Sunday, April 21, 2024

ርዕስ፡ የ G7 ጥሪ ለገንቢ ውይይት፡ በሶማሊያ የውጭ ጉዳይ ፖሊሲ ላይ ያለውን አንድምታ መተንተን።


 
ርዕስ፡ የ G7 ጥሪ ለገንቢ ውይይት፡ በሶማሊያ የውጭ ጉዳይ ፖሊሲ ላይ ያለውን አንድምታ መተንተን።

 መግቢያ፡-
 ጂኦፖለቲካዊ ፍላጎቶች እና ጥምረቶች በየጊዜው በሚለዋወጡበት ዓለም፣ በቅርቡ በሶማሊያ፣ በኢትዮጵያ እና በሶማሌላንድ ላይ የተከሰቱት ለውጦች ከፍተኛ የአለምን ትኩረት ስቧል።  ሶማሊያ በG7 በኢትዮጵያ እና በሶማሌላንድ መካከል የተደረገውን የመግባቢያ ስምምነት ለማውገዝ የጠበቀችው ምላሽ ፍጹም የተለየ ምላሽ አግኝቷል ይህም የአለም አቀፍ ዲፕሎማሲ እና የአካባቢ ፖለቲካን ውስብስብ ባህሪ ያሳያል።

 ዳራ፡
 ራሷን የቻለች ራሷን የቻለች ሪፐብሊክ ሶማሌላንድ፣ በአለም አቀፍ ደረጃ የሶማሊያ ራስ ገዝ ግዛት ነች፣ ሉዓላዊነቷን ዓለም አቀፍ እውቅና ስትፈልግ ቆይታለች።  በስትራቴጂካዊ ርምጃም በአፍሪካ ቀንድ ፖለቲካ ውስጥ ቁልፍ ተዋናይ ከሆነችው ኃያል ጎረቤት ኢትዮጵያ ጋር የመግባቢያ ስምምነት ተፈራርሟል።  በሶማሌላንድ ላይ ሉዓላዊነቷን የተናገረችው ሶማሊያ ጂ7 -የአለም ትልቁ የአይኤምኤፍ የላቁ ኢኮኖሚዎች ቡድን አቋሙን ይደግፋሉ እና ስምምነቱን ያወግዛሉ የሚል ተስፋ ነበራት።  ሆኖም የጂ7 ምላሽ ከሶማሊያ የውግዘት ጥሪ ጎን ከመቆም ይልቅ ውይይትን ለማበረታታት ነበር።

 ትንተና፡-
 ጂ7 በኢትዮጵያ እና በሶማሌላንድ መካከል ለተደረሰው የመግባቢያ ሰነድ የሰጠው ምላሽ ሶማሊያ የውጭ ፖሊሲዋን እንድትገመግም የቀረበ ጥሪ ተደርጎ ሊወሰድ ይችላል።  የ G7 ገንቢ ውይይት ማበረታቻ ከመነጠል ወይም ከቅጣት እርምጃዎች ይልቅ ሰላማዊ እና ዲፕሎማሲያዊ መፍትሄዎችን መምረጥን ይጠቁማል።  ይህ አቋም ከግጭት እና ከመባባስ ይልቅ መረጋጋትን እና ውይይትን ከሚደግፉ የብዙ ዓለም አቀፍ አካላት መርሆዎች ጋር የሚስማማ ነው።

 የሶማሊያ የመግባቢያ ሰነድ (MOU) ላይ የወሰደችው ምላሽ በብዙዎች ዘንድ እንደ “አማተር” የውጭ ፖሊሲ ምሳሌ ተደርጎ ይወሰድ ነበር፣ ይህም ከኢትዮጵያ ጋር ያላትን ግንኙነት ሊጎዳ ይችላል።  የ G7 ምላሽ በሶማሊያ የፖለቲካ አመራር ውስጥ አሁን ባለው የውጭ ፖሊሲ ስትራቴጂ ላይ ያለውን ተፅእኖ ላይ ማሰላሰል አለበት.  ሶማሊያ የምትጠብቀው ከአካባቢው መረጋጋት እና ትብብር ቅድሚያ ከሚሰጠው አለም አቀፍ ስሜት ጋር የማይጣጣም ይመስላል።

