The military
Strictly speaking, the Ethiopian armed forces are Tigrean no less than the TPLF is Tigrean. The following list makes this argument abundantly clear.
Ministry of Defense
* Commander of Ethiopian armed forces - Melles Zenawi (Tigrean)
* Defense Minister is a non-Tigrean, but this position is constitutionally manned by a civilian, not a military person
* Chief of Staff - Samora (Mohamed) Yunis (Tigrean)
* Department of Training - Major General Taddese Wored- (Tigrean)
* Department of Logistics and Administration - Major General Gezahi Abera - (Tigrean)
* Department of Operations - Brigadier General Gebrzgiabher Mebrhatu (Tigrean)
* Department of Military Intelligence- Brigadier General Yohannes (John) Gebre Meskel - (Tigrean) …. Recently appointed as Deputy Commander of Central Command. This Department will also be commanded by head of operations Brigadier General Gebrezgiabher Mebrhatu (Tigrean).
* Commander of the Air Force - Brigadier Molla H. Mariam (Tigirean)
Under the Ministry of Defense there are 5 Ethiopian Army Commanders.
* Northern Command (HQ Mekele) - Major General Seare Mekonnen (Tigrean)
* North Western Command (HQ Baher Dar) - Brigadier General Abraham Gebre Mariam (Tigrean)
* Special Army Command (HQ Dessie-Bure Front) - Birgadier General Teklai Ashebir (Tigrean)
* South Eastern Army Command (HQ Harar) - Brigadier General Seyum Hagos (Tigrean)
* Central Army Command (HQ Shire Indasilassie) - Major General Taddese Wored (Tigirean - Agaw). Recently, Brigadier General Yohannes G. Meskel also Tigrean.
The Ministry of Defense has 28 Division Commanders.
* All but one are Tigreans
Division Commands have 106 Regiments.
* 98% of the Regiment Commanders are Tigireans
It can be safely argued therefore, that there is no Ethiopian national army but Tigrean.
Read more
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/977
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Eritreans risk death in the SaharaEvery day, in the barren lands along the Sudanese border, young Eritreans risk their lives to flee from their country.
It is rugged terrain, tightly patrolled by Eritrean armed forces who have orders to shoot anyone trying to slip over to Sudan.
According to opposition sources, between 400 and 600 Eritreans a month make this dangerous journey.
Some flee poverty. Eritrea, which was already desperately poor, has poured money into weapons and its military since the war with Ethiopia that ended in 2000, but failed to resolve the border dispute between the two countries.
Others try to escape conscription - years spent in trenches facing Ethiopian forces dug-in across the border.
And many try to leave behind the routine political repression. Eritrea is a one-party state, with no free press of any kind. Amnesty International reports that anyone suspected of supporting the opposition faces indefinite detention and torture.
It is rugged terrain, tightly patrolled by Eritrean armed forces who have orders to shoot anyone trying to slip over to Sudan.
According to opposition sources, between 400 and 600 Eritreans a month make this dangerous journey.
Some flee poverty. Eritrea, which was already desperately poor, has poured money into weapons and its military since the war with Ethiopia that ended in 2000, but failed to resolve the border dispute between the two countries.
Others try to escape conscription - years spent in trenches facing Ethiopian forces dug-in across the border.
And many try to leave behind the routine political repression. Eritrea is a one-party state, with no free press of any kind. Amnesty International reports that anyone suspected of supporting the opposition faces indefinite detention and torture.
Read more
Saturday, August 4, 2007
What is it?
It is astounding to me, in recent times there are a lot of sophisticated Ethiopian politicians against Meles and they’ve got a lot of valid reasons for that However currently, I see more Eritreans opposing Woaynes government more than the Ethiopian oppositions. some of them they became more Ethiopian than the Ethiopian peoples, Most of the Ethiopian oppositions stand against the Ethiopian government with reason and with certain conditions, the Eritrean have no boundary to oppose Ethiopian regime, no good reason and no conditions, I just wondering what is it? Is it really enmity against Ethiopia or woaynes? Which one is it?
