By Obang Metho
June 11, 2009
Dear Fellow Ethiopian,I want to address those Ethiopians who are Tigrayans, especially focusing on those who are benefiting from this regime at the expense of the majority of other Ethiopians.
I am accountable for the following words that I will be saying to you. With that in mind, I am not speaking as an expert or as someone who is perfect because I am neither, but I am doing this because I care about you and you need to hear the truth, at least, as I see it. Take what you agree with from this message and discard the rest. I am hoping you will find something of benefit to you.
I am opening this delicate subject up for discussion and I hope more people will join me in looking for ways to strengthen our broken relation and Ethiopia. I will be frank and straight-forward, speaking to you in love and in hope that all of us can benefit from speaking honestly and directly with each other. Let me start with “the elephant in the room!”
Anyone who says that Tigrayans, not all, but many, have not benefited under Meles, are lying to themselves. We all know that the key positions in the government, in the military, in the economy, in the judicial system, on the national election board, in banking and finance, in education and in any other sector of society are mostly held by Tigrayans who are loyal to Meles. For the most part, those from other ethnic groups are given certain positions by the TPLF only to fool the outsiders so they can look better.
We also know that there has been more development, services and opportunity of every kind in the Tigrayan region and available to persons of Tigrayan ethnicity than in any other region or to any other group of Ethiopians. There is no debate about this being true. Even when I was attempting to start the Gambella Development Agency in 2002, Ethiopian government officials at the Minster of Justice office tried hard to convince me to go to the Tigray region instead of Gambella. This kind of preference has been going on at a large-scale level over the last 18 years of TPLF rule.
In reality, there are only two branches of government in Ethiopia, one that runs everything—the TPLF—which is mainly dominated by Tigrayans, and the other—the EPRDF—which has more diversity, but only pretends to run everything. The public knows this very well, but people avoid talking about it. This preferential treatment is not only unacceptable and wrong, it is immoral. It is a model of government that is built on greed, self-interest, pride, corruption, oppression and lack of empathy for others. It has been doomed to failure from the beginning as were other preceding regimes who were built on the same shaky foundation. We have created a cycle of destruction and deception for ourselves that should be discarded if we do not want to keep repeating our mistakes and perpetuating our suffering.
The purpose of this letter is to ask Tigrayans, the TPLF and also Woyane to join with your fellow Ethiopians in ending this system that perpetuates the destruction of one another. Our society greatly needs reconciliation in order to accomplish this great task. Our Tigrayan brothers and sisters have an opportunity to come together at a strategic moment in our history that could dramatically change our shared future. “Tyranny” and “Injustice” are always thirsty for new victims and perpetrators.
If we are to break out of this cycle, we need Tigrayans to rise up out of their silence, something that will make a bridge of reconciliation between yourselves and other Ethiopians in this very divided nation. This is also for your own protection because somehow, we must heal the animosities that have built up over these past years so when this regime collapses, our future together in Ethiopia is secure and harmonious. In doing so, you are preparing the way for a better future for your children and grandchildren.
Together, we can make this crucial transition from a government built on tyranny and ethnic domination of one group to a government built on God-given principles of “humanity before ethnicity” and the promotion of truth, freedom, justice, the respect of human rights, civility and equal opportunity for all Ethiopians for “no one will be free until all are free.” In such an Ethiopia, you will be at home; but do not wait until this TPLF government collapses to claim these principles for yourselves or it may be too late. Instead, I am hoping that you will be part of the solution in bringing about a New Ethiopia right now. Let us start by looking at our history of consecutive “one village rule” regimes and where it has gotten us.
The “One Village Rule All” System:
We Ethiopians are caught up in a cycle of replacing one ineffective and abusive government of a “village group”, (meaning our ethnically-based political groups like the TPLF) with another that duplicates the actions of the last, with the same predictable results. Each new group rises up out of oppression, but fails to learn the lessons of its own past. Instead the new group greedily seizes the new found power, becoming the next “village” opportunist and oppressor, brutally lashing out in pent-up anger and repression against their “previous oppressors” and “new opponents.” Suppression begins against any competing groups vying for power, including those wanting “a legitimate voice in their own regional affairs.” Eventually, the cycle will be repeated with new victims and perpetrators. Let’s look at the stages we have been going through as a country:
Stage One: “Village groups” suffer at the hands of the government, giving rise to rebellions and insurgency groups. Individual groups—“villages”—experience repression, marginalization, exploitation and human rights abuses. Because legitimate ways to voice grievances are denied and because complainants are punished, “village groups” form separatist groups or liberation groups to protect the lives, the rights and the livelihoods of threatened families, communities, ethnicities and regions.
Stage Two: “Village” insurgency groups work alone or join temporarily with other “villages” to overthrow the government, but still pursue their own “village” goals, causing power struggles from within until one emerges as the new “village ruler” of Ethiopia and excludes all the others from the perks of the struggle, such as happened with the TPLF becoming the EPRDF. As soon as the EPRDF gained power, the old “village group” of the TPLF re-emerged to take charge and the EPRDF became its cover name.
Stage Three: “One Village” group rules over everyone else, making the rules, always in their own favor, while pretending to be inclusive of all groups outwardly. Two layers work in synchrony: 1) the public face of the EPRDF in the international community, and 2) the private face of TPLF as controlling everything as the reality lived out by the Ethiopian people. A layer of inclusion on the exterior hides the non-spoken truth, which is that one small elitist group controls and monopolizes every sector of society. Competitors are left out of important government positions. They fail to get the jobs, bids or opportunities within the “system,” all of which is carefully controlled to reward and punish. More outspoken critics are threatened, harassed, beaten, imprisoned or killed. The justice system and election process cannot be separated from the control of the “one-village rule.”
Stage Four: Anger, resentment, bitterness and rebellion increase and begin to give rise to challenges by others, leading to government crack- downs and counter-insurgency attacks against rebel groups. Those benefiting from the government become increasingly fearful of retribution should the government fall so even if they disapprove of government actions, they continue to do their best to maintain the status quo.
Stage Five: The regime is finally overthrown; vengeance is taken and another “village” government sets itself up to do the same. Now we are back to stage one which starts all over again. It is a given, that there will never be a turn for any minority group, who continue to be oppressed, exploited and marginalized, regardless of who is in charge.
We Ethiopians have to transition to a different system—one where “many villages” exercise representative rule over a “country of many hundreds of villages” rather than one where a single “village” takes complete ownership of a nation and then uses its power to crush opposition and exploit everyone else.
Some False Justifications Used to Perpetuate TPLF Ethnic-Based Domination
Justification for TPLF ethnic domination can be traced to flawed excuses and fear-mongering tactics. Some are:
We suffered past grievances from others and now it is “our ‘ethnic’ turn to eat.” Those who oppressed us deserve to “finally get what they deserve.”
Other Ethiopians are: a) “less golden than are we,” b) “they are not ‘true’ Ethiopians” and; therefore, c) they are not “as worthy” as are we.
Other Ethiopians would have done the same to us if they “had won” over the Derg; therefore, we deserve what we have gotten since we are “more clever,” “better fighters” and have worked harder for it.
If we do not hold on tightly to our control, someone else will simply come in and do the same, punishing us as an ethnic group; therefore, it is disloyal and damaging to our shared ethnic future to speak out against what some of us are doing—no matter what! If you do not agree, maintain your silence or you will be punished.
As long as we stay in control, you need not fear accountability for what we or what you have done. If you have not done anything, you still will be punished by others for your ethnicity so remain silent.
Do not worry about accountability before God because we are in control of the religious leaders who will not confront your conscience with the truth. You can still “practice your religion” anyway, as long as you stay away from acting on moral convictions.
If you do not support the TPLF, you will be a victim of genocide—there is no other outcome for us all if we lose our hold on this country. Hold on to us for your survival.
I want to tell you, particularly addressing the last point, that violence is a real possibility, but that possibility is greater reduced if we join together and if you do your part (Dersha) in bringing about a more just, reconciled and harmonious society. I am very worried about violence, chaos and killing and am trying to find a way to avoid such a disaster in Ethiopia that would bring shame and sustained injury to all of us. This does not mean that some perpetrators will not face justice, but the truth is, we Ethiopians must find ways to restore a sense of humanity to this country if we are to have any future for ourselves and for our children.
Facing the Truth: TPLF Domination Exists All Over Ethiopia
As you may already know, some research done by Ginbot 7 uncovered the fact that most every key position in the military is held by a person of Tigrayan ethnicity. As you can imagine, the extent of this cronyism has incensed many Ethiopians; something that other justice-loving people will also disdain. Can you imagine if Obama, after being inaugurated, would have removed all non-black people from key government positions and replaced them with only African Americans? What would American citizens, those who elected him and others in the world think of this?
This topic can no longer be avoided and must be confronted because if it is not, it might reach a boiling point and the consequences will be unbearable. Preventing such a catastrophe from happening is something that I and others in the Solidarity Movement are strongly pursuing because we are so fearful that if we do not deal with this now, it may be too late. However, those in the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia, cannot do it alone. We must work together to change this now, especially re-emphasizing that when we talk about Tigrayans, we must be reminded that it is not all Tigrayans who are benefiting from this Tigrayan-controlled government.
We also know there are countless numbers of Tigrayans who are extremely opposed to this regime and that they have suffered greatly for being lumped together with Meles; however, I strongly encourage those Tigrayans who have been silent on this issue, to come forward in large numbers and speak out about this wrong. We recognize that there is fear and risk in doing so, but if Tigrayans do not speak out, people will assume that things must be good for them and that they want Meles to stay in power. I know some Tigrayan brothers and sisters who are anti-Meles, but are not “anti” the TPLF system or “one-tribe domination.” Do not fool yourselves, for this entire system in Ethiopia is built on a model of exploiting others. This is why it is so important for our Tigrayan brothers and sisters to speak out.
For example, last week when I was speaking in Dallas at a meeting at a hotel in that city, another meeting was being held in the room next to us by the Tigrayan Development Association in celebration of the May 20, 1991 overthrow of the Derg. They showed a video of that victory and of the development that has been achieved since they came into power. In the next room where I was meeting with other Ethiopians, I was showing the video of the genocide of the Anuak and of the destruction of the infrastructure in Gambella by the same Meles regime that had conversely, brought development to Mekelle and destruction to Gambella.
As those in the Tigrayan Development Association were celebrating their “freedom” from the Derg, we were talking about the incarceration of Birtukan, Teddy Afro, Bashir Makhtal and thousands of other political prisoners, about the suppression of every basic right and about the massive human rights violations being committed by this regime against other Ethiopians. These are two totally different realities occurring in the same country, both true.
