Hostility of Ginbot 7 and Dr.

Berhanu Nega Against Oromo Cause (By Geresu Tufa)

In the last one month, naked hostility of Ginbot 7 and significant sections of the Amhara elements came to the surface against the Oromo national liberation struggle. Their radio stations, television broadcast, writers, paltalk rooms, bloggers, websites and social media pages opened a war of attrition on the Oromo Liberation Front, on strong Oromo voices and on the Oromo people at large. All in unison took the offensive on laughable grounds. The intensity is deafening; the repetition is monotonous; the resonance is wide and the substance is empty. As the saying goes, this is the habit of the heart. Certainly, such malicious coverage is carried out with the motto of their old racist adage stated as: minim atamentu ye-Gallan goffere inkuan be-wejigira yisheshal be-weree. Obsessed with such racism, they entertained their own illusion; celebrated nonexistent victory; propagated non-convened congress; applauded unfounded change of program. The article of Epherem Madebo is the epitome of such mania. It reads as The recent land mark program change decision by one of the OLF factions has created a political wave that rocked political actors, civic society leaders and everyday Ethiopians from San Francesco to London, from Norway to Down Under and in all localities of Ethiopia.1 As it is clear from this statement of Ginbot 7s leader, the mania includes the mental fabrication of the landmark program change and the subsequent manufacturing of political wave that exposed the naked hostility G7 and all those that joined the fool-cry have toward the Oromo national question. Although this hostility has been surfaced bare in recent weeks, it has longstanding genesis. In order to have an insight on the incessant hostility, it suffices to look into the understated series of policies, rhetoric and stances of the former CUD and one of its offspring - Ginbot-7. These include:

1. Dr. Berhanus public speeches in Addis Ababa University Lidet Hall and
in National Lottery Hall on March 1, 1999; and on April 8, 2001 respectively; 2. Ginbot-7 leaders positions during 2005 CUD electoral campaign, namely; 2.1. Persistence rejection of federalism; 2.2. Land privatization; 2.3. Adopting neoliberal ideology under the flagship of ultra-rightwing conservatism; 2.4. Adamant denigration of identity politics and demonizing the right of national groups to organize and articulate their demands; 2.5. Securitizing the Oromo national question; and
1

http://ecadforum.com/ethiopian-news/12305/

3. Willful denial of historical injustices. 1. On the meeting organized to celebrate operation Sunset victory,
named as Unity after Victory held in Addis Ababa University Lidet Hall, on March 1, 1999 in the aftermath of the regaining of Badme, Dr. Berhanu was one of the three panelists and was moderator of the meeting. On the occasion, he stated that Regaining Badme should not be considered as a final victory. It should be taken as scoring the first goal. If we are to ensure the existence of Ethiopia, OLF should be eliminated. To do so, we ought to further pursue on the dismantling of Shabia that is backing the OLF. Such animosity was revealed in public in the presence of thousands of university students(including this writer) and staffs, invited guests, journalists and other panelists namely, Dr. Gebru Mersha from department of Political Science and International Relation, and Dr. Tetemke Mehari from School of Pharmacy. Secondly, on public assembly held in National Lottery Hall on April 8, 2001 to discuss Academic Freedom and Human Rights, the resource persons on the occasion- Professor Mesfin Woldmariam and Dr. Berhanuwent out of the topic and indulged in vilifying the Oromo national question. Both speakers paradoxically attacked the Oromo demands from two different directions. Professor Mesfin uttered that what is called Oromo question is raised by petty bourgeois who were sent to Sweden and Germany and educated by missionaries. Continuing his argument, he said that some people claim that the Oromo national question has popular support. To refute this statement of his own, he stressed that even if it is supported by the people, the people themselves can be erroneous. At this juncture, Dr. Berhanu interfered in the discussion to second and validate Professor Mesfins view as to how the people can commit an act of folly. Berhanus validation was illustrated with two examples. He cited Socratess unfortunate death to show how people, in history, can go wrong. In his illustration he mentioned that Socrates was known philosopher, educator and ahead of his time in teaching the Greek youth. The Greek people, however, were skeptical about his teaching and ideas and thus forced him to death by giving him poison to drink. His second example to assert the folly of people focused on the Jewish peoples rejection of the Messiahness of Jesus Christ. He concluded that in both cases, the act of the Greek and Jewish people were flawed; and so is Oromo peoples support for their freedom.

