In several cities around the world, Ethiopians discuss solutions to the major challenges facing their native country. The picture above shows Ethiopians resident in Chicago attending the March 12 conference.

March 12 was a wonderful day in Chicago where Ethiopians gathered to discuss current Ethiopian politics sponsored by a newly formed Ethiopian coordinating committee, a tiny but spirited nucleus with a magnificent agenda to iron out differences among Ethiopians and ultimately form a pan-Ethiopian association.

I personally could not resist the invitation extended to me by the dynamic Committee that comprises Ato Girma Lemma, Ato Aberra Sisay, Ato Biruk Engeda, Ato Felasfaw Woldegebriel, Ato Yosief Maru, Ato Kebede Berhane, and Ato Guben Bezawork. I could not resist because all along, at least since 1971, I aspired and struggled for the unity of the Ethiopian people that in turn I reflected on some of my writings.

Another pleasant surprise in the Chicago meeting was the participation of Dr. Getachew Begashaw, my old comrade since the days of the University Students Union of Addis Ababa (USUAA). At least two decades have elapsed since I last saw Dr. Getachew and I had a burning curiosity as to his looks. When he walked into the hall of the panel discussion, I instantly recognized him and he too recognized me. We exchanged the traditional Ethiopian kisses and hugs. He did not aged except for his relatively bold head and the gray hair of wisdom that are scattered throughout his beard and sideburns. Upon looking directly on my eyes, and with some nostalgic expressions on his face, he said, “Ante Gena Lij Neh” (you are still a young lad).

Ato Sisay and Ato Biruk presided over the meeting although the former was the chief moderator. I was assigned to address the Ethiopian-Eritrean Boundary Commission decision, and my colleague Dr. Getachew to present on the upcoming Ethiopian elections.

I was the first speaker and began by discussing the problem of ethnocentric politics that bewitched the Ethiopian communities in the Diaspora. I was very much emphatic on the lack of unity among Ethiopians and the enormous disadvantages associated with it. The main message I was trying to convey was that Ethiopians should transcend ethnocentric politics and unite on a pan-Ethiopian agenda as their sole political program.

I found ethnocentric politics important to discuss because so many Ethiopians, despite their best intentions, still harbor bitterness against their fellow countrymen. Some have still resentments against some Ethiopian groups and yet understand that the Ethiopian agenda should prevail over other issues. These Ethiopians are trapped in a conundrum of regret and dilemma and I sincerely believe that the Chicago Ethiopian initiative could be a worthwhile effort in terms of breaking the entrapment and encouraging Ethiopians to discuss openly and candidly amongst themselves. And as we shall see later, at the end of the day, that is what exactly happened.

My topic, the Ethiopian-Eritrean Boundary Commission decision, was a complex and complicated one, and as I have done in the past I highlighted the crucial discussion points and focused on relevant controversies surrounding the Ethio-Eritrean border conflict. However, before I delved into the disputed territories and concomitant controversial issues, I felt that I should present some historical background. A head projector of transparencies that exhibit historical maps and the maps of the Boundary Commission concurrently supported my presentation. I felt that it was much easier to penetrate into the thinking of the audience via visual aid rather than mere conventional lecturing. I am grateful to Ato Mezgebe Berhe and Ato Guben Bezawork for assisting in the operation of the head projector and displaying the transparent documents.

First I introduced the work of Manoel Barradas, a 17th century Portuguese missionary in Tigray, Ethiopia. Barradas lived in Fremona, Tigray in the 1620s and documented his experience in Ethiopia in 1634, which came out in the form of a book later. The Barradas map that I showed to the Chicago Ethiopian audience clearly depicts the territory of Tigray from Alwaha-Milash in the south (border of Tigray and Wello) to the Dahlac Islands in the north (present day Eritrea). Now, upon reflection, I can visualize that some in the audience were enthusiastic yet bewildered by Barradas’ account and map of Tigray, rarely documented in any historical archive. Then, I reinforced my presentation and line of argument vis-à-vis the Boundary Commission decision by dwelling on the ‘display of authority’ made by some Ethiopian kings and lords in present-day Eritrea. Some of the examples that I mentioned were Malak Seged (1585), Susuneyos (1607-1632), Dejach Galawdewos (1692), Ras Michael Sihul and Ras Woldeselassie (1769-1818), Dejach Subagadis (1818-1831), Dejach Wube (1831-1855), Emperor Teodros (1855-1868), and Emperor Yohannes (1871-1889).

