By Peter Heinlein | Addis Ababa22 February 2010

The Green Revolution that ended food shortages in parts of the world decades ago may be coming to East Africa, bringing the promise of bountiful harvests in a region more often associated with drought and famine. But from the Oromia region of Ethiopia, critics see the project as a neo-colonial land grab.

Farming in Ethiopia is a battle for survival. Peasants using ancient methods are totally dependent on the weather, and on the government, which owns the land and provides fertilizer subsidies. When the rains fail, as they often do, their very survival depends on food aid from abroad.

It has proven to be a recipe for perpetual poverty. In a country where 80 percent of the population works in the farm sector, one in six needs food assistance.

To breathe new life into Ethiopia's stagnant agriculture sector, Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is wooing foreign firms with offers to lease huge tracts of land at rock bottom prices.

"The policy of the government of Ethiopia regarding agricultural land development has always been based on the small-scale farmer," said Meles Zenawi. "But the strategy also included the possibility of the private sector playing a supplementary but vital role."

The offer of cheap land has attracted wide interest, from governments like Saudi Arabia that import most of their food, to multi-nationals like the Indian giant Karuturi Global. At two sprawling farms totaling more than 300,000 hectares, Karuturi earth movers, tractors, and water well drilling rigs are transforming the pastoral landscape.

Critics describe Karuturi as a neo-colonialist or agro-imperialist, grabbing Ethiopia's land at bargain prices and exporting profits and food while Ethiopians go hungry. But owner Ram Karuturi says food grown here will be consumed here.

"What Karuturi is doing is what Africa needs, wants and deserves," said Ram Karuturi. "What we put in is our money into Africa, which nobody else is doing."

Karuturi says his big machinery more than doubles the output of traditional farms, and creates jobs where there were none. Speaking through a translator, 30-year-old Ababu Nagari says the roughly 80 cents a day she earns harvesting maize is changing her life.

"I don't have my own land, so I have no way of feeding my family," said Ababu Nagari. "Now I have work and a little money. I am happy these investors come."

But not everyone is happy. Four hundred people have signed a petition saying they received no compensation after being evicted from land taken over by Karuturi. They say their families have farmed and grazed their animals here for generations. One farmer spoke to VOA on condition of anonymity.

"We are for development of our country, but we cannot develop our country when land is in the hands of the government," he said. "You can work on your land, and all of a sudden, they push you out of your land."

Environmentalists say land already degraded by farming will suffer, and loss of trees will cause an imbalance in the eco-system.

Opposition politicians say the government is giving away land to buy diplomatic support, and that wages paid to farm workers are below the World Bank's poverty threshold.

But Ram Karuturi argues investments like his, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, are revolutionizing African agriculture.

"The Green Revolution missed this continent 20 years ago," he said. "There are not more than 1,000 tractors in private hands in this country. And for a country of 80 million people and 120 million hectares, that's a tragic situation."

So is Africa witnessing its Green Revolution, or simply a neo-imperialist land grab? Ethiopia is betting that the World Bank is right when it says investing in agriculture is one of the most effective ways to speed economic development in Africa.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/africa/east/Foreign-Agro-Firms-Scoop-Up-Ethiopian-Farmland--84973402.html

===========================

Concern About Human Rights As Ethiopia Prepares For Elections

Ethiopians go to polls next year amidst concerns about human rights abuses.

Douglas Mpuga | Washington, DC21 November 2009

As Ethiopians prepare for elections next year some in the opposition say a credible election is impossible without urgent political reforms.

The Solidarity Committee for Ethiopian Political Prisoners Canada (SOCEPP-Can), an Ethiopian human rights group, this week held a one-day meeting in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, to discuss human rights issues in Ethiopia and the 2010 elections. The elections are slated for May 23 1010.

Aklilu Wendaferew, the chairman of the group, told VOA from Ottawa that the political and human rights situation in Ethiopia is cause for worry. “The political space has been narrowing since the election in 2005,” he said, “the government passed an NGO [non – governmental organization] law that is very restrictive of civil society and prohibits any human rights activity.”

“The free press in Ethiopia has been decimated, he noted, “many independent journalists have been forced into exile; some are forced to self censor.”

Wendaferew added that the [political] opposition is completely restricted and there are violation human rights.