 አንድምታ፡-
 የG7 የውይይት ጥሪ ለሶማሊያ በርካታ አንድምታዎች አሉት።

 1. **ዲፕሎማሲያዊ ማግለል**፡- ሶማሊያ ከሰፊ አለም አቀፍ አመለካከቶች ጋር ሳትሄድ የግጭት መንገድ መከተሏን ከቀጠለች የዲፕሎማሲያዊ መገለልን አደጋ ላይ ይጥላል።

 2. **የፖሊሲ ግምገማ አስፈላጊነት**፡- ሶማሊያ የውጭ ፖሊሲዋን በተለይም በኢትዮጵያ እና በሶማሌላንድ ላይ ያላትን ስትራቴጂ እንደገና እንድትገመግም እንደሚያስፈልግ ግልጽ ነው።  ይበልጥ ግልጽ ያልሆነ እና ስልታዊ አካሄድ የተሻለ ውጤት ሊያስገኝ ይችላል።

 3. **ክልላዊ መረጋጋት**፡- የ G7 ምላሽ ለክልላዊ መረጋጋት ስጋት እንዳለው ያሳያል።  የአፍሪካ ቀንድ ውስብስብ የፖለቲካ እንቅስቃሴ ያለው ክልል ነው፣ እና G7 የሚያበረታታ ውይይት ለረጂም ጊዜ ሰላምና መረጋጋት የበለጠ ጠቃሚ እንደሚሆን የተገነዘበ ይመስላል።

 4. **ዓለም አቀፍ ድጋፍ**፡- ሶማሊያ በዲፕሎማሲያዊ መንገድ ዓለም አቀፍ ድጋፍን ማግኘት ያስፈልጋት ይሆናል፤ ይህም ትብብርን ለመፍጠር እና የባለብዙ ወገን ውይይቶችን በማድረግ ላይ ነው።

 5. **ኤኮኖሚ አንድምታ**፡- በኢትዮጵያና በሶማሌላንድ መካከል የተደረገው የመግባቢያ ስምምነት በተለይ የንግድና የወደብ ተደራሽነትን በሚመለከት ኢኮኖሚያዊ አንድምታ አለው።  የሶማሊያ አቋም በጥንቃቄ ካልተያዘ የራሷን ኢኮኖሚያዊ ጥቅም ሊጎዳ ይችላል።

 ማጠቃለያ፡-
 ጂ7 በሶማሊያ፣ በኢትዮጵያ እና በሶማሌላንድ መካከል ስላለው ሁኔታ የሰጠው ምላሽ የአለም አቀፍ ዲፕሎማሲያዊ ግንኙነቶችን ውስብስብ እና ገንቢ ውይይት አስፈላጊነት አጉልቶ ያሳያል።  ለሶማሊያ የውጭ ጉዳይ ፖሊሲዋን እንደገና እንድታጤን እና የበለጠ ስትራቴጂካዊ ዲፕሎማሲ ውስጥ እንድትገባ እንደ ማንቂያ ጥሪ ሆኖ ያገለግላል።  ሶማሊያ በእነዚህ ውስብስብ የፖለቲካ ውኆች ውስጥ ስትዘዋወር፣ የሀገሪቱ አመራር ክልላዊ መረጋጋትን እና አለማቀፋዊ ግንኙነቶችን ሳታበላሽ ብሄራዊ ጥቅምን ለማራመድ በመፈለግ ድርጊቶቹን ሊያመጣ የሚችለውን ወጪ እና ጥቅም ማመዛዘን አለበት።  በመጨረሻም ሶማሊያ የምትመርጥበት መንገድ ለወደፊቷ እና ለአፍሪካ ቀንድ ሰላም እና ብልጽግና ትልቅ አንድምታ ሊኖረው ይችላል።
 

Friday, April 19, 2024

Leon TrotskyCommunist Leon Trotsky helped ignite the Russian Revolution of 1917, and built the Red Army afterward. He was exiled and later assassinated by Soviet agents.