I deliberately discussed ‘display of authority’ because, as per article 4 # 2 of the Algiers Agreement, the Boundary Commission was prohibited to consider ex equo et bono (‘according to what is right and good’ or ‘in justice and fairness’) historic title that could have benefited the Ethiopian cause. The Commission was indeed limited to international treaties including the 1900, 1902, and 1908 agreements as well as other relevant international laws. The ‘historic title’ and ‘display of authority’ were rendered irrelevant, and as a result in my 2000 presentation in the Tigray Solidarity sponsored conference in Washington DC, I argued that Ethiopia should invoke the Vienna Convention of 1969 that stipulates that non-binding and revoked treaties could not retroactively serve as the basis of international law. And if the Vienna Convention does not seem viable, then Ethiopia can demonstrate ‘reservations’ by a ‘counter-offer’. Sadly, however, all these were not attempted by the Ethiopian lawyers simply because they wittingly embraced and reiterated Article 4 # 2 of Algiers mentioned above.

Dr. Getachew Begashaw

The second speaker, Dr. Getachew, started out by addressing the Ethio-Eritrean relations and in due course discussed the significance and relevance of Ato Zewdie Reta’s book Ya Ertra Gudai (The Case of Eritrea) and the ingenious political role played by the astute Prime Minister Aklilu Habtewold in the unification of Eritrea with Ethiopia. He then thoroughly examined the upcoming Ethiopian elections of 2005 in light of the myriad political parties in contradistinction with the ruling EPRDF party. He was cogent in his appraisal of the so-called “free elections” and clearly conveyed to the audience that the present weakness of the opposition and the relative strength of the ruling party would enable the latter to win the elections of May 2005. It seemed there was a general consensus in the audience that the EPRDF apparently controls the media and voter registration and it goes without saying that the opposition is systematically or nakedly alienated. Under such political circumstance, where one witnesses a lone runner, the outcome of the race is obvious.

After the panel discussion was over, the chair opened the floor for questions and answers as well as opinions. The spirited audience came up with pertinent questions on the overall discussions surrounding the themes of the day. Some in the audience were not comfortable with the fact that the present regime in Ethiopia was addressed as Woyane, a term that has a historical significance for the people of Tigray. Some Tigrayans in the audience articulated, “Woyane was a mass movement in the 1940s, not for cessation, but for equality and justice…” Interestingly, and due perhaps to indomitable spirit among the Ethiopian audience, it was agreed upon by all not to employ ‘Woyane’ in relation to present Ethiopian politics.

There were several questions pertaining to Eritrea as well, but not surprisingly the house was divided into two on this question. Some argued that we should not at all discuss Badme and border territories short of claiming the entire Eritrea as part of Ethiopia. Others, including myself, contended that Badme, Gulo-Mekeda, Irob, Bure and Assab are intertwined to Ethiopian sovereignty and national interest, but the question of Eritrea in its present form is complex and it is simply unrealistic to reclaim Eritrea given the current regional and international politics.

In response to the Eritrean question, I tried to persuade the audience that Eritrea is now independent, a member of the United Nations and enjoys international recognition, and it is beyond our control. One historical analogy or parallel that I discussed in relation to Eritrea was the helplessness of Atsie Menelik and his inability to incorporate Eritrea vis-à-vis the onslaught of European hegemony over the entire continent of Africa. But I also reassured the audience that in many ways the destiny of Ethiopians and Eritreans is the same and that there is an undercurrent, but low profile, movement of Ethio-Eritrea federation that could galvanize into the unity of both peoples.

There was one other profound question forwarded to the panel that was not adequately answered. The question pertains to the weakness of the Ethiopian opposition in light of globalization. The question was penetratingly relevant, because no matter how strong and united the Ethiopian opposition is, insofar the current regime enjoys the blessings of the United States, the Ethiopian political landscape will not change. Therefore, while the Ethiopian opposition forges unity at home, it should also try to win the favor of the U. S. and the European Union (EU). Discussing “global politics, trends and transformations,” I reasoned, “It is of paramount importance that the opposition reckons the hard fact of unipolar world dominated by the United States and as such must deal with it. Real politic dictates that America is the only superpower at least for now, and the Ethiopian opposition must utilize political craft to circumvent the support the anti-Ethiopian elements are getting from the United States. In the long run, or in the not distant future, Russia and China are going to be contending powers, but that is all up in the air.” ( see www.africanidea.org/destines.html )

Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia

What I was trying to establish in There are Some Historical Destines that We Could Not Avoid and convey the central theme of the latter to the Chicago audience was that some events could evolve beyond our control, and as Bertha Calloway once said, “we cannot direct the wind but we can adjust the sails.”

After the formal discussions were over, in an effort to continue the spirit of the meeting, we were told that informal interactions would continue in a dinner party at Ato Felasfaw’s place. While driving to the place of the dinner party, Dr. Getachew and I had the opportunity to reflect upon the current Ethiopian situation and reminisce the USUAA and beyond days with nostalgia. At Ato Felasfaw’s place we were greeted with warm welcome and utmost Ethiopian hospitality. Discussions continued along with Ethiopian food and drinks, and ostensibly the Ethiopian indomitable spirit was exhibited and most people were at ease, comfortable, and interacted amicably, openly and candidly.