Commenting on the recent conviction of 27 Ethiopians accused of conspiring to create public havoc in an attempt to bring down Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s government, Wendaferew dismissed their trial as ridiculous. “The Ethiopian government has used the court system to push its agenda and to criminalize any dissent in the country.”

He said these are political problems that require political solutions. He also pointed out that “we have heard that some of these people were tortured in detention. This is against international law. Torture is a serious crime.”

Wendaferew said SOCEPP-Can will continue to speak out against human rights abuses in Ethiopia and urged the government to stop such abuses.

He said given what has happened since the last election, it is impossible to hold a free and fair election. “Given the situation [prevailing] now I do not believe there can be a free and fair election in Ethiopia.”

“If this government is serious about holding a free and fair elections there are certain things that must be done,’ Wendaferew said.

He urged the government to open the political space, free political detainees, negotiate with all opposition and have comprehensive discussions about the rule of law and human rights.

Ethiopia's polls on May 23, 2010 will be the first since 2005 when disputed election results sparked violence that claimed some 200 lives.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Human-Rights-Ethiopiar-Elections-2009-11-21-70700067.html

========================

Oromo: To Unlock The Gridlock, Take Independence As The Core-Kaayyoo!

One article titled as "the dreadful mess of negation of negation in Oromo politics: when will it end?" was puplished on the website Gadaa.com. Then the website asked a legitimate question: "the Oromo national liberation movement in a self-imposed gridlock, how can Oromo movement unlock this gridlock?" At the same time the website showed us a very discriptive picture of a trafic jam as an illustration for the gridlock. What a challenging question from Gadaa.com? What a confusing article from Gumaa Guddaa, the author of the article? Should I take time to respond to the two? I just try here in short!

I read the article from Gumaa Guddaa and his "thesis", i.e only independent Oromia as a kaayyoo-ganamaa. It is almost the antithesis to my hitherto opinions regarding kaayyoo-Oromo (One kaayyoo with three terms) which I do consider as "the current thesis or synthesis" of Oromo liberation movement. It is not bad that he did stress the necessity of walabummaa Oromia (forging an independent democratic republic of Oromia). The problem I saw in his assertion was that he does think with “parallel mind frame work” on the contrary to my line of thinking, which is a “series frame work”. Parallel and series here are the metaphors taken from the two kinds of electrical circuits (parallel circuit or series circuit). He is the classical example of those who had the hitherto “parallel way” of thinking, which was applied by many members of Oromo polity, including those who produced conflicts, where actually there is no conflict. That is why he ended up accusing and blaming Oromo nationalists, who do emphasize the other two terms of the kaayyoo-Oromo, other than the independence-term as a kaayyoo. According to his “parallel frame work”, the following three kaayyoos (three terms of ONE kaayyoo) are in an irreconcilable conflict for he and his likes think that the following three terms of the kaayyoo-Oromo lead us from the status quo to three different directions:

- OFC's/MEDREK’s plan to forge the true Oromian autonomy in a federated democratic Ethiopia

- ULFO’s/OLF-QC’s "kaayyoo-ganamaa" to establish independent gadaa republic of Oromia

- AFD’s/OLF-SG’s vision to achieve self-determination of Oromo people with the end-kaayyoo of fostering a union of independent nations in the region, be it in a form of the SMALLER Ethiopia (excluding our colonizer Abyssinia), in a form of the existing current Ethiopia i.e including all free nations in the empire or in a form of GREATER Ethiopia, including even neighbour nations in the Horn, such as Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia.

If we think with “parallel frame of mind” like Gumaa Guddaa, we just end up to think that these three terms of the kaayyoo are exclusive to each other so that the conflict between the groups fighting for these terms of the kayyoo respectively is already programmed. Nowadays there are two groups of people in the empire who do want to convince and influence us so that we do start to think in this frame-work. Some do it unkowingly, like Gumaa Guddaa seems to do here and the others do it knowingly to exploit this “conflicting situation” in order to sow a further discord among these three groups of Oromo nationalists. Specially it is good to know that Weyane cadres do love this frame of thinking for they know how effective it is when applied to devide Oromo nationalists in the camp of Oromo liberation.