This is only one example. A few days prior to this meeting, I was in Ottawa and the same thing was happening. The TPLF group in Ottawa and other TPLF throughout the world were also celebrating their liberation from the brutal government of Mengistu while at the present time, other Ethiopians were protesting and grieving for the millions of their fellow Ethiopians who were suffering and dying at the hands of the brutal TPLF. What are they celebrating? How can they celebrate under these conditions?
Let me make it very clear. I am not suggesting that Tigrayans should be pushed aside, discriminated against or marginalized because that would be a violation of everything I believe in. Instead, I am calling on Tigrayans themselves to wake up and regain their sense of their own shared humanity with other Ethiopians. They can do this by helping to bring genuine justice to all of Ethiopia instead of selfishly celebrating when others are crying. Together we must stop this cycle of oppression that constantly reshuffles victims into perpetrators and perpetrators into victims. The last thing I want is for someone else to experience a December 13, 2003. I am saying this out of truth and love for it cannot be ignored. Right now, Tigrayans are in a position to help remedy the mistakes made over the last 18 years, but if they fail to help, they could become the next victims.
If you are someone blindfolded by ego, power, money or pressure, open your eyes to the truth. Put yourselves in the shoes of your suffering fellow Ethiopians and take the initiative to stop this holocaust of the people by standing up for justice, freedom and moral right. Speak out against the “village thinking” that has incensed and alienated the public from you. Stop supporting a government system that can only survive off the pain, oppression and suppression of the majority of its people.
If you are only maintaining your silence for fear of what might happen to you should this regime fall, you need to be reminded that a partnership with a criminal regime that commits genocide and robs the majority of people from life, property and liberty, is one that is morally wrong and you should come out and separate yourselves from it. The evil they are perpetrating every minute of the day, all over Ethiopia, to millions of people, will continue unless good people stand up against it. Resentment is only building as Meles cracks down on anyone outside of his own “village,” “tribe,” or “region.”
A Call to Action: Stopping the Cycle of Destruction and Deception
You should no longer be part of this dying regime, which is in its final days. You can see the evidence that Meles and his clique feel vulnerable and weakened as they strike out in every direction in an increasingly frequent display of paranoia and desperation. I say this, hoping to protect our Tigrayan brothers and sisters from some of the worst consequences following years of oppressive “village rule,” once “Meles’ village” loses power. Remember how you felt after the oppression you experienced at the hands of Mengistu and his clique?
If we are not going to fall into mass vengeance, stemming from the anger and bitterness built up over the years, Tigrayans must initiate strong action to prevent it by becoming part of the solution. Please consider this! It will take facing the truth, facing one’s conscience and the finding the moral courage to clearly stop any suggestion of complicity, including support of this brutally exploitive system given through your silence. I am asking you to start challenging this system that was put into place in your ethnic name, but is devastating your fellow Ethiopian brothers and sisters. You will not escape easily unless we all work together for what is right and good.
Right now most of the Tigrayans are grabbing the tail of the tiger, not wanting to let go; fearing that the tiger will bite you; but the hand of most Tigrayans who are supporting the TPLF must be getting tired. There will be a day when you will become so exhausted, that you will lose your grip. Then what? You need a new strategy and to come back to your family. I know there are many Tigrayans who value the principles of the Solidarity Movement. Many of you have told me this yourselves.
I want these Tigrayans to know my hand, the hand of those in the Solidarity Movement and the hands of countless other Ethiopians are reaching out to you. Please start reaching back because the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia was created for all Ethiopians, including you. There will be a day when the TPLF will finally collapse. Before that happens, we want you to become free of the threat of this wild tiger’s anger by reconciling with your brothers and sisters in your family of Ethiopia.
Stop your secret meetings, sponsored by the TPLF, that have been taking place throughout the world. Instead, start private discussions among other Tigrayans and non-Tigrayans about how to help cage the tiger by working together with others. This is the way to start—from behind the scenes, eventually joining us in the open places throughout the world, including Meskel Square in Addis Ababa! What a day of genuine celebration that will be!
I also call on other Ethiopians to reach out to embrace your fellow Ethiopians of Tigrayan ethnicity, so they might be further encouraged by your acceptance and partnership. Taking such a stand for them is not easy and each of us should help them feel safe enough to make such a break. Ethiopians of other backgrounds have been guilty of pushing them away.
I have spoken with many Tigrayans who have told sad accounts of trying to join with other Ethiopians in opposition to Meles, but have been given the cold shoulder, finally returning to their own ethnic groups as a result. Reaching back to those who are reaching out will make the table of tyranny on which Meles and the TPLF are standing, collapse. This will prepare the way for a peaceful transition to a New Ethiopia where no one is fearful of others. In summary, why should a 3000-year old country of 80 million people, who stood up against colonialism, now disintegrate? It is not too late to fix this broken society and broken country so that it can re-emerge stronger.
Society is supposed to be like a human body, where the body functions well when all the parts are working. We need every part, for without each part, how do we come back to health? God will help us if we trust in Him fully. Come back to God’s principles—fearing Him and loving one another. Let us put our humanity before our ethnicity and we may find a real homeland where all are free.
I hope the following verses from II Corinthians 7: 8-11 written by the Apostle Paul will be true of your response to my letter:
“Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.”
May it be the same for each of you!
Your brother,
Obang Metho, Executive Director Of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia
E-mail: Obang@solidaritymovement.org
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
In Search of Peace: Ethiopia’s Ethnic Conflicts and Resolution (for discussion purpose only)
By Messay Kebede
Whether opposition parties opt for armed struggle or peaceful methods in their attempt to overthrow the existing regime in Ethiopia, they must all come up with a vision and a political solution that can heal decades of ingrained conflicts and reconstitute national unity. Since the ethnic conflict is by far the most divisive and pernicious issue of present day Ethiopia, the endeavor both to defeat the regime and establish a post-TPLF political system presupposes an approach dealing with ethnicity. It is illusory to assume that ethnicity will simply go away if the TPLF is defeated. What follows is an attempt to show how a correct theory of ethnicity and lessons from the past history of Ethiopia can help us frame a political arrangement that favors the establishment of peace and democratic governance in our country.
Theory of Ethnicity
For one school of thought called primordialism, ethnicity is about self-determination; it is a primordial and emotional attachment to fixed social characteristics, such as blood ties, race, language, region, and custom. Such an attachment naturally longs for political sovereignty as a necessary means to protect and develop the treasured characteristics. The best way to resolve ethnic conflicts, so primordialists conclude, is to allow peoples the right to live in the state of their choice, even by seceding from existing states.
Opposed to this line of thinking is the school of instrumentalism, which argues that the solution of redrawing political borders on the basis of self-determination often advances neither democracy nor achieves the peaceful resolution of ethnic conflicts (India-Pakistan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, the former Yugoslavia, etc). It maintains that ethnic conflict is less about attachment to primary identity and more about competition for the control of state power. Ethnicity is how elites vying for state power mobilize people in the name of ethnic identity. Since ethnic conflict is primarily about politics rather than about culture, a political arrangement allowing decentralization and power-sharing can promote a peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Instrumentalism comes up against a major objection, which is that it views ethnicity as a product of elite manipulation. Such an understanding is unable to account for the emotional mood and violent methods that are often characteristic of ethnic conflicts. It is difficult to see why the masses follow with great fervor the discourse of elites unless it awakens their own deep affective longings.
In an attempt to correct instrumentalism, the school known as constructivism underlines that, rather than reviving already existing primary attachments, the ethnic discourse invents new identities. It argues that mistreatments and the need of liberation drive marginalized elites to imagine communities embellished with thrilling characteristics, thereby successfully mobilizing the people with whom they identify. The promise of deliverance activates affective components that impart an emotional dimension to what is but an invented identity.
Sustained reflections on Ethiopia’s ethnic conflicts lead me to believe that the constructivist correction of instrumentalism does not fully answer the question of knowing why the invented discourse of elites moves the masses to the point of violent confrontations. True, the element of imagination is liable to arouse emotional forces, but there is also no denying that the ethnic discourse works with past materials associated with common descent and cultural legacy to which people are naturally attached. What is achieved is thus the creation of ascriptive rights with exclusionary intent, which largely involve sentiments derived from nature rather than merely from human imaginative capacity. I also question the idea that constructivism constitutes a distinct school, all the more so as it loses much of its explanatory force if a great dose of instrumentalism does not support it.
Instead of setting apart, I propose to fuse instrumentalism with constructivism if only because such an attempt seems to recover whatever is valid in primordialism. Indeed, what is the most effective way of promoting interests if not through the mobilization of affective and cultural forces, especially when said interests are challenged or denied? Accordingly, ethnic mobilizations are better understood if cultural construction is itself an instrument whose purpose is to optimize a political claim. Such an approach retains the powerful role of culture without, however, losing sight of the material component of ethnicity. While I admit that the emotional force of ethnicity cannot be explained without appealing to primordial impulses, I argue that the impulses do not provide the inspiration; rather, they are used to maximize definite interests.
This approach insists that ethnicization is more than a mere protest against mistreatment. Indeed, had ethnicity been about the equal recognition of rights, mobilization around individual rights, as prescribed by liberal democracy, would have been the appropriate response. On the other hand, if the fight is over the control of the state, then the strategy is to mobilize group rights so as to use ascriptive characteristics (common descent, language, culture, etc.) to exclude political rivals as aliens. The use of ethnic criteria thus maps out constituencies that function as a reserved power base for vying elites.
Identity politics is all the more mobilizing when ruling elites are made responsible for economic plights of ordinary people. What is common in ethnic discourses is the framing of culprits with the consequence that it unleashes anger. The revival of traditional identities, in addition to portraying elites as saviors of their community, thereby upgrading their authority, frames social relations in terms of culprits and victims. Just as the Marxist concept of class exploitation politicized poverty, so too the ethnic discourse politicizes identities by portraying the possession of some characteristics (language, descent, religious beliefs) as reasons for mistreatment. In so doing, it stirs up anger that it directs against those who hold power.
On top of deriving the emotional component from the construction of imagined communities, my approach thus adds the important factor of the vilification of ruling elites, which often results in the them/us dichotomy with high normative overtones. The use of moral qualifications turns the confrontation between ethnic groups into a struggle between the good and the bad, the virtuous and the vicious. This moral classification is then used to justify the resort to violent means.
To understand the wide impact of ethnic discourse, one must go beyond the negative role of inciting anger by adding its restorative function. Discriminatory treatment as a result of the hegemony of one ethnic group has a deep impact on the self-representation of dominated or marginalized groups, since it activates feelings associated with humiliation. This explains why ethnicity is so violent when compared to class conflict, which is mostly about justice and fair distribution, and not about human pride. Not only does the ethnic construction highlight humiliation, but it also proposes a curative solution in the form of self-determination or self-rule. While the solution supports the political ambition of elite groups, it is also largely accepted as a necessary step toward the removal of humiliation. According to the logic of ethnicization, pride is restored only when governments by non-kindred people, however democratic they may claim to be, are replaced by governments of kindred-people.
