*ETHNIC**CONFLICTS HAS TAKEN PLACE IN SOME AFRICAN COUNTRIES COULD IT
ALSO HAPPEN IN ETHIOPIA?*
/*BY TESFAHANNES BEYENE */
*araele13_at_yahoo.com*
*PART TEN*
The phenomenon that ethnicity has now become fashion in many African
countries is so dangerous that, some African countries are finding
themselves in competition for power using the tools of ethnicity which
often leads to ethnic based antagonism among their ethnic communities.
What they should have done instead was to use natural law or the law of
common sense and come to simple terms of living and coexisting among one
another. The outcome of ethnic rule would often lead to competition for
resources and violent conflicts. In the case of Rwanda, it was ruled by
the Belgians from 1914 and in 1934 they produced identity cards
classifying the Rwandans by their ethnic group. It was easy for the
Belgians to divide and rule the country along ethnic lines. The main
objectives of the colonizers is to create suspicion and misunderstanding
between ethnic group.
*RWANDA*: From the start, the Belgians considered the Tutsis to be
superior; more tall and beautiful than the other main ethnic group, the
Hutus. The Tutsis at the time welcomed it accepting the colonizers
divide and rule policy, unaware of what would be unleashed on them in
the future. The Tutsis were then in power for about 20 years and enjoyed
better jobs, education opportunities, than their Hutu neighbors. Then
when the Belgians relinquished power in 1962, they gave power to the
Hutus, because they were the majority. Then all of a sudden, hell
erupted; for every bad thing that happened in Rwanda, the Hutus began to
blame the Tutsis. They were waiting for an opportunity to attack their
brothers and sisters, the Tutsis, for being privileged when the Belgians
ruled the country. The Hutus blamed the Tutsis for any ills that
concurred in Rwanda after the Belgians left, be it economic or natural.
When ethnic violence started in Rwanda, the propaganda against the
Tutsis was hyped via the mass media, radio stations were urging Hutus to
rise against the Tutsis to slaughter them so that they can have their
land, better jobs opportunities, their houses etc. This action against
the Tutsis helped the Hutus hold on to power and their aim was to wipe
out their brothers and sisters, the Tutsis.
The spark that led to Rwandan genocide occurred when the president of
Rwanda, Juvenal Habyarmana, a Hutu, died with when his plane was shot
down over Kigali Airport in 1994. The Hutu'sgot the opportunity they
were looking for, that they firmly believed their president was killed
by the Tutsi's. So they started an all out genocide on the Tutsis,while
UN troops who were present in the country did not bother to intervene.
On the contrary the UN troops ran away leaving the Tutsi'sat the mercy
of the blood thirsty Hutus, who killed or amputated Tutsis with machetes
and anything else they could find. They massacred almost one million
Tutsi's and then to add salt to the injury, the Hutus were alleging that
the origin of the Tutsi's is in Ethiopia and when they committed heinous
crime against the Tutsis, they threw their dead bodies into a river
(which possibly goes through Ethiopia) and claimed the Tutsi'swere sent
back to their country of origin, Ethiopia. It was one of the worst human
tragedies of the century that happened in broad day light while world
leaders watched the horror, in front of their television screens,
without feeling any guilt. They were completely unmoved and their
response was reprehensible and frankly indefensible but who can argue
with the powerful and rich, after all the dead were black Africans not
Europeans.
One would expect for once the African Union to intervene or do something
to save the Tutsi's, but they didn't, after all African Union is an
impotent organization that it will not act unless it is told by its
masters. Therefore at its extreme, ethnic rule or ethnic radicalization
can lead to an apocalyptic departure from humanity and turn humans into
animals. The Secretary General of the UN at the time was Kofi Anna an
African from Ghana and he was completely powerless and discredited. He
was not able to do any thing to save African lives. Therefore his legacy
is now tainted with the genocide in Rwandan and he will have to live the
rest of his life with guilt for not saving African lives. He is not
welcomed in Rwanda in the near future for the crime against humanity
that happened to the Tutsis while he was the seating Secretary General
of the so called UN therefore completely discredited for life.
*IVORY COAST*: In Ivory Coast, the election of December 2010 was
followed by violence revolving around ethnicity, nationality, religion.