Leon Trotsky
Communist Leon Trotsky helped ignite the Russian Revolution of 1917, and built the Red Army afterward. He was exiled and later assassinated by Soviet agents.
UPDATED: NOV 30, 2021

Photo: Underwood Archives / Contributor / Getty Images
(1879-1940)
Who Was Leon Trotsky?
Leon Trotsky's

 revolutionary activity as a young man spurred his first of several ordered exiles to Siberia. He waged Russia's 1917 revolution alongside Vladimir Lenin. As commissar of war in the new Soviet government, he helped defeat forces opposed to Bolshevik control. As the Soviet government developed, he engaged in a power struggle against Joseph Stalin, which he lost, leading to his exile again and, eventually, his murder.

Early Life
Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein in Yanovka, Ukraine — in the Russian Empire — on November 7, 1879. His parents, David and Anna Bronstein, were prosperous Jewish farmers. When he was 8 years old, Trotksy went to school in Odessa, then moved in 1896 to Nikolayev, Ukraine, for his final year in school. While there, he became enthralled with Marxism.

In 1897, Trotsky helped found the South Russian Workers' Union. He was arrested within a year and spent two years in prison before being tried, convicted and sent to Siberia for a four-year sentence. While in prison, he met and married Alexandra Lvovna, a co- revolutionary who had also been sentenced to Siberia. While there, they had two daughters.

In 1902, after serving only two years of his sentence, Leon Trotsky escaped exile, abandoning his wife and daughters. On forged papers, he changed his name to Leon Trotsky, a moniker he would use the rest of his life. He managed to make his way to London, England, where he joined the Socialist Democratic Party and met Vladimir Lenin. In 1903, Trotsky married his second wife, Natalia Ivanovna. The couple had two sons.
  and Soviet Leadership
During the early years of the Social Democratic Party, there were often disputes among the party's leadership over its form and strategy. Lenin argued for a small party of professional revolutionaries who would lead a large contingent of non-party supporters. Julius Martov advocated for a larger, more democratic organization of supporters. Trotsky tried to reconcile the two factions, resulting in numerous clashes with both groups' leaders. Many of the Social Democrats, including the ambitious Stalin, sided with Lenin. Trotsky's neutrality was seen as disloyal.

On January 22, 1905, unarmed demonstrators marching against the Russian Tsar were killed by the Imperial Guard. When word reached Leon Trotsky, he returned to Russia to support the uprisings. By the end of 1905, he had become a leader of the movement. In December, the rebellion was crushed, and Trotsky was arrested and once again sent to Siberia. At his trial, he put on a spirited defense and increased his popularity among the party's elite. In January 1907, Trotsky escaped prison and traveled to Europe, where he spent 10 years in exile in various cities, including Vienna, Zurich, Paris and New York, spending much of the time writing for Russian revolutionary journals, including Pravda, and advocating an anti-war policy.

After the overthrow of Russian Tsar Nicholas II, in February 1917, Trotsky set out for Russia from New York. However, Okhrana (the Tsar's secret police) persuaded British authorities to have him detained at Halifax, Canada. He was held there for a month, before the Russian provisional government demanded his release. After he arrived in Russia in May 1917, he quickly addressed some of the problems forming in post-revolutionary Russia. He disapproved of the provisional government because he felt it was ineffectual. The new prime minister, Alexander Kerensky, saw Trotsky as a major threat and had him arrested. While in jail, Trotsky was admitted to the Bolshevik Party and released soon after. He was elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, a strong hold of dissent against the provisional government.