2. In the much acclaimed resurgence of the far right neo-conservatism in

the 2005 general election of Ethiopia, the then members of the CUD and current founders of Ginbot-7 campaigned on morally deplorable and politically irresponsible policies and issues. Though the issues were vast, for simplicity sake, they can be categorized under the following subtopics:

2.1.

Persistent rejection of federalism :

During the election, Dr. Berhanu was in charge of CUD campaign. He designed the grand strategy for the campaign; organized campaigning committee and its three subcommittees under his leadership. He devised focal issues of the campaign and planned ways of disseminating visions and positions of the coalition. As such, he bears responsibility for all appalling agitations. Among these is a persistent rejection of federalism. It is public secret that the coalition promised to redraw regional boundaries on geographical basis so as to dismantle multinational federal structure and restore the old imperial and/or garrison state structure. Concerning Oromia, he explicitly and repeatedly said that Oromia is vast and must be broken into pieces. At the time, Obbo Bulcha Damaksa who was astonished by Berhanus anti Oromo position made a remark that: "While a genuine federal system has not been implemented in Ethiopia, there are forces which want to even abolish the theoretical federalism which remains only in the book.3" The forces he referred to were the CUD, the current Ginbot 7 leaders in general and Berhanu Nega in particular. To justify their opportunistic argument, these political actors used pretexts such as administrative feasibility and consideration of economic interests. While arguing in such a way they have never had the second thought on historical facts that brought about ruthless oppression and uninterrupted conflicts that originated from what they preach to restore & install. Had they been successful, even the fake federal regions in general, and Oromia in particular would have been things of the past with all gains attached to it. Even today that dream of theirs didnt end; they are still nostalgic to restore the harrowing era of the past.

2.2.

Land privatization :

The second slogan of the then CUD and the current Ginbot 7 leaders was land privatization. They publicly propagated the idea that could turn land into a commodity that can easily be bought and sold. In order to facilitate the formulation of land privatizing policy in their manifesto, earlier, Dr. Berhanu conducted some kind of research under the aegis of Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA) and Ethiopian Economic Research Institute (EEPRI). The finding of the research was unequivocal No to the land commercialization schemes of the neo-conservatives by qualified majority of people in the rural areas of the empire4. Irrespective of the finding, the current leaders of Ginbot-7, along with
2 3

http://africacenter.org/2010/03/ethiopia-ethnic-federalism-and-its-discontents/ http://oromoaffairs.blogspot.com/2010/07/berhanu-nega-should-not-be-welcomed-to.html 4 http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5026e/y5026e08.htm

their allies, have nurtured antagonistic advocacy of privatization of land against the interests of the people. The politically tainted and ideologically upheld advocacy for privatization of land by neo-cons could have been a recipe for the expropriation, deprivation and eviction of farmers; and for the restoration of exploitative landlord- tenant relationship. These were and still are what Ginbot-7 leaders have in their store. They preach land transfer back to contemporary landlords; but unashamedly condemn Land Grab with us. Here, it worth noting that evil deeds are evil whether done by woyanee or by Ginbot-7.

2.3.

Adopting Neo-liberal Ideology Under the Flagship of Ultrarightwing Conservatism :