The supporters of the incumbent president Larent Gbagbo and the
opposition leader Alasane Ouattara both felt they won the election. But
the electoral commission declared the opposition leader Outtara as a
winner whose support came from the North, mainly Muslims. Gbagbo with
his strong hold of the South mainly Christians had excluded Northern
Muslims from power while he was president. He then rejected the result
of the election by refusing to step down, alleging that the election was
rigged. In the ensuing battle for supremacy to rule Ivory Coast, the
International community supported Outtara. Gbagbo refused to cede power
and was finally removed from power by force when the former French
Colonial Power and UN troops stormed Gbagbos residence to arrest or kill
him. Finally he was arrested and brought to justice. But the ethnic
clash that resulted after the election caused the loss of lives,
property, and displacement of people. Thus ethnic violence can easily
erupt unless you bring all communities on equal status. If you start to
exclude any one or any member of a community and then the consequence
would definitely take ethnic lines and plunge any nation to catastrophic
tragedy and that is what precisely happened in Ivory Coast.
*KENYA:*In Kenya similar ethnic violence erupted in the power struggle
for power during the 2007/2008 election when 1,300 people were killed
and almost half of a million people were displaced because people in
Kenya expressed their concern about political dominance by one group
over the others. Thus when the election date was announced each ethnic
community was supporting their own ethnic leaders and rumors spread that
the end result of the election was rigged in order to benefit one ethnic
group against the other. In the following struggle for political
supremacy and financial power they had to fight it out using ethnic
violence as a means to justify their cause or sort out their rivalry. In
the 2007 the incumbent President Kibaki (from the ethnic group Kikuyu)
was declared the winner over his opposition rival Raila Odinga. Odingas
supporters felt that the election was rigged and on violent rampage
against the Kikuyus in several parts of the country.
The allegation that the election was rigged was widely confirmed by
International observers. As a result of the election Uhuru Kenyatta
(president as of 2013) and William Rutto (deputy president as of 2013)
were indicted by the International Criminal Court for encouraging
indirectly the ethnic violence, but the case against Uhuru Kenyatta and
his officials was dropped for luck of evidence. For the victims, the
verdict was a shock, they felt it was a cover up and expressed their
outrage against the International Criminal Court for letting Kenyatta
and his officials off the hook. It should be noted that over the years
there has been rivalry between the two big ethnic groups in Kenya; the
largest and dominant group, in Kenya are the Kikuyu and had been blamed
by the second largest ethnic group the Kalanjis for having been enjoying
more of the economic and political resources of the country than them.
That they have been allocated some of the fertile lands originally
belonging to the Kalanjis. The latter had a very strong feeling that
their ethnic rivals have been taking advantage of them all these years
and perhaps waiting for their turn to revenge at the appropriate time.
In this situation, political dominance of one group over the other will
always results in resentment and violence because those who are not
getting their fair share of the cake would definitely feel marginalized.
Taking the law into their hands, when election was announced, the two
communities divided along tribal lines valuing ethnicity above anything
else. They cling on to their ethnicity group for fear that they will be
overwhelmed by other ethnic groups. The outcome was complete disaster
and the perception has always been that if your tribe wins, there is the
feeling that you can share resources with tribal members. At times
politicians would use ethnicity to cover up their weaknesses and try to
humiliate their opponents using ethnic violence instead of searching for
an area of common interest that bring the country together as a unifying
factor. The end result for Kenya was catastrophic, many were killed
displaced and it may happen again unless a real remedy is found to bring
the two ethnic groups to live in peace. This can only be achieved if
ethnic leaders who are in power have the will and interest of their
nation first. If they don't, the message is loud and clear, more Machete
killings to come.
*SOUTH SUDAN: *In South Sudan, the same ethnic conflict is still raging
like wild fire and the reason is simple instead of coexistence wit their
communities in peace and harmony it is their leaders who are leading
their nations into oblivion simply for hegemonic power rather than build
up their nation. South Sudan became an independent country in July 2011.