In November 1917, the provisional government was overthrown and the Soviet Council of People's Commissars was formed, with Vladimir Lenin elected chairman. Leon Trotsky’s first role in the new government was serving as commissar for foreign affairs and making peace with the Germans. Talks began in January 1918, and Germany had a long list of demands for territory and reparations. Trotsky wanted to wait out the German government, in hopes that it would be defeated by the Allies or suffer internal insurrection. However, Lenin felt that peace with Germany needed to be made so they could concentrate on building a communist government in Russia. Trotsky disagreed and resigned from this post.

 
After the Bolsheviks took control of the Soviet government, Lenin ordered the formation of the Red Army and appointed Leon Trotsky its leader. The army's first orders were to neutralize the White Army (Socialist revolutionaries opposed to Bolshevik control) during the Russian Civil War. Trotsky proved to be an outstanding military leader, as he led the army of 3 million to victory. The task was difficult, as Trotsky directed a war effort that was at times on 16 different fronts. It also didn't help that some members of the Soviet leadership, including Lenin, became involved in military strategy, redirecting the Red Army's efforts and countermanding some of Trotsky's orders. In late 1920, the Bolsheviks finally won the Civil War, ensuring Bolshevik control of the Soviet government. After the White Army surrendered, Trotsky was elected a member of the Communist Party central committee. He was clearly positioned as the Soviet Union's number-two man, next to Lenin.

During the winter of 1920-21, as the Soviet government moved from war to peace-time operations, an increasingly acrimonious debate grew over the role of trade unions. Believing that the workers should have nothing to fear from the government, Trotsky advocated the state control the trade unions. He reasoned that this would give officials a tighter control over labor and facilitate a greater integration between government and the proletariat. Lenin criticized Trotsky, accusing him of harassing the unions and abandoning his support for the proletariat. A breach between the two developed and other officials, including Joseph Stalin, took advantage, siding with Lenin to gain favor. As Trotsky dug in and refused to modify his position, the dissention grew and Lenin feared the conflict would splinter the party. At a meeting at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921, the issue came to a head when several of Trotsky's supporters were replaced by Lenin's lieutenants. Trotsky finally dropped his opposition and, to show his allegiance to Lenin, ordered the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion (an uprising of sailors and longshoremen protesting heavy-handed Bolshevik tactics). But the damage was done, and Trotsky had lost much of his political influence over the dispute.

 
By 1922, the pressures of revolution and injuries from an earlier assassination attempt had taken their toll on Lenin. In May, he suffered his first stroke and questions arose over who would succeed him. Trotsky had a stellar record as a military leader and administrator and seemed the obvious choice among the rank and file membership of the Communist Party. But he had offended many in the Politburo (the Communist Party's executive committee), and a group of Politburo members, led by Stalin, joined forces to oppose him. The previous month, Lenin had appointed Stalin to the new post of Central Committee General Secretary. Though not a significant post at the time, it gave Stalin control over all party-member appointments. He quickly consolidated his power and started lining up allies against Trotsky.

Between 1922 and 1924, Lenin tried to counter some of Stalin's influence and support Trotsky on several occasions. However, a third stroke virtually silenced Lenin and Stalin was free to completely push Trotsky out of power. Lenin died on January 21, 1924, and Trotsky was isolated and alone, outmaneuvered by Stalin. From that point on, Trotsky was steadily pushed out of important roles on Soviet government and, eventually, pushed out of the country.

 
Between 1925 and 1928, Trotsky was gradually pushed from power and influence by Stalin and his allies, who discredited Trotsky's role in the Russian Revolution and his military record. In October 1927, Trotsky was expelled from the Central Committee and exiled the following January to the very remote Alma-Ata, located in present-day Kazakhstan. Apparently, that was not far enough for Stalin, so in February, 1929, Trotsky was banished entirely from the Soviet Union. Over the next seven years, he lived in Turkey, France and Norway, before arriving in Mexico City.

