�There is enough in the world for everyone�s needs, but not for everyone�s greed.� 
- Frank Buchman 
PART I: Introduction: Fractal Political Philosophy
Some of us believe that the problems facing Ethiopia are solvable. In fact, Ethiopia may be at a turning point for an era of democratic governance and great economic development. On the other hand, some of us may view the situation in Ethiopia beyond human solution and only waiting for catastrophic ending. In light of such serious predicament, it is proper to reexamine our past, re-assess views we held as sacrosanct, and reevaluate the experience of our contemporaries in order to find both short-term and long-term solutions. As Bismarck once commented, �Politics is the art of the possible.� However, the "possible" does not mean the unethical. Thus, in this presentation, I have focused on few �possible� political changes, which I believe are ethical, necessary, and fundamental.

It is important to map first a philosophical framework that would provide us with certain helpful tools in order to reevaluate our political and economic problems. I suggest that we adopt a political philosophy or a method of organizing a state structure that I call fractal political philosophy. In some ways, it may be identified as a version of what is commonly known as �adaptive complex systems.� Such organizational structure will allow us to make the necessary shift of paradigm. [I borrowed the word/metaphor of �fractal� for identification purpose in my approach to political philosophy for developing nations, from two great mathematicians: Gaston Julia and Beniot Mandelbrot who articulated the inside workings of �fractals.�] We need to move away from the old approach of looking at problems with a view of �ending� such problems once and for all, but instead adopt a method of understanding that helps us accept our struggle as a way of life and a process.

Fractals are basic structural constitutive parts of a whole matrix, for example, of a state with unique characteristics such that the essential aspect of the whole state is contained within each of its constitutive parts (fractals). Fractals are not fragments, but integrated in to the whole matrix as if each fractal is indeed the whole and yet distinct. [Go, figure it out!]. In the Ethiopian context, I find this approach of understanding and dealing with our Ethiopia an approach and a philosophy most beautiful as a true reflection of the reality of Ethiopia. I have addressed the concept of fractal political philosophy in my discussion of �ethnic federalism� and the concept of �unitary� state structure in Part III below. 

The idea of �development� seems to be the overwhelming focus of all nations including Ethiopia. As a matter of principle, I do agree with the formulation of Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen that we may have to think of �development as freedom.� [Development as Freedom, 1999] In other words, the pursuit of development is an effort to institutionalize concepts of freedom and democracy as an aspect of human rights; however, I find questions of survival to be even more so primordial. Whether I am speaking about self-determination, federalism, ethnicism, democracy, market economy, et cetera my aim at all times is trying to answer the single most important question of survival. Development goals are luxury items to those who are at the brink of extinction. The types of extreme disparities that we witness between the few among the �urban� residents and the overwhelming majority of people residing in the country-side or in the ghettoes in Ethiopia or elsewhere in all developing nations is absolutely horrendous. It is not �development� per se that we should be aiming at, but the far humbler goal of survival for most Ethiopians. In almost every African state, in the name of national �development,� we have witnessed the corruption and looting of the national wealth (over a hundred forty billion dollars since independence), murderous power struggle (where every African nation since its independence has experienced some form of military takeover), and even genocide (Rwanda, Darfur/Sudan) perpetrated relentlessly since the independence euphoria of the 1960s. 

There is no doubt in my mind that serious mistakes were made at the time the EPRDF took over power from the care-taker government of Tesfaye Dinka after Mengistu Haile Mariam abandoned his post and run out of the country allegedly having been offered safe passage and millions of dollars by Western governments. Both the governments of Canada and the United States have admitted to some role in getting Mengistu out of the country. Due to Mengistu�s brutality and murder of high ranking officials, patriots, and elders, the image of Ethiopia was tarnished, its reputation blackened, and all of its glorious history compromised. It was a disgrace to have such a criminal, who caused so much suffering, leave the country free from legal prosecution. The recent killing of forty-two demonstrators protesting the election results of 15 May 2005 and the subsequent detention of Opposition leaders and journalists by the current Ethiopian Government did not improve matters, but added even more reason for treating Ethiopia as a pariah of the civilized world. Even then, let us not forget the hundred fold more savagery and barbarism of Western nations including the United States through out history whose crime against humankind is horrendous compared to the brutality of Ethiopian leaders, which is a child�s play by comparison. 

The last fifteen years in the life of Ethiopia may be written off as an experiment that has failed greatly in the democratization of Ethiopia. However, criticizing the event that took place since 1991 does not mean the cheapening the great sacrifices of the heroic children of Ethiopia, who paid with their lives fighting against the vicious and utterly barbaric government of Mengistu Haile Mariam. [According to Amnesty International, no less than half a million Ethiopians were murdered and millions incarcerated during Mengistu�s government of Red Terror.] The members of the EPRDF/TPLF did most of the fighting and the dying too. Yes, I will be the first one to admit that the EPRDF/TPLF, as the political organization behind the current government of Ethiopia, has succeeded in polarizing and in creating deep political fissures across ethnic identities forcing people into such structures and changing the tradition of unity and solidarity of the many ethnic groups that constituted Ethiopia. Because of its inaptitude, the EPRDF even gave a chance to the close associates of Mengistu, some of whom closely identified with the Red Terror atrocities, to resurrect themselves as part of the Opposition. [For the people who supported or accepted such blood stained individuals, who had committed so much destruction, it is no less in magnitude than the biblical proverbial dog returning to its vomit.] 

No matter how much economic reform and experimental self-government has been claimed by the current Ethiopian Government, the fact remains that it has failed in its most important mission and duty of keeping Ethiopia as a coherent whole with its Sovereignty and territorial integrity intact. Under Meles Zenawi�s leadership, Ethiopian national identity is simply taken as some form of a temporary option. We must make a distinction between the handful leaders of a political organization and its members. Especially in Ethiopia, power from whatever source is personal. Thus, the degree of personalized control of leaders over institutions, political movements, even on governments of nations must be recognized by all those who criticize the EPRDF/TPLF. 

Our error in perceiving the problem of our human condition as a problem to be solved like some form of a game/puzzle, rather than a life process and primarily to be lived in certain enriched manner, did affect our judgments and our actions. It has determined also our tendency for violently solving our predicament of poverty, ignorance, and poor governance. The great humanist philosopher/psychologist Abraham Maslow stated some years back, �If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.� From my observation of Ethiopian politicians and those of us supporting or opposing them, it seems that we all are carrying political hammers, and thus we perceive most of the problems facing Ethiopia as something to be solved by force and violent means. 