The main reason it became independent is that, the central government in
Sudan left the South impoverished without adequate infrastructure,
investment, hospitals, good roads, the South was ignored despite the
fact that the central government was collecting billions of dollars from
the rich South in oil revenues. The Southerners did not have any choice
but to fight the central government to make themselves free from the
rule of the Northerners. While that was one side of the story, the other
side of the story was that politicians from West European countries and
the United States had been meddling in the affairs of the Sudan for many
years. Their mass media have been bombarding us with news that the
Southern Christians have been killed and murdered by the Arab North;
Evangelical Christians from America and extreme republicans like Senator
John McCain from Arizona (republican presidential candidate in the 2008
election in United States) have been flaming the media with similar
misinformation, in saying the government of Omar Al Bashir is evil and
the message was clear we need to fight the Government of Sudan.
What was even funny about the politics of South Sudan was that even
actors like George Clooney (who has now married a British Human Right
Lawyer of Lebanese Origin named Amal) was involved in preaching for the
overthrow of the government of Omar Al Bashir and for the South Sudan to
break away from proper Sudan. I am sure all these actors and politicians
would never argue for the right of Palestinians on a similar basis,
because if they do so they would probably lose their job because the
powerful Jewish Lobby in America and above all the United States of
America would defend Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestinian
lands as it done in the past by using its veto power more than 40 times
to block the right of Palestinians to live side by side with the Jewish
state. Finally the famous, the rich and above all the Veto wielding
Security Council members especially the United States would use its
influence to penalize or sanction poor countries like Sudan to give in
to their demands or face more sanction. In the end Sudan gave in to the
relentless pressure she came under for the referendum to take place and
the South by overwhelming majority decided to become an independent
country. One may ask why were Western politicians deeply involved in
detaching South Sudan from the North, the answer was simple that the
South is very rich in oil and it was awash with oil money which became a
curse at the end of the day.
Therefore western companies, politicians, or National Security Adviser
of the Obama Administration like Susan Rice have been drumming up
support for the breakup of Sudan and they knew well they were going to
benefit from the split without thinking for the well being of the people
of South Sudan. Before they rushed to break it away they could have
thought how the two ethnic groups can successfully mange their country
to peace and prosperity. But they were simply interested in their short
term interest of theirs and not the long term interest of South Sudan or
the North. For instance what they could have done was create an
atmosphere or institutions how the two rival ethnic groups can live
together peacefully by creating institutions that reflect the interest
of all ethnic groups to balance the power among the people. What happen
was simple, the Western powers rushed to get the black gold preferring
one ethnic leader to have more power than the other. What happen next
was tragedy beyond belief, the euphoria that erupted when the nation was
born quickly evaporated because of ethnic conflicts or tribal animosity.
What is also quite strange was that the president of the new nation, the
darling of the West Salvir Kirr, who looks like he is still in the bush
wearing his Western Texan hat, perhaps donated to him by the Bush family
from Texas.
Frankly his Texan hat doesn’t seem to reflect the interest of Africa.
The president is ethnically Dinka, the largest ethnic group in South
Sudan and his vice president Dr Riek Machar represent the second largest
tribe called the Nuer. Machar initially cooperated with his president
but fell out with Kirr because he alleged Kirr was not being transparent
during his rule of the new country. What happen later was a power
struggle, that left thousands of civilians killed, millions displaced
internally and externally to neighboring countries. Therefore the power
struggle that started off as a local problem, that could have been
solved amicably among brothers and sisters, escalated into full scale
ethnic war between the two biggest ethnic groups lead by Salvar Kirr
Dinka and Riek Macher Nuer. From the presidents camp, they accused the
vice president of undermining him and Salvar Kirr sacked Macher and full
blown ethnic war erupted.
As the leaders battled for power supremacy, their country went up in
smoke resulting in vicious ethnic conflict. The tribes were encouraged
by their leaders to defend their tribe which lead to attacks on other
tribes, the people have no choice except to listen to their ethnic
leaders, rightly or wrongly. As a result the power struggle that started
among the two leaders transformed into barbarous ethnic conflict and is
still continuing. It is quite sad that the nation that started with hope
and prosperity is now completely broken nation. The new nation has now
become a laughing stock of the World when a simple local problem has
turned out to be dire and South Sudan is now a failed state before she
is even born. It is beyond belief that its promise has turned from
hopefulness to despair and ethnic conflict will continue unless the two
leaders find a minimum platform that brings the two communities together
to govern their country.