Trotsky continued to write and criticize Stalin and the Soviet government. During the 1930s, Stalin conducted political purges and named Trotsky, in absentia, a major conspirator and enemy of the people. In August 1936, 16 of Trotsky's allies were charged with aiding Trotsky in treason. All 16 were found guilty and executed. Stalin then set out to assassinate Trotsky. In 1937, Trotsky moved to Mexico, eventually settling in Mexico City, where he continued to criticize Soviet leadership.

 
Assassination and Legacy
In the early months of 1940, Trotsky's health was failing and he knew he was a marked man. In February, he wrote a testament expressing his final thoughts for posterity and forcibly denied Stalin's accusations. On August 20, 1940, Trotsky was sitting at his desk in his study in Mexico City. Ramon Mercader, an undercover agent for the Soviet Union's secret police, attacked Trotsky with a mountaineering ice ax, puncturing his skull. He was taken to the hospital, but died a day later, at the age of 60.

For decades, Trotsky was discredited in the Soviet Union, the result of Stalin's hatred and his totalitarian control. However, 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet government, in 2001, Trotsky's reputation was officially "rehabilitated" by the Russian government. His legacy of being the most brilliant intellect of the Communist Revolution and his reputation as a tireless worker, rousing public speaker and decisive administrator was restored. Some historians believe if he had not subordinated himself to Lenin during the Bolshevik Revolution, the history of the Soviet Union might have been very different. However, Trotsky had allowed his intelligence and arrogance to antagonize those less able than himself, and in the end, alienated many around him, allowing deceitful men like Stalin to take advantage.

 
QUICK FACTS

Name: Léon Trotsky
Birth Year: 1879
Birth date: November 7, 1879
Birth City: Yanovka
Birth Country: Ukraine
Gender: Male
Best Known For: Communist Leon Trotsky helped ignite the Russian Revolution of 1917, and built the Red Army afterward. He was exiled and later assassinated by Soviet agents.
Industries
World Politics
Astrological Sign: Scorpio
Nacionalities
Ukrainian
Death Year: 1940
Death date: August 21, 1940
Death City: Mexico City
Death Country: Mexico
 
 

CITATION INFORMATION
Article Title: Leon Trotsky Biography
Author: Biography.com Editors
Website Name: The Biography.com website
Url: https://www.biography.com/political-figures/leon-trotsky
Access Date:
Publisher: A&E; Television Networks
Last Updated: November 30, 2021
Original Published Date: April 2, 2014
 

Monday, April 8, 2024

Ethiopia Back on the Brink


Ethiopia Back on the Brink

How Abiy’s Reckless Ambition—and Emirati Meddling—Are Fueling Chaos in the Horn

Arguably the worst armed conflict of the twenty-first century so far is not the one unfolding in Gaza or in Ukraine, but rather the catastrophic civil war in Ethiopia that ended 18 months ago. Also known as the Tigray war, the Ethiopian conflict took the lives of more than 500,000 soldiers and as many as 360,000 civilians, making it one of the deadliest conflicts since the end of the Cold War. Its combatants also perpetrated widespread atrocities and sexual violence, destroyed large swaths of the Tigray region in the north, and did enormous damage to an economy that, for the previous three decades, had helped make Ethiopia one of Africa’s more stable and rapidly developing countries.

Yet equally terrible may be the crisis facing Ethiopia today. In November 2022, the Ethiopian government and the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front entered a cease-fire to end the Tigray war, but true peace has never been reestablished. Since then, the government has faced a new rebellion in the Amhara region—among some of the same groups that assisted the government in neighboring Tigray—which is fast making the region ungovernable. Another insurgency in Oromia, the country’s largest and most populous region, is continuing. 

