leadership elite with no accountability to its own rebel group or the people. The ethnically motivated political argument whether that of Mr. Carter or the destructive elements within the opposition collide with the fact that EPRDF and its leader Meles Zienawi condemned vast territories of Tigray province and tens of thousands of their inhabitants to their mortal enemy Eritrea in the Algiers border agreement. The EPRDF with its seat of power in Addis Ababa, far removed from the people in Tigray, least depends on the people of Tigray for its survival; it is also true the other way around; The regime�s source of power comes from the divisive ethnic political structure it successfully established over the years, the bureaucracy, its police and security, and so forth adhering by default to the policies of the treasonous system. 

The ruling party�s ethnic policy, essentially a controlling mechanism to manage ethnic conflicts, is built into its constitution as well as its administrative structure. EPRDF�s ethnic policy, contrary to claims by ethnically motivated organizations or individuals, does not discriminate one ethnic group from another. The EPRDF regime has consequently incited ethnic violence on different corners of the country on numerous occasions to achieve its objectives. The reversals in the OPDO�s administrative headquarters between Adama and Adiss Ababa are good examples of its procreation of self-contradicting imaginary and overlapping boundaries. Its measures have the intended consequence of preventing the free movement of Ethiopians between these boundaries in their own country. Ethiopians feel more insecure to move freely around the country from ethnic hostility and backlashes under the EPRDF than in any other time in the past. Ethiopia saw an ominous development of ethnic breakups and disintegration as formerly integrated ethnic groups are now forced to regroup and retreat to their ethnic political boundaries as a result of a government policy induced ethnic animosity. Another instance the regime use as a flashing point for ethnic conflicts is the border disputes it creates between adjacent ethnic communities that have never been a political issue before. As is well known, there are also internationally documented cases of crimes of ethnic cleansing by the regime.  

The treasonous EPRDF leaders joined forces with the enemy to severe the province of Eritrea from Ethiopia. The 1998 Eritrea�s war of aggression annexing Ethiopian territories by force was in deed a declaration of war on its sovereign existence that still continues today in a united front between its internal and external enemies. John Young reminds us that TPLF�s demand during the 1988 attempted negotiations with the Dergue was the unconditional and immediate independence for Eritrea from Ethiopia. (Young, J. 1997 p.168) TPLF�s chief negotiator at the time Meles Zienawi was later made to drop this demand in favour of the illicit process of a transitional period for Eritrea�s separation. The TPLF leaders who fought their way to be Ethiopia�s rulers had their allegiances placed elsewhere than on Ethiopia. In the wake of Eritrea�s separation, the EPRDF abandoned over a hundred thousand of Ethiopian citizens in Eritrea to the vengeful atrocities of the EPLF, the majority of whom were from Tigray.  

Soon after seizing power, the core EPRDF leadership literally assumed the responsibility of an undertaker for Eritrea�s morbid economy. The Ethiopian economy was left open to serve as the conduit to EPLF�s insurmountable dream of building-by-looting a superior and modern state. The EPLF was allowed to operate a network of its secret service in the country to facilitate such criminal activities and to carryout political assassinations of individuals that pose threat to its interest.  

It is to be recalled that the political and economic treasons triggered the 1998 border war. It is also important to note that Eritrea�s military buildup took years of planning and preparation to be able to conduct a war of that magnitude. The EPRDF leaders once again came to the rescue of the enemy state by further committing treasons of war. They not only crippled the national defense prior to the invasion, but also circumvented any attempts to defend Ethiopian sovereign lands from imminent Eritrean aggression in spite of warnings from the opposing TPLF leaders and the public. Ethiopia�s borderlands were for the most part defended by local militias and residents against further Eritrean incursions until the Ethiopian army was fully reorganized. The first launch of a military counteroffensive took over a year. By that time, the EPLF army was deep into Ethiopian territories over the 1000-mile borderline committing atrocious crimes on the population under the watch of the present Ethiopian leaders. The EPRDF leadership exposed the Ethiopian army to enemy attacks in subsequent battles as is well documented in the Tserona incident.  