The significance of my hypothesis transpires as soon as one asks what specific ideas it contributes to the paramount issue of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The importance of having the correct approach is that it enables us to find relevant solutions: if we know what causes ethnic conflicts, then we can devise institutional mechanisms that remove the causes and, therefore, ease ethnic tensions.
The primordialist approach has no other option than the secessionist solution, since it reduces ethnic conflicts to cultural incompatibilities. The instrumentalist approach has the merit of deriving ethnic conflicts from elite rivalries for the ownership of the state. In agreement with instrumentalism, my approach suggests that the main solution to ethnic conflicts is to open up the power game by devising institutions that decentralize power, as in the case of federal arrangement with large autonomy. Nevertheless, my analysis of the cultural dimension as a maximizing factor argues that autonomy should go to the extent of allowing the implementation of group rights and self-rule. I thus take into consideration the powerful emotional forces unleashed by the ethnic discourse. Unless these forces are appeased, a mere decentralization will not be enough.
In addition, my view, which can be termed “maximism,” suggests the possibility of displacement (in the Freudian sense of the word). One way of reducing tensions would thus be to shift the emotional forces to trans-ethnic or multiethnic institutions and symbols. My assumption is that multiethnic institutions can supersede ethnic exclusiveness if access to higher levels of national government represents, not the surrender of ethnic identity, but its graduation from local to national statures. Such institutions together with the celebration of diversity will help cultural conversion to multiethnicism as an imagined community.
Ethnicization of Ethiopia
My thesis, namely, ethnicity as a maximizing factor in elites’ struggle for the control of power, finds a perfect confirmation in both the origin of ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia and Ethiopia’s experiment with ethnic federalism. A strong argument for this would be the fact that the Ethiopian system, besides being imposed, is deliberately established to encourage ethnicization. Whereas other countries, such as Nigeria, India, etc., used federalism as a devise to dilute ethnicity so as to safeguard national unity, all the practices and constitutional provisions in Ethiopia tend to strengthen ethnic identity to the detriment of national integration.
The explanation springs to mind: both to mobilize the Tigrean people so as to overthrow the dominance of the Amhara elite and to establish a federal system that favors it, the TPLF had to fracture Ethiopia along ethnic lines, thereby speaking of the country as an ensemble of nations and nationalities. So fractured, the political struggle becomes focused on self-rule and the control of regional states, leaving the federal government to the TPLF. Such a system develops local elite groups that have common interests with the ruling power without, however, making them competitors.
Scholars who study the Ethiopian case marvel about the radical nature of ethnic federalism, but they also observe shortcomings. They thus underline a disparity between theory and practice, especially when it comes to the autonomy of ethnic regions. This disparity proves that the wrong understanding of ethnicity actually inspires those who speak of shortcomings. A consistent and comprehensive view of the discrepancy is achieved only when it is admitted that ethnicity is less about democracy than it is about the control of state by elite groups.
The primordialist position is completely unable to explain the disparity between practice and theory. If primordial sentiments exclusively motivate ethnicity, then the victory of the TPLF should have led to the secession of Tigray or the implementation of a real system of decentralization and self-rule. What is more, the TPLF wholeheartedly supported the Eritrean independence on the basis of primordialist criteria, but refuses to recognize the claim of secessionist movements in the regions of Oromia and Somalia. These apparent contradictions vanish if it is shown that calculations of interests condition the TPLF’s decisions.
The involvement of interests becomes manifest when we remark that, though the Ethiopian system encourages ethnicization, it remains very centralized. The centralization is realized through a party system, the EPRDF (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front), which is a coalition of ethnic parties in which the TPLF is the dominant partner. Thanks to the democratic centralism governing the coalition, the TPLF thus controls the whole federal system and intervenes extensively in the administration of regional and sub-regional governments. What comes to mind is the Soviet model of federalism based on the tight control of the communist party.
What this means is that regional autonomy is not how a region is allowed to decide and control its affairs; rather, the system creates client parties that allow the center to maintain its controls through dependent local elites. That is why, as I wrote in a previously published article titled “The Underside of the Eritrean Issue,” it is perfectly sound to state that the TPLF politely but firmly expelled Eritrea from Ethiopia because it understood that the EPLF will never agree to become a dependent partner. The system and the way it works make sense only if we assume that it is purposely designed to maintain the hegemony of an elite group claiming to defend the interests of a minority ethnic group.
The presence of interests in ethnic claims is also attested by the fact that there is no shortage of elite-groups seeking to become clients. To the imposition of ethnicity as a primary criterion of federal arrangement, local elites responded by creating political movements that endorsed the criterion. So that, ethnic identities that used to be weak are restructured as primary for the simple reason that the TPLF-dominated federal government rewards ethnicization.
Be it noted that instrumentalism cannot explain the ethnicization of Tigray without interpreting ethnicity as an imaginative reinvention of identity. Though Tigray has been part of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) for at least 3000 years and Tigreans and Amhara–– the dominant ethnic group during Haile Selassie’s long reign–– share the same culture and political system, the TPLF constructed Tigray as a nation by emphasizing language difference. While this reinvention supports constructivism, a complete view is achieved only if it is inserted into my interpretation of identity politics as a maximizing factor.
The use of ethnic criteria to reinforce a political goal is what explains the deep contradiction of ethnic movements in Ethiopia. Whether we take the Eritrean, Oromo, Tigrean, or other ethnic movements, all trace their emergence back to the imperial regime, which they defined as the imposition of Amhara culture and interests in a tightly centralized political system. The democratic solution would have been decentralization together with the recognition of Ethiopia as a multiethnic country. Ethnic movements did not opt for such a solution; instead, they brandished self-rule and group rights. The definition of ethnic groups as nations and nationalities means that they revert back to the nation-state model that they had previously rejected in the name of multiethnicism. Only the goal of capturing state power by amplifying cultural incompatibilities can explain the reversal.
The factor of maximization becomes fully manifest when we notice the rise of dissident ethnic parties accusing the TPLF of not being consistent. Such movements are often secessionist and they become so by stretching cultural disparity, that is, by adopting an even more primordialist language. Dissident ethnic parties cannot hope to compete successfully against client elites working with the TPLF unless they change identity into a primordial commitment overriding everything. In particular, the works of intellectuals of Oromo origin clearly show how they combine vilification and utopia to create the “Oromo” nation. The vilification inherent in the thesis of Abyssinia’s colonization of Oromia and the myth of democratic Oromia before the colonization both testify to the invention of Oromia as an imagined community.
From Theory to Practice
Since democratic rules guaranteeing the proper application of federalism are not followed in Ethiopia, ethnic federalism, as it is now implemented, only succeeds in radicalizing and multiplying dissident ethnic groups. As a result, there is a growing danger of disintegration that will lead to violent confrontations, not only inside Ethiopia, but also in the entire Horn of Africa, unless a reverse process toward reintegration is put in place. In other words, what puts the country in danger is less ethnicity than the lack of democratic governance, itself originating from an eccentric group’s shortsighted and vain goal of preserving indefinitely the control of power.
The theory of maximization and its attendant, namely, the possibility of displacement, suggest a way out through the creation of national symbols and institutions encouraging ethnic cooperation. In other words, the crystallization of ethnic identity could be diluted if national offices are made dependent on moderation. The lure of higher political rewards through moderation could thus produce a displacement mitigating the exclusionary practice of identity politics.
This means, of course, that the main solution to ethnic conflicts is the democratization of the state through decentralization and large local autonomy. However, I emphasize that the autonomy must go to the extent of allowing the implementation of group rights and self-rule, the only way by which the affective element can be dealt with. Since in denouncing alien rule, the ethnic discourse has awakened the feeling of humiliation, only the provision of a local or regional administration controlled by culturally kindred elites can satisfy both the masses and the competing elites.
My thesis also predicts that, as soon as grudge is removed through the granting of self-rule, ethnic groups will lose their original compactness and give way to diversity and the appearance of sub-group elites vying for the control of local power. In due course, this will reintroduce issues of individual rights that will be useful both to democratize the local community and to rebuild the national unity.
My solution is then to open up the power game in conjunction with the creation of institutional mechanisms that work toward unity. The tendency to unity should grow from the political dispersion, that is, from the implementation of group rights, itself leading to intra-ethnic rivalries. From this diffused power game must rise national ambition forcing elite groups to moderate their views if they want to extend their power and influence beyond their ethnic groups. Moderation as a prerequisite to national leadership can also be used to prevail over local rivals.
Appropriate institutional mechanisms can further fortify the appeal of moderation. So that, the peaceful and lasting solution to ethnic conflicts seems to be the device of a political system in which centripetal forces (national institutions and symbols) counter centrifugal forces (ethnicity). While federalism with large autonomy and self-rule should satisfy ethnicity, political institutions making national positions dependent on moderation should encourage unity. As much as I support the political recognition of ethnicity, unlike primordialism, I think that the reconstruction of unity is also necessary for a lasting peace.
One way of balancing centripetal and centrifugal forces is the creation of a presidential figure with large political and symbolic meanings. If the election of the president depends on majority vote of the people, in addition to encouraging the expression of individual rights in conjunction with group rights, candidates for the presidential office will have to become attractive to voters outside their ethnic groups. This arrangement encourages moderation, but also creates national figures.
History Lessons
My theory of ethnic management finds a validating argument in the proposal that it is but a modernized version of the political system of traditional Ethiopia. Seeing the long duration of the political system, which even resisted repeated colonial assaults, it is sound to contend that the provision of an open power game based on the interplay of centrifugal and centripetal forces was the secret of the long survival of Ethiopia (for detailed explanation of the traditional system, see my book, Survival and Modernization).
Indeed, while the nobility with often ethnic definitions controlled regional power, the imperial throne and the Orthodox Church represented centripetal forces. Another crucial centripetal force was the active role of the national intelligentsia (debtera), which was the product of a common system of education whose pillars were use of the Geez language, the centering of Ethiopia, and the propagation of its divine mission (the Kibre Negast).The system defined the emperor as king of kings: the recognition of regional leaders as kings meant nothing less than the acceptance of large autonomy and self-rule. That Tigray preserved its language and ruling elites for centuries even though the Amhara were numerically superior and often in control of the imperial throne proves how extensive was the autonomy that regions enjoyed.
What is more, regional lords could freely compete for the imperial throne, since the system did not institute any exclusive definition of the heir to the throne, except for the vague and inclusive concept of Solomonic descent. Decentralization and competition for the imperial throne encouraged intra-ethnic competitions resulting in the emergence of rival sub-regions in Amhara and Tigray. These conditions never allowed the crystallization of ethnic identity; instead, they enabled the emperor to emerge as a divine-elected protector of Orthodox Christianity and unifier of a multiethnic community. In other words, political dispersion or regional autonomy was coined as a source of rivalry setting the stage for the intervention of God’s express choice of the emperor. Often based on military prowess, God’s choice became formal the moment the Church anointed the elect.