I believe, the antithesis to the unconstructive frame of thinking revealed in the article of Gumaa Guddaa is my way of thinking in a form of a “series frame of mind”. According to my line of thinking, the above three terms of the kaayyoo are not contradictory, but complementary, to each other. Eventhough ethiopianist Oromos’ kaayyoo doesn’t include the right of Oromia to exist as an independent country at all, the merits like justice, democracy and individual freedom for which the members of the Ethiopianist Oromo parties do struggle are not against our liberation movement. It seems that is why for example UDJ, the party in which most of the Ethiopianist Oromos are organized, is now part of MEDREK.

Coming to the other three important kaayyoos, which he tried to present as if they are the thesis, anti-thesis and the synthesis to each other, those which my line of thinking put them in a series circuit for they are three terms of the same only ONE kaayyoo-Oromo, the terms which we can achieve one after another by struggling together, I think MEDREK’s kaayyoo is the I-kaayyoo (immediate/short-term), OLF-QC/ULFO’s kaayyoo is the M-kaayyoo (middle term) and OLF-SG's/AFD’s kaayyoo is the E-kaayyoo (end/long-term). I believe these three terms of the only one kaayyoo are supported by most of the Oromo nationalists.

But Gadaa.com's poll project in relation to the article from Gumaa Guddaa seems to be misleading. The question raised was, ”what is the Oromo cause for you?” and of course that is not bad.

Neverthless, the alternative answers given there as listed below are not actually exclusive options, among which we should choose. They are complemantary options, which we can have at different situations and which we do support at different steps of our liberation journey. The alternatives given as the answer in the poll were:

- liberating Oromia to form a union of free nations in the Horn of Africa (combination of sovereign Oromia & self-rule)

- liberating Oromia to form an independent sovereign country (Republic of Oromia)

- establishing the self-rule of Oromia in a democratically federated Ethiopia

- winning the class struggle first and foremost, and last

Gadaa.com would have asked better, e.g the question like: “what should be the end-kaayyoo or end-cause” of Oromo people for you? Then we can know how many people really want to have as their end-kaayyoo the "only winning class struggle”, or the "only self-rule of Oromia” or the "only republic of Oromia”, instead of pushing step by step towards the “union of independent nations in the Horn”, which surely will be the end-goal of all the citizens and the nations in the future in this globalized world, where we do now see that even the whole of Africa is trying to come together to forge the African federation.

According to Gumaa Guddaa's article and according to the diagram added from Gadaa.com, in short, the thesis of Oromo liberation movement is independence (liberation), the antithesis is federation and the synthesis is self-determination (referendum). But, we could ask: where is the contradiction between these three concepts? Oromo liberation movement is the movement for self-determination to decide on our own future destiny. Then we can all together fight to achieve national liberty to be in a position to excercise our right for referendum, after which we can vote on the issue: independent Oromia within Ethiopian union vs independent Oromia without Ethiopian union (Ethiopia being either a union of only oppressed nations excluding Abyssinia, or inclusive of the only nations in the present Ethiopian geography or including all nations in the Horn of Africa). Federation can be a mid-goal leading us to the liberation as an end-goal. Why do then Gumaa Guddaa and his likes try to creat a conflict among Oromo nationalists, where actually there is no viable conflict?

According to the actual result of the poll in Gadaa.com, the kaayyoo of "only winning class struggle” is not the option for Oromo people and the kaayyoo of "only self-rule in a federation” seems to be a transitional solution, but can not be a prefered part of the referendum. The "referendum" in the website is still going on as it would be expected between the two concepts: the kaayyoo of “independent Oromian republic without a necessary union” and the kaayyoo of “independent Oromia within a future union of liberated nations in the region”. It seems to be a nice referendum indeed, but is the timing OK, to argue now on this two possible end-goals? Is this not what our enemies do want, that we do fight on them now instead of fighting together against our enemy for our common national liberty, first to come to the position of making referendum, then to leave the decision for the Oromo people and try to live according to the result of the public verdict? I personally do accept and respect the position of Gumaa Guddaa and that of others to persue and realize their goal, which is the “gadaa republic of Oromia without any possible union” established. But the Oromian unionists do have also their God-given right to advocate for an “independent Oromia within a union of independent nations”. To see which of the two would be our final destination, let’s learn to leave the decision for the public at large when the right time comes for a democratic referendum to take place.