In spite of grave security risk to Ethiopia from Eritrean aliens flooding the country, the regime followed an open-door policy with no border checks to those potentially dangerous subjects of an enemy state. The EPRDF went as far as placing their rights over any Ethiopian citizen (including those whose property was confiscated and evicted from Eritrea) by entitling them to automatic citizenship, salary compensation and jobs including in sensitive government positions with grave security risk. Previous experiences of sabotage by Eritreans in various capacities in Ethiopia prior to the war also foretell what their future engagement could be. EPRDF�s immigration policy on Eritreans is an indication of revoking Ethiopia�s national security there by its sovereign power as its main target. Generally speaking, the EPLF by proxy of the TPLF leadership formulated and continue to implement a blanket of policies securing Eritrean interests in a deliberate violation of the sanctity of Ethiopia�s nationhood.

The EPRDF is now on its last footing ready to cede Ethiopian territory to Eritrea, suspending the nation in a state of war. The standoff on the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea is in real terms a deadlocked battle between the people of Ethiopia and its internal enemy. The EPRDF did not have or could not have unresolved issue with the EPLF when in principle it is ready to give away territories if it wasn�t for the public standing on its way. The war that Eritrea is preparing for is a timely managed affair in a pact between the TPLF and EPLF to attain their concurrent objectives. The war rhetoric that dragged on for a few years now is staged to pick up momentum to coincide with the defining moment of the election period in Ethiopia; in which case both leaders might have come to the conclusion that the stalemate both on the election and the border issue can be broken by launching a managed war for a final execution of their plans.  Apparently, the war can take away pressure from the election embattled EPRDF in a bid to prolong its life by diverting Ethiopian public attention to war campaigns. On the other hand, it can bring defeat to Ethiopia, an easier and desirable way to the parties involved to allow Eritrea to recapture the territories as an alternate solution to the Algiers Agreement. It should be remembered that the agreement and the EPRDF as partner to the deal give Eritrea the means to justify its actions.  

War, as Esayas Afewerki himself is a standing witness to his own humiliating defeat subsequent to his 1998 war of aggression is a very murky business, that he cannot allow his alter ego full him anymore. Aside from his strategic ally Meles Zienawi, there are other considerations that Esayas should take as enticing for another war. His invasion of Ethiopian territories in May 1998 was based on his assumption of a weakened and ethnically divided Ethiopia. As I indicated earlier, Eritrea restarting the war seems imminent at this interesting juncture where ethnic tension is also believed to be at the highest and the EPRDF on a shaky ground to hold on to power any longer.  

Third parties who have a vested interest in the border war with Eritrea should not be overlooked if the making of the 1998 war itself and others that may follow are to be fully understood. �With Washington supporting both sides in the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war, US arms sales spiralled. The bounty was being shared between the arms manufacturers and the agribusiness conglomerates,� explains Michel Chossudovsky a Professor of Economics at University of Ottawa (Chossudovsky, M. 2000). The US is known to have found a dumping ground in the Ethio-Eritrean war for its non-strategic army supplies such as uniforms leftover from the Golf war.  

The economy is another area of concern that has suffered a downfall under EPRDF�s maladministration. Putting the regime�s bogus figures of 8-11% annual economic growth rate aside, per capita income is estimated to have slipped down from $190 in 1981 to below $92 in 2003. The economic growth indicator in 2003 was also 3.8% in the negative. The EPRDF administration consigned the Ethiopian economy to global conglomerates of the IMF, World Bank and other corporate powers. In its fourteen years in power the regime had no sound domestic policy regime that could satisfy national interest or development strategy. The consignment policy to foreign interests is in the process of dismantling one of the world�s resource-rich private agricultural sector. Donor nations adopted famine relief as a mainstream economic aid package to Ethiopia and to the rest of Africa. The end result has been the replacement of self-sustaining private agriculture by foreign aid relief-economy. Consequently, the Ethiopian economy suffered irreparable structural damage.