The working principle required not only the respect of large local autonomy with self-rule, but also that the various regions of Gondar, Gojjam, Wollo, Shoa, and Tigray had comparable powers. Witness: when the central system collapsed during the Era of the Princes, no one was really able to prevail until the rise of Tewodros, who also failed partially. Menelik was able to triumph because the southern expansion of Showa created an imbalance that favored the Shown nobility. The loss of balance changed the political game: the political dispersion necessary to set God’s choice in motion was replaced by entitlement derived from the Shoan hegemony.
The unrivalled power of Show cleared the way for the establishment of Haile Selassie’s autocratic rule and his hereditary monarchy. In the name of modern nation-building, Haile Selassie put an end to the decentered power game through a tight political centralization and Amharization that naturally favored the Amhara nobility. Its outcome was the slow but steady exasperation of ethnic conflicts through the instigation of elites from marginalized ethnic groups.
The traditional system teaches us that wisdom lies in creating regional units that are balanced, but also open to intra-group competitions. The latter together with centripetal institutions and symbols prevent the crystallization of ethnic identity to the benefit of multiethnicism. The shift results from the open power game that defines national positions as graduations of ethnic identities to trans-ethnic representations.The present policy of the TPLF prevents the emergence of national ambitions and intra-ethnic group competitions by the method of democratic centralism, which protects client parties from competition. Moreover, the principle of balanced power does not command the establishment of federal units. In particular, the two big regions of Amhara and Oromia create a serious imbalance endangering national unity. Wisdom advises the fracturing of these two regions into smaller units as a necessary condition of promoting ethnic cooperation.What we learn from the traditional system is thus the recapture of the culture tolerating diversity, which culture was sidelined by the uprooting imitation of Europe’s model of the nation-state. The expression “Amhara or Tigrean hegemony” would be incomprehensible to the people of traditional Ethiopia who understood ethnicity in terms of rivalry, and not as a system of hegemonic government. The other important lesson is the need to couple ethnicity with centripetal institutions and visions, whose outcome is the promotion of multiethnicism. A strong presidential figure who would be elected on the basis of majority vote among all ethnic groups would be to the modern system what the emperor was to the traditional polity.
--------
Messay Kebede is a professor of philosophy at University of Dayton, Ohio. Messay.Kebede@notes.udayton.edu
Whether opposition parties opt for armed struggle or peaceful methods in their attempt to overthrow the existing regime in Ethiopia, they must all come up with a vision and a political solution that can heal decades of ingrained conflicts and reconstitute national unity. Since the ethnic conflict is by far the most divisive and pernicious issue of present day Ethiopia, the endeavor both to defeat the regime and establish a post-TPLF political system presupposes an approach dealing with ethnicity. It is illusory to assume that ethnicity will simply go away if the TPLF is defeated. What follows is an attempt to show how a correct theory of ethnicity and lessons from the past history of Ethiopia can help us frame a political arrangement that favors the establishment of peace and democratic governance in our country.
Theory of Ethnicity
For one school of thought called primordialism, ethnicity is about self-determination; it is a primordial and emotional attachment to fixed social characteristics, such as blood ties, race, language, region, and custom. Such an attachment naturally longs for political sovereignty as a necessary means to protect and develop the treasured characteristics. The best way to resolve ethnic conflicts, so primordialists conclude, is to allow peoples the right to live in the state of their choice, even by seceding from existing states.
Opposed to this line of thinking is the school of instrumentalism, which argues that the solution of redrawing political borders on the basis of self-determination often advances neither democracy nor achieves the peaceful resolution of ethnic conflicts (India-Pakistan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, the former Yugoslavia, etc). It maintains that ethnic conflict is less about attachment to primary identity and more about competition for the control of state power. Ethnicity is how elites vying for state power mobilize people in the name of ethnic identity. Since ethnic conflict is primarily about politics rather than about culture, a political arrangement allowing decentralization and power-sharing can promote a peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Instrumentalism comes up against a major objection, which is that it views ethnicity as a product of elite manipulation. Such an understanding is unable to account for the emotional mood and violent methods that are often characteristic of ethnic conflicts. It is difficult to see why the masses follow with great fervor the discourse of elites unless it awakens their own deep affective longings.
In an attempt to correct instrumentalism, the school known as constructivism underlines that, rather than reviving already existing primary attachments, the ethnic discourse invents new identities. It argues that mistreatments and the need of liberation drive marginalized elites to imagine communities embellished with thrilling characteristics, thereby successfully mobilizing the people with whom they identify. The promise of deliverance activates affective components that impart an emotional dimension to what is but an invented identity.
Sustained reflections on Ethiopia’s ethnic conflicts lead me to believe that the constructivist correction of instrumentalism does not fully answer the question of knowing why the invented discourse of elites moves the masses to the point of violent confrontations. True, the element of imagination is liable to arouse emotional forces, but there is also no denying that the ethnic discourse works with past materials associated with common descent and cultural legacy to which people are naturally attached. What is achieved is thus the creation of ascriptive rights with exclusionary intent, which largely involve sentiments derived from nature rather than merely from human imaginative capacity. I also question the idea that constructivism constitutes a distinct school, all the more so as it loses much of its explanatory force if a great dose of instrumentalism does not support it.
Instead of setting apart, I propose to fuse instrumentalism with constructivism if only because such an attempt seems to recover whatever is valid in primordialism. Indeed, what is the most effective way of promoting interests if not through the mobilization of affective and cultural forces, especially when said interests are challenged or denied? Accordingly, ethnic mobilizations are better understood if cultural construction is itself an instrument whose purpose is to optimize a political claim. Such an approach retains the powerful role of culture without, however, losing sight of the material component of ethnicity. While I admit that the emotional force of ethnicity cannot be explained without appealing to primordial impulses, I argue that the impulses do not provide the inspiration; rather, they are used to maximize definite interests.
This approach insists that ethnicization is more than a mere protest against mistreatment. Indeed, had ethnicity been about the equal recognition of rights, mobilization around individual rights, as prescribed by liberal democracy, would have been the appropriate response. On the other hand, if the fight is over the control of the state, then the strategy is to mobilize group rights so as to use ascriptive characteristics (common descent, language, culture, etc.) to exclude political rivals as aliens. The use of ethnic criteria thus maps out constituencies that function as a reserved power base for vying elites.
Identity politics is all the more mobilizing when ruling elites are made responsible for economic plights of ordinary people. What is common in ethnic discourses is the framing of culprits with the consequence that it unleashes anger. The revival of traditional identities, in addition to portraying elites as saviors of their community, thereby upgrading their authority, frames social relations in terms of culprits and victims. Just as the Marxist concept of class exploitation politicized poverty, so too the ethnic discourse politicizes identities by portraying the possession of some characteristics (language, descent, religious beliefs) as reasons for mistreatment. In so doing, it stirs up anger that it directs against those who hold power.
On top of deriving the emotional component from the construction of imagined communities, my approach thus adds the important factor of the vilification of ruling elites, which often results in the them/us dichotomy with high normative overtones. The use of moral qualifications turns the confrontation between ethnic groups into a struggle between the good and the bad, the virtuous and the vicious. This moral classification is then used to justify the resort to violent means.
To understand the wide impact of ethnic discourse, one must go beyond the negative role of inciting anger by adding its restorative function. Discriminatory treatment as a result of the hegemony of one ethnic group has a deep impact on the self-representation of dominated or marginalized groups, since it activates feelings associated with humiliation. This explains why ethnicity is so violent when compared to class conflict, which is mostly about justice and fair distribution, and not about human pride. Not only does the ethnic construction highlight humiliation, but it also proposes a curative solution in the form of self-determination or self-rule. While the solution supports the political ambition of elite groups, it is also largely accepted as a necessary step toward the removal of humiliation. According to the logic of ethnicization, pride is restored only when governments by non-kindred people, however democratic they may claim to be, are replaced by governments of kindred-people.
The significance of my hypothesis transpires as soon as one asks what specific ideas it contributes to the paramount issue of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The importance of having the correct approach is that it enables us to find relevant solutions: if we know what causes ethnic conflicts, then we can devise institutional mechanisms that remove the causes and, therefore, ease ethnic tensions.
The primordialist approach has no other option than the secessionist solution, since it reduces ethnic conflicts to cultural incompatibilities. The instrumentalist approach has the merit of deriving ethnic conflicts from elite rivalries for the ownership of the state. In agreement with instrumentalism, my approach suggests that the main solution to ethnic conflicts is to open up the power game by devising institutions that decentralize power, as in the case of federal arrangement with large autonomy. Nevertheless, my analysis of the cultural dimension as a maximizing factor argues that autonomy should go to the extent of allowing the implementation of group rights and self-rule. I thus take into consideration the powerful emotional forces unleashed by the ethnic discourse. Unless these forces are appeased, a mere decentralization will not be enough.
In addition, my view, which can be termed “maximism,” suggests the possibility of displacement (in the Freudian sense of the word). One way of reducing tensions would thus be to shift the emotional forces to trans-ethnic or multiethnic institutions and symbols. My assumption is that multiethnic institutions can supersede ethnic exclusiveness if access to higher levels of national government represents, not the surrender of ethnic identity, but its graduation from local to national statures. Such institutions together with the celebration of diversity will help cultural conversion to multiethnicism as an imagined community.
Ethnicization of Ethiopia
My thesis, namely, ethnicity as a maximizing factor in elites’ struggle for the control of power, finds a perfect confirmation in both the origin of ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia and Ethiopia’s experiment with ethnic federalism. A strong argument for this would be the fact that the Ethiopian system, besides being imposed, is deliberately established to encourage ethnicization. Whereas other countries, such as Nigeria, India, etc., used federalism as a devise to dilute ethnicity so as to safeguard national unity, all the practices and constitutional provisions in Ethiopia tend to strengthen ethnic identity to the detriment of national integration.
The explanation springs to mind: both to mobilize the Tigrean people so as to overthrow the dominance of the Amhara elite and to establish a federal system that favors it, the TPLF had to fracture Ethiopia along ethnic lines, thereby speaking of the country as an ensemble of nations and nationalities. So fractured, the political struggle becomes focused on self-rule and the control of regional states, leaving the federal government to the TPLF. Such a system develops local elite groups that have common interests with the ruling power without, however, making them competitors.
Scholars who study the Ethiopian case marvel about the radical nature of ethnic federalism, but they also observe shortcomings. They thus underline a disparity between theory and practice, especially when it comes to the autonomy of ethnic regions. This disparity proves that the wrong understanding of ethnicity actually inspires those who speak of shortcomings. A consistent and comprehensive view of the discrepancy is achieved only when it is admitted that ethnicity is less about democracy than it is about the control of state by elite groups.
The primordialist position is completely unable to explain the disparity between practice and theory. If primordial sentiments exclusively motivate ethnicity, then the victory of the TPLF should have led to the secession of Tigray or the implementation of a real system of decentralization and self-rule. What is more, the TPLF wholeheartedly supported the Eritrean independence on the basis of primordialist criteria, but refuses to recognize the claim of secessionist movements in the regions of Oromia and Somalia. These apparent contradictions vanish if it is shown that calculations of interests condition the TPLF’s decisions.
The involvement of interests becomes manifest when we remark that, though the Ethiopian system encourages ethnicization, it remains very centralized. The centralization is realized through a party system, the EPRDF (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front), which is a coalition of ethnic parties in which the TPLF is the dominant partner. Thanks to the democratic centralism governing the coalition, the TPLF thus controls the whole federal system and intervenes extensively in the administration of regional and sub-regional governments. What comes to mind is the Soviet model of federalism based on the tight control of the communist party.
What this means is that regional autonomy is not how a region is allowed to decide and control its affairs; rather, the system creates client parties that allow the center to maintain its controls through dependent local elites. That is why, as I wrote in a previously published article titled “The Underside of the Eritrean Issue,” it is perfectly sound to state that the TPLF politely but firmly expelled Eritrea from Ethiopia because it understood that the EPLF will never agree to become a dependent partner. The system and the way it works make sense only if we assume that it is purposely designed to maintain the hegemony of an elite group claiming to defend the interests of a minority ethnic group.
The presence of interests in ethnic claims is also attested by the fact that there is no shortage of elite-groups seeking to become clients. To the imposition of ethnicity as a primary criterion of federal arrangement, local elites responded by creating political movements that endorsed the criterion. So that, ethnic identities that used to be weak are restructured as primary for the simple reason that the TPLF-dominated federal government rewards ethnicization.
Be it noted that instrumentalism cannot explain the ethnicization of Tigray without interpreting ethnicity as an imaginative reinvention of identity. Though Tigray has been part of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) for at least 3000 years and Tigreans and Amhara–– the dominant ethnic group during Haile Selassie’s long reign–– share the same culture and political system, the TPLF constructed Tigray as a nation by emphasizing language difference. While this reinvention supports constructivism, a complete view is achieved only if it is inserted into my interpretation of identity politics as a maximizing factor.
The use of ethnic criteria to reinforce a political goal is what explains the deep contradiction of ethnic movements in Ethiopia. Whether we take the Eritrean, Oromo, Tigrean, or other ethnic movements, all trace their emergence back to the imperial regime, which they defined as the imposition of Amhara culture and interests in a tightly centralized political system. The democratic solution would have been decentralization together with the recognition of Ethiopia as a multiethnic country. Ethnic movements did not opt for such a solution; instead, they brandished self-rule and group rights. The definition of ethnic groups as nations and nationalities means that they revert back to the nation-state model that they had previously rejected in the name of multiethnicism. Only the goal of capturing state power by amplifying cultural incompatibilities can explain the reversal.
The factor of maximization becomes fully manifest when we notice the rise of dissident ethnic parties accusing the TPLF of not being consistent. Such movements are often secessionist and they become so by stretching cultural disparity, that is, by adopting an even more primordialist language. Dissident ethnic parties cannot hope to compete successfully against client elites working with the TPLF unless they change identity into a primordial commitment overriding everything. In particular, the works of intellectuals of Oromo origin clearly show how they combine vilification and utopia to create the “Oromo” nation. The vilification inherent in the thesis of Abyssinia’s colonization of Oromia and the myth of democratic Oromia before the colonization both testify to the invention of Oromia as an imagined community.
From Theory to Practice
Since democratic rules guaranteeing the proper application of federalism are not followed in Ethiopia, ethnic federalism, as it is now implemented, only succeeds in radicalizing and multiplying dissident ethnic groups. As a result, there is a growing danger of disintegration that will lead to violent confrontations, not only inside Ethiopia, but also in the entire Horn of Africa, unless a reverse process toward reintegration is put in place. In other words, what puts the country in danger is less ethnicity than the lack of democratic governance, itself originating from an eccentric group’s shortsighted and vain goal of preserving indefinitely the control of power.
The theory of maximization and its attendant, namely, the possibility of displacement, suggest a way out through the creation of national symbols and institutions encouraging ethnic cooperation. In other words, the crystallization of ethnic identity could be diluted if national offices are made dependent on moderation. The lure of higher political rewards through moderation could thus produce a displacement mitigating the exclusionary practice of identity politics.
This means, of course, that the main solution to ethnic conflicts is the democratization of the state through decentralization and large local autonomy. However, I emphasize that the autonomy must go to the extent of allowing the implementation of group rights and self-rule, the only way by which the affective element can be dealt with. Since in denouncing alien rule, the ethnic discourse has awakened the feeling of humiliation, only the provision of a local or regional administration controlled by culturally kindred elites can satisfy both the masses and the competing elites.
My thesis also predicts that, as soon as grudge is removed through the granting of self-rule, ethnic groups will lose their original compactness and give way to diversity and the appearance of sub-group elites vying for the control of local power. In due course, this will reintroduce issues of individual rights that will be useful both to democratize the local community and to rebuild the national unity.
My solution is then to open up the power game in conjunction with the creation of institutional mechanisms that work toward unity. The tendency to unity should grow from the political dispersion, that is, from the implementation of group rights, itself leading to intra-ethnic rivalries. From this diffused power game must rise national ambition forcing elite groups to moderate their views if they want to extend their power and influence beyond their ethnic groups. Moderation as a prerequisite to national leadership can also be used to prevail over local rivals.
Appropriate institutional mechanisms can further fortify the appeal of moderation. So that, the peaceful and lasting solution to ethnic conflicts seems to be the device of a political system in which centripetal forces (national institutions and symbols) counter centrifugal forces (ethnicity). While federalism with large autonomy and self-rule should satisfy ethnicity, political institutions making national positions dependent on moderation should encourage unity. As much as I support the political recognition of ethnicity, unlike primordialism, I think that the reconstruction of unity is also necessary for a lasting peace.
One way of balancing centripetal and centrifugal forces is the creation of a presidential figure with large political and symbolic meanings. If the election of the president depends on majority vote of the people, in addition to encouraging the expression of individual rights in conjunction with group rights, candidates for the presidential office will have to become attractive to voters outside their ethnic groups. This arrangement encourages moderation, but also creates national figures.
History Lessons
My theory of ethnic management finds a validating argument in the proposal that it is but a modernized version of the political system of traditional Ethiopia. Seeing the long duration of the political system, which even resisted repeated colonial assaults, it is sound to contend that the provision of an open power game based on the interplay of centrifugal and centripetal forces was the secret of the long survival of Ethiopia (for detailed explanation of the traditional system, see my book, Survival and Modernization).
Indeed, while the nobility with often ethnic definitions controlled regional power, the imperial throne and the Orthodox Church represented centripetal forces. Another crucial centripetal force was the active role of the national intelligentsia (debtera), which was the product of a common system of education whose pillars were use of the Geez language, the centering of Ethiopia, and the propagation of its divine mission (the Kibre Negast).The system defined the emperor as king of kings: the recognition of regional leaders as kings meant nothing less than the acceptance of large autonomy and self-rule. That Tigray preserved its language and ruling elites for centuries even though the Amhara were numerically superior and often in control of the imperial throne proves how extensive was the autonomy that regions enjoyed.
What is more, regional lords could freely compete for the imperial throne, since the system did not institute any exclusive definition of the heir to the throne, except for the vague and inclusive concept of Solomonic descent. Decentralization and competition for the imperial throne encouraged intra-ethnic competitions resulting in the emergence of rival sub-regions in Amhara and Tigray. These conditions never allowed the crystallization of ethnic identity; instead, they enabled the emperor to emerge as a divine-elected protector of Orthodox Christianity and unifier of a multiethnic community. In other words, political dispersion or regional autonomy was coined as a source of rivalry setting the stage for the intervention of God’s express choice of the emperor. Often based on military prowess, God’s choice became formal the moment the Church anointed the elect.
The working principle required not only the respect of large local autonomy with self-rule, but also that the various regions of Gondar, Gojjam, Wollo, Shoa, and Tigray had comparable powers. Witness: when the central system collapsed during the Era of the Princes, no one was really able to prevail until the rise of Tewodros, who also failed partially. Menelik was able to triumph because the southern expansion of Showa created an imbalance that favored the Shown nobility. The loss of balance changed the political game: the political dispersion necessary to set God’s choice in motion was replaced by entitlement derived from the Shoan hegemony.
The unrivalled power of Show cleared the way for the establishment of Haile Selassie’s autocratic rule and his hereditary monarchy. In the name of modern nation-building, Haile Selassie put an end to the decentered power game through a tight political centralization and Amharization that naturally favored the Amhara nobility. Its outcome was the slow but steady exasperation of ethnic conflicts through the instigation of elites from marginalized ethnic groups.
The traditional system teaches us that wisdom lies in creating regional units that are balanced, but also open to intra-group competitions. The latter together with centripetal institutions and symbols prevent the crystallization of ethnic identity to the benefit of multiethnicism. The shift results from the open power game that defines national positions as graduations of ethnic identities to trans-ethnic representations.The present policy of the TPLF prevents the emergence of national ambitions and intra-ethnic group competitions by the method of democratic centralism, which protects client parties from competition. Moreover, the principle of balanced power does not command the establishment of federal units. In particular, the two big regions of Amhara and Oromia create a serious imbalance endangering national unity. Wisdom advises the fracturing of these two regions into smaller units as a necessary condition of promoting ethnic cooperation.What we learn from the traditional system is thus the recapture of the culture tolerating diversity, which culture was sidelined by the uprooting imitation of Europe’s model of the nation-state. The expression “Amhara or Tigrean hegemony” would be incomprehensible to the people of traditional Ethiopia who understood ethnicity in terms of rivalry, and not as a system of hegemonic government. The other important lesson is the need to couple ethnicity with centripetal institutions and visions, whose outcome is the promotion of multiethnicism. A strong presidential figure who would be elected on the basis of majority vote among all ethnic groups would be to the modern system what the emperor was to the traditional polity.
--------
Messay Kebede is a professor of philosophy at University of Dayton, Ohio. Messay.Kebede@notes.udayton.edu
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Uneasy Choice: Where do we stand on Gibe III Dam?
By Tsegaye Mulushoa
I. INTRODUCTION
Once again the lobbying power of the likes of Egypt (the so called “Environmentalists”) has been proved to be of far superior. The second biggest aid receiver of the United States, next to Israel, for making peace with Israel and maintaining this status qua along with its effort to soften the
fiery stand of few Arab countries’ logged against the very existence of Israel as a nation, Egypt can pull any strings at any time and still win over the flow of Nile and the Water Policy of Ethiopia, thanks to the poverty stricken, donor-dependent and financially starved Ethiopia. As it stands now, a handful Environmentalists can do the same.
The Environmentalists lobbied European Investment Bank (EIB) to withdraw funding from Ethiopia’s dam, and sure enough, they got what they wanted. Financing from the EIB for Gibe III has been stopped. Why? The Bank said it has decided to pull back its Euro 1.55 billion hydropower dam funding …following the calls from the Environmentalists that “the Gibe III Dam threatens the food security and local economies that support more than half a million people in Southwest Ethiopia,” almost verbatim to what the so called environmentalists argued, spearheaded by the likes of the controversial Terri Hathaway and Peter Bosshard.
Reportedly, EIB financed the Gibe and Gibe II dams, conducted a pre-assessment of the Gibe III Dam, and contributed funds to the project's economic, financial and technical assessment. Gilgel Gibe III dam is expected to be Africa’s tallest dam with the height of 240 meters and Ethiopia’s biggest investment.
Snaring Choice
Ethiopians all over the world can’t take our eyes off issue number one: The demise of tribal EPRDF leadership who grossly affected the unity and sovereignty of the nation and violates the civil, human and democratic rights of our people. However, the Gibe III issue may force all of us to make hard choices and help the current regime’s effort win over EIB so that the bank will reverse its decision. By far, it is an asset which will benefit the generations to come. Alas, for most of us, it is a situation or predicament from which it is impossible to extricate our self from the vicious cycle of Zenawi’s cruel administration and the danger to the national interest of Ethiopia. It will not be an easy choice; rather, it is a choice which we would have to make in pain for the sake of our country and aspiration of the future generations.
II. BACKGROUND
Fengjie is a small city with an ancient cultural center along the Yangtze River in central China, which is about to disappear as the world's largest dam takes shape. By the end of 2009, about one million residents of this ancient city would be relocated to another location. Then, the land which has had the ancient city would be the world biggest dam.
At the eve of the disappearance of this ancient city, the most vocal issue has been if such large-scale disruptions be outweighed by the presumed benefits of the multi-billion dollar dam. Experts argued for and against it. The success will be that damming the World's third-longest river (Yangtze River) will create a reservoir 365 miles (600 km) long. Aswan Dam of Egypt, Merowe of Sudan and other dams have had similar problems and gains.
It is inherent with any dams to cause forced or voluntary evacuations, pollutions, loss of spectacular scenery that has inspired poets and painters for centuries…shrines, mosques, synagogues, churches, cultural sites and archeological excavations. Dams affect farmlands and the river's marine life, a vital source of food in several communities. They consume (flood) large areas, and cost billion of dollars, making a big dent on a given national economy. In spite of these inherent problems, countries seem willing to pay the price, and take the risks to build dams because the end result is acquiring thousands of megawatts of cleaner hydroelectric power which would offset the burning of polluting coal (and other materials) and boosting their national economies.
Gibe III dam is no way different from dams built all over the world. It has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages. After weighing the potential benefits and burdens, Kenya and Ethiopia have reportedly signed the power purchase agreement outlining the terms of electricity sales in 2006. Nonetheless, Environmentalists are less impressed with this agreement as the large share of its electricity will be sold to consumers in other parts of Kenya and not in the Turkana region of Kenya. These environmentalists vehemently opposed the construction of Gibe III.
Unlike the Ethiopian Gilgel Gibe III, these so called Environmentalists did not intervene with equivalent lobbying force to stop the construction of the Aswan Dam of Egypt and the Merowe High Dam of Sudan, also known as Merowe Multi-Purpose Hydro Project or Hamdab Dam (“Merow”). The Reason…well, Sudan is not Ethiopia when it comes to Egypt, and Asawn…well, it is Egypt’s dam. After all, Egypt claims the totality of the Nile River water with Sudan. So, that goes for Egyptians’ trust of Sudanese and mistrust of Ethiopians. What is unfortunate is that the Environmentalists’ similar allegation against Gibe III Dam.
III. SUDAN’S MEROW DAM
Merowe is a large construction project in Merowe Town in Northern Sudan, about 350 km north of the capital Khartoum. It is situated on the river Nile, close to the 4th Cataract where the river divides into multiple smaller branches with large islands in between. Merowe is a city about 40 km downstream from the construction site at Hamdab. The main purpose of the dam is generation of electricity. Its dimensions make it the largest contemporary hydropower project in Africa.
Merowe’s Effects on Environment and Inhabitants: When it comes to concerns, Merow is not different from Gilgel Gibe III, be it environmental or people.
Displacement: It caused the displacement of an estimated 55,000 to 70,000 people who were residents of the area which covered by the reservoir lake, mainly belonging to the Manasir, Hamadab and Amri tribes.
Human Rights Violations: UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing Miloon Kothari once issued a statement, calling for a halt to dam construction at Merowe until an independent assessment of the dam's impacts on the more than 60,000 people who stand to be displaced by the dams at Merowe and Kajbar. Kothari alleged reservoir of Merowe destroyed dozens of homes in the area and put many more at risk.
Archeological Concern: The dam covered a place where it was inhabited by people through nearly all periods of (pre)history, but very little archaeological work has ever been conducted in this particular region. Recent surveys have confirmed the richness and diversity of traceable remains, from the Stone Age to the Islamic period. However, now there won’t be any chance for archeology.
Environmental Impact:
Sedimentation: The resettlement area is a vast area with an expected 50,000–70,000 inhabitants who would be going through a transitional period for a few years before the get acclimatised & psychologically adapted to the new-life ahead. Governing by the two eminent health impact experiences of New Halfa resettlement projects and Aswan Dam in Egypt, strategic health planning ought to start early to foresee what water born diseases and other ecological health problems (such as bilharziasis, malaria) are likely to prevail and to plan how to guard against that.
Evaporation: The creation of the reservoir lake will increase the surface area of the Nile by about 700 km². Under the climatic conditions at the site, additional evaporation losses of up to 1,500,000,000 m³ per year can be expected. This corresponds to about 8% of the total amount of water allocated to Sudan in the Nile Waters Treaty.
International and Domestic Concern: More so it had an International political impact as Nile is shared by 10 Riparian countries and domestic concerns because of South Sudan and Darfur unrest.
Regardless of this the environmentalists who worked hard to stop the financing of Gibe III have not made efforts to stop construction of Merow Dam.
IV. EGYPT’S ASWAN DAM
Aswan (Assuan) is a city on the first cataract of the Nile in Egypt. Two dams straddle the Nile River at this point: the newer Aswan High Dam, and the older Aswan Dam or Aswan Low Dam. The aim of this water project was to prevent the river's flooding, generate electricity and provide water for agriculture. The old Aswan Dam is about 1000 km up-river from Cairo or 686 km as the crow flies heading 166.8 degrees. The new Aswan High Dam is 4 km upriver from the older dam.
Aswan Dam has caused a number of environmental and cultural problems:
Displacement: It flooded much of lower Nubia and over 60,000 people were displaced. However, it allowed new settlements to be planned on an improved basis.
Archeological Concern: Lake Nasser flooded valuable archaeological sites such as the fort at Buhen.
Environmental Concern:
Fishing: Mediterranean fishing declined after the dam was finished because nutrients that used to flow down the Nile to the Mediterranean were trapped behind the dam.
Erosion: There is some erosion of farmland down-river as the river replenishes its sediment load. Erosion of coastline barriers due to lack of new sediments from floods will eventually cause loss of the brackish water lake fishery that is currently the largest source of fish for Egypt, and the subsidence of the Nile Delta will lead to inundation of the northern portion of the delta with seawater, in areas which are now used for rice crops. The red-brick construction industry, which used delta mud, is also severely affected. There is significant erosion of coastlines (due to lack of sand, which was once brought by the Nile) all along the eastern Mediterranean.
Fertility: The delta itself, no longer renewed by Nile silt, has lost much of its fertility.
Evaporation and Disease: As salt water stagnates and evaporates it leaves behind salt crystals on the soil, causing salinisation and decreased yield. Furthermore, the standing water is a breeding ground for snails carrying the parasite bilharzias, the second most socio-economically negative parasite, second only to malaria. Due to the Aswan Dam inhibiting the natural fluctuations in water height, i.e. floods, the bilharzias disease has flourished causing great expense to the Egyptian economy and people. The battle with the disease continues. The valuable silt which the Nile deposited ashore in the yearly floods and made the Nile floodplain fertile is now held behind the dam. Silt deposited in the reservoir is lowering the water storage capacity of Lake Nasser. Poor irrigation practices are water-logging soils and bringing salt to the surface.
Pollution: The increased use of artificial fertilizers in farmland below the dam has caused chemical pollution which the traditional river silt did not. Indifferent irrigation control has also caused some farmland to be damaged by water-logging and increased salinity, a problem complicated by the reduced flow of the river, which allows salt water to encroach further into the delta.
Atalantic Ocean: The Aswan Dam tends to increase the salinity of the Mediterranean Sea, and this affects the Mediterranean's outflow current into the Atlantic Ocean. This current can be traced thousands of kilometers into the Atlantic.
V. GIBE III DAM OF ETHIOPIA
Are the concerns of Gibe III different from the concerns of Merowe of Sudan, Aswan of Egypt, and Yangtze of China? If not why did EIB pulled its financing of Gibe III Dam? EIB made a decision to stop financing of Gibe III dam due to the pressure exerted by Environmentalists and activists from Friends of Lake Turkana, Kenya[1], Reform the World Bank Campaign, Counter Balance (Italy)[2], and International Rivers (Cameroon)[3] .
Environmentalists argued that the dam would affect “the ecosystems of Ethiopia's Lower Omo Valley and Kenya's Lake Turkana … [by] wreak havocking on the Omo River's natural flood cycle.” African Resources Working Group (ARWG) disputed the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment done by the Ethiopian Government citing more potential risk to the environment and the indigenous communities, mainly:
i. They urged the Bank not to fund the Gibe III because the affected communities could not withstand any more pressure on the little resources along the lake.
ii. Gibe III Dam would lead to the ecological and economic collapse around Lake Turkana, adding that it would also fuel tension in the volatile east African region, specifically[4]:
· Retreat of Lake Turkana (7m in depth in first 5 years); they said the construction of Gibe III dam would leave the lake and its inhabitants devastated as the lake could start drying up when its main source, the Omo River, is depleted by a huge dam in Ethiopia.
· A significant increase in lake salinity, and destruction of aquatic organisms
· Destruction of Indigenous Econom[ies]
· [Transboundary] Issues between Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya
· Hampering of Possible Regional Development
iii. They vehemently argued that Gibe III dam would violate human rights and social justice of the inhabitants of Lake Turkana as the dam is destroying their source of livelihood as well as their environment.