The above policy positions of the neo-cons on land tenure in particular and on other stances in general emanate partly from adopting neoliberal ideology. Perhaps, the most baffling questions about CUD and its offspring Ginbot-7 are : why did they import and adopted this alien & hegemonic political thought? What is the real nature of the actors? In my opinion, the primary purpose for borrowing, importing and adopting neo-liberalism is to halt demands of nations, nationalities and peoples in the empire. They have chosen to do so because the techniques they have employed beginning from 1991 up to 2005 did not work. The usage of bandra to reawaken Amhara patriotism as a panacea to the problems of Ethiopia did not work; because in accordance with Howard Zinns remark, the flag is not large enough to cover the shame of the unjust political order of the empire; and is not bright enough to shine on the power trust of the new ultra-rightwing conservatives. The other technique related to the flag and that is failed to work is the so-called Ethiopianism. The second purpose, which is the corollary of the first, is to put themselves in the service of the apparently triumphalist global neoliberal powers that prevailed in the last three decades. From the endless conspiracies of their establishment, they know that gaining upper hand and control over rivalries require putting themselves in the service of competing imperialist powers. Meneliks deal with imperialists against Yohannes; and the latters role in Tewodross defeat by the British are historical facts in point. The third purpose for the borrowing is the very nature of the neo-liberal ideology itself. Neo-liberalism is an ideology that has formed part of the New Right ideological project that sought to fuse rugged individualism, economic laissez-fair and social Darwinism with essentially conservative philosophy. They hankered after individualism, not for the desire to respect individual rights, but because of the need to hamper collective rights.

Their hidden intention is to realize atomistic (individuals as isolated as atoms) political community of nations and nationalities. Such intention of the neo-cons underpins Thatchers famous assertion that there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families. Further, their intention is rooted in a fear of collective peoples power which brings into question their belief in rule by the demos-democracy. The neo-cons phrase-mongering of laissez-fair economics is also driven by ill-motives. Their literatures reveal that their principal focus is on privatization, deregulation and free market theology. This focus is mainly guided by the motive to regain control over the resources of the south they have lost in repetitive popular movements. The neoconservatives pursue the borrowed ideology at the time when the viability of unregulated free market economics has been called into question; when its disadvantages become apparent; and when widening inequality and the growth of social exclusion become unbearable. Thus the economic model they aspire to apply to unfamiliar traditional society is a recipe for rampant greed and egoism and is a failure to provide a moral base for socially just orders. The other distinctive feature of the neo-liberal actors is Social Darwinism. This is a doctrine insensitive to poverty and social inequality. It is the application of Charles Darwins theory of evolution and mutation in the natural world to human society. The Ethiopian neocons borrowing, importing and adopting neo-liberal ideology is motivated by a desire to cause harm to nations and nationalities annexed into the empire state. By employing Social Darwinism and constructing social and political theories on this basis, the Ethiopian disciples of Herbert Spencer, William Summer and Samuel Smiles yearn to realize that society is a battle ground for survival of the fittest and the perish of the weakest; the rise to the top of the advantageous and the fall to the bottom of the disadvantaged. Thus, the neo-con choice of neoliberalism is to provide bold expression to naturalness of inequalities, hierarchical social positions and monopoly of political power in place in that hegemonic state. This leads us to the second question: what the real nature of the actors is. The borrowers, importers and adopters of neo-liberal ideology are amalgamation of insular Amhara nationalists and a few self-interested cohorts. As insular nationalists, they are extremely limited in outlook and concerned only with their own group interests. They are allergic to new ideas and different cultures. They are mergers and mixtures of neoconservative and neoliberal entities and elements that rallied behind the slogans: one nation, one language, one flag; Ethiopia or death; all things to the war front; etc. This can be readily understood when we look into the entities and elements that merged into CUD. From All Amhara Peoples Organization (AAPO) to All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP), through to Ethiopian Democratic Unity Party (EDUP-M), to Rainbow Movement for Democracy

& Social Justice, and Ethiopian Democratic League (EDL); all are extreme rightwing elements and/or self-interested cohorts. What is liberal of Ato Hailu Shawul and Professor Mesfine Woldemariam? What is liberal of AAPO Youth wing breeds? Even if the accomplices are considered seriously, they are the ones who swallowed neoliberalism without chewing. One should take note that Ginbot 7, as a formation of dropouts from all those entities, shares the sum total character of its well-springs. Therefore, the ideology borrowed, imported and adopted is liberalism without liberals.

2.4.