The condition of underdevelopment of nations if perceived in large-frames is overwhelming. It overshadows and blinds us from actually looking at the far smaller frame of our fellow individual human being�s suffering in his or her real-life situation. I have become exceedingly skeptical how effective large institutions are in combating grinding poverty, appalling ignorance, violation of human rights, and ethnic conflicts. What fractal political philosophy tells us is that there is no need to try to solve the large-frame of our community�s needs when we, as individuals and as members of our respective communities, are better suited to deal with and solve the small-frame of individualized problems of life. The large-frame of communal life is far more clearly articulated in the smaller frames of individual lives. Thus, the most effective approach to enrich our community is to enrich the individual members of our community. We have acted for far too long as if we are guests in our own lives. It is time to embrace our lives as individuals without a crippling degree of yelugnita.

PART II: United Nations, Self-determination, Sovereignty, and Territorial Integrity 
The concept of �self-determination� rather than being a liberating formula has turned out to be the core divisive problem of almost all modern states. In Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the left leaning intelligentsia has effectively transformed traditional institutions and thinking processes with its advocacy of Marxist-Leninist versions of �self-determination.� It is also the most abused concept in international law and practices. The term �self-determination� is used only twice in two articles in the Charter of the United Nations (Articles 1 and 55). The legislative-history of the two articles of the Charter indicates that the Soviet Union Delegation introduced the concept as a last minute amendment/addition to the Charter. 

Of course, the concept was entertained in the fourteen points articulated by Woodrow Wilson as part of his vision for Europe in his speech delivered in Joint Session of the Congress of the United States, January 8, 1918. Wilson supported the establishment of a world body, the League of Nations, but his myopic contemporaries in the Congress failed to appreciate and support Wilson�s vision of universalism or normative ideas. For example, point five in his speech is a statement that has elements of the concept of self-determination. Some would argue that Marxist thinkers were the ones who had promoted the idea of self-determination in its modern sense long before the West caught up with the idea and tried to use it to its own advantages after the Second World War.

The United States was a key player in the creation of the United Nations in 1945. The possible tremendous contentious debate on the Charter Articles 1 (2) and 55 between Western nations and the Soviet Block and other �Third World� nations never took place because both the West and the Soviet Union were all involved in the grabbing of territories left behind by the Germans and the Japanese. The irony of it all was that suddenly everybody was championing the cause of �freedom.� However, under all that righteous indignation a new international scheme was brewing where the United Sates, the Soviet Union, and their respective supporters were engaged in staffing the United Nations with their spies and partisan functionaries thereby crippling the new United Nations from becoming a truly international organization. In fact, at one point in its history, the United Nations had a Secretary-General, Kurt Waldhiem, who was a lieutenant of the Wehrmacht or as some claim an SS Nazi officer suspected of genocide. Thus, for most of its life the United Nations was an impotent organization. The balancing of the interests of the two Super Powers seems to have kept the world at relative peace rather than the United Nations as a world body keeping the peace. 

Most importantly, that Cold War era of fifty years has left its deep marks of political and economic fault lines cross-crossing most of the developing nations that includes Ethiopia. There was no need for the creation of such fault lines that divided and immersed the world in very many devastating conflicts in a destructive process no less than the destructive process we know of World War II. The concept of �self-determination� in its �modern� formulation is a child of the Cold War era. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of such process in terms of actual political and economic development or gain is very questionable. It only instigated with false hopes every little tribal chief to aspire to having his own independent nation. What do you expect ambitious individuals would do in a world where large casinos and former plantation estates have become independent countries and members of the United Nations? I am pointing out these rather well known facts as background to the opening of the floodgate of independence of the 1960s. The desire for every imaginable tribal chief or leftist megalomaniac to aspire to have his or her own nation is what �self-determination� has come to signify now rather than the �noble� original intent or inspiration of centuries ago. The principle of �self-determination� is used in its most corrupt form against an independent sovereign nation of Ethiopia by strangling and land-locking a viable nation with long history of independent existence as a nation than any other nation in the world. 

The United Nations has become more and more a comedy workshop. The clumsy international waltz we watch danced in front of a world audience with all kinds of national governments is both obscene and immoral for its hypocrisy, mediocrity, and criminality. How could anyone maintain any respect for the United Nations having witnessed the Bosnian and Rwandan genocide taking place literally under our eyes, and the Darfur genocide that is still going on in Sudan? We all know that the 1948 Genocide Treaty created obligations erga omnes on all nations who have signed or ratified that treaty in cases of genocide. Nothing has happened so far to honor that obligation to protect victims of ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Sudanese Government. Under such circumstances of failure and abandonment of international obligations and responsibilities, how are we to respect the selective and illegal effort of the United Nations Security Council resolutions or sanctions directed at Ethiopia due to the border conflict? For sure, it is a process that will destroy Ethiopia! 

PART III: The Virtue of Divide and Empower: A Paradigm Shift 
A. Ethnic Based Federal Structure in Question 

I am suggesting that we make fundamental changes the way we approach ideas of unity or solidarity in conjunction with the federal structure of states (political, territorial, and demographic organizations). To quote again Amartya Sen, �That unity is important, but at the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that freedom is an inherently diverse concept, which involves�as was discussed extensively�considerations of processes as well as substantive opportunities.� [Development as Freedom, 1999] In fact, the changes I am suggesting in my presentations may require paradigm shifts. The present political and economic crises of Ethiopia is not going to improve no matter how much money we throw at it, as long as we maintain the current political structure of ethnic federalism. Generally, federalism has been justified as a means of �self-determination� in allowing different ethnic groups autonomy within a single national structure. The concept was enthusiastically embraced and vigorously promoted by all �liberation� organizations that participated in the 1991 Peace and Reconciliation Conference spearheaded by the EPRDF after the EPRDF succeeded in overthrowing the care-taker Government of Tesfaye Dinka in 1991. Such idealistic or theoretical aspiration was enthusiastically endorsed during the formation of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia in 1991. 