Some of the Chicago Ethiopians knew one another, had good but restrained relations. Others never greeted and spoke to one another and they were indeed victims of ethnocentric politics that they have embraced as part of their life. Thanks to the Coordinating Committee, all Ethiopians now, by design and perhaps to some degree by default, began physically interacting in one rendezvous point and indeed ushered a common Ethiopian agenda.

All Ethiopians in the Diaspora must follow the spirit of Chicago Ethiopians. I understand it is difficult to transcend the many diverse perspectives along ethnocentric lines, but it is not impossible to unite along a pan-Ethiopian common denominator.

Ethiopians can simply start with cultural events and nights, folk dance and music nights that can bring them together. Following cultural events, Ethiopian history forums, for the sole purpose of educating Ethiopians in the Diaspora, should be organized. This should not be a convenient simplification or watered-down version of Ethiopian history. On the contrary, Ethiopian historians should be forthcoming in dealing with Ethiopian history in some depth and breadth. Beyond history, thus, Ethiopians can dissect Ethiopian politics at ease. The worst thing Ethiopians can suffer is what I call chronological isolation or segregation, i.e. ignorance of ones own history and heritage. It is only with profound knowledge of Ethiopian history that we can really discuss problems associated with national interest, sovereignty, development, education etc. The more we know about our rich history and heritage, the less we are distracted from pressing problems, and rather confront the latter amenable to solution and the more we seek strategies to overcome problems in unison, the more united we are.

If Ethiopians don’t unite, however, cultural fragmentation will continue. In a fragmented polity or society, neither the centrifugal nor the centripetal forces prevail and the miraculous glue that holds Ethiopia together can dissipate and vanish. On the other hand, if Ethiopians all over are willing to cement the ties among themselves, they must first and foremost act in unison despite their differences. They must be honest with themselves, acknowledge their faults and weaknesses and be willing to cut deeply into the festering sores of their ethnocentric psyche. Otherwise, Ethiopians will be entrapped in a world of self-denial they have created and end up ruminating over their disappointments.

As I have indicated in one of my articles, A Bitter Pill for Ethiopia II: Mobilizing Ethiopian Forces to Defend Ethiopian National Interest, and quoting Carl Jung, ‘the foundation of all national illness is the avoidance of legitimate suffering,’ and “the problem Ethiopia has encountered is enormous and complex and we must confront it, and we can’t afford to avoid it, and we can’t afford to suffer from mental illness.” (For further reading, see www.dekialula.com/articles/g_araia_dec_2_2004.html )

We can’t afford to ruminate over our disappointments, and our best bet is to follow the spirit of Chicago Ethiopians. Some Ethiopians have chosen to remain neutral (a meaningless notion in politics) at a time when their country demands salvation; they have opted for a non-committal silence. Others wanted to render lip service to the Ethiopian cause and either isolate themselves and discuss Ethiopia-related issues in very limited academic circles, or exhibit some degree of involvement in some Ethiopian community associations, and as a result they encounter dialectical tension between themselves and the larger Ethiopian society. In extreme cases, there are some Ethiopian intellectuals and/or professionals who are lost in the wilderness of firms, corporations, NGOs, institutions, and university campuses. These groups are like the sound of a tree crashing in a forest where there is no receptive audience to hear it. I have mentioned this example only to indicate that the best solution does not lie with the extremes, and that great concepts of national proportions do not simply happen in isolated heads, but in the interaction between a person’s thoughts and a sociocultural context. It is systemic rather individual phenomenon.

If we agree that the national Ethiopian cause is a gregarious business (and it should be), it is only by interacting with one another that we can chart the future of Ethiopia and bring about meaningful social change. In due course of this historical initiative, we may countenance a certain amount of paradox and hurdles along the way, but that is perfectly all right! So long the foundation of our unity is strong, we can unleash forward-moving cultural, economic, and political transformations. Given this rosy scenario, we can mobilize the many patriotic (Ager Wedad) Ethiopians, reawaken the relatively dormant, enlighten the uninitiated, and stitch the disconnected flashes of some citizens’ ideas that were unable to coalesce into a coherent program.

In all their deliberations, Ethiopians should not be distracted by glib definitions, superficial techniques, and seemingly policy-related slogans such as ‘poverty reduction’ or Millennium Development Goals. The latter is a UN agenda for all countries to meet by 2015 and there is no doubt it is a noble strategy toward fulfilling a modicum of development programs in developing countries, but is has also served as smokescreen to the non-committed, dictatorial and hypocritical regimes and enable them to gloss over their failure and betrayal of the peoples cause. It is in light of this precaution that Ethiopians should scrupulously watch Ethiopian politics, appreciate the Chicago initiative, and replicate the unity locomotive in their respective countries of residence.

(Photo courtesy: Mezgebe Berhe and friends in Chicago)