Adamant denigration of identity politics and demonizing the rights of national groups to organize & articulate their demands:

Since the resurgence of neo-conservatism, identity politics has been criminalized and the rights of national groups to organize and to articulate their demands are demonized in the eyes of the neoconservatives. For long, from the days of Professor Asrat Wodeyess Ye-Amara Kanfer ayinqataqatim, bibitu ayishetim and Latin yemeretu, yegna tiqur ferenjoch to that of the rhetoric of Dr. Berhanu Nega, the day-to-day words and deeds- typically the works of the gutter media of these elements - reveal these truths. In these denigrating endeavors, they attack identity politics by categorizing it as Ye-gosa politica, or Yezar political. Whereas the neocons themselves promote crude racism and customary Amhara politics wrapped in imperial state banner; they condemn other national groups for claiming recognition of their legitimate national identities. To the neo-cons, others identities are not as good as theirs. To them, their group identity is good and other national groups identity is bad. To them, Amhara nationalism is of superior quality and Somali nationalism, Oromo nationalism, etc are of inferior quality. The other assaults that stem from the above stances are demonizing the rights of national groups to organize and articulate their demands. As in all other cases, the neoliberal and neoconservative amalgamates condemn the rights to organize of national groups to establish political parties of their own choosing in order to promote and protect their own interests. They sap their energy in defaming and attacking Tigrean, Ogadenian, Oromian, etc nationalist parties. They behave as authorizers of what to say and how to say it. Whereas they themselves are organized on the basis of their own ethnicity, they make distinction of every kind against others. Isnt this evil to be called by its name? 2.5. Securitizing the Oromo national question:

For long, Gibot-7 leaders, in particular Dr. Berhanu Nega has been engaged in sinister rhetoric against the Oromo national struggle for self determination. The toolkits of his rhetoric are numerous. Among these, his narration of the feelings of Oromo prisoners he stated in his book; his interview on ESAT that highlighted the presumed danger Oromo

demands pose on the very existence of the Ethiopian imperial State5; and his constant rhetoric as to where the Oromo homeland is and how its boundary can be demarcated require scrutiny. In all cases, the Oromo question is considered by Berhanu Nega not as matter of normal democratic struggle but as matter of national security and even seen as a fifth column. This is what political scientists call the securitization of ethnic relations (see Waever 1995, Kymlicka 2001: PP, 66-8). Under conditions of securitization of the legitimate Oromo demands, Berhanu and his cronies, overtly or covertly, line up with both the old and the new ruthless repressions against Oromos. Berhanu and his associates chant the slogan of eliminating Oromo organization- the OLF. Berhanu and his partners are in favor of suppression of the Oromo people and the subjection of Oromo leaders and activists to unparalleled cruelty. Berhanu and his allies, uninterruptedly, advocate the prevention of raising Oromo demands. Berhanu and his neo-liberal buddies are ardent supporters of the continuation of historical injustices against the Oromo people. So, by securitizing the Oromo question, Dr.Berhanu and his cronies, like woyanee & 6the old guards, lust for silencing Oromo voices whenever and wherever they are articulated. Here, a vital question that must be posed is: where do these acts put Ginbot- 7 on the political spectrum? Without doubt, they would place it on the undemocratic, reactionary, and ultra right wing political spectrum. This ultra-rightwing and reactionary position of Ginbot-7 becomes indisputable when we examine how national questions (identity Politics) are treated in democracies. In democracies, national questions are entirely desecuritized. Identity politics is just normal day-to-day politics. It is just taken out of security box and put in the box of democratic politics. There are several countries in the West that contains active movements for national self-determination : Quebec, Flanders, Scotland, Puerto Rico and Catalonia. In all these cases, there are functioning vocal political parties that contest dominance by hegemonic groups. In some cases such parties have even seized power at regional level. In almost all, politicians demanding independence speak on television; sit in parliamentary committees and campaign in the streets. Yet, in all cases, Western political actors have never securitized demands for self-determination. Irrespective of these democratic exercises before their eyes, Berhanu and his cronies cry for moribund model of assimilation, homogenization, centralization and for sustaining predatory establishment of empire builders. In doing so, they chose to condemn victims and praise perpetrators; they chose to promote the interests of the hegemonic groups and label the demands of the oppressed as dangerous. They
5 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZp2T880Oqk&noredirect=1 http://api.ning.com/files/zkhrnonOmuHEPp5HBCtPJ6mksreonkIGejjCqVdGAPJIBU63EJDU973OtypIT *Ez5iA5wMNeE0yLeTV8jy*aHAchIlzC3BnD/omg.bmp

