Negarit 2 page 4

The word “freedom” is truly a rare and marvelous word. It is difficult to measure the worth of freedom. It is difficult to describe it in words. Let us just call it “honor” and keep it. When we say “freedom”, it is inherently what man must possess, must strive for, and must maintain as a fundamental right. People who have no freedom live below those who possess freedom.

The monument of Yekatit 12, celebrating the contribution to Ethiopian freedom of those who died expelling the fascist invasion.

On the other hand, freedom is a mark of distinction for Ethiopians. Freedom and Ethiopia are synonymous. They are different sides of the same coin. Those who have denied the thirst and hunger for freedom for Ethiopians are the enemy who directly or indirectly, or collaboratively, participated in the actual denial of freedom. The term “enemy” is applied to those who deny fundamental human rights, who confiscate the property of their citizenry, who deny people the opportunity to work, and therefore prosper. A citizen to whom all these are denied cannot be said to possess freedom. It can be said that such a victim has no power over his own and his family’s destiny. He is stripped of every right and can be considered a wounded man.

The Ethiopian peoples’ foremost mark of identity has always been the fact that they have been the proprietors of their own freedom. It has now been some time since this is no longer the case. It has also been a while since Ethiopians have become forlorn. The Ethiopian has had to sacrifice himself, his children, his property. His loss of total freedom is no longer hidden.

Freedom is not to be gotten by begging or be given as a gift. It is such a fundamental right that each soul has to cry out and stand up for its basic principle. When there is an absence of freedom, how can other rights exist? Without freedom, a man is condemned to being the living dead. The condition of such a state reduces man to his most basic element, to that of an animal.

Those who because of the lack of freedom are not masters of their own destiny, are thus under continuous subjugation. And those who after all perpetuate subjugation are universally known as the enemies of the fundamental rights of people.

The Ethiopian people have sacrificed a great deal and have crushed their skulls to maintain their freedom and to confront and to defeat those who came to subjugate them. Ethiopian history has called them heroes, has raised them to the highest pedestal in the national consciousness. One of the greatest dates to be recorded in such annals of Ethiopian history has been the commemoration of the liberation anniversary falling on May 5 of each year. This is the day that Ethiopians from all over the country gather. It is the day that they celebrate their victory over the oppressor. Is there greater happiness than the happiness achieved in defense of one’s freedom? Did not the patriot happily sacrifice himself for this noble goal? It is appropriate to commemorate this day in love and respect to the memory of all those who died for freedom.

Freedom is not gained if it is merely attained from one oppressor only to be lost to another oppressor, moving from one type of colonialism to another.

It is not freedom to move from subjugation at the hands of another race to subjugation by one’s own race. This is tantamount to confusing the issue. By whatever name one calls it, subjugation is a basic denial of human freedoms.

On May 5, we collectively celebrate the “belt of freedom” [an Amharic expression conjuring the image of the circle of freedom which binds the community]. We remember our martyrs. We take their cause and renew our pledge to continue their tradition to fight for our freedom. Those who are outside are asked to join in the wider circle. We fight those who come to destroy our country, our traditions and our way of life. A people who, since childhood, have known freedom as a free generation cannot be expected to live without freedom. It is appropriate to quote a passage from a book which commemorates Liberation Day, May 5:

“Ethiopia, having defeated the Italian invasion, His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I was able to once again raise the national flag as confirmation of Ethiopian sovereignty at Omedla on January 19, 1941. After that, he [Emperor Haile Selassie] continued his journey from Sudan through Gojjam and entered Addis Ababa on May 5, 1941.”

Detail from the obelisk — the Monument of Yekatit 12 — in Addis Ababa dedicated to those Ethiopians who died for the country’s freedom in the wars to expel the Italian invaders.

“When His Majesty entered Addis Ababa he was able to hoist the national flag in the capital city. It was then announced to the entire population. People came out to celebrate the heroes in songs and praises as is customary. Women stood side by side with men on that day. It has been celebrated every year since.”

“It is ironic that the fascist regime of the Dergue was the first to cancel this date because it believed it was revenging against the Emperor. The Dergue instead chose to celebrate May 6 to commemorate the encampment of British forces under General Cunningham in Addis Ababa. This was not the only crime the Dergue committed. It removed statues and symbols of the era and replaced them with the marxist symbols of the hammer and sickle.”

“However, it was through the diligent insistence of the Patriotic Association of Ethiopia that finally the dates were changed once again to reflect the original.”

This day is the day that Ethiopia was able to overcome the fascist invading forces and regain her freedom. Freedom is a priceless reward that Ethiopians will not exchange for anything less.

The Ethiopian people must now move forward from their heritage of freedom to ensure that it becomes a continuing reality and legacy for our people. We must stop slavery in the name of freedom and division in the name of unity. Freedom for every Ethiopian, irrespective of which part of the country they come from, must be a fundamental national right, its mark of distinction and part of its national legacy.

The absence of widespread television and radio news coverage of the Horn of Africa — largely as a result of major power attention on other regions, such as the Kosovo crisis — has allowed a decline in the political stability of the Horn of Africa and Red Sea region to pass unnoticed. The region has not faced the present level of instability and actual conflict since the 1970s, and, to some extent, the situation is more fragile now.

Reports in late April and early May that Saudi-born businessman and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had left his base in Afghanistan to re-settle in Somalia proved incorrect. However, what was the case was the fact that the bin Laden organization — which itself has ties into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) — was establishing major new bases in Somalia.