I do not believe most of the participants of the 1991 Conference had understood clearly the true future import of such drastic reorganization of the State of Ethiopia. I, for one, did not. It seems the leaderships of organizations like the TPLF and the OLF may have had an understanding that the impact of such reorganization would result in the break up of the Ethiopian State. Reflecting on the historical evidence of the period, I acknowledge the one individual who had the foresight and clear understanding of the consequences of basing a federal structure on the basis of ethnic identity was Professor Asrat Woldeyes, the representative from the University. He was the only participant at the Conference who spelled out his disagreement with the secessionist federal structure expounded by the leadership of the EPRDF and doggedly endorsed by all leaders of political movements at the 1991 Conference. The other participants of the Conference outright rejected his views because he was considered a relic from the past, who represented the interest of the traditional power structure of Ethiopia. 

What those liberation movements were reacting to in 1991 was against past injustices, without properly and clearly identifying their future political course. Later, after the formation of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, several keen observers of the political evolution taking place in Ethiopia have stated, over the years, that the ethnic based federal structure existing now in Ethiopia was the grand scheme of the Eritrean insurrection fully financed and supported by Egypt, Sudan, Arab nations, China, Pakistan, and several European nations. The program of ethnic federalism was implemented by the leadership of the EPRDF/TPLF, spearheaded by Meles Zenawi, to the determinant of Ethiopia�s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The goal is obvious to most of us now: it was a self-serving scheme to marginalize or if possible destroy the unitary state of Ethiopia. 

I have no siege mentality or fear of any ethnic group. However, in the real world, it seems to me that the Islamic nations surrounding Ethiopia are still our historic enemies. They have undermined and sabotaged the development and harmonious existence of Ethiopia for over a thousand and five hundred years. In case of Egypt and Sudan, the problem is not simply a situation of religious differences and the desire to destroy �Christian� Ethiopia, but the control of the water of the Blue Nile River, a river that originates with all of its drainage (basin) in Ethiopia. The Blue Nile River contributes over 85% of the water of the Nile River that finally reaches the Mediterranean Sea and 100% of the sedimentation of fertile soil from Ethiopia that yearly replenishes the riverbanks and farm lands of both Egypt and Sudan. A powerful Ethiopia is perceived by the governments of Egypt and others in the area as a real treat to those waterless barren countries (lands) whose very existence depend on the unchallenged flow of the life-giving waters of the Blue Nile River of Ethiopia. 

Some form of benign �federal� structure had always been the structure of Ethiopia until the centralization program of Emperor Haile Selassie�s reign (from 1941 to his downfall in 1974) was carried out to its maximum imperial structure. Prior to Haile Selassie�s centralization program, local leaders had tremendous autonomy as long as they promptly paid their annual �giber� to the imperial treasury and showed up with their armies when the emperor or king orders them to do so. Under such �federal� state structure, how did Ethiopia persist as a distinct and independent state/nation for all these thousands of years? Along with other cultural and demographic factors, I believe the glue that held Ethiopia together was the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church, at least for the time period since Christianity became the official religion of the nation in about AD 310. Ethiopia until the end of the Nineteenth Century was overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian. It seems the Church�s administrative structure was superimposed over the loose �federal� structure of the Empire. The Church provided both stability and continuity to the state/nation of Ethiopia with its invisible unitary structure, a structure that was lacking or weak in the secular national administrative organization. What is remarkable is the fact that Ethiopia, even though a highly religious nation, has succeeded to maintain only secular governments through out its long history of thousands of years. 

The current ethnic based federalism enshrined in the Ethiopian Constitution of 1994 has formally endowed �State� Flags, as well as other insignia of sovereignty to such federated �States� that sets them up more like a kind of association of states rather than being a constitutive part of a single nation. As a matter of record, Fascist Italy during the 1935-41 period of occupation of Ethiopia introduced the division of administrative regions on purely ethnic basis. In all of Ethiopia's history, administrative regions or kingdoms were carved out not on the basis of ethnicity, but on the courage and vision of the individual leader. In our own time, it was Mengistu who introduced partial Kililization in the 1980s, over a decade before EPRDF�s ethnic federalism. 

The current federal structure of Ethiopia that divided up �Ethiopia� into nine ethnic �States� is at the very center of the political crises in Ethiopia. (See Articles 46 and 47, Constitution, 1994) Unless some drastic step is taken now, the federalism of ethnic based �States� will certainly deteriorate to a point of no return and Ethiopia will disintegrate into several mini states. In the process of disintegration, horrendous atrocities will be committed by the majority ethnic group on minorities within each �State� of the current federal structure of Ethiopia. In order to counter both disintegration and ethnic based atrocities against minorities within such ethnic enclaves, we may need to look for and find solutions even unorthodox ones. 

B. Divide and Empower

Most politicians and scholars alike have stressed the importance of �solidarity� and �unity� irrespective of the way that unity is structured. The fight for liberation is premised on the unity of the oppressed. My suggestion here challenges such assumptions. I go even further by claiming that it may be necessary now to take a second look at long derided �undemocratic,� �archaic,� or �Machiavellian� ideas, in new light. One such well-known idea that I suggest we ought to study carefully is the concept of �divide and rule.� There is no doubt in my mind that I will be demonized by many for suggesting this particular solution of �divide and empower.� However, if one considers carefully my thesis, one can see that I am expounding the virtue of safeguarding (insuring) the human rights of minorities and other victims of mob rule. I am also standing against the wrath of former thugs of Mengistu, who had devastated the Ethiopian public when they were in power, who are now hiding behind the Opposition groups inciting Ethiopians to commit violence both in the Diaspora and back home in Ethiopia. The preservation of Ethiopia and the lives of Ethiopians are of paramount importance to me. Thus, I am willing to risk ridicule by suggesting the method of �divide and rule,� which I have now baptized as �divide and empower,� as a method of establishing territorial political administrations, and a new perspective on how we see ourselves as Ethiopians thereby we might ensure the continued existence of our nation. 

The �divide and empower� method is not some variation on the old Machiavellian theme of �divide and rule� that will keep us ever weak and disfranchised under the relentless oppression of a central government. I am not either trying to help the current anti-democratic government to stay in power by breaking up the Opposition into ineffective small unites. I am suggesting that we focus on some strategy in order to preserve Ethiopia in the post-Meles era. I am extremely worried about the long-term effect of the system introduced by the current Ethiopian government leaders of dividing Ethiopia by ethnicity and creating sovereign �States� that form the so-called Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Of course, in order to be effective, the Opposition itself has to cleanse itself of all ethnic based political organizations that are currently members of that movement. Desperate situations call for desperate solutions.

Some of the negatives of �divide and rule� governance are well known to most of us. Some of such negatives are disfranchisement, oppression, hierarchical relationships, rigidity, et cetera and ultimately an overall pervasive economic and political depravity and cultural deformity. Nevertheless, in the current political situation of Ethiopia, the �divide and empower� approach will help us to stop the growing run-away condition of ethnic conflict, hate, and disintegration. In the current Ethiopian ethnic based federation of �States,� the civil and political (human) rights of a person within such ethnic �States� is contingent on the ethnic identity of the individual rather than his or her humanity or Ethiopian citizenship. Especially situations where individuals compete for limited resources and government services, it is inevitable that the ethnic characteristics of the local government will seep into its relationship with members of the community. Ethnic federalism legitimizes and accepts discrimination against minority groups within such ethnic based �States.� It is easy to blame identified groups for all the ills of society. Such identified minority groups are easy targets for unscrupulous politicians to demonize and attack thereby inflaming the majority ethnic group to take mob actions of atrocities and extreme abuse against such minority groups. 

I believe none of the genocide and atrocities of the Twentieth Century, such as the Armenian genocide of the First World War, the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War, the Bosnian Genocide of the 1990s, the Rwanda Genocide of the 1990s would have happened if there had not been an aggregation of single ethnic group in each of the events. In case of Ethiopia, I believe the �Federal� structure of the creation of ethnic based �State of Oromia,� �State of Amhara,� �State of Somali� et cetera is the first stage of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the making. We have already witnessed soon after the formation of the TGE, how Amharas and other groups were murdered, brutalized, and expelled by local thugs pursuing their own ethnic cleansing usually goaded by secessionist political organizations. There are several disturbing examples and a warning to all of us that ethnic federalism is a scourge on civilized life as was the case with all the atrocities carried out at Bedeno, Arba Gugu, et cetera where even a teenage girl was not spared ethnic atrocities. 

The expulsion and murder of some Amharas in "Oromia," which included whole families whose ancestors had settled in the area even before the �Oromos� came into the area in the footsteps of Gragn. The subsequent action taken by Government troops, in order to protect some innocent people from ethnic attacks, was seen wrongly as an ethnic based defense of an occupation vanguard of a "national" territory. All such attacks and counter-attacks are all phenomenon of the error of basing political programs on ethnicity. If we examine carefully the international instruments on fundamental rights, the rights claimed based on ethnicity are not absolute rights, but addressed to the governing body not to deny or deprive such universal fundamental and democratic rights to individuals based on their ethnic background. The best defense against ethnic cleansing and abuses is to divide the majority ethnic groups� base of such political unites into smaller autonomous administrative units. By redrawing the administrative unites of Ethiopia, a reasonable harmony between ethnic groups could be achieved, and will minimize the likelihood of a small number of political leaders deciding the fate of minorities within the federal �State� structure as opposed to having the desirable plurality of leadership when ethnic enclaves are divided in to several administrative unites. 

The 1994 Constitution of Ethiopia asserts without any historical or legal justification that the Ethiopian State is made up of �Nations and Nationalities, and Peoples.� [See Article 47, Ethiopian Constitution, 1994] Of course, the concept is a crude echo of Marxist-Leninist ideology. We can observe around the world the same type of mistake of allowing the aggregation of individuals by ethnicity or religious ideology. Western nations, to a great extent, had a hand in the type of mess we observe in a number of developing nations around the world. One clear example is that of the development of religion/ethnic based groups in Iraq after the destruction of Saddam Hussein�s dictatorial regime. Iraq is heading toward civil war and disintegration and not democracy.

In order to arrest the development of destructive secessionist movements based on the current federal �State� structure, I favor the old administrative structure of �Teklai Gizat.� By breaking up the current huge federal �States,� we will be able to put in place Teklai Gizats that will maintain the plurality of communities in relationships that will not coalesce towards the domination of one Ethnic group over minorities, or will not seed ambitions for independence in political leaders. There will be sufficient safeguard against disfranchising minorities, or violating their fundamental and democratic rights. For example, such break down to smaller administrative regions will prevent from having the decisions of few individuals at the �State� level from deciding on the fate of all the minority groups within such ethnic �State.� If we take as examples the Amhara or Oromia States, we can easily see the benefit of breaking such large ethnic based �States� into several administrative regions or �Teklai Gizats.� 

Several types of problems could be avoided by going back to the system of �Teklai Gizat� administration structure. It is clear for any honest observer that the obscenely high expenses involved for transportation and accommodations would discourage and frustrate even the well-connected individual from making long distance trips due to the difficulty of traveling forbidding distances, underdeveloped infrastructure, and lack of service available to individuals who are citizens of such huge �States.� We need to recognize the fact that some of the federal �States� have swallowed up three or four �Teklai Gizats� or administrative regions so designated during Haile Selassie�s time. This means access to all kinds of government services has become very expensive, remote or inaccessible to the citizens of such �States.�

I have outlined briefly some of the advantages of breaking or dividing large ethnic based federated �States� into several autonomous self-administering unites or �Teklai Gizats� in a unitary Ethiopian State. By adopting a new constitution and redrawing the local administrative unites, it is very possible that we are saving Ethiopia from the brink of a catastrophic disintegration. Thus by breaking up large ethnic based �States� to smaller administrative units:

1. It is possible to avoid the creation of dynastic and extremely narrow nationalist political organizations.
2. It is possible to carry out political and economic changes in areas that would have been neglected under the federated �State� of ethnic based political unites.
3. Minorities within such administrative regions or �Teklai Gizats� will be protected far more effectively than under the much larger ethnic based federal �States.� of ethnic based political unites.
4. It is far more desirable and effective to have a plurality of voices of representatives from more administrative unites or �Teklai Gizat� than having the voices of �nine� federated ethnic based States organization. 

It is obvious, at least in one region, that diversity rather than homogeneous ethnicism worked far better even within the current Ethiopia�s flawed federal structure. For example, it is obvious how differently political processes take place within the �State of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples� compared to the other federated �States� of Ethiopia. Because of the diversity of its population base, in that particular �State of Southern Nations�,� there is a marked respect and democratic tolerance across ethnic groups despite the occasional clashes of ethnic groups instigated (deliberately or inadvertently) by the policies of the Federal Government not due to local administration. The advantage of having a balance between several ethnic groups within an administrative area is the most difficult and the most pressing to achieve in a nation like Ethiopia long considered an example of beautiful �mosaic� of different people and cultures. 

Even relatively homogenous �States� (there are a few), for the sake of long-term advantages, ought to break up that homogeneity by adding or giving up areas to other neighboring administrative regions for the sake of diversity. The �State of Tigrei,� the �State of Somali,� and the �State of Afar� need to reconstitute in several administrative regions, just as suggested above, like all the other federated �States,� must diversify their demography. Uniformity and homogeneity is a mark of an infant or declining civilization and nation. The key to successful survival as a viable �nation� is diversity and healthy interaction with diverse groups. The attempt of setting up an ethnic based federal structure by a country like Ethiopia is a regression to tribalism and to conditions of pre-statehood. The attempt of federalism based on ethnicism simply will work against the very existence of Ethiopia as a nation/state. 

The �divide and empower� approach of breaking down large ethnic political administrative regions into smaller units is a good scheme to preempt possible future genocide in such regions that may have one dominant ethnic group and several small ones. It is also important in breaking large ethnic �states� to remove or to reconfigurate the ethnic based federal structure of all political unites and replace such unites with administrative structures that accord with a unitary national structure. I claim such monumental change is a paradigm change because it affects every aspect of the political, social, and economic relationships between citizens, citizens and the central government, citizens and the administrative unites, and the relationship of all involved in the state�s smooth running. Most importantly it would reflect the true ethos of a people who have shared a common history if not for thousands of years definitely hundreds of years.

C. The Usefulness of a Unitarian State

I contend that even the United States, in reality, is becoming more and more a unitary nation than a true federation, and the �States� are functioning increasingly as administrative sub-unites. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 17 of December 5, 1787, had warned that left to natural tendencies of individual relationships, that citizens of particular States would have more affiliation with their respective States than they would with the Federal Government. �It is a known fact in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance of diffusiveness of the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than the community at large, the people of state would apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the union.� If it were not for the threat of England on the independence of the Colonies, and other equally threatening political and social developments, the new Confederation and later federation of the States as the United States of America would have fallen apart confirming the thesis and concern of Hamilton. One good example of the weakness of federalism is the Civil War, and it is only due to the �unitary� underlying ideation of a �nation� that the Federal Government of the United States triumphed over the secessionist States of the South and preserved the Union. 

This two-headed political solution against destructive conflicts within ethnic based enclaves maybe applied in other parts of the world including the rest of Africa. By creating several smaller groups and by dividing large ethnic based �States� or administrative regions, it is possible to harmonize and balance contending interests of minority populations within such large political groups. The outcome of such minor operation is the tremendous sense of security and sense of positive engagement felt by all citizens in such administrative structure. There is an in-built social structure within small administrative unites that will check/break possible development of any tyrannical and homicidal leadership that may end up committing genocide against minorities. This should be seen as a means to defuse or devolve power to the many thereby preventing the concentration of power in the hands of few individuals. To divide and then empower smaller unites by breaking down large ethnic enclaves is not meant to weaken the unity or strength of the many in as much as they represent the interest of the nation as a whole. Where there is a good reason for unified action, the communities or power centers can come together through deliberation and discussion and establish a platform as represented by a �Central� government that will serve their individual as well as collective interests. 

Federalism is a very expensive political structure to implement. There are duplications of functions at the federal and state levels. For a poor country like Ethiopia, the use of resources on experimental federal political structure is not worth the presumed political and economic gains. Local administrative structures can be refined later once we have agreed on the overall political power structure and administrative organization of Ethiopia. At any rate, we already have traditional local administrative unites on which we can base our foundational political and administrative programs. Traditional institutions of �Shimagles� elders are great resources as consultative groups attached to local administrative organs in running the day-to-day affairs of the local population throughout Ethiopia. Ultimately, what I hope for is that ethnicism or religion could only be perceived as a social issue and not as a political one. 

PART IV: Post-Meles Ethiopia or Ethiopia Without Meles
A. Forming a Transitional Government to Draw a New Constitution. 

The current situation of Meles Zenawi as leader of the Ethiopian Government cannot continue without grinding down the State of Ethiopia to its destruction. Meles Zenawi had all the opportunity to be a great leader, but he squandered his time in short-term pursuit of power and privileges. All of the problems facing him now are all of his own making. He did not serve the interest of Ethiopia with full devotion. Very many Ethiopians accused him of being an agent of foreign governments and engaged in the dismantling of Ethiopia. Even if such serious allegations may not be true, his political image in the minds and hearts of millions of Ethiopians is that of a traitor, a tyrant, and an outsider. I am not looking at Meles Zenawi as if I have to settle some score with him, rather I am considering the whole leadership question as a serious crisis of Ethiopian national security. 

If I believe Meles Zenawi to be the right leader for Ethiopia at this time, I would have defended him irrespective of my own personal inclinations. Simply put, Meles Zenawi is not a good leader for Ethiopia�he polarized issues, and even worse, he caused deeply felt division among Ethiopians. I believe he has committed high treason against the national security and integrity of Ethiopia; I also believe he has caused the murder, detention, and torture of several Ethiopians. One cannot sweep these realities under the carpet. Sooner than later, we have to resolve his status. Is one individual more important than the survival of a nation? Meles Zenawi�s removal from power followed by his indictment or charge for high treason against the security and national interest of Ethiopia is the most important factor that will help any succeeding Ethiopian Government to invalidate unilaterally the fraudulent Algiers Agreement and the corrupted decision of the Border Commission. By the same measurement all those �opposition� leaders who are rumored to have made contacts and made �deals� with Isaias Afeworki (and his government) and with other foreign governments that undermine or in any way diminish the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia have committed treason as well.