Nonetheless, the environmentalists have admitted that “ the idea of dams producing hydroelectric power” is not something to be disregarded, but they encouraged Ethiopia to pursue an alternative forms of energy development that avoid unacceptable trade offs which jeopardize indigenous economies and destroy the eco-system, like constructing small dams. Ethiopia is the poorest nation in the globe, and it is not an easy task for Ethiopians to pursue such an alternative route, loosing what could be a boost for its national economy. Hathaway knows that this task will not be an easy one, but he and his allies are telling Ethiopia that at any cost Ethiopia has to maintain the maximum river flow or slow construction of the dam to allow for adequate flow of water into Lake Turkana rather than the drastic five year damming plan currently in place.[5]
Next Stop: Africa Development Bank (ADB)
The so called Environmentalist group next stop is the ADB which they planned to pressure to stop funding. Reportedly, they have submitted complaints to the ADB in March and April alleging the Gibe III Dam violates the Bank’s policies on environmental and social assessment, poverty reduction, resettlement, public disclosure, and trans-boundary water management. They went to the extent of convincing donors not to fund ADB what they are not prepared to fund through EIB.
VI. CONCLUSION
EIB should not have stopped the financing of Gibe III. As it is shown is other dams across the globe, there are cons and pros of each and every construction of dam. The fair issue and the standard should always be if the benefit outweighs the concerns in constructing such huge dams. EIB and Environmentalists should stop using double standards and in no way shall not justify their partiality towards their financiers.
Had the government of Ethiopia not violated the human, civil and democratic rights of its citizens, Euro1.5 Billion could have been raised by Ethiopian Diaspora members saving Ethiopia from unnecessary saga with EIB and Environmentalists. Therefore, what EIB should know is that, at any cost now or later, Ethiopians will complete Gibe III dam construction. However, EIB would stand to loose its goodwill and trust with Ethiopians and the international community.
The author can be reached at tmulushoa@gmail.com.
[1] Contact Person, Ikal Angelei, +254 736 685 118 or +254 722 343 160
[2] Contact Person, Caterina Amicucci,), +39 349 852 0789
[3] Contact Person, Terri Hathaway, , +237 22 02 34 12; Peter Bosshard +1 510 848 1155
[4] http://internationalrivers.org/en/ngos/ikal-angelei-friends-lake-turkana-kenya
[5] Ibid
I. INTRODUCTION
Once again the lobbying power of the likes of Egypt (the so called “Environmentalists”) has been proved to be of far superior. The second biggest aid receiver of the United States, next to Israel, for making peace with Israel and maintaining this status qua along with its effort to soften the
fiery stand of few Arab countries’ logged against the very existence of Israel as a nation, Egypt can pull any strings at any time and still win over the flow of Nile and the Water Policy of Ethiopia, thanks to the poverty stricken, donor-dependent and financially starved Ethiopia. As it stands now, a handful Environmentalists can do the same. The Environmentalists lobbied European Investment Bank (EIB) to withdraw funding from Ethiopia’s dam, and sure enough, they got what they wanted. Financing from the EIB for Gibe III has been stopped. Why? The Bank said it has decided to pull back its Euro 1.55 billion hydropower dam funding …following the calls from the Environmentalists that “the Gibe III Dam threatens the food security and local economies that support more than half a million people in Southwest Ethiopia,” almost verbatim to what the so called environmentalists argued, spearheaded by the likes of the controversial Terri Hathaway and Peter Bosshard.
Reportedly, EIB financed the Gibe and Gibe II dams, conducted a pre-assessment of the Gibe III Dam, and contributed funds to the project's economic, financial and technical assessment. Gilgel Gibe III dam is expected to be Africa’s tallest dam with the height of 240 meters and Ethiopia’s biggest investment.
Snaring Choice
Ethiopians all over the world can’t take our eyes off issue number one: The demise of tribal EPRDF leadership who grossly affected the unity and sovereignty of the nation and violates the civil, human and democratic rights of our people. However, the Gibe III issue may force all of us to make hard choices and help the current regime’s effort win over EIB so that the bank will reverse its decision. By far, it is an asset which will benefit the generations to come. Alas, for most of us, it is a situation or predicament from which it is impossible to extricate our self from the vicious cycle of Zenawi’s cruel administration and the danger to the national interest of Ethiopia. It will not be an easy choice; rather, it is a choice which we would have to make in pain for the sake of our country and aspiration of the future generations.
II. BACKGROUND
Fengjie is a small city with an ancient cultural center along the Yangtze River in central China, which is about to disappear as the world's largest dam takes shape. By the end of 2009, about one million residents of this ancient city would be relocated to another location. Then, the land which has had the ancient city would be the world biggest dam.
At the eve of the disappearance of this ancient city, the most vocal issue has been if such large-scale disruptions be outweighed by the presumed benefits of the multi-billion dollar dam. Experts argued for and against it. The success will be that damming the World's third-longest river (Yangtze River) will create a reservoir 365 miles (600 km) long. Aswan Dam of Egypt, Merowe of Sudan and other dams have had similar problems and gains.
It is inherent with any dams to cause forced or voluntary evacuations, pollutions, loss of spectacular scenery that has inspired poets and painters for centuries…shrines, mosques, synagogues, churches, cultural sites and archeological excavations. Dams affect farmlands and the river's marine life, a vital source of food in several communities. They consume (flood) large areas, and cost billion of dollars, making a big dent on a given national economy. In spite of these inherent problems, countries seem willing to pay the price, and take the risks to build dams because the end result is acquiring thousands of megawatts of cleaner hydroelectric power which would offset the burning of polluting coal (and other materials) and boosting their national economies.
Gibe III dam is no way different from dams built all over the world. It has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages. After weighing the potential benefits and burdens, Kenya and Ethiopia have reportedly signed the power purchase agreement outlining the terms of electricity sales in 2006. Nonetheless, Environmentalists are less impressed with this agreement as the large share of its electricity will be sold to consumers in other parts of Kenya and not in the Turkana region of Kenya. These environmentalists vehemently opposed the construction of Gibe III.
Unlike the Ethiopian Gilgel Gibe III, these so called Environmentalists did not intervene with equivalent lobbying force to stop the construction of the Aswan Dam of Egypt and the Merowe High Dam of Sudan, also known as Merowe Multi-Purpose Hydro Project or Hamdab Dam (“Merow”). The Reason…well, Sudan is not Ethiopia when it comes to Egypt, and Asawn…well, it is Egypt’s dam. After all, Egypt claims the totality of the Nile River water with Sudan. So, that goes for Egyptians’ trust of Sudanese and mistrust of Ethiopians. What is unfortunate is that the Environmentalists’ similar allegation against Gibe III Dam.
III. SUDAN’S MEROW DAM
Merowe is a large construction project in Merowe Town in Northern Sudan, about 350 km north of the capital Khartoum. It is situated on the river Nile, close to the 4th Cataract where the river divides into multiple smaller branches with large islands in between. Merowe is a city about 40 km downstream from the construction site at Hamdab. The main purpose of the dam is generation of electricity. Its dimensions make it the largest contemporary hydropower project in Africa.
Merowe’s Effects on Environment and Inhabitants: When it comes to concerns, Merow is not different from Gilgel Gibe III, be it environmental or people.
Displacement: It caused the displacement of an estimated 55,000 to 70,000 people who were residents of the area which covered by the reservoir lake, mainly belonging to the Manasir, Hamadab and Amri tribes.
Human Rights Violations: UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing Miloon Kothari once issued a statement, calling for a halt to dam construction at Merowe until an independent assessment of the dam's impacts on the more than 60,000 people who stand to be displaced by the dams at Merowe and Kajbar. Kothari alleged reservoir of Merowe destroyed dozens of homes in the area and put many more at risk.
Archeological Concern: The dam covered a place where it was inhabited by people through nearly all periods of (pre)history, but very little archaeological work has ever been conducted in this particular region. Recent surveys have confirmed the richness and diversity of traceable remains, from the Stone Age to the Islamic period. However, now there won’t be any chance for archeology.
Environmental Impact:
Sedimentation: The resettlement area is a vast area with an expected 50,000–70,000 inhabitants who would be going through a transitional period for a few years before the get acclimatised & psychologically adapted to the new-life ahead. Governing by the two eminent health impact experiences of New Halfa resettlement projects and Aswan Dam in Egypt, strategic health planning ought to start early to foresee what water born diseases and other ecological health problems (such as bilharziasis, malaria) are likely to prevail and to plan how to guard against that.
Evaporation: The creation of the reservoir lake will increase the surface area of the Nile by about 700 km². Under the climatic conditions at the site, additional evaporation losses of up to 1,500,000,000 m³ per year can be expected. This corresponds to about 8% of the total amount of water allocated to Sudan in the Nile Waters Treaty.
International and Domestic Concern: More so it had an International political impact as Nile is shared by 10 Riparian countries and domestic concerns because of South Sudan and Darfur unrest.
Regardless of this the environmentalists who worked hard to stop the financing of Gibe III have not made efforts to stop construction of Merow Dam.
IV. EGYPT’S ASWAN DAM
Aswan (Assuan) is a city on the first cataract of the Nile in Egypt. Two dams straddle the Nile River at this point: the newer Aswan High Dam, and the older Aswan Dam or Aswan Low Dam. The aim of this water project was to prevent the river's flooding, generate electricity and provide water for agriculture. The old Aswan Dam is about 1000 km up-river from Cairo or 686 km as the crow flies heading 166.8 degrees. The new Aswan High Dam is 4 km upriver from the older dam.
Aswan Dam has caused a number of environmental and cultural problems:
Displacement: It flooded much of lower Nubia and over 60,000 people were displaced. However, it allowed new settlements to be planned on an improved basis.
Archeological Concern: Lake Nasser flooded valuable archaeological sites such as the fort at Buhen.
Environmental Concern:
Fishing: Mediterranean fishing declined after the dam was finished because nutrients that used to flow down the Nile to the Mediterranean were trapped behind the dam.
Erosion: There is some erosion of farmland down-river as the river replenishes its sediment load. Erosion of coastline barriers due to lack of new sediments from floods will eventually cause loss of the brackish water lake fishery that is currently the largest source of fish for Egypt, and the subsidence of the Nile Delta will lead to inundation of the northern portion of the delta with seawater, in areas which are now used for rice crops. The red-brick construction industry, which used delta mud, is also severely affected. There is significant erosion of coastlines (due to lack of sand, which was once brought by the Nile) all along the eastern Mediterranean.
Fertility: The delta itself, no longer renewed by Nile silt, has lost much of its fertility.