zealously admire war of expansion/conquest and chronic evils that have historically turned the majority Oromo people to minoritized majority and that exposed them to a century long oppression. They attempt to securitize even the most democrat demands such as: decolonization, referendum, the choice of alphabet. This shows that Ginbot 7 is working to bulldoze everything Oromo. It is undeniable fact that Berhanu and his buddies are fighting for the former oppressors and stand in the same row with incumbent tyrants. In this fight they want to weaken and disempowering Oromos and other nationalities. They take fore granted that anything that benefit the majority Oromos and nationalities and people is seen as threat to them; and, therefore, national question/identity politics is a security question. We need to meticulously understand why opposition to identity politics is so much tense in the camps of the neo-conservatives. We also need to comprehend the underlying motives and factors that make these reactionary forces to relate identity politics to security issues. According the political scientists mentioned herein above, dominant political actor makes choice about whether or when to highlight these factors in public debate. A security threat is something that is deliberately inculcated and reproduced by certain elites of the hegemonic group for their own self interest reasons. Strictly speaking, an issue only becomes securitized if such elites decided to characterize identity politics as existential threat In our case, in order to sustain embedded hierarchies, structural violence and historical injustices, Ginbot 7 and its associates propagate unjustifiable security threats. As such, their position represents a conscious choice and conscious political strategy. But why do they choose and adopt this strategy? They securitize national question/demands for two reasons. First, to trample democratic process of resolving the problems. As Waever puts, by securitizing demands political leaders claim that security matters be addressed prior to the national groups demands. Operationally this means to use whatever means are necessary to block claims and/or demands. Second securitizing demands also trample issues of justice. The entire question of justice becomes submerged under security issue. Isnt this a menu of violence and bloodshed? As such under condition of securitization of the demands of the Oromo people and other oppressed nations; justice shall be curtailed and displaced by security issues; and the space for democratic settlement of chronic problems drastically shrinks. Hence, it worth taking note that the willingness to play security card in a reckless and irresponsible fashion damages inter-national groups relations weakens measures of conflict resolution and harm democracy and peace.

3.

Willful denial of historical injustices :

Since their resurgence, the neo-conservatives have much more explicit strategies of denial of historical injustices against the annexed nations and nationalities. In their everyday political activities, instead of truth telling, the amalgams of neo-cons base their arguments on amnesiadeliberate neglect and even denial of historical injustices. Not only neglect and denial, they even attempt to produce some justifications in favor of historical wrongs. Such attempts can be observed in recent writings, discourses and speeches of Ginbot-7 leaders and their blind followers. Their justification attempts can be summarized as: putting political oppression, economic exploitation and social subjugations against the oppressed nations on equal moral ground with that of the oppressor nation; unjustifiable justification of the war of expansion/conquest and the barbarous atrocities with lame and irrational statements; and invoking fairy-tale history for the annexation. This is being done at the time when claims for rectification of historical injustices are intensified by oppressed people both in that empire and all over the world; at the time when the feeling about historical injustice run deep in the empire as it is elsewhere. There is a strong feeling among the Oromo people that historical wrongs have not yet been recognized and acknowledged. Attendant to these, the unwillingness to remedy is disturbing. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that backward- looking on history helps the focus on forward-looking for coexistence. In history, the system of Abyssinia consisted millions of evil acts woven into the system and carried out on daily basis for almost a century. Still it is in a replication process. What I mentioned in my introductory paragraphs and subsequent parties are the yardsticks of this replication process. This ought to be ceased if the future is expected to be free of the hitherto vicious circle. February 2, 2012

References
kymlicka, W. (2001) Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculutralism and citizenship. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Nega, B. (2006) Yenetsanet Goh Siqed.

Ole, w. (1995) Securitization and Desecuritization. New York: Colombia University Press. Unknown. (2010) Ginbot-7 ena Ye Fitih ena Netsanet Nikake. Netsanet.