~
Even if Ethiopia gave Bademe, those Eritrean will never cease their blind hate toward Ethiopia. What is it? What do they really want? Are they really concerned about Ethiopian people’s freedom? About basic human rights? How about opposing Issias who is abusing their people, actually most Eritreans live literally in hell. When will those hardliner Eritrean will learn?
When will Eritreans will come together with genuine Ethiopian oppositions work against the killer woaynes. They have to be clear what they really want? What is it? Are they jealous of the woaynes and they want to exploit Ethiopia, is that what they want?
kemal
It is astounding to me, in recent times there are a lot of sophisticated Ethiopian politicians against Meles and they’ve got a lot of valid reasons for that However currently, I see more Eritreans opposing Woaynes government more than the Ethiopian oppositions. some of them they became more Ethiopian than the Ethiopian peoples, Most of the Ethiopian oppositions stand against the Ethiopian government with reason and with certain conditions, the Eritrean have no boundary to oppose Ethiopian regime, no good reason and no conditions, I just wondering what is it? Is it really enmity against Ethiopia or woaynes? Which one is it?
~
Even if Ethiopia gave Bademe, those Eritrean will never cease their blind hate toward Ethiopia. What is it? What do they really want? Are they really concerned about Ethiopian people’s freedom? About basic human rights? How about opposing Issias who is abusing their people, actually most Eritreans live literally in hell. When will those hardliner Eritrean will learn?
When will Eritreans will come together with genuine Ethiopian oppositions work against the killer woaynes. They have to be clear what they really want? What is it? Are they jealous of the woaynes and they want to exploit Ethiopia, is that what they want?
kemal
Friday, August 3, 2007
Ethiopians suffer under government corruption
By Dean Jacobs/ Letters to America
Fremont Tribune /
July 31, 2007
Our conversation stops as silent eyes glance to the knock that came from the door, a student appears to ask a question and leaves.Talking about politics is a dangerous undertaking in Ethiopia.Those who are willing to speak about such things, only do so under the agreement of remaining anonymous. Stories of people being harassed by the federal police are common. It generally starts with a warning phone call about a comment or activity that they call into question.A newspaper publisher tells me about an opinion column he runs in his business newspaper. He heard once on a BBC TV interview with the current Ethiopia Prime Minister that he doesn't plan to run again, and he shared that statement in his newspaper. He was called about it, and warned to write only about business, not politics, even though that decision would affect business. After the student leaves, my office companion, whom I will call David says: “Did you see the marks on his eyebrows, that means he comes from the Tigrai region where the ruler is from.”This communicates a potential loyalty to the current government.Elections in 2005 were marked with irregularities, according to international officials observing the process. The irregularities are thought to be changed ballots or switched ballot boxes. After the election, the word got out that the sitting government rigged the election.“It was so obvious that everyone knew,” so students began to demonstrate peacefully, David says.Another knock on the door, and our conversation once again stops. This time it is a student David wants me to meet.“She's very clever and understands what is happening,” he says.This student, whom I will call Tigist, shares some of her thoughts about the current situation.“The people are frustrated, and because it is not safe to express one's opinion, they continue to swallow those frustrations. But one day, people will not be able to swallow any more, and we will explode like a volcano,” Tigist says.When asked about the timing of that explosion, she pauses and says, “the economic situation is not good in Ethiopia. ------------------------------------
Dean Jacobs is a former Fremont Tribune photographer and a world traveler. Follow his latest journey each Monday in the Tribune.
Read more
Mediation and the mazes of a dictator
By Prof. Messay Kebede Aug 3, 2007
VARIOUS ETHIOPIAN WEBSITES exhibit articles that highly congratulate and praise the achievements of mediators in the long-drawn-out attempt to free the CUD leaders. According to these articles, thanks to the aggressive and unrelenting effort of the mediators, the dreadful outcome of life imprisonment has been reversed into a happy ending. Had such articles appeared only in websites supporting Meles and the TPLF, I would have no reason to share my perplexity, obvious as it is that Meles alone comes out victorious from the ordeal of CUD leaders. Unfortunately, the consensus among Ethiopians opposing Meles and his regime considers the release as a laudable achievement of Ethiopian negotiators.