Evaporation and Disease: As salt water stagnates and evaporates it leaves behind salt crystals on the soil, causing salinisation and decreased yield. Furthermore, the standing water is a breeding ground for snails carrying the parasite bilharzias, the second most socio-economically negative parasite, second only to malaria. Due to the Aswan Dam inhibiting the natural fluctuations in water height, i.e. floods, the bilharzias disease has flourished causing great expense to the Egyptian economy and people. The battle with the disease continues. The valuable silt which the Nile deposited ashore in the yearly floods and made the Nile floodplain fertile is now held behind the dam. Silt deposited in the reservoir is lowering the water storage capacity of Lake Nasser. Poor irrigation practices are water-logging soils and bringing salt to the surface.
Pollution: The increased use of artificial fertilizers in farmland below the dam has caused chemical pollution which the traditional river silt did not. Indifferent irrigation control has also caused some farmland to be damaged by water-logging and increased salinity, a problem complicated by the reduced flow of the river, which allows salt water to encroach further into the delta.
Atalantic Ocean: The Aswan Dam tends to increase the salinity of the Mediterranean Sea, and this affects the Mediterranean's outflow current into the Atlantic Ocean. This current can be traced thousands of kilometers into the Atlantic.
V. GIBE III DAM OF ETHIOPIA
Are the concerns of Gibe III different from the concerns of Merowe of Sudan, Aswan of Egypt, and Yangtze of China? If not why did EIB pulled its financing of Gibe III Dam? EIB made a decision to stop financing of Gibe III dam due to the pressure exerted by Environmentalists and activists from Friends of Lake Turkana, Kenya[1], Reform the World Bank Campaign, Counter Balance (Italy)[2], and International Rivers (Cameroon)[3] .
Environmentalists argued that the dam would affect “the ecosystems of Ethiopia's Lower Omo Valley and Kenya's Lake Turkana … [by] wreak havocking on the Omo River's natural flood cycle.” African Resources Working Group (ARWG) disputed the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment done by the Ethiopian Government citing more potential risk to the environment and the indigenous communities, mainly:
i. They urged the Bank not to fund the Gibe III because the affected communities could not withstand any more pressure on the little resources along the lake.
ii. Gibe III Dam would lead to the ecological and economic collapse around Lake Turkana, adding that it would also fuel tension in the volatile east African region, specifically[4]:
· Retreat of Lake Turkana (7m in depth in first 5 years); they said the construction of Gibe III dam would leave the lake and its inhabitants devastated as the lake could start drying up when its main source, the Omo River, is depleted by a huge dam in Ethiopia.
· A significant increase in lake salinity, and destruction of aquatic organisms
· Destruction of Indigenous Econom[ies]
· [Transboundary] Issues between Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya
· Hampering of Possible Regional Development
iii. They vehemently argued that Gibe III dam would violate human rights and social justice of the inhabitants of Lake Turkana as the dam is destroying their source of livelihood as well as their environment.
Nonetheless, the environmentalists have admitted that “ the idea of dams producing hydroelectric power” is not something to be disregarded, but they encouraged Ethiopia to pursue an alternative forms of energy development that avoid unacceptable trade offs which jeopardize indigenous economies and destroy the eco-system, like constructing small dams. Ethiopia is the poorest nation in the globe, and it is not an easy task for Ethiopians to pursue such an alternative route, loosing what could be a boost for its national economy. Hathaway knows that this task will not be an easy one, but he and his allies are telling Ethiopia that at any cost Ethiopia has to maintain the maximum river flow or slow construction of the dam to allow for adequate flow of water into Lake Turkana rather than the drastic five year damming plan currently in place.[5]
Next Stop: Africa Development Bank (ADB)
The so called Environmentalist group next stop is the ADB which they planned to pressure to stop funding. Reportedly, they have submitted complaints to the ADB in March and April alleging the Gibe III Dam violates the Bank’s policies on environmental and social assessment, poverty reduction, resettlement, public disclosure, and trans-boundary water management. They went to the extent of convincing donors not to fund ADB what they are not prepared to fund through EIB.
VI. CONCLUSION
EIB should not have stopped the financing of Gibe III. As it is shown is other dams across the globe, there are cons and pros of each and every construction of dam. The fair issue and the standard should always be if the benefit outweighs the concerns in constructing such huge dams. EIB and Environmentalists should stop using double standards and in no way shall not justify their partiality towards their financiers.
Had the government of Ethiopia not violated the human, civil and democratic rights of its citizens, Euro1.5 Billion could have been raised by Ethiopian Diaspora members saving Ethiopia from unnecessary saga with EIB and Environmentalists. Therefore, what EIB should know is that, at any cost now or later, Ethiopians will complete Gibe III dam construction. However, EIB would stand to loose its goodwill and trust with Ethiopians and the international community.
The author can be reached at tmulushoa@gmail.com.
[1] Contact Person, Ikal Angelei, +254 736 685 118 or +254 722 343 160
[2] Contact Person, Caterina Amicucci,), +39 349 852 0789
[3] Contact Person, Terri Hathaway, , +237 22 02 34 12; Peter Bosshard +1 510 848 1155
[4] http://internationalrivers.org/en/ngos/ikal-angelei-friends-lake-turkana-kenya
[5] Ibid
Friday, June 5, 2009
ERITREA REBUKED BY AFRICA: FROM RENAISSANCE LEADER TO PARIAH
Jun 4th 2009 NAIROBIFrom The Economist print edition
THE African Union (AU) has taken the unprecedented step of calling on the UN to impose heavy sanctions on one of its own members. It wants to punish Eritrea for helping jihadist fighters in Somalia with arms and training which it says have caused the deaths of many civilians and AU peacekeepers.
The union has also called for a no-fly zone over Somalia and a blockade of its ports. Neither is likely to happen. Air patrols by America and others might win the jihadists more support; a blockade of the long coastline is almost impossible. But the AU may have better luck with sanctions. The UN Security Council has already expressed “concern” that Eritrea may have breached an arms embargo on Somalia.
Eritrea’s detractors say it has become a pariah in the mould of North Korea. A one-party state, it jails and even kills those of its citizens with independent minds. It conscripts its young into armed forces far bigger than it needs. At least it has no nuclear ambitions. But it exports instability and inflates its sense of importance by backing rebels in Chad, Ethiopia and Sudan, as well as Somalia. It seems long ago that President Bill Clinton lauded its president, Issaias Afwerki (pictured above), as a “renaissance African leader” after a long struggle brought independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
Mr. Afwerki has dismissed the latest charge of gun-running into Somalia as a CIA lie. The AU, he says, has been hoodwinked by Ethiopia, which hosts the African club’s headquarters in Addis Ababa. Eritrea is still on a war footing with its larger neighbor over a disputed border. Its main reason for backing the jihad in Somalia is to hurt Ethiopia. If Eritrea is to have a chance of beating the Ethiopians in the future, it thinks it must stretch the front-line. Hence it backs separatists in Ethiopia too.
Some say Eritrea’s arms shipments to Somalia have been paid for partly by Iran and individual rich Arabs. Maybe so. But Eritrean support for the Islamist insurgency in Somalia is long-standing. And the AU is fed up with it.
Source: http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788581
THE African Union (AU) has taken the unprecedented step of calling on the UN to impose heavy sanctions on one of its own members. It wants to punish Eritrea for helping jihadist fighters in Somalia with arms and training which it says have caused the deaths of many civilians and AU peacekeepers.
The union has also called for a no-fly zone over Somalia and a blockade of its ports. Neither is likely to happen. Air patrols by America and others might win the jihadists more support; a blockade of the long coastline is almost impossible. But the AU may have better luck with sanctions. The UN Security Council has already expressed “concern” that Eritrea may have breached an arms embargo on Somalia.
Eritrea’s detractors say it has become a pariah in the mould of North Korea. A one-party state, it jails and even kills those of its citizens with independent minds. It conscripts its young into armed forces far bigger than it needs. At least it has no nuclear ambitions. But it exports instability and inflates its sense of importance by backing rebels in Chad, Ethiopia and Sudan, as well as Somalia. It seems long ago that President Bill Clinton lauded its president, Issaias Afwerki (pictured above), as a “renaissance African leader” after a long struggle brought independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
Mr. Afwerki has dismissed the latest charge of gun-running into Somalia as a CIA lie. The AU, he says, has been hoodwinked by Ethiopia, which hosts the African club’s headquarters in Addis Ababa. Eritrea is still on a war footing with its larger neighbor over a disputed border. Its main reason for backing the jihad in Somalia is to hurt Ethiopia. If Eritrea is to have a chance of beating the Ethiopians in the future, it thinks it must stretch the front-line. Hence it backs separatists in Ethiopia too.
Some say Eritrea’s arms shipments to Somalia have been paid for partly by Iran and individual rich Arabs. Maybe so. But Eritrean support for the Islamist insurgency in Somalia is long-standing. And the AU is fed up with it.
Source: http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788581
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Text of Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt
By The Associated Press, Thu Jun 4, 9:04 am ET
Text of President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.
Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.
I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.
(APPLAUSE)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.
All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.
As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.
As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...
(APPLAUSE)
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
(APPLAUSE)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,
The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.
They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.
(APPLAUSE)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
(APPLAUSE)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...
(APPLAUSE)
Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.
We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.
We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.
Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.
(APPLAUSE)
But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt...
(APPLAUSE)
... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.
When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.
Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.
(APPLAUSE)
We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.
That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
(APPLAUSE)
Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...
(APPLAUSE)
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.
(APPLAUSE)
We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
(APPLAUSE)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.
Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.
Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
(APPLAUSE)
So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.
Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.
That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.
This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.
The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.
(APPLAUSE)
And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.
Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
(APPLAUSE)
I know...
(APPLAUSE)
I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.
(APPLAUSE)
And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.
(APPLAUSE)
Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.
That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
(APPLAUSE)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.
Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.
In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.
Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...
(APPLAUSE)
And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.
(APPLAUSE)
At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.
Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.
Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
(APPLAUSE)
This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.
The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.
The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(APPLAUSE)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
END
Text of President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.
Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.
I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.
(APPLAUSE)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.
All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.
As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.
As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...
(APPLAUSE)
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
(APPLAUSE)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,
The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.
They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.
(APPLAUSE)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
(APPLAUSE)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...
(APPLAUSE)
Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.
We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.
We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.
Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.
(APPLAUSE)
But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt...
(APPLAUSE)
... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.
When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.
Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.
(APPLAUSE)
We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.
That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
(APPLAUSE)
Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...
(APPLAUSE)
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.
(APPLAUSE)
We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
(APPLAUSE)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.
Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.
Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
(APPLAUSE)
So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.
Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.
That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.
This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.
The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.
(APPLAUSE)
And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.
Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
(APPLAUSE)
I know...
(APPLAUSE)
I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.
(APPLAUSE)
And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.
(APPLAUSE)
Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.
That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
(APPLAUSE)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.
Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.
In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.
Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...
(APPLAUSE)
And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.
(APPLAUSE)
At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.
Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.
Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
(APPLAUSE)
This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.
The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.
The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(APPLAUSE)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