Other local armed groups are also fighting the government, so that vast tracts of the country have become no-go areas. (See map below.) Meanwhile, much of the north, including Tigray, is plunging into famine. According to the United Nations, close to 30 million people—about one-quarter of the population—now need emergency food assistance, and without significant humanitarian relief, many of them could be at risk of starvation in the coming months.

Stay informed.

In-depth analysis delivered weekly.

As if the country’s domestic problems were not enough, in recent months, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has stirred up new tensions with neighboring Somalia, become entangled in Sudan’s civil war, and even made threatening gestures toward Eritrea, which had been Abiy’s ally in the Tigrayan war. Meanwhile, the government’s primary foreign patron, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has been funneling arms and money to Ethiopia, as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been doing the same to Eritrea, Somalia, and the Sudanese Armed Forces, threatening to drag the region into a proxy conflict.

There is no easy solution to Ethiopia’s multifaceted crisis. But the world urgently needs to engage with it. The United States, in particular, should rapidly step up its humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia and press its partners in the Middle East—especially the UAE—to end their damaging rivalry in the Horn of Africa. Without such action, mass starvation could unravel what remains of a fragile political order. Washington must also signal its support for an all-inclusive Ethiopian national dialogue, in which Abiy’s ruling Prosperity Party will be a key participant, but without veto over other participants or the overall agenda. The aim of such a dialogue should be to prevent the country from further violent fragmentation.

EMPERORS AND INSURGENTS

One of the paradoxes of Ethiopia’s growing fragmentation is that Ethiopians, in the abstract, tend to revere the idea of their country. They celebrate its near unbroken history as an independent state—the brief exception being a five-year occupation by fascist Italy—and typically respect their ruler. But there is another side to Ethiopian history: the country is made up of a patchwork of different ethnic groups, and in various eras when national authority has been weak, rival fiefdoms have jostled for control. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, known to Ethiopians as “the Age of the Princes,” there was no central authority.

Modern Ethiopia only began to take shape in the 1860s, when a capable military entrepreneur defeated or intimidated his rivals and centralized power. He crowned himself Emperor Teodros. His successor, Menelik II, then built a formidable army that defeated the Italians and greatly expanded the imperial territory, and after World War II, Emperor Haile Selassie further consolidated central power, during a decades-long reign.

In the late twentieth century, however, Ethiopia again teetered at the edge of disintegration. In 1974, following a popular revolt, the army overthrew the aging Haile Selassie. Over the next 17 years, a military junta headed by Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam fought insurgencies in every corner of the country and played a game of mutual destabilization with Somalia and Sudan. The extraordinary Soviet support Mengistu received allowed him to build the largest army in sub-Saharan Africa. But all he could do was prolong the warfare with multiple armed groups, which had themselves struck up tactical alliances with foreign powers. The result was devastation and famine in Ethiopia and neighboring countries, culminating in the destruction of Somalia and a protracted crisis in Sudan. It took the collapse of Mengistu’s Soviet patron to bring this era to an end, by which point Ethiopia itself was fracturing. Eritrea won independence from Ethiopia by force of arms in 1991, formalized in a referendum two years later.

By contrast, the era from the 1990s to the late 2010s, when Ethiopia was led by a coalition called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, was a time of relative stability and growth. There are many possible criticisms of EPRDF’s 27-year rule: despite its name, it was anything but democratic. The conflict with Eritrea was not resolved, although the EPRDF maintained a no-war no-peace situation. Nevertheless, drawing on an authoritarian development approach modeled on South Korea and Taiwan, the EPRDF shook off Ethiopia’s reputation as a land of hunger and conflict. Instead, it became the increasingly prosperous anchor state of the Horn of Africa, a bulwark against extremism and instability, and a major international partner in a new peace and security architecture involving the UN and the African Union. Much of that progress, however, has been completely reversed in the six years since Abiy became prime minister in 2018.

THE ABIY ILLUSION

Initially, Abiy’s rise to power seemed to hold great promise. The new leader, who came from Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group, the Oromo, immediately embarked on a dizzying program of highