Distract and Destruct

In the months leading up to the TPLF invasion of Somalia last December, this blog along with many others declared that no peace could come of such an adventure. We clearly stated that the true nature of the act was to neutralize all perceived enemies of the Ethiopian regime. These included “an alliance of armed groups in Ethiopia [… such as OLF, ONLF, EPPF, etc…], unarmed groups [such as Kinijit], Eritrea and Somalia's ICU…” [RE, December 28, 2006]. In fact the whole strategy had been crystallizing since October when we claimed that Meles “… has done all that is in his power to provoke the Somalis to declare war on Ethiopia with the same [as Mengistu’s in 1977] hopes of gaining domestic legitimacy and external military support…” [RE, October 10, 2006].

Since then scores of Ethiopians even remotely associated with the internal opposition have been jailed or made to disappear. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of Somali civilians have been imprisoned, displaced, executed and tortured. Most importantly the US has been lured into an unwinnable battle to impose warlords on Somalia when the population has so clearly rejected it. Various media outlets and human rights organizations have declared the Joint Ethio/US military action illegal and verging on war crimes. At a regional level this war has also destabilized Kenyan security by dragging that country into the fray while delegitimized the AU and Uganda by forcing them to rescue Meles’ military mistake by sending their soldiers to replace his.

In short the Meles strategy of drawing strategic political and military support from the US has worked [albeit with much opposition within the US] while he has seen very modest success on the home front. It may actually be argued that the impact of his actions on internal dissent have been negative by forcing him to lose control of Ogaden [see attacks on economic and military installations]. His military is overstretched, his diplomatic initiatives are faltering and he has now lost not only domestic but regional and international legitimacy. Finally, Somalia is now completely destroyed again, which may quite possibly have been his intent all along, without him having gained the expected support from Christian Ethiopian constituencies as a result. More dangerous for him is that he has now inadvertently stimulated a united Somali front against Ethiopian intervention.

The recent sudden ‘guilty’ ruling on opposition leaders is probably better understood in this light. Finding success fleeting on all fronts, the regime may have forced the ruling as an external show of strength on the only ‘enemy’ that it controls. But there is one more card up Meles’ sleeve. Being the MBA that he is, he knows that all bad news can never be good for business. Distracting Ethiopians and the international community with large expensive and year-long Millennium parties is now crucial. Mengistu attempted such a distraction with a large celebration of the tenth anniversary of the revolution, thereby setting off his own demise. Is Meles so inspired by Mengistu’s old strategies that he will do the same?

Masters of Deceit

The Ethiopian government has demonstrated its capacity for tireless lies. In this it has found willing accomplices in the west like no other African ruling regime. What we find surprising is that even the death, torture, detention and brutal treatment of civilians does not warrant a change of heart in western annals of power. EPRDF’s abuse and wanton neglect of the rule of law goes unquestioned and is in fact supported by otherwise neutral seeming western institutions such as the media, government officials and the international civil society.

The past decade has shown that initiatives taken by Meles will always be supported by some British and US personalities who hold positions of power. The imprisonment of opposition leaders and members of Ethiopia’s civil society on charges of genocide would be laughable had the consequences not been so dire. At this point it appears that Meles and his cohorts come up with reasons for their actions in the midst of drunken parties and email them to their western stooges for global distribution and sponsorship. None of the players attempt to convince Ethiopians and the world why the action is justifiably warranted and the rational underlying it.

In the midst of such an arrogant and ignorant policy making environment we are not eagerly awaiting the court ruling of February 19th to be just and objective. To expect anything other than a politically driven and unjust ruling, that will in some way or other attempt to lengthen the rule of the EPRDF regime is naïve. If there is going to be a ruling, to expect the west to react to it in any objective way is even more naïve. The response of the ‘international community’ to the upcoming court decision will most likely be to distract from the issue by urging African leaders to contribute troops to Somalia so that EPRDF’s soldiers can be freed up [to crush dissent within Ethiopia].

Ethiopians who live in the west , and particularly in the US, Canada and Great Britain, can change this balance by informing lawmakers and officials in the executive branches that western policy on Ethiopia has been taken off track by the swindling leaders of EPRDF and their western patrons who are quickly gaining the ire of Ethiopians. A peaceful campaign of correcting the skewed information that is being pumped out of media and other institutions will save the lives of many Ethiopians and may even pressure Meles and his patrons to step back and contemplate the limits of their deceit and murderous policies.

It is a sad but true fact that a very small number of officials in the west can achieve incredible amounts of power in Africa because they are delegates of powerful economic and military establishments. The only way to neutralize them when they start making such blatant errors is to work hard at informing those who put them in power that peace, democracy and economic development in the horn is in the best interest of all players. The time for control obsessed policies based on the support of dictators should have ended when Mobutu of the old Zaire died. This is not the cold war. The west can afford to allow civility in our region this time.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

The EPRDF government has always characterized the organizations and people that it considers enemies by using unflattering names. The oppositions leaders in prison are genocidal, armed groups against it are anti peace and most importantly today all anti TPLF Somalis are terrorists. Propaganda works in mysterious ways and some of these catch while others flounder. In the most unfortunate of circumstances for Somalis, the Islamic Court Union label caught. Not with Ethiopians, or other insightful observers but with the most important recipient of Ethiopia's intelligence, the US State Department.

Prime Minister Meles' strategy of launching a large war as a means of liquidating as many enemies as possible has started. He articulated these enemies as an alliance of armed groups in Ethiopia [such as OLF, ONLF, EPPF, etc…], unarmed groups [such as Kinijit], Eritrea and Somalia's ICU. Most sources indicate that the US State Department has helped him to secure UNSC approval for his military adventure while other western nations publicly denounced the resolution as they implicitly supported it.

Most Ethiopian opposition groups have now understood that Meles can do no bad in the eyes of most western establishments. Apart from the occasional pretentious remark, the west is comfortable with the way he deals with his people and the people of the region. In other words, the west has accepted that all people who are bad to Meles are bad to the world without any need to investigate the merits of his claim. The fact that the loosely organized Somali ICU had some leaders who were allegedly associated with terrorists has come to mean that the organization is a terrorist organization. By this measure any one at any location with any political view can be found to be a terrorist simply by irritating Ethiopia's ruling regime.

We have witnessed Ethiopia's suffering of the past 18 months being ignored by all the important institutions of the world including the AU, UN, Humanitarian organizations and most importantly western governments. Most of us cried foul at the hypocrisy of these institutions and disparaged at the cowardice of many people who would not speak up. We can not do as they did at this time. Which ever way one analyzes the present situation, Somalis are being invaded by a neighboring country's irresponsible government that wishes to impose street gangsters masquerading as politicians on them.

The ICU may have had some terrorists, but removing those individuals was much easier than executing a full invasion of a country that had just emerged from 15 years of chaos and insecurity. One only needs to think of what their home town would be like under similar condition with women unable to walk the streets and warlords manning streets for bribes. Religion and Ethiopia's national interest have nothing to do with this invasion. Everyday it is becoming clearer to all who wish to open their eyes and see that this war is about creating the conditions for the frustration of Ethiopia's democratic march.

We are ashamed that this war is being fought in the name of Ethiopians because history will surely remember it for its most devastating result; the destruction of Somali society and their most basic hopes of statehood and peace. Ethiopians in the US in particular have to work hard at changing the course by helping to remove US support for the regime. There are many political means of working towards this. The most important of these is to show people in power that US interests are not being served by the suffering of regular people in the horn. Ethiopians need to tell the truth now in order for their truth to be heard later.

Revisiting Starbucks

Since our last posting on this issue, there has been a welcome explosion of debate about the Starbucks-Ethiopia confrontation over trademarking Ethiopian specialty coffee brands. In line with modern trends, the economic, political and business aspects of this confrontation have been mixed in various combinations to articulate arguments for and against Starbucks. The role of Oxfam, the main speaker on behalf of the Ethiopian government, has also been denounced or lauded in various writings.

Our position on this issue has been formulated by separating the various players and analyzing their motivations and likely future path under various scenarios. These players are the EPRDF representing the Ethiopian government, Oxfam on behalf of the Ethiopian government, Starbucks, Ethiopian coffee farmers and the affluent consumers of this coffee, among whom are many of the debating bloggers.

Some have argued that EPRDF is in this battle, not for the good of the country, but as a business for the benefit of the party leaders. We agree with this assessment as there is ample evidence of corruption within the party businesses. It is to be noted that Ethiopia, one of the poorest nations in the world, is presently one of the leading African depositors of personal and business assets in the London banking system. This brings much support from western financial interests in protection of the existing system of rule in Ethiopia and this has much to do with EPRDF’s illegitimate survival.

Starbucks, like all businesses, will maximize its profits by expanding its market and reducing cost. Reducing cost implies finding ways to cut production and distribution expenses. Part of this expense is paying royalties to owners of intellectual property [IP]. Our position is that the specialty coffee brands are IP of the Ethiopian farmers. The fact that their government has been hijacked by EPRDF thugs does not mean that the IP doesn't belong to them. Thus, we separate the issue of finding ways to make sure that they are paid royalties from the issue of who owns it. In essence Starbucks can argue that there is no mechanism to pay them but can not argue that they can not have rights to the IP.

The struggle over harmonizing IP laws around the world has been led by the World Trade Organization [WTO]. Most African countries have been left on the raw end of the IP deal by giving away all their rights to western corporations. Even Teff, a grain grown by people in the horn for millennia, is granted breeders’ rights protection as the property of Teff Corporation of America. Under conditions of power parity African societies would reject WTO proposed IP laws until they can get appropriate returns on their property. With the present reality however, they have accepted the skewed arrangement specifically because most are led by governments whose leaders are only marginally more legitimate than the EPRDF.

This brings us to Oxfam. Powerful NGOs have turned into the only force that fights western corporate power in Africa. The struggle over production of Aids medication in South Africa is one good example of this. Most NGOs have operations that would normally be carried out by governments or businesses in African societies. In other words, rather than temporary organizations for the purpose of alleviating poverty, they have become fixtures in the political and economic domains of most poor countries. It is easy to see how this pits them against large businesses who are potential competitors in most NGO ventures and Oxfam is no different.

The marriage of convenience between EPRDF and Oxfam, one for profit and the other for influence, can potentially secure the trademark of the specialty coffee brands in the name of the Ethiopian government. This will irritate Starbucks and allow a greater flow of funds into London banks after it is robbed by EPRDF leaders. But the trademark will stay with the Ethiopian government for when farmers can get their own representatives into power. Ethiopian farmers could care less if $80 million dollars goes to Starbucks or London banks in the mean time. All they care about is that they secure rights to their property for when they can exercise that right.

As for Starbucks’ reaction to such PR negotiations fear has been expressed that it will retaliate by dropping Ethiopian coffee from its product selection. This is a highly unlikely scenario. An important component of Coffee brand marketing is showing how poor farmers are helped by the western company selling the coffee. The possibility of Starbucks dropping the promotion of the specialty brands is very low because such a decision would expose the company to severe competition from others who will claim to be helping poor farmers even more by paying royalties, utilizing brand names that Starbucks has spent millions promoting.

The logical conclusion is thus for consumers to threaten Starbucks with boycotts until it allows for the trademarking of Ethiopian specialty brands even by the illegitimate representative of Ethiopian farmers. This is consistent with the intent to promote ethical world trade where product quality and not power has the ultimate say on who profits and who starves. People in the US have an economic, political and moral obligation to level the playing field for the millions of coffee farmers who are on the verge of starvation due to the workings of a consortium of powerful corporations, NGOs and corrupt local African elites.

Democratizing the Ethiopian government is a separate initiative. It should be pursued with equal vigor by lobbying companies like Starbucks to convince the US government to stop supporting the EPRDF. In that case we promise to drink more coffee to support the company.

Greed: Starbucks Brand

As we have all heard recently there is confrontation between Ethiopia and Starbucks about ownership of trademarks of certain specialty Ethiopian coffee beans. The Ethiopian side of the argument is that these specialty beans are grown and prepared to very high and stringent standards, and therefore trademarking them in the US is legitimate. Starbucks counters that the names only refer to place of origin and as such should not be trademarked but identified with geographic information of origin. However, it seems Starbucks did not have the same convictions when it applied to trademark the name Sidamo with the USPTO a little over a year ago.

Trademarking coffee is not something new. The Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee has been trademarked for years now, and its farmers have been able to extract a significantly higher proportion of the final selling price. Just compare their 45% share to that of the Ethiopian farmers’ 5-10%.

Starbucks’ veiled threat that this arrangement will hurt Ethiopian farmers is very objectionable. The company is basically threatening that unless it gets its way, it could stop buying Ethiopian coffee. Outside of undue greed however, there is no economic reason why trademarking would stop Starbucks from buying these coffee beans. If the demand for gourmet Ethiopian coffee is high, then Starbucks will pay a fair price by dealing with a more consolidated supplier. If the demand is low, then Starbucks has nothing to fear because the trademark holder will still negotiate prices that the market dictates. The only aspect that is different here is that Starbucks can not depress prices by using its enormous buying power despite actual demand. In other words the supplier gets a fair degree of control.

There is another side to this story however, and that is the local issue. Getting the Trademark will enable the holder to dictate which farmers and cooperatives qualify to sell their beans under these names. The Ethiopian government has not said who will hold the trademark and administer the standards explicitly. The challenge is to avoid favoritism from the process. To this end, we would encourage the administrators in Ethiopia to keep the certification process open to public scrutiny and to ensure that production stays in the hands of small farmers. This is a local issue, one that can not be solved by letting Starbucks dictate how Ethiopia’s premium coffee is marketed.

Going back to the international dispute, Starbucks’ own defense of its position is very telling. Rather than saying why trademarking is bad for the Ethiopian farmer, its claim is centered on painting a picture of poor farmers to whose rescue it has come. It makes a point that it built a bridge and even got involved in a few irrigation projects. But that ignores the more important point that fair prices would have enabled the farmers and cooperatives to build these bridges or develop the irrigation schemes for themselves. In any case, trademarks should not dissuade the company from genuinely helping if that is in its interest. But charity certainly can not replace dealing fairly in trade.

Until Starbucks decides to stop acting like a bully, we have decided to no longer be their customers. We hope you will do the same.

Losing The Horn

These days it is easy to conclude that the US is losing the horn. This loss has many dimensions, the most important of these pertaining to influence in the political, economic and military spheres. This thesis assumes that the US supports, in its national interest, the growth of the region in order to develop viable economies that its businesses can leverage in a sustained manner*.

The vast majority of the population in the horn presently believes that US policy in the region is misguided. This political deficit translates into lost investment and development opportunities when people progressively lose hope and exert their energies away from productive activities towards finding means of escape. Finally this makes violence and suffering tolerable to those determined souls creating a security nightmare that turns into military confrontations.

This is not simple theoretical hyperbole. We are witnessing the phenomenon unravel in the horn as we write. It is not too far from the truth to say that the only full hearted supporters of US policy in the region have dwindled down to die hard TPLF supporters. This should scare the wits out of US policy makers as the quality of that support is questionable because it is based on fear of impending loss of undeserved privilege.

The rest of the people in the region are waiting to see if the US will finally side with the desires of regular folks and allow for relaxation, and maybe even resolution, of TPLF induced tensions. This affects issues ranging from internal Ethiopian persecution against political dissent to the border tension with Eritrea and the Somalia debacle. In short, the TPLF has become a liability in this project of globalization by pursuing policies that inflame populations and keep peace at bay.

At the urging of the sparkling blogger ET Wonqette we started reading the book authored by the US trained economist Berhanu Nega who is currently in an Ethiopian prison for his political views. The answer for US policy makers to the horn’s conundrum was glaring out of the first chapter. Adopting democratic systems in the region will very likely prevent the present explosive condition from recurring if the present unstable episode passes safely. Democracy starts at home however so we ventured to guess at what regular folks from the region would answer to the question of what needs to be done first to bring about democracy.

Will it come as a surprise to anyone if regular Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis said that the TPLF has to go before they can start negotiating with each other and amongst themselves on how to democratize their societies peacefully? If this was to be true, and it would take minimal effort on the part of policy makers to verify the validity of this assumption, then would that not signal that it is time for the US to stop supporting the TPLF?

Such gnawing questions are crying out for urgent answers. Regional collapse, destitution and intractable wars, with a religious tone at that, can not possibly be good for US driven globalization. Even the war on terror can only be useful to US interests if people of the horn believe it is directed at terrorists and not at their fundamental democratic rights. If not revised, the current path followed by US policy makers can easily create a region that is highly averse to US interests, perhaps even giving birth to African Chavismo.

_______________

*The reader may retort that this is precisely the definition of colonialism. Being diasporas and interested in the furtherance of our host nation’s global interests, we will not acknowledge such associations and instead call the present arrangement by its proper name: Globalization. That is why we preferred the use of the term ‘leverage’ instead of ‘exploit’.

The Lures of War

Siad Barre, Somalia’s last president, made a blunder when he decided to go to war with Ethiopia in 1977. Not only did he initiate the deterioration of relations with the Soviet Union, a formidable arms supplier, but he also gave Ethiopia’s then leader, Mengistu Hailemariam, the context within which he could militarize his revolution.

Mengistu’s militarization of Ethiopia’s revolution forever changed the nature of the revolt from a civilian one supported by the Military to a Military one forced onto civilians. The Somalia war became the central element with which Mengistu and his supporters gained legitimacy by denouncing civilian revolutionaries as weak potential rulers who couldn’t protect their country from external aggression. The same war also gave him free reign to invite Soviet intervention in the arming and running of military operations and the governance system as a whole, thus imposing a quasi colonial relationship.

It seems that Meles has been a good student of history. He has done all that is in his power to provoke the Somalis to declare war on Ethiopia with the same hopes of gaining domestic legitimacy and external military support. The fact that there is no formidable Somali government, military or immediate threat to Ethiopia has made his job much harder than Mengistu’s. He has literally had to partially invade Somalia to get mostly empty threats from Somali Islamists, who can at best remove his soldiers from some Somali territory.

Unlike 1977, Ethiopians are not readily mobilizing for Meles’ war. Most seem to have read the Somali threat for what it is - non existent. The external actors for whose benefit he’s orchestrating this hoopla however seem to have been taken by it all. Most western policy makers are surely a lot more naïve than the Ethiopian populace when it comes to reading the motivation of Ethiopian leaders. For instance, it has still not sunk in for most US policy makers that to support Ethiopia in Meles’ provocative invasions of Somalia can only strengthen the Islamic court by giving it a lot more legitimacy than it could muster on its own.

Of course, at the end of the day, local people alone will decide the final outcomes of political and military confrontations. Both Ethiopians and Somalis will end up supporting leaders of their choosing. The challenge lies in convincing the west that this is better done using democratic means rather than war lords, militias and guerilla forces. Supporting Ethiopia’s democratic process will have incredibly more yield than supporting its internal and external security operations. It avoids the death and suffering of millions and does not discourage economic development, health initiatives and schooling.

Ethiopia’s relationship with countries in the region has shifted with time. Historically political and economic interests have driven the cooperations and confrontations. Rearticulating these relationships around the concept of religion is a formula that can only work to defeat the essence of Ethiopia which is a country consisting of a great deal of diversity.

A constant barrage from western media about Ethiopia being an old Christian civilization that has to defend itself from Islamic Somalia is false at many levels. Emperor Menelik confidently accepted a diverse empire that was inclusive of many Islamic emirs. Furthermore, Ethiopia has lived as a neighbor to Saudi Arabia, a declared Islamic state for generations. It is time to accept that for the most part, if at all, the Somalis are becoming radical not despite Ethiopia but because of its actions.

Who is the Enemy?

To say that the horn has turned into an unpredictable area of great instability is an understatement. Reading conventional news one would be left with the impression that half the governments and countries in the region are on the verge of collapse. Those that are stable would seem to be Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. The others have rulers that are either Islamic fundamentalist, genocidal or simply lunatic.

Upon closer inspection of the region however a different picture emerges. While all the governments are slowly weakening, those of Sudan, Eritrea and the new powers in Somalia seem to be growing more defiant in their attitude towards the west, while Ethiopia and Kenya have remained compliant but are internally divided and in a serious crisis that threatens their essence. Djibouti in turn has returned to its colonial days of hosting large western military bases in return for royalty payments to its local nobility.

This brings us to the question of how the west is hoping to secure the area and introduce stability that is to its benefit. It now seems that the efforts to introduce ‘peace keepers’ into Sudan and Somalia have been thwarted by their rulers. Furthermore, the existing UN forces in Eritrea have now been completely crippled by that country’s government. Considering the progress of the war in Iraq and the recent conflict in Lebanon, the introduction of military forces from the US or other client states does not seem to be viable without the consent of local powers.

While the two obedient governments in the region, those of Ethiopia and Kenya, scramble to contain their own internal crisis as well as the regional defiance, they are falling prey to ‘overstretch’ and impending collapse. This amalgamation of crisis points to only one viable solution that the west can follow in order to prevent all out revolt that will surely engulf both Ethiopia and Kenya if not checked immediately. This solution is genuine democracy. The west will have to articulate a policy for the region not only from the perspective of oil security and anti-terrorism but also from that of the local inhabitants’ wishes and desires.

Supporting genuine democracy in the region will help the west rebuild its credibility and in the long run leave it with more influence. Supporting genuine democracy means supporting a system that would induce a cut in aid to any government that imprisons opponents that win elections. This means acknowledging that failure at the ballot box leads to insurrection and instability. It also means western governments implementing what they preach and being ideologically consistent.

Thuggish Governance

It is now obvious to all objective observers that Ethiopia has been hijacked by a group of thugs who will stop at nothing to distract Ethiopians and the international community from the call for participation in governance. Furthermore, the fact that the TPLF/EPRDF has transformed itself into a ‘Christian force against Muslim fundamentalists’ is essentially equivalent to planting a time bomb without an ‘off’ switch in Ethiopia’s womb.

The party’s lack of far sightedness has been exhibited on many occasions. Its domestic policies have completely failed and Ethiopia can safely be called a failing state that needs immediate salvation. This salvation is unlikely to arrive while its governing elite imprison leaders who have been elected to office, persecute students who express discontent and most dangerously enter a religious war that most Ethiopians are uncomfortable with.

The previous Ethiopian-Somali conflicts were much more about colonial legacy than they were religious. Attempting to give the historical bumpy relationship between the two countries a religious tone is the first defeat for Ethiopia, as it is the country with a population that is half Christian and half Muslim. Just as the international community was intimidated into supporting the TPLF by threats of destroying Ethiopia, the party is now threatening the west, and particularly the US, with the radicalization of Somalia by launching an invasion of that country contrary to the wishes of the Ethiopian and Somali people.

Ethiopia had governments and armies that were far larger and more legitimate during the previous wars with Somalia but its leaders, wise as they were, never attempted to invade Somalia even when the power balance was in their favor. A hugely unpopular ruling party today has decided to invade a country without a government in the hopes of creating instability in the region as a reminder to all that money should not stop flowing into its coffers.

US complicity in this will surely backfire by assuring its lose of influence in the region upon the sure to come departure of the TPLF. As many seasoned US diplomats have recently been reminding us, the US has already paid a heavy price by allying itself with a party instead of a country. It was led into the Somali conflict on the losing side more recently and has drawn the intervention of all those who wish to harm US interests by TPLF’s self serving declarations of terrorist activities in Somalia.

Further progress in the direction of financing and supporting Ethiopia’s illegitimate rulers will inevitably initiate a regional revolution that can not serve the interests of either the local inhabitants or international stakeholders. It is time to put an end to the desperate and aimless adventures of Ethiopia’s thuggish rulers by allowing the elected leaders of Ethiopia to take office and starting a reconciliation period. This would relieve the present tension in Somalia as well while that country starts to select its own governance system and rulers. At the end of the day that is what Democracy really means and the horn is calling for it.

Beating Around the Bush

When the TPLF leader Meles Zenawi was promoted by Tony Blair as a progressive leader we thought the statement was too dishonest and reflected negatively on the British Prime Minister’s character. As we continue to learn more about how Meles operates however, we are starting to feel that maybe we were a little too harsh on poor Mr. Blair. We had totally underestimated Meles’ capacity to intimidate not only Ethiopians but also those whom he begs. It seems the theory works both ways; if Ethiopians can be used to beg westerners for money why not use the same people to intimidate westerners as well.

Almost any rational person already knows that the recent explosions in Ethiopia were orchestrated by the TPLF. This would be completely in line with how TPLF has historically threatened to disintegrate the country and start inter-ethnic strife if forced out of power. No political force that would like to come to power in Ethiopia would have an incentive to blow up civilians riding in Taxis. It would be the worst PR campaign ever waged by such a force.

It is clear that all western officials on the Ethiopian scene also understand this from the various statements that they have made in the previous few years. That Meles can go from simply threatening westerners with the destruction of Ethiopia to actually acting it out seems to have rattled many of these officials who are now speaking his propaganda like parrots. Tony Blair recently helped Meles to reinstate all the aid that he had lost under the same old guise of fighting poverty, and now elements in the more powerful and principled US government seem to be cowering under Meles’ threats too.

We do not know much about the new political alliance, the AFD, that was recently created. But we do know that its stated objectives and tasks are far from the accusations implied in a recent news piece published by the State Department. We also know that a pretentious CUDP was created by Meles – this is not the first time that TPLF has created duplicate parties in order to fight legitimate political forces. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto’s recent surprising statements about AFD being bad and Meles-CUDP being good are starting to sound very similar to Tony Blair’s old mistakes. With Blair it became obvious that there was some personal friendship and the stated intimidation to motivate him to blunder, but we have yet to determine if Yamamoto is reacting to intimidation by Meles contrary to his own beliefs.

The message is simple and clear. It is time for western officials to stop beating around the bush due to intimidation by Meles. It is evident that he remains with no more legitimacy to rule Ethiopia. Making TPLF’s inevitable demise take a few years longer can only hurt western interests by creating more TPLF induced violence. It is time to support political forces that understand that Ethiopia needs change immediately and are getting together to achieve it.

To Ethiopians inside and outside the country this is the time to give courage to Ethiopians and western leaders by writing more, demonstrating more and informing all concerned that we are behind all peaceful political forces that are trying to stop TPLF's intimidation campaigns. No privilege can be more important than a safe and democratic Ethiopia.