Save The Ogaden – SaveOgaden.Org

Silent Cry Documentary documents the stories from refugees of the Ogaden region of East Africa who find shelter in Kenya’s Refugee camps, escaping the brutal and torturous Ethiopian military.

A group of young British students, in search for a story, flew far into East Africa where they discovered the documentary film ‘Silent Cry’. The film is based on the lives of families and their struggles at IFO refugee camp in Northern Kenya.

Based in the heart of East Africa, the story was discovered after the students met a Taxi driver in Nairobi , Kenya. He shared with them his personal tragedy about the displacing of his family. Intrigued by what they had heard and being involved in media studies they then made a trip to IFO, which is the destination located for the survivors of devastating circumstances. Nothing had prepared the team for the circumstances they were to come across. Poverty, neglect and extreme human suffering was widespread. People here were perishing by the hundreds with no forms of medical care or  adequate nutrition to survive the searing heat of the camp and the neglect they were suffering. Almost 280,000 people were squeezed into a space designed for 90,000, any one who has seen these dire situations will agree, it was time the world noticed thier plight.

You can visit Silent Cry Group at www.SilentCry.co.uk

Ogaden Boy Burned

If the neutral left is really neutral, why does it keep coming down hard on the West’s official enemies while ignoring the West’s henchmen?

By Stephen Gowans

Many left activists and progressives claim to be equally opposed to oppression, whether practiced by the friends of imperialist powers or their enemies, but are virtually silent on the well documented oppressions of such US client states as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia, while exhibiting an uncritical zeal in denouncing the enemies of Anglo-American imperialism, often for crimes that have been exaggerated or invented to be used as pretexts for Western intervention and fulfillment of imperialist goals.

There is no better illustration of this tendency to profess principled neutrality while regularly exhibiting a pro-imperialist bias, than the current obsession with the alleged genocide in Darfur and the claims of unjustified political oppression in Zimbabwe, while a virtually unremarked series of crimes and oppressions is carried out by the US and British client government of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia.

In an anti-guerilla war conducted in the country’s Ogaden region, “Ethiopian troops are burning villages, raping women and killing civilians as part of a systematic campaign to drive them from their homes.” Refugees say dozens of villages have been destroyed and have “accused the Ethiopian government of forcibly starving its own people by preventing food convoys reaching villages and destroying crops and livestock.”*

“A former Ethiopian soldier who defected from the army said how he had been ordered to burn villages and kill all their inhabitants. He said the Ethiopian air force would bomb a village before a unit of ground troops followed, firing indiscriminately at civilians. ‘Men, women, children – we killed them all,’ he said.”

The little-known conflict in Ogaden parallels the more widely known war in Darfur. The conflict began when rebels killed scores of Ethiopian guards and Chinese employees at a Chinese-run oil field. The government replied with a harsh crackdown.

“Human rights investigators are gathering evidence of widespread use of rape, with women reporting gang-rapes by up to a dozen soldiers. In some villages, men have been abducted at night, their bodies dumped in the village the next morning.

“While in Darfur, aid agencies have been able to establish camps and provide humanitarian support, they have been blocked from setting up operations in the Ogaden. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been thrown out and Medicins Sans Frontieres has also been prevented from working. Journalists trying to enter have also been banned – those that have tried have been promptly arrested.”

But while neutral leftists have worked themselves into a state of high moral dudgeon over Sudan’s counter-insurgency in Darfur, which “has been described by the US as ‘genocide’ and by the UN as ‘crimes against humanity’”, they have been virtually silent on Ethiopia, a recipient of US and British military and humanitarian aid.

“America’s top official on African affairs, assistant secretary of state, Jendayi Frazer, visited one town in the Ogaden last month.

“On her return to Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, she criticized the rebels and said the reports of military abuses were merely allegations. ‘We urge any and every government to respect human rights and to try to avoid civilian casualties but that’s difficult in dealing with an insurgency,’ she said.”

The West’s official enemies are never allowed the same latitude in dealing with their own (often US and British financed and instigated) insurgencies – a double standard backed by neutral leftists through their voluble condemnations of the anti-insurgency efforts of official enemies and comparative silence on those of Western client states.

“The US provides some $283m (£140m) in military and humanitarian aid to Ethiopia and has trained its military – one of the largest and strongest in Africa.”