The dissemination of genetically modified (GM) crops patented to global corporations, in a carefully crafted ploy to misappropriate Ethiopia�s organic seed stock, is also responsible for the environmental damage and destruction of the way of life of the Ethiopian peasantry. This will entirely put Ethiopia�s total control of food sources in the hands of these global corporations as the GM crops take over the local seeds in a few years if allowed to continue at the present rate. The Ethiopian farmer will lose his rights to his local seed stocks as the sole proprietor. It is also possible that the contamination of these natural seed stocks will also mean their total lose forever. It means farmers will have to rely on foreign input packages of seeds, fertilizers, etc at a heavy import price for survival. Michel Chossudovsky also warns about the catastrophic consequences of the food-aid entrapment by the Western donors: �Boosted by the border war with Eritrea and the plight of thousands of refugees, the influx of contaminated food aid had contributed to the pollution of Ethiopia's genetic pool of indigenous seeds and landraces. In a cruel irony, the food giants were at the same time gaining control - through the procurement of contaminated food aid - over Ethiopia's seed banks� (Chossudovsky, M. 2000). Meles Zienawi himself endorsed the distribution of such crops in Ethiopia. His decision had less to do with his lack of commonsense economics since many African governments recognized the danger and have rejected taking the risk of contaminating their indigenous seeds, but with his determination to comply to Western policies of globalization, though detrimental to the utmost Ethiopian interest.  

Dan Looker describes the economic forces that have necessitated Ethiopia�s perpetual dependence on food aid. The grain and mill companies of America supplying food aid to Ethiopia and now to most of Africa famine victims realize a massive profit from food aid. The companies lobby the Bush administration and the US congress to spend more on food aid as a means of boosting their revenue. (Looker, D. 2004) Western governments who often find themselves in a grain trade war and under pressure for farm subsidy due to excess agricultural production have to find a market to dump these products. The economic crisis in countries like Ethiopia is transformed into a viable and sustainable market for western agro-industries. The famine victims of the EPRDF administration are now nothing but customers of human misfortune to the American food corporations that they must procure by lobbying on state-to-state relations. The western media also promote this agenda to instill in the minds of the world community by painting an image of the people of Africa and more frequently of Ethiopia with sub-standard human values incapable of supporting themselves. Their Television programs flash news and documentaries on famine that misrepresent the real causes. They shun the real causes of the 1984 famine and the chronic famines under the EPRDF as being anything other than government policy and commercial pursuits of the Western donors.  

Tigray is a prime example where the TPLF established a strict administrative control over food aid that bonds the farmers to forced labour of unproductive terracing projects in return for food handouts. The elderly (who usually stay behind to look after household farm) and mothers toil through the formidable mountains carrying their baby on their back and rocks on their shoulder only to be told at the end of the month that their handout is either slashed to a mere handful or should do without it for the month. It is proven from the Dergue time that such projects have no contribution improving living conditions of farmers. The EPRDF uses this to control the freedom of the peasantry as the Dergue did through the Kebelle structure. This has especially limited the farmers� freedom of movement to look for seasonal work in addition to creating enormous time constraints to work on their own private farms. The rapacity of the EPRDF and the foreign profiteers of the famine relief-economy enslaved the people by thwarting their self-reliance. This has the predictable crippling effects of taking away their economic independence as well as the political leverage to oppose tyranny. Simply said, the combined EPRDF and Western nations policies of perpetuating famine for political control and economic gains are the real threat to society today than the symptomatic natural causes that can be easily overcome with the proper economic and political reforms. 

In an interesting twist to this human tragedy, Prime Minister Meles Zienawi in his malevolent propaganda campaign against Ethiopia used many millions of Ethiopian citizens caught in this crisis of his own design as a bargaining chip for the border settlement with Eritrea. His treasonous proposition to hand over Ethiopian sovereign lands to Eritrea in exchange for uninterrupted flow of food aid from the West in his �five-point peace� tells its own story of his troubling personality and the unfathomable intent to rob the economic, political and sovereign power of ones own nation and people. The dearth in Ethiopia today is an exact measure of this malignancy in his leadership. His regime incapacitated Ethiopia�s ability to negotiate for its rights as a sovereign nation as is the case with the border conflict with Eritrea and other surrounding states like Egypt on the Nile water issue. With its economy in ruins and its national sovereignty under siege, Ethiopia�s image under the EPRDF is tarnished and its status reduced to a panhandling nation of the world for its survival. END OF PART ONE