Let me begin by expelling a misunderstanding: in a previous article, I stated that the desire to humiliate is behind the liberation of the CUD leaders. Several readers reacted to my interpretation with the suggestion that I do not seem to welcome the liberation. Some such reading of my article is anything but accurate, all the more so as I was convinced for quite some time that their continuous imprisonment had lost any meaning. Outside the exposure of their determination not to recognize the kangaroo court, the prisoners were not achieving anything. As dignified as the refusal to recognize was, I had constantly wondered whether the gain was worth the sacrifice.
The continuous imprisonment of CUD leaders would have had a positive outcome if it had led to a deterioration of Meles’s relation with Western governments of the kind entailing the complete cessation of financial aids and diplomatic support to his government. Nothing of the kind happened: after an initial verbal condemnation, the whole drama of the election did not upset for long the business-as-usual approach of Western governments. I don’t know what is required for Ethiopians to understand, once and for all, that national interests, and not what is right, essentially drive nation-states. Haile Selassie made this same mistake when he believed that democratic states will not tolerate the fascist invasion of Ethiopia.
In my previous article, I also indicated that the intent to humiliate reflected the deep and harrowing embarrassment of Meles and his associates following their unexpected defeat in the election. Meles was humiliated in front of the world, he who thought that the Ethiopian masses had nurtured an eternal gratitude to the TPLF for being liberated from the Derg, not to mention the exacting effort he made to appear as a new African leader to Western governments. Alas, now the whole world knows that he is only another dictator in the long list of buffoons parading as heads of state in Africa’s sickening post colonial history.
The sharp depreciation of Meles’s supersized but bleeding ego in his own eyes and that of the world needed some appeasement, which could come only through the attempt to humiliate those who humiliated him. Neither mere imprisonment nor court procedures would give him the much-needed remedy, since in both cases the prisoners would continue to claim their innocence.
What else could wipe out Meles’s deep humiliation but a confession of guilt and a plea for forgiveness? Herein lies the major role of the mediators. For Meles had to make sure at the same time that whatever confession is obtained from the prisoners, it must not seem to be extracted by means of force. Confession obtained by force has no soothing effect on him if only because constraint is devoid of vindicating virtue. By contrast, consent can be inferred both from the process of mediation and the involvement of independent and respected people. Since nobody is openly forcing anybody, the outcome can be construed as the product of free admission. Without free consent, the admission of guilt is not usable for the purpose of rehabilitation.
What this means is clear enough: since only Meles comes out as winner, the mediation was nothing but a scheme used by him to obtain confession of guilt. The involvement of independent and respected people put heavy pressure on the prisoners through the argument that the common good, the prospect of reconciliation alone motivates their effort. How could prisoners who fought for peace and democracy refuse for long the appeal for reconciliation? They would agree to anything rather than reject a goal coinciding with their political agenda of peace and democracy.
What other term than soft coercion can characterize a mediation with such a one-sided result? I have read many comments concerning the release, but I have yet to see what concessions Meles made. Yet, mediation is a two-way street; it results in mutual concessions done for the purpose of achieving a higher common goal.
It could be argued that the mediation saved the prisoners from life imprisonment. This argument has no substance given that the prisoners could have obtained the same result without the mediators, if they had admitted guilt. European or American envoys could have easily broken a similar deal even a year ago.
Shrewdly, Meles encouraged mediation because it is all to his advantage. The direct intervention of Western governments would have further exasperated his humiliation by showing that his government is run, to use his own words, “like a banana republic from Capitol Hill.” His oversensitized ego, quite reminiscent of Mengistu Haile Mariam, would further suffer if the prisoners and the Ethiopian people they represent believed that they owe their liberation to Western pressure. No, if he is to pardon the prisoners, it must not be because of Western governments, but because he yielded to the exhortation of his subordinates. In this way, he recovers his original condescending grandeur while appearing concerned with reconciliation.
read more
http://www.blogger.com/read%20more
By Prof. Messay Kebede Aug 3, 2007
VARIOUS ETHIOPIAN WEBSITES exhibit articles that highly congratulate and praise the achievements of mediators in the long-drawn-out attempt to free the CUD leaders. According to these articles, thanks to the aggressive and unrelenting effort of the mediators, the dreadful outcome of life imprisonment has been reversed into a happy ending. Had such articles appeared only in websites supporting Meles and the TPLF, I would have no reason to share my perplexity, obvious as it is that Meles alone comes out victorious from the ordeal of CUD leaders. Unfortunately, the consensus among Ethiopians opposing Meles and his regime considers the release as a laudable achievement of Ethiopian negotiators.
Let me begin by expelling a misunderstanding: in a previous article, I stated that the desire to humiliate is behind the liberation of the CUD leaders. Several readers reacted to my interpretation with the suggestion that I do not seem to welcome the liberation. Some such reading of my article is anything but accurate, all the more so as I was convinced for quite some time that their continuous imprisonment had lost any meaning. Outside the exposure of their determination not to recognize the kangaroo court, the prisoners were not achieving anything. As dignified as the refusal to recognize was, I had constantly wondered whether the gain was worth the sacrifice.
The continuous imprisonment of CUD leaders would have had a positive outcome if it had led to a deterioration of Meles’s relation with Western governments of the kind entailing the complete cessation of financial aids and diplomatic support to his government. Nothing of the kind happened: after an initial verbal condemnation, the whole drama of the election did not upset for long the business-as-usual approach of Western governments. I don’t know what is required for Ethiopians to understand, once and for all, that national interests, and not what is right, essentially drive nation-states. Haile Selassie made this same mistake when he believed that democratic states will not tolerate the fascist invasion of Ethiopia.
In my previous article, I also indicated that the intent to humiliate reflected the deep and harrowing embarrassment of Meles and his associates following their unexpected defeat in the election. Meles was humiliated in front of the world, he who thought that the Ethiopian masses had nurtured an eternal gratitude to the TPLF for being liberated from the Derg, not to mention the exacting effort he made to appear as a new African leader to Western governments. Alas, now the whole world knows that he is only another dictator in the long list of buffoons parading as heads of state in Africa’s sickening post colonial history.
The sharp depreciation of Meles’s supersized but bleeding ego in his own eyes and that of the world needed some appeasement, which could come only through the attempt to humiliate those who humiliated him. Neither mere imprisonment nor court procedures would give him the much-needed remedy, since in both cases the prisoners would continue to claim their innocence.
What else could wipe out Meles’s deep humiliation but a confession of guilt and a plea for forgiveness? Herein lies the major role of the mediators. For Meles had to make sure at the same time that whatever confession is obtained from the prisoners, it must not seem to be extracted by means of force. Confession obtained by force has no soothing effect on him if only because constraint is devoid of vindicating virtue. By contrast, consent can be inferred both from the process of mediation and the involvement of independent and respected people. Since nobody is openly forcing anybody, the outcome can be construed as the product of free admission. Without free consent, the admission of guilt is not usable for the purpose of rehabilitation.
What this means is clear enough: since only Meles comes out as winner, the mediation was nothing but a scheme used by him to obtain confession of guilt. The involvement of independent and respected people put heavy pressure on the prisoners through the argument that the common good, the prospect of reconciliation alone motivates their effort. How could prisoners who fought for peace and democracy refuse for long the appeal for reconciliation? They would agree to anything rather than reject a goal coinciding with their political agenda of peace and democracy.
What other term than soft coercion can characterize a mediation with such a one-sided result? I have read many comments concerning the release, but I have yet to see what concessions Meles made. Yet, mediation is a two-way street; it results in mutual concessions done for the purpose of achieving a higher common goal.
It could be argued that the mediation saved the prisoners from life imprisonment. This argument has no substance given that the prisoners could have obtained the same result without the mediators, if they had admitted guilt. European or American envoys could have easily broken a similar deal even a year ago.
Shrewdly, Meles encouraged mediation because it is all to his advantage. The direct intervention of Western governments would have further exasperated his humiliation by showing that his government is run, to use his own words, “like a banana republic from Capitol Hill.” His oversensitized ego, quite reminiscent of Mengistu Haile Mariam, would further suffer if the prisoners and the Ethiopian people they represent believed that they owe their liberation to Western pressure. No, if he is to pardon the prisoners, it must not be because of Western governments, but because he yielded to the exhortation of his subordinates. In this way, he recovers his original condescending grandeur while appearing concerned with reconciliation.
read more
http://www.blogger.com/read%20more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