Compare Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe with Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. For trying to invest Zimbabwean independence with real content (land reform and indigenization of the economy), Mugabe has been calumniated by British and US officials and the Western media as a strongman who will do anything to stay in power, from stealing elections to repressing the opposition. The elections Mugabe was said to have stolen were endorsed by the South African Development Community, an organization of neighboring states, and the opposition operates freely, despite being openly backed and financed by Western powers in pursuit of a regime-change, anti-independence agenda.

For doing the West’s bidding in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia’s Meles is showered with US and British aid and was handpicked by Tony Blair to sit on Britain’s Commission for Africa, to lead the “African renaissance.” Neutral leftists say little about “the British Government’s – and the West’s – favorite African leader”, channeling their energies instead into calling on the US to intervene militarily in Darfur and in competing to see who can exercise the greatest stridency in denouncing the Mugabe government (contributing to the program of ushering Mugabe and his pro-independence policies out and the MDC and its pro-Western dependence policies in.) Somehow, the end result of all this is to put the West more firmly in control of Africa.

And yet the political repressions of which Mugabe is accused are practiced ardently by Meles. Indeed, even if every charge leveled against Mugabe were true (and most are not), he would still be an angel against Meles.

Following Ethiopia’s May 2005 general election, which the opposition claimed was rigged, “security forces opened fire on protesters, killing 193 people.” Thousands of opposition supporters and leaders were rounded up and thrown in jail.

“More than 100 opposition leaders were put on trial for treason while the police crackdown intensified. Text messages, which had been used to organize the demonstrations in 2005, were banned.”

The state asked that the death penalty be imposed on 38 opposition leaders, including the founder of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, a former UN war crimes prosecutor and the mayor-elect of Addis Ababa. The court rejected the prosecution’s recommendation, but sentenced the opposition leaders to life imprisonment. They were later freed, but only after the US intervened.

“Britain still gives Ethiopia £130m in humanitarian aid each year – more than any other African country,” while carrying out an unremitting campaign of demonization against Robert Mugabe and blocking Zimbabwe’s access to international credit.

How it is it that Meles, who has carried out much graver crimes than any Mugabe has been accused of, is showered with honors and humanitarian aid, while Mugabe is treated as Africa’s version of Hitler and his country is subjected to a campaign of economic warfare?

The answer lies in the reality that Meles acts as Washington’s attack dog in the Horn of Africa, invading Somalia to put down a pro-independence government, while Mugabe pursues an independent foreign policy and implements reforms to give Zimbabwean independence meaningful content.

How is that many left activists and progressives, though professing neutrality, channel much of their energy into campaigns deploring the official enemies of Anglo-American imperialism, while remaining virtually silent on oppressions carried out by US and British client states?

The answer has much to the do with the media and how left activists and progressives react to it. The news media are structured to report on what state officials say and do. To garner support for their policies, state officials make public statements on issues they want to draw public attention to, while steering clear of events they prefer remain unnoticed. Because Western state officials make frequent references to Zimbabwe, and few, if any, to Ethiopia, dozens of media news stories appear on Zimbabwe for every one that appears on Ethiopia. In this way, state officials, working through the media, are able to establish a public agenda, not only for the media but for the neutral left to follow – one which places Mugabe scores of rungs ahead of Meles, and Darfur much higher than Ogaden. Left activists and progressives talk about Mugabe and Darfur because the media do and the media do because Western state officials do. But neutral leftists hardly ever talk about Meles and Ogaden because the media hardly do, and the media hardly do because Western state officials almost never do (and don’t want to.) The result is that while professing neutrality, many left activists and progressives have been unwittingly recruited into agendas set in Washington and London.

These are the conditions that, in part, lead the neutral left to channel considerable energy into denouncing the official enemies of Western governments, while spending little time talking about or campaigning against oppressive regimes that receive Western aid and support. Neutral leftists are quick to denounce the military government of Myanmar (an official enemy) for its crackdown on a religious group, while saying virtually nothing about the military government of Pakistan (a client state) for an equally bloody crackdown on a religious group. Neutral leftists are acutely sensitive to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur (officially condemned), while saying virtually nothing about the much larger humanitarian crisis in Iraq (officially ignored) or the humanitarian crisis in Ogaden (also officially ignored.) Neutral leftists say virtually nothing about Meles Zenawi, a strongman accused of rigging elections who threatens political opponents with the death penalty, has invaded another country, and carries out crimes against humanity within his own borders (and is supported by the West) while spitting out contempt for Robert Mugabe, who has done none of these things (but isn’t supported by the West).