The very interesting message from the diagram of Gadaa.com is the attempt to show that Ethiopian nationalism = Oromian nationalism in the “synthesis” part of the diagram. Is this right/wrong? Or is it conditional? For Oromo nationalists who are fighting for the “only isolated independence of Oromia”, it is principally wrong. For those who do have federation as their end-goal, it is absolutely right. For the Oromian unionists, I am sure it is only conditionally false/right. It can be right as long as the Ethiopiansts also can accept and respect Oromo nationalism. After all, Oromo nationalism is national issue, whereas Ethiopian nationalism is regional issue. It is just like being Italian and European at the same time. Being Italian is national issue, whereas being European is regional issue. If it is in this sense of the unionists, then Oromian nationalism is not in contradiction with Ethiopian nationalism. We need to differentiate the Ethiopian nationalism according to the unitarist Habesha elites from this form of Oromian unionists’s version of Ethiopian nationalism.

Another ilustration was an attempt to show as if the democratization of Ethiopia = liberation of Oromia. Is this fact or fiction? It can be fact only if we take democratization of Ethiopia as a MEANS to the liberation of Oromia, which is an END. Whether this means will be effective to lead us to the required end or not is another question. We can raise similar question regarding armed struggle, whether it is more effective than the democratization way to come to our goal. Otherwise democratization of Ethiopia as a goal, disregarding liberation of Oromia, the same view to that of the Ethiopianist Oromos in the parties like UDJ, is not what Oromo nationalists should accept. Oromian unionists look at the democratization of Ethiopia (if the democratization at all really can take place) as a possible good tool to help us move to our kaayyoo, on the contrary to the view of the ethiopianist Oromos.

Further more, it is really good to differentiate and to try to understand the position of the ethiopianist/unitatrist Oromos like those in AEUP and EDP, the position of the federalist Oromos like those in OFC/MEDREK, the position of the liberator/“secessionist” Oromos like those in OLF-QC/ULFO and the position of unionist Oromos rallying behind OLF-SG/AFD. But for God’s sake, where is the contradiction and why should there be an animosity between them, as far as all of them do accept and respect the future public verdict of Oromo people at large, when we get a chance to vote on their different options or on their different end-goals (if at all they do have different end-goals)? The question we need to answer is, how should we approach and manage the parties? Here is my suggestion, taking the present Ethiopian political spectrum in to consideration:

- let's ignore, but always check, the unitarists like AEUP and EDP

- let's fight unconditionally against the hegemonist TPLF and it’s slave OPDO

- let's accept and support the federalists like OFC/MEDREK to move one step forward in our liberation journey; we know that Oromo nationalists did opt to take this term of the kaayyoo as their own "end-goal" based on the current objective reality in the empire.

- let's respect and take the kaayyoo of the liberators like OLF-QC/ULFO as a CORE-kayyoo to move two steps forward; this group used to say the spade is spade, even if it does not sound deplomatic.

- let's look at the unionists like OLF-SG/AFD as farsighted, who are ready to move beyond only achieving national Oromian independence (the CORE-kayyoo) to a regional union of independent nations for a common benefit; this view is very mature and deplomatic without neglecting the CORE-kaayyoo.

Then I do hope that we will come slowly, but surely to the position of clarity as far as the Oromo cause, Oromo-Kaayyoo or the Oromo question is concerned. The metaphor I brought here, puting the different terms of Kaayyoo-Oromo in a form of either “parallel circuit” or “series circuit” can make immense difference in our way of thinking and may make big effect on our contribution to Oromo liberation movement. Puting the three terms of the kaayyoo (federation, independence and union of independent nations) in a “parallel circuit” makes the three terms of the Kaayoo to be seen as if they are very contradictory goals to each other from which we must choose one. Puting them in a “series circuit" as if we can achieve them one after another (first achieve the federation, then an independence and then further a union if we want), makes it clear, so we can see that there is no conflict between the three terms of the only ONE kaayyoo. I hope in due time all of the concerned Oromo nationalists will start to think in this form of “series frame work” instead of thinking in the “parallel frame work”. It is also good to remember here again the metaphor I used previously (liberation journey from Djibouti = garbummaa -----through Diredhawa = federation -----and through Adaama = independence -----to Finfinne = union of independent nations). These two metaphors (electric circuit and train journey) may work a wonder to heal the percieved and/or real conflict produced and transimitted by those thinking with the “parallel frame work” intentionally or unintentionally. For further clarity, I would like to put my own version of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis of the hitherto effective political concepts in short as follows:

- Thesis (”kaayyoo-ganamaa”): unconditional and exclusive independent republic of Oromia (OLF-QC’s/ULFO’s position)

- Antithesis: unconditional and only unitary Ethiopia (ethiopianist Oromos’ position like those in AEUP and EDP)

- Synthesis: kaayyoo-Oromo with its three terms (short-term is federation, OFC’s/MEDREK’s position; middle-term is independence, OLF-QC’s/ULFO’s position; and the long-term is a union of independent nations, OLF-SG’s/AFD’S position)

Now it will be the good time for all Oromo nationalists to agree on accepting the above mentioned synthesis part of our liberation movement as our common ground, rather than opting to still cry about the possibility of rallying only behind the "kaayyoo-ganamaa" and with this to continously lament and confuse the Oromo mass. So our brother Gumaa guddaa needs to come to mental clarity himself instead of just confusing others with his own confusion about the kaayyoo of Oromo liberation movement.

Otherwise the poll in Gadaa.com is designed based on the thinking with “parallel frame work”, so that we are all obliged to choose between the federation, independence and the union as the only Oromo cause. Actually most of the Oromo nationalists seem to support all the three terms of the kaayyoo as our short-term, middle-term and long-term goals respectively, when we do think in a “series frame work”. It is not bad to observe in the poll that the majority of the voters are concentrating on and voting for the "independent republic of Oromia" as a preferable Oromo cause, which I also do think is the CORE and the very secure form of our sovereignity. We know that federation is only the temporary solution and of course a union of independent nations will happen only after the securing of our independence, when we give our verdict based on our free will to achieve a better benefit in the future, that is why such a union is a long-term project. The only bad thing is, when we start to look at these three terms of our kaayyoo as if they are contradictory to each other, which is actually the way of thinking we do observe in the article written by Obbo Gumaa Guddaa. Otherwise it is good to know and to keep in mind that nowadays there are four groups of Oromo politicians:

- ethiopianist/unitarist Oromos, who do still support the project of ONE Ethiopia, disregarding the existence of Oromia as a country (e.g Oromo of AEUP and EDP)

- federailst Oromos, who do have an autonomous Oromia in a federated democratic Ethiopia as their end-goal of struggle (e.g Oromo of OFC/MEDREK)

- liberator Oromos, who do struggle for the CORE-kayyoo, an independent republic of Oromia, as their end-goal (e.g Oromo of OLF-QC/ULFO)

- unionist Oromos, who do struggle for a union of independent nations in the region as their end-goal, based on the Oromo public verdict (e.g OLF-SG/AFD)

But the only two questions yet to be answered are:
- are there really many Oromos who want to limit the only ONE Oromo-kaayyoo to the "only unitary Ethiopia", to the "only federal Ethiopia" or to the "only independent Oromia"?
- are really the above mentioned ethiopianist Oromos, federalist Oromos and liberator Oromos against the NOBLE cause of the unionists?

Last but not least, the picture of the cars in gridlock (the Oromo national liberation movement in self-imposed gridlock) shown on the front page of Gadaa.com is very wonderful picture. It describes well the chaotic situation of our real and current political movement. It made me to feel and to be really surprised by thinking how passive we are at least not to discuss the issue to get out of the gridlock. May Waaqayyoo help us at least to talk and to write, even if we do lack a sort of stamina to act and to behave in order to promote Oromo liberation movement. Finally I would like to say that kaayyoo-Oromo is in Short: only ONE kaayyoo-Oromo with three terms, i.e a short-term to achieve federation——-a mid-term to forge INDEPENDENCE (the CORE-kaayyoo)———and a long-term to foster a union of independent nations. The emphasis here in the kaayyoo is on walabuummaa Oromia (independence), for it is the CORE of the Kaayyoo. Federation is only the mid-goal to the CORE-Kaayyoo. Union is the post-CORE-Kaayyoo arrangement for the sake of a possible mutual benefit, based on the future Oromo public verdict. So, we need to have no illusion and no confusion on the only ONE kaayyoo-Oromo. I believe, hope and love to see that this will be the beginning of our effort to get out of the self-imposed-gridlock! Let Rabbii/Waaqayyoo bless and help us!

Galatooma!!
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18216