I cannot imagine any other solution to the present crisis except for Meles Zenawi to commit symbolic hara-kiri, or leave office. Either action is the most honorable thing to do. I have heard often the argument that forcing a duly elected Prime Minister out of office before his term has expired will undermine the rule of law and the democratic process of living under a constitution. Of course, such argument would have been valid if the basic assumptions of the existence of �the rule of law� and �legitimate elections� under the Constitution were true also. The more serious question has to deal with the replacement of Meles Zenawi during the transition period. I believe the power structure must have a clear program thus must develop a process of fundamental change sensitive enough to the expectations of the many social and political forces in Ethiopia. At any rate, my criticizing of the activities of Meles Zenawi does not mean unexamined endorsement of the Opposition. The Opposition has very many problems, in some aspects with conflicting and competing programs even more confused than the program of the current Ethiopian Government. I could not say more because the current political situation of Ethiopia is polarized, and the true expression of both the desire and aspirations of the Ethiopian people impossible to measure.

If I step back and consider the political situation in Ethiopia in its larger perspective, I can see a misunderstanding in the so-called �democratization� process. We all assume that democratization is an attempt to change the values and norms of society. Such expansive conception is precisely the problem. Democratization should have focused on changing the process/structure of governments and should not have focused as exclusively on changing values or norms of society. For the values and norms of societies, whether developed or underdeveloped, are within a range that encompasses most of the communities and societies around the world. Because of such confusion between changing systems and social norms, the world seems not to have developed an effective method for such changes of effective democratic systems of governments. 

It is with this understanding of the process of democratization that I am focusing on changing the Ethiopian Constitution by drafting a new constitution. It is next to impossible to hold Ethiopia together with a constitutional structure that is pushing out unifying forces and putting in divisive elements. The Constitution of 1994 is full of divisive provisions such as Articles 8, 46, 47 and 52 that plainly state Ethiopia is in reality reduced to an abstraction and its attribute of statehood of territory and population shifted to �States.� That amounts to the annihilation of the nation we knew as Ethiopia. In addition, when we consider how the �States� are constituted it is even more alarming because the states are built on the most primitive idea of tribalism�language. 

In order to carry out such fundamental changes, it is necessary to establish a transitional government to prepare a new constitution, and administer the complex processes of the formation of non-ethnic and non-religious political parties as suggested in this paper. The transitional government can be put in place by the current government through appointment and limited election for that purpose. In the alternative, a coalition government mad up of CUD and EPRDF leaders might also work effectively to that end. At any rate, the goal is to start out with a solid foundation for the future of a democratic Ethiopia, and particularly to avoid the "arda" opportunistic politics of ethnic division, and the demonizing of political organizations. 

B. The Need for a New Political Paradigm: The Formation of Political Parties

Simply breaking up huge ethnic enclaves into smaller administrative unites does not of itself promote national cohesion and unity. Such action must be followed by democratic political ideology and social programs that will involve Ethiopians from every ethnic and social background in a universalized political and economic ideology where neither religion nor ethnic identity matters. Due to the polarized political reaction pursuant to the failed May 15, 2005 general elections, and trying to suggest some corrective measures for the Opposition to consider to save itself from sinking to the nether world of ethnic conflict and violence, I wrote a couple of articles critical of the formation of national political organizations based on ethnicity or religion. I expounded the need for political and economic programs that will not take into account anyone�s ethnic identity or religion into account. I believe such political parties are far more desirable and effective than the ethnic based political organizations that have so far dominated our Ethiopian political atmosphere. Such is the new political paradigm.

Some of the Opposition leaders and their self styled supporters made serious error of judgment when they attacked and issued statements attacking Tygreans as an ethnic group. Even worse, the boycott organized by the opposition sounded more like a call to disfranchise such ethnic group isolating them for attack. Very many Ethiopians from different ethnic groups all over Ethiopia, even more so from the so called aggrieved groups, were vehemently opposed to such types of ethnic bashing. I can attest from my own experience after receiving very many e-mails that expressed vehemently opposition to such ethnic bashing approach to solving our political and economic problems. I am very proud of my fellow Ethiopians who have shown repeatedly such great sense of history and sense of justice in their opposition of the nefarious ethnic politics that was attempted by such limited number of opposition leaders and their diehard narrow-minded supporters. Since then, for example, CUD has issued statements disavowing or explaining the misunderstanding of its previous statements. 

For Ethiopia in order to make any degree of advance in political and economic development, the current government of Ethiopia must free all political prisoners including journalists, and it must drop all charges of �treason� against such individuals. Specifically, the leaders of the Opposition parties detained after the election must be freed and all charges against them must be dropped. It must be clearly understood that challenging a government that is in power, and/or stating as a political program to change or amend a constitution through peaceful means is not treason or a crime of any kind. The goal here is to create political parties and their support structures that are national in their scope with universally applicable political and economic programs. This does not mean local concerns will be totally banned or ignored, but rather will be incorporated with the larger and matrix of the process of change and adjustment that must be continuously made. With that in mind, I am suggesting the following non-ethnic and non-religious political organizations for Ethiopia. In fact, such declaration of principle on the nature of political parties must be included in a new constitution or in a drastically amended current Constitution of Ethiopia. With this in mind, I am suggesting the establishment of the following three political parties:

1) The Democratic Party of Ethiopia (DPE) - 

The post-Meles political life of the EPRDF necessarily must include the transformation of its internal structure and its relationships with the parties of the Opposition. It is not possible to write-off the EPRDF, for it is a political organization representing millions of people. Its life should not be equated with the term or duration of the life of the current Ethiopian Government. EPRDF leaders need to work with the leaders of other political organizations. Some of the labor organizations, some of the organizations of farmers, and some of the teacher unions may gravitate to such democratic organization, and may be willing to work with the EPRDF in order to create a new democratic organization or political party. 

What is most significant about the Democratic Party is its diversity without being ethnicist. The rural population of Ethiopia seems to me to be culturally conservative, thus its outlook toward economic matters is tainted by such disposition. This fact rather than being a disadvantage is more of an asset because of its longevity and reliability. On economic matters, the issue of land ownership is the core of Ethiopian farmers� conservatism, which is not at all compatible with republican ideal of free market economy, which means also that �rural Ethiopia� will not fit that well in a group with either a socialist or republican type ideology. All minority groups of the nations boundaries are best represented in the Democratic Party with allowance that as many my split between the Republican and Socialist Parties. 

2) The Republican Party of Ethiopia (RPE) � 

The difference between a �Republican Party� and a �Democratic Party� may not be of much significance under the current political and economic situation in Ethiopia. However, as a long-term political and economic strategy, it is prudent to set the two organizations as distinctly as possible and work toward elaborating and explaining the many differences between the two parties. The RPE represents what is most progressive in individual pursuit of economic development, less government involvement in the lives of Ethiopians, less public expenditure on welfare type services et cetera.