In all it does, despite professions of neutrality, the neutral left is pro-imperialist, not neutral. The moment its members devote half as much energy to railing against the governments of Egypt, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey as they do against Zimbabwe, the Taliban, north Korea, Belarus and Iran, will be the moment their claims to support neither imperialism nor its official enemies unconditionally become something more substantial than deceptive rhetoric.

* All quotes from Steve Bloomfield, “Ethiopia’s ‘own Darfur’ as villagers flee government-backed violence,” The Independent, October 17, 2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article3067244.ece

 Twenty-five years ago, the world was sickened when pictures of starving children flashed across their television screens each night. Extreme famine, drought, and war hit Ethiopia like a ton of bricks and the victims were the nation’s most vulnerable. Ethiopia was riddled by a deadly combination of war and apathy. And while many will never forget the images from 1984, this scene has continued to replay itself over the years.

Today, drought and violence threaten this region yet again. The Horn of Africa, including the countries of Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia, has received very little rainfall this past year. In Ethiopia, over eighty percent of the population lives off the land. Any change in climate has a devastating effect on the food supply, and leaves the herders and farmers instantly vulnerable to famine. Kenya and Somalia face the same challenges as well, which makes regional stability a fantastical proposition. Shortages in food supply can lead to violence between communities as men and women fight for the well-being of their families. Experts have warned for years that unless the international community undertakes a serious long term strategy to keep food supplies sustainable, cycles of violence will continue in the Horn of Africa.

But even with this knowledge, the U.S. relationship toward the Horn of Africa has barely changed in twenty years. In 1984, our policy was more geared toward containing communism than saving lives. The U.S. government assisted the most conservative elites within the Horn of Africa, many times ignoring the will or the needs of the people. As civil war waged in Ethiopia, we showed more concern for who was fighting communism than who was fighting hunger.

Fast forward to 2009. In as much as the Obama Administration says the “war on terrorism” and its policies are over, that message has not extended to our defense posture in Africa. AFRICOM, the new U.S. military command structure, is actively concerned with bolstering the military power in this region. Certainly, there is some cause for concern. Extremism is bred in places were people are most vulnerable to hunger, disease and oppression, and the bombings in Somalia last year may have killed a few with ties to terrorism, but the cost of those military operations could have built infrastructure rather than destroyed it. Money for bombers could have sewn crops rather than destroyed them. More disturbingly, we have too often turned a blind eye to how dollars marked for aid are spent, provided the governments in these countries show cooperation with our military interests. Over the years, we have provided millions of dollars in military aid to Ethiopia and Kenya, yet have been slow to criticize those governments when they have allied themselves, at least in word if not in deed, with our military. We see the same in Ethiopia over the issue of the Ogaden region, where thousands have died each year from hunger and neglect.

We can do better and more. As a country, the United States professes compassion and democratic values but so often the effects of our international policies retard the ability for democracy to flourish. It is not an accident that, in many countries, famine is allowed to persist so that those populations cannot pose opposition to ruling parties or leaders. We must consider the ramifications of providing millions of dollars of military aid without any consideration to the basic needs of the recipient country’s citizens.

This recent famine gives the Obama Administration an opportunity to redefine our mission in Africa to one that takes into account the long term effects of our short term military solutions. It allows the Obama Administration to show compassion to starving people and take responsibility for our role in the region. Utilizing a blueprint based on aid, assistance and self-determination instead of militarism can redefine the U.S. role in the Horn of Africa, can save lives and actually encourage real democracy.

Nicole C. Lee is the Executive Director of TransAfrica Forum.

Introduction

During the Weekend of November 18-21, 2010, members of the Institute for Horn of Africa Studies and Affairs (IHASA) took part the 53rd African Studies Association (ASA) with the overarching theme of “African Diaspora and Diasporas in Africa.” that was held at the lush and swanky Westin hotel, San Francisco.  Large Sudanese, Ethiopia, and Kenyan contingents, and a small number of Somali participants were observed.

As customary to ASA participants, a session by the pre-eminent scholar Ali Mazrui comes as a must- to-attend, and more so this year when, Mazrui was reading his treatise about the influence of India and China in contemporary Sub Sahara Africa.  Beyond the cultural influence that both countries have on Africa, the possibility of Chinese vs. Indian rivalry on the Horn, especially in light of the insatiable appetite of these emerging powers for the Horn of Africa region’s resources, is, if not worrisome, captivating.  The Qalub oil (the Ogaden basin) and natural gas in the Somali Regional State in particular comes to mind. What does this say about America?  If China gets access to the Qalub oil fields, does it represent the erosion of the over 100-years-old US influence in the region? Or is it a sign of the fall of US emperial might, as predicted by Paul Kennedy in his book “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers”?

As a research-based advocacy institute, whose headquarter is based in San Diego , IHASA reflects the views of the bourgeoning Somali speaking and other Diaspora communities from the Horn of Africa region.  As such, the conference and its 53rd annual theme on “African Diaspora” had much relevance to the goals and objective of IHASA.  Our follow participants included Faisal Roble, a Senior Researcher who is also the editor-in-chief of the California-based Wardheernews.com, and Fowsia Abdulkadir, also a Senior Researcher at IHASA.

Ethnic conflict in the Horn and US Engagement

Fowsia Abdulkadir presented a paper to a panel called: Social Divisions in African Polities. Her paper, The Dark-Side of Ethnic Federalism: the Case of the Somali Region in Ethiopia tackled the issue of ethnic federalism and its dispensation.  According to Ms. Abdulkadir, proponents of Ethnic federalism argue ethnic federalism is one way to transform Ethiopia while uniting its diverse peoples, and safeguarding its territorial integrity. In other words, the move towards an ethnic-based federalism was to ensure that Ethiopia won’t be consumed with ethnic revolt. Ethiopia has been at cross roads ever since it launched its ethnic federalism. There are inherent challenges in transforming any society and bringing about meaningful economic, political and social change, and Ethiopia is no exception. However, in the context of Ethiopia, there are additional complexities of protracted ethnic-based conflicts which plagued this country. These protracted ethnic-based conflicts are the result of some coercive processes that successive Ethiopia regimes employed in ruling the citizens of this country.

Ms. Abdulkadir argued that Ethiopia provides numerous examples and historical trajectory of rulers and governments who established very strong centralized governments, to the extent that it produced many large ethnically based resistance movements. The current regime has its origins in an ethnic-based resistance movements (The Tigrian People’s Liberation Front), which has rebelled against Amhara hegemony.

Faisal Roble participated in the highly watched Roundtable: Reflections and Ruminations on the Horn: Round Three, with the following participants.  The panel was chaired by the Somali historian Said Samatar of Rutgers University, Newark Campus, with a robust participation by Ed Keller, University of California, Los Angeles, Faisal Roble, Wardheernews,  Mohammed H. Ali, Georgia State University, Assefa Mehretu, Michigan State University, and Alemseged Abbay, Frostburg State University.

The discourse of the panelists focused on the historical and political manifestations of the nationality question in Ethiopia and its impacts on regional stability. Professor Edmond Keller, a re-known scholar in the affairs of the Horn, and a keen observer of ethnic politics in Ethiopia, presented a critical and historical evaluation of elections in the last few years in the Somali region under Ethiopian.  According to Keller, these elections by far constitute staged elections whose results are manufactured wins for the Somali Peoples Democratic Party (SPDP).  Keller argued that for a country to claim “democracy,” or “transition to democracy,” there are more to it than staging elections whose results are predictable.  He contrasted the last election the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) participated (freer and fairer), in which the front commanded a substantial victory by a margin of over 68% of the total votes of that year, against the last two elections which the Ethiopian Peoples Liberation Front (EPRDF) “manipulated outcomes.”  Present day insurgency of the ONLF for the secession of that region and for the preservation of the vastly un-exploited resources is partly in reaction to the absence of free and fair elections.  In his conclusion, he called upon the State Department for more engagement of both sides to the conflict.

