Meskerem Abera: Excuse and Clarity On My Previous Commentary

Kaliti Prison, Ethiopia

The early 20th century was characterized by a shift in world politics towards the growing influence of non-state actors. Major non-state actors included international, continental, regional, and sub-regional organizations. The establishment of the League of Nations marked a significant milestone in moving away from the long-standing state-centric political paradigm. Additionally, the emergence of international economic and policy regulatory bodies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank further emphasized the pivotal role of non-state actors in the domestic politics of ostensibly “sovereign” yet economically disadvantaged states worldwide. This shift diminished the power of state actors in these countries, while allowing global superpowers, often referred to as “the diplomatic community,” to pursue their interests through non-state actors. As a result, this mechanism helped to mitigate the oppressive practices of undemocratic governments in developing nations, with Ethiopia being a prominent example, and placed the diplomatic community at the forefront of domestic politics in these impoverished countries.

It is crucial for individuals who possess a decent understanding of the authoritative behavior exhibited by the diplomatic community to carefully consider the appropriate course of action in order to garner the support and favor of influential global powers that operate through non-state actors, which are increasingly becoming exemplars of diplomatic relations. The United Nations, United States, European Union, and African Union are the primary exemplars of diplomacy that any ongoing fight for freedom should strive to capture their attention and foster a comprehensive comprehension of its righteous cause. In our specific case, the Fano struggle, which has transformed the Amhara people’s stance from a dormant entity to a dominant political force of change, warrants the recognition of the international diplomatic community’s solidarity. In fact, the Fanos are fearlessly and audaciously pursuing their struggle, even in the face of death. This was truly unimaginable before. In order to achieve the ultimate political triumph, this courageous struggle must be complemented by proactive and innovative diplomatic endeavors. Amhara scholars residing abroad must take the lead in fulfilling this pivotal and timely responsibility, as Amhara scholars within the country face significant risks of imprisonment and death.

Amhara cause; which is least known by the diplomatic community, ought to be properly analyzed, pronounced and delivered in foreign languages for the multitude of international communities. In reality, however, the diplomatic aspects of the struggle either got very scanty regard or left hollow. The anti-Amhara incumbent government, therefore, used this gap to project Amhara Fanos as war mongers and have antipathy to peace and fight for the sake of war. The ramification of this one-sided hyperbolic propaganda of the government against Fano freedom fighters adversely affects the struggle’s just cause in the face of the diplomatic community. Ervin J. Massinga; US ambassador to Ethiopia in his recently delivered policy speech, addressed his worries about Fano’s “complete rejection of peace”. This hastily labelling should bother any politically conscious Amhara elite and. synergistic diplomatic efforts should be rendered to properly and adequately expound the reasons behind Fano’s decline to join the alleged “peace deal” propelled by the anti-Amhara government and establishment.

My recent commentary under the title” The Fate of Ethiopia; Negotiated or Brokered Peace?” was written with the major intention of making the Amhara cause vivid and approachable to the diplomatic community. I feel that it is deemed necessary to elaborate my intentions of writing the commentary. Thus, I have presented my written and unwritten intentions of the commentary as summarized into three major points.

Firstly, I want to capitalize the mere peace broker role of the dialogue commission and the subsequent powerlessness of the commission in realizing durable peace. This is mainly because I have observed the wrong at worst hope of the international community on the dialogue commission that manifested by either funding or endorsing it. This unrealistic optimism should be debased by sober diplomatic efforts from the Amhara camp.

Secondly, my intention emanated from my zeal to tarnish the wrong image portrayed to Amhara Fano as eternal fighters who fight for the sake of war. As to me, such wrong labelling of Fano by the diplomatic community should be speedily rectified. In fact Amhara Fanos are demanding for a new political configuration in Ethiopia as the prevailing political establishment, due to its anti-Amhara conception, cannot stand Amhara questions. In contrary, the government is planning to further its anti-Amhara establishment for the coming three thousand years now. It is this unrealistic power hunger of the government that becomes the major roadblock of peace in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the government diverts the blame and projects Fano as an anti-peace entity. In doing so, the government equalizes political demand for government change with blanket rejection of peace. Therefore, the Amhara camp is supposed to clarify the difference with a sense of urgency.

Thirdly, I have attempted to herald the promulgation of a government for peace is not unconditional. Even worse, the condition posed by the government that the impossibility of regime change through transitional government directly collides with the very ardent political question of the Amhara Fano. In other words, the government is using the dialogue commission to safeguard its power hunger, and peace as euphemism to the furtherance of the anti-Amhara establishment. Fano’s rejection of such brokered peace, thus, attributed to their pre-knowledge of interconnectedness of the government and the dialogue commission. Finally, Fano’s astute understanding of this political trap by the name of peace shouldn’t be perceived as eternal antipathy to peace. Rejecting political traps by no means is tantamount to rejecting durable peace.

The above stipulated three main points were my assertions in writing the commentary to address to the diplomatic community. Negotiation with the anti-Amhara insidious government cannot be (will not be) my intention. I am not that lenient and insane to dissipate the hard earned Amhara nationalism to which I personally strived a lot and paying a huge price.

I know my previous commentary with severe oddity perplexed many readers. I learned that lately and I apologize! It is all about the inconvenience I am in. The writing piece, except its title, was all wrong. Pore of critics and feedback from my readers helped me to figure out the seriously wrong thing with the commentary. The right commentary version, with the same title will appear on Borkena website after two or three days. Pardon for the confusion!

Brokering Peace in Ethiopia: Challenges and Opportunities