The RPE is a political party that will advance individual enterprising spirit and protect the freedom of business and individual ownership. The development of industry and trade is seen as a priority. Individual human rights issues, especially those that interfere with the development aspiration of the nation/party, will be subordinated or curtailed in certain situations, in order to advance the development programs of the nation. It is not a �Fascist� ideology, but more akin to the Republican Party of the United States. The current leaders of CUD best illustrate the types of leadership to be provided by such a group. These are highly trained professionals whom I have identified at times as �elitists� not in the derogatory sense but to emphasize their exclusivity or partiality to classes that could be identified as management or proprietor group. 

The current opposition movement was finally given some shape by the concerted effort of the leadership of the Rainbow group, EPRP, Meison, Medhin, and several ethnic based organizations. However, it may be necessary that some of the leaders of CUD are better included in the DPE than in the RPE because of their ideology as expressed in their struggle of several years. it is also possible for CUD to present itself as a national party as an alternative party to both the Democratic and Republican parties. 

The Republican Party can do tremendous work in the development of Ethiopia whether leading the Ethiopian government or as loyal opposition. The party may have as its constituents the members of the many chambers of commerce around the country, management of enterprises, business leaders, property owners including rental properties, professionals of all kinds including some teachers et cetera. The Republican Party can have a formidable stronghold in Addis Ababa and vicinity and other urban centers around the country. 

3) The Socialist (Labor) Party of Ethiopia (SLPE) - 

It is important that political parties be easily identifiable through their political and economic programs. Having a hotchpotch ideology is not helpful to anyone. It will simply be a hideout for ambitious individuals who want political power not on the merit of their ideas or abilities but through cheap propaganda and confusion. Unclear or ambiguous political ideology and its exposition will simply deteriorate into religious or ethnic based political movement. We already have witnessed the problem in the Opposition in having ideologically opposed political organizations as part of one organization. It is helpful to all if the leaders of EPRP and Meison to realize that fact and stay on their own as distinct leftist organizations in their course of political and economic ideology, otherwise they will be impediments if they try to insert themselves in either the Democratic or Republican Parties. 

The �socialist� or �labor� oriented ideology has noble goals. It is not as dark and as foreboding as painted by ideologues of the capitalist world. It is true that the inhumanity of the Soviet Union leaders, such as Stalin; the experience of the Taineman Square in China; the greed of Castro who has been hanging on to power for over thirty years et cetera, has perpetuated all forms of deformities thereby giving socialist ideology a bad name. In short, if either the EPRP or Meison leaders do have a change of ideological point of views away from socialism, they need to state clearly all program or ideological changes. To gloss over important changes will only confuse the Ethiopian public including those precious upcoming young Ethiopian politicians. Blurring or straddling core principles or ideologies is not helpful to anyone. The SLPE needs fresh leadership of young men and women in Ethiopia. The Left must articulate its political programs clearly. Above all, it must make its stand on issues of secession, state run economy as opposed to market economy, ethnicity, border dispute, Afar territorial coastland et cetera very clear and public. 

Both EPRP and Meison need to spell out their socialist political and economic agenda clearly. There is no need to practice Bolshevik penetration of already existing political groups only to implode them from within and take over the desiccated political carcass. We cannot afford to play any more such games of underhanded tactics and methods to gain political power in Ethiopia. We are worn from conflicts and civil strife for decades. It is only in honesty and clearly stated political and economic program that we can advance our individual ambitions to serve the needs of the people of Ethiopia. If political organizations and their leaders represent themselves with honesty, and if they also respect the people of Ethiopia, then and only then the Ethiopian public will have a clear idea to choose the political Party that best reflects its interest.

PART V: The Role of the Government of the United States

Although I believe that we ought to clear and liberate our minds from the idea that foreign countries will be helpful to us, I also believe that we ought to use and manipulate such foreign countries and their governments as much as they use us as pawns in their geopolitical games. I do not believe that the United States Government had ever been a true friend to Ethiopia even though very many individual United States citizens have great affection for Ethiopia. It is with this in mind, and the fact that we are now in the vise like grip of the United States Government, that I am stating that the United States Government is controlling Ethiopia�s internal political life. We cannot ignore such situation, and make any meaningful political and economic changes without first solving this problem. It is not a matter of choice but the reality of modern life that Ethiopians must heed what American politicians and government leaders are declaring and doing. 

Understanding and cooperating with powerful nations is a matter of survival skill. Such skill must include not only paying attention to the activities of the United States government, but also developing connections with American political and civic leaders in order to enlighten, inform, and influence such leaders for the mutual benefit of both nations. The first and most important fact is the fact that it must be clearly understood that land-locking Ethiopia will not promote friendly relations with any country in the region or else where in the world. The Ethiopian Afar coastal territory and the territorial waters thereof on the Red Sea are indisputably Ethiopian territories under the sovereign power and rights of the people of Ethiopia and must be respected as such. 

The continued existence of Ethiopia is dependent on properly securing the Afar coastal territory and the territorial waters on the Red Sea. This point cannot be emphasized enough. This is a matter of national survival. The Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000 and the subsequent decision of the Border Commission of 13 April 2002 have no legal validity whatsoever. Even by the standard of the 1994 Ethiopian Constitution Article 86, the current leaders of Ethiopia have not protected the national interest and sovereignty of Ethiopia. The Algiers Agreement is invalid because of collusion and fraud committed by the leaders who signed the Agreement and because of its preemptive abrogation of the inherent rights of Sovereignty of the Ethiopian people. The decision of the Border Commission is invalid due to its lack of capacity to dispose off issues that affect the protected human rights of millions of Ethiopians, some of the Members of the Commission have conflict of interest, and there is tremendous undue influence of third parties (United States) on the Commission�s independence. 

And of late, a rhetorical argument has been evolving that assumes the validity of the Algiers Argument and Commission�s decision, and then based on that contested assumption asserts that to allow Ethiopia single handedly overthrow the Algiers Agreement and the Commission�s decision will set �bad precedent� in the future course and status of international agreements and arbitration decisions. This is absurd! After manufacturing �facts� or �situations� on the ground through deceit, fraud, collusion, even bribe, there is no way such manufactured events would be binding on any body. In fact, what would be the worst precedent setting is to allow the Algiers Agreement and the Commission�s decision to stand. The entire process from beginning to end was a monumentally fraudulent and corrupt process, a disgrace to �international arbitration� in general, and shameful to all those who participated in that form of conspiracy against an ancient and great nation. 