Assefa Mehretu, an economic geographer, mainly attacked the Tigrian Peoples Liberation Front (TFPL) domination of the country’s politics and its resources.  He vehemently assaulted the concept of “Killil” or regional governments, an administrative concept, that as Mehretu argued had “ended up dividing the once united Ethiopian family” into tribal regions, while as the same time doing away with the naturally aggregated regions, or “Kifle Hagar.” There were 14 “Kifle Hagar” during the late Emperor Haile Selassie into which the country’s administrative units were organized.  He likened present day “Killil” with “regions of containment,” like those of the German camps where Jews were contained.

Since the TPLF overthrew the Dergue regime, it amalgamated a transitional charter, whose provisions for the first time recognized the existence of ethnic groups in Ethiopia and as such divided the country into ethnic-based administrative regions. Contrary to the one-party rule, the charter enacted in 1991 envisioned a multi-party ethnic based federal system of government.  It is this new reorganization of the country (dividing, if you will) that Mehretu considers a step towards the dismantling of the Ethiopian nation.  Some members of the panel, including Roble, adversely reacted to Mehretu’s thesis.

Alam Saged Abbay added to the discourse a new and revolutionary dimension, and ably debated on the concept of whether Ethiopia, given the sheer size of the number of languages, needs and must adopt what he called a “lingua frank” so that the elites of the country can easily communicate with ease.  He likened the validity of his thesis to the successful expansion and positive reception the English language is receiving from many corners of the world.

The twin and weighty presentations of Faisal Roble and Mohammed Hassan, an Oromo Scholar, focused on the intertwined relationship between colonial subjugations of the Somalis and Oromos, two communities who are geographically and socio-culturally intimate with each other through the centuries of Abyssinia domination, and human rights abuses.  Dr. Hassan narrated the historical injustices successive Abyssinian rulers meted and continue to do so against the most numerous Oromo nationality.  His analysis about the plight of the Oromos was historical and sociological in nature.

Roble did not mince at the opportunity to underscore the similarities between present day and past atrocities meted against Somalis and the perpetuation of abuses.  He has argued that, when all things are put together (massive civilian arrests without habeas corpus, the 2007 total blockade the TPLF imposed on the Ogaden region, throat slitting as a means of intimidation, the burning of villages captured by Western satellites, the looting and rapping of women), the present regime of Ethiopia is committing as much human rights abuses as previous regimes.  He weighed these abuses against the “food for security” aid that Ethiopia receives from the United States of America to the tune of $600 million. (The total aid the West dispenses to the Meles regime amounts to over $3 billion dollars annually.)

Moreover, Roble plausibly argued that the region’s conflict would worsen if and when Ethiopia tries to exploit the Qalub oil, especially as Chinese and the Ethiopian governments’ rapprochement worms up.  In that connection, Roble loudly questioned whether recent peace accord between the Ethiopian government and a small faction run by Engineer Macow and United Western Somali Liberation Front with would ameliorate the conflict between the armed ONLF faction and the Meles government.  Both Roble and Keller called for a more serious diplomatic engagement by the American government.  One of the most diplomatically interesting exchanges took place between Roble and a representative from the US Command Center, and together they inquired about the looming danger that can blanket the region if China decides to bank-roll the Ethiopian government to undertake its Qalub project and to what degree that can escalate conflict in the Horn.

Concluding Remarks

Eying the prospective secessionist outcome of Southern Sudan, the Ogaden National Liberation Front with its strong and committed fighters is threatening to fiercely engaging the oversized Ethiopian army.  The combined fuel of resources exploitation and the political aspirations of the Somalis in Ethiopia is a worrisome lethal and potential time bomb that could exacerbate the already fragile conditions of the Horn of Africa region. If left unchecked, once again the entire region can be shadowed by what Robert Ferrell 30 years ago called “war clouds in the Horn,” thus plunging it back into an era of a renewed conflict.  Without robust face-to-face internationally sanctioned talks between the belligerent parties, political crises and human rights abuses are looming large.
Institute for Horn of Africa Studies
San Diego, Ca
Contact info: www.ihasa.org

____________________________
Institute for Horn of Africa Studies and Affairs is a national nonprofit organization whose mission is to document, research, analyze, publish and disseminate information on the political and socio-economic justice issues affecting the people in the Horn of Africa and in the Diaspora community. IHASA promotes peace, justice, equality, development and supports policies and actions that contribute to the advancement of good governance and the elimination of conflicts in the Horn of Africa.