In the same timeframe, Sudanese leader General Hassan al-Bashir and Eritrean EPLF leader Isayas Afewerke signed an accord which may prove more stable than the memorandum of understanding between the Sudanese and EPLF foreign ministers in November last year. Much of the mediation between the two was the work of Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi. Several African leaders have recently expressed their concern to Negarit over the fact that Qadhafi, now freed from some of the embargoes over the Pan Am 103 bombing, has the ability once again to pursue a radical agenda.

He has already begun to flex his muscles in supporting a radical agenda with the EPLF and Sudan and, reportedly, throwing in support for ultra-radical elements in Somalia with the support of the EPLF in Asmara. Qadhafi, who made promises of “good behavior” if he could be released from the UN embargoes, has now made it clear that he will return to his radical activities with a vengeance, particularly repaying the moderate states who had opposed him.

The early May accord between Sudan and the EPLF also comes as something of a shock to Ethiopia, whose TPLF-dominated Meles administration had also recently signed an accord with Sudan. The subsequent Isayas-Bashir treaty has made it clear that the coalition working against Ethiopian unity has retained its momentum.

Ethiopia’s Meles administration had felt that it could break Sudanese support away from Eritrea (which after all has had a fractious relationship with Sudan since the creation of the Eritrean state) by going directly to Khartoum. It also felt that it could seek an accommodation directly with Sudan’s principal strategic sponsor, Iran, by inviting it to mediate the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute. Not only did the attempts to woo the radical states fail, the move served to jolt United States, Israeli and European leaders.

There has been the feeling in Ethiopian leadership circles that, since the decline in Wash- ington-Asmara relations, the US really had no option but to support Addis Ababa. US politicians are now saying that while the interests of the United States do, indeed, lie with Ethiopia as the heartland power of the Horn of Africa, they must question who they support in Addis Ababa. So the principal centrality of Ethiopia to Western interests in the Horn of Africa and Red Sea is acknowledged, but the matter of who should control Ethiopia is now being debated.

For the first time since the 1991 Western acceptance of the TPLF control of Ethiopia — only agreed because of Western preoccupation with the Gulf War and Soviet collapse — there is serious debate about whether the US can continue supporting Meles. The “new generation” African leader has already become passé.

The Ethiopian Crown Council on April 7 condemned the minority administration in Addis Ababa for quietly sentencing opposition leaders to long terms of imprisonment in a move which the Council said “betrays all Ethiopians who came together in support of national unity during the recent and ongoing crisis”.

The Meles Zenawi administration on April 3 had sentenced six leaders of the All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO) to terms of imprisonment ranging from three to 20 years. The sentences were not publicized by the Meles administration, but only came to light as a result of reporting by independent journals. The administration claimed that the group was attempting to organize a terrorist group in Semen Shoa, an allegation which was never substantiated.

The Federal High Court Second Criminal Division said that the “criminal activities” occurred in Debre Berhan prison and in Asagir Woreda district. The journal Genanaw said that the convicted were: Major Mekre Tekle W. Tsadik (20 years); Capt. Mekre Selassie W. Mariam (18 years); Ato (Mr) Wondayehu Kassa (six years); Ato Ali Idris (five years); Ato Girma Enqo Selassie (three years); Wozeiro (Mrs) Asegedech (three years).

“These opposition leaders committed no crimes other than to speak out for democracy and for the unity of Ethiopia,” Crown Council President, Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie, said today. “It is unbelievable that this could happen after the Amharas and AAPO, like other Ethiopians, put aside their differences with the Meles administration in order to defend Ethiopia against military aggression. Indeed, it is ironic that the bulk of the casualties in this war between Meles Zenawi and Eritrean leader Isayas Afewerke were Amhara and Oromo peoples, the very groups now facing major oppression by the Meles administration.”

“AAPO, during the darkest hours of the conflict, agreed to put aside differences with Meles for the sake of national unity. Now that the crisis appears to have subsided, Meles has shown once again that he wishes to pursue his divide-and-rule policies of ethnic separatism in Ethiopia.”

Prince Ermias continued: “Today it is the Amhara leaders who are being unjustly imprisoned. But Oromo leaders and others are also being held or persecuted for their opposition to the Meles administration. This can only, once again, weaken the Ethiopian nation.”

“This latest action shows how the courts of Ethiopia are completely tied to the minority clique which is ruling the country, and shows that Ethiopians, who have suffered so much in recent months, have nothing to look forward to.”

“We call on the international community to support the Ethiopian people in demanding the release of these latest political prisoners in our homeland, and for the release of those who have been suffering in prison for some time for their political beliefs.”

Prince Ermias said that the action by the Meles administration, when seen in conjunction with the recent overtures toward Iran and Sudan, both radical states, showed that Ethiopia was being dragged into an anti-Western stance which would severely damage inward investment and future trade and security relations.

“The Meles administration asked that all Ethiopians put aside their differences during the conflict. We all did this. Then, when the fighting died down, Meles once again turned on Ethiopians who oppose his policies. Is this what Ethiopia can now look forward to?”

The Italian Government has maintained a strong interest in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war since mid-1998, Negarit has learned, with the Italian leadership taking a strongly pro-Eritrean position despite claims from Rome that an impartial policy would be followed. The “highest levels” of the Italian Government have briefed African leaders recently to the effect that EPLF leader Isayas Afewerke was “intelligent and reasonable”, but that the Ethiopian leadership could not be trusted.

Despite Ethiopia’s double defeat of Italy in 1896 and 1941, the late Emperor Haile Selassie I strove to maintain a workable relationship with Rome. He is seen here during his last State visit to Italy.

“There appears to be no viable diplomatic link between Addis and Rome today,” one senior African leader told Negarit.