The Algiers Agreement and the decision of the Border Commission must be scraped and thrown in the dust-pin of history. I have written extensively on the subject of Ethiopia�s paramount national security interest, sovereignty and territorial integrity and the legal reason why both the Algiers Agreement and the decision of the Border Commission are invalid. Most of my articles and essays on the Agreement and the decision of the Commission can be accessed in www.tecolahagos.com Website. Because of the fact that the subject matter of my speech is not the border conflict per se, I could only make a passing remark on the subject. Nevertheless, the current campaign to have the United Nations Security Council impose sanction(s) against Ethiopia in order to force Ethiopia to accept a fraudulent and collusive Algiers Agreement and a corrupted Commission�s decision is a highly racist and hateful movement. The world is full of discarded international treaties, decisions, et cetera [consider the hundreds of treaties the United States did not honor with native Americans and others, Israel-Palestinian agreements or understandings and United Nations Resolutions breached over and over, British colonial treaties thrown out to the four winds et cetera]. No one calls for sanction against such grossly belligerent nations. Why against Ethiopia now? After all Ethiopia is a bona fide nation of independent original people and not some construct of colonialism or an outpost or penal-colony of European powers! 

The dispute over the legality of the Algiers Agreement, the decision of the Border Commission, and the whole underlying legal and historical base of the controversy surrounding the independence of �Eritrea� and Ethiopia�s legitimate and historic Sovereignty over the Afar Coastal territories and its territorial waters on the Red Sea can be resolved, once and for all, by presenting the controversy to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where proper and judicious proceeding can be held. Even then, no judgment that threatens the very existence of Ethiopia should ever be accepted. No dispute that involves border conflicts, demographic movements, and issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity, territorial waters, international rivers, and issues of massive changing of citizenship should ever be heard by arbitration tribunals that are inherently secretive, prone to corruption, and incompetent. Such issues involve most profound national or state security issues, and must be publicly heard by public forums, such as the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, or the ICJ and not in secret halls of arbitrators. 

At any rate, the United States Government must see the seriousness of its actions in regard to the long-term interest of all independent minded people in the region. The presence of China with over a hundred thousand strong work forces managing the oilfields is a new phenomenon that ought to be a concern to the United States. Ethiopia is another country that China is involved with, in a major venture of building dams and highways. It is reported that there is a possibility similar oilfields might be discovered in the region that borders Ethiopian territories and the Sudanese oilfields. On the other hand, except for Ethiopia, the entire Horn region is in the grip of fundamental fanatics who are ready to plunge the entire region into religious war. The ongoing riots due to some offensive cartoon are examples of how easily tinder political fires can be ignited all across the nations of the Islamic world. 

By contrast, the only stable and tolerant civilization in the region is that of Ethiopia, which must be supported by the United States at all cost. There is nothing that the United States can get from �Eritrea� that Ethiopia cannot give ten fold. Ethiopia is a tenacious country. No other country would have survived the assaults of formidable adversaries over the millennium and survived. It is a nation with greatly evolved ethical content of a sense of individual responsibility, social structure based on respect and compassion et cetera For example, there is no tradition of hostage taking, or condemnation of groups by association. That fact alone should have moved the United States to greater commitment to support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ethiopia rather than walk down a dubious double-dealing path of betrayal and corrupt practice. The tragedy of the whole shameful activity of secession of �Eritrea� and the land-locking of Ethiopia was led by the political formulation of very junior State Department functionaries, who were given a free hand in areas of responsibilities way above their ability or competency, thereby denying historical reality and facts, undermining the rule of well-established peremptory norms of customary international law and practices, and long standing friendly relationship with Ethiopia. 

In the 1960s and �70s, it was almost a rite of passage to manhood for university students in developing nations to bash the United States Government. Much has changed since then. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and there is no �left� movement worth mentioning now. This situation has left the United States as the most powerful nation on Earth. With power and great wealth comes also responsibility and magnanimity. However, the irony is that with such change of events, the world has not experienced peace and prosperity. For most Americans I know, to oppose the Government of the United States is to oppose the United States that includes the people too. May be the United States, as a whole, has not adopted the high ethical standard against �guilt by association.� Moreover, the over zealous reliance on �the use of violence/force� to achieve almost everything that the United States government perceive to be its national interest is truly primitive. Here is a great ethical divide between the responsible use of power and wealth and the wasteful self-indulgence of aggression. There is much to be said in favor of the United States and the real positive role it can play to change the lives of millions of people in Africa or else where. 

Conclusion
In some profound way, God's grace seems to be with Ethiopia at all times. We are not abandoned in the wastelands. We have been accorded so many opportunities to get our acts together. In the past, we have failed several times over from living up to our full potential. How often in world history countries have survived famine, prolonged war and civil unrest, and pestilence and yet thrive with most of their territories intact and their culture, as well as their unity, preserved? In the college I teach, at times I run into newly arrived Ethiopian students. What I found most striking about my Ethiopian students is how profoundly civil, graceful, and confident they are. Such things do not happen overnight or in a vacuum, but they are qualities that come down to us through the long stretch of our fabulous history of thousands of years.

The changes I suggested that we make about our leaders, constitution, administrative territorial divisions, philosophical outlooks et cetera are all that we can handle. In fact, they are ideas that we have had at some point in our lives. Because of my Website, I receive often notes from Ethiopian readers and visitors from all over the world and from inside Ethiopia. The overwhelming number of visitors and readers urge me to write more on unity, on the evil of ethnic federalism, leftist politics, democracy, and now and then to behave myself and be polite to my detractors and critics. 

I know of no people who have so much going for them and against them at the same time than we, Ethiopians, do. It is our responsibility to make the necessary decisions how we are going to sort out our mess and make sense of our lives. I am being very bold almost vulgar when I write that we hold our "future" in our own hands. Now, the question is what are we going to do with our future? Plenty! 

Tecola W. Hagos
Symposium at Harvard University Law School, Cambridge
February 11, 2006