*ETHIOPIA:*So one wonders, could the ethnic minority administration in
Ethiopia fall into the same trap of ethnic violence that happened in
Africa. Well we have to remember Ethiopia is another third world country
and what happen ethnically in other African countries may happen in
Ethiopia too but it will be less severe. Even if it happens, it would
definitely not happen the way it has happened in in Kenya or Ivory
Coast. Of course the ethnic minority government of Ethiopia introduced
what is called Ethnic Federalization with the aim of reducing conflicts
and equalize the different communities in Ethiopia. But many Ethiopians
did not accept the concept of Ethnic Federalization fearing that it will
just cause more damage and mistrust among the many ethnic groups living
in Ethiopia. The view from many Ethiopians especially from the Oromos
and the Amharas and other smaller ethnic communities is that minority
ethnic administration would often lead into discord, division, jealousy,
competition for resources, ethnic rivalry providing the minority
government the upper hand to divide and rule Ethiopia on ethnic lines to
suit its end game to stay in power using ethnic con trick to rule the
majority.
Frankly the concept of Ethnic Federalism is very dangerous because once
you introduce ethnic rule it may lead into unnecessary ethnicity driven
agendas instead of looking widely to cater for all communities. Shared
ideas and shared common goals vanish as as each ethnic group would ask
refugee or shelter from their ethnic leaders instead of the common
interest. Bribery corruption becomes rampant are there are no
transparent institutions to bring different ethnic groups together, it
is a recipe for complete ethnic disaster. At the end of the day
Ethnicity policy will end in cul-de-sac with no exit strategy but
creating resentment jealousy, hatred between the haves and the have
nots. It is a very dangerous road for any country to rule on ethnic
lines. As experts on ethnic violence have said successful political
accommodation of diverse ethnic groups could be achieved by power
sharing between the different ethnicities. Presently it does not look
like it is happening in Ethiopia because the Amharas and the Oromos feel
marginalized, which could mean it may lead to the radicalization of
ethnic groups who can easily take the law into their hands turning
ethnic rule on its head and demand their turn to do the same rather than
nation building.
*IN CONCLUSION:*as we have seen from the above ethnic conflicts have
taken place in some African countries for instance in Rwanda, Kenya,
Ivory Cost, South Sudan, it has left devastating effect on the people of
these countries. And for those who are affected by the vicious ethnic
conflict, they have been displaced, killed in their thousands or were
forced to move to neighboring countries. Yet the minority ethnic leaders
of Ethiopia would like us to believe that their ethnic administration is
correct for the multi-ethnic groups in Ethiopia but it will fail. Of
course they have their election based on ethnic rule and they will
definitely win by more than 90% of the electorate by hook or crook. But
many opposition members are saying it is a sham election that the ethnic
administration of Ethiopia is holding the fictitious election simply to
prolong its stay in power, so that they can strengthen their rubber
stamp National Assembly to strangulate any opposition or enemies they
may face in the future. In fact many of the surrogate ethnic leaders who
have been elected by the minority government have not even been elected
legitimately by their own ethnic community except they were selected by
the authorities to be a vehicle in promoting the minority governments
desire to stay in power and rule over the majority. This happens because
there are no independent institutions to keep checks and balances for
the interest of everyone in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia may eventually face some kind of ethnic conflict like other
African countries but not on a similar scale. However the marginalized
and victimized will definitely rise one day to have their turn because,
the victims of ethnic rule do not forget and forgive. They are simply
waiting for an opportunity to occur and once it occurred they will take
advantage like ferocious animals with rage and vengeance against the
Tigreyans and their property from those who have become victims of the
ethnic minority rule of Ethiopia where ever they may be.
*London 28/05/2015*
PART ELEVEN TO FOLLOW AND THE TITLE WILL BE:
*ETHIOPIA HAS LEFT NO STONE UNTURNED TO DESTABILIZE ERITREA, IT HAS EVEN
USED IT'S NUCLEAR OPTION, WHAT NEXT OR WHAT HAVE WE (ERITREANS) DONE TO
DESERVE THIS?*
Received on Sun May 31 2015 - 13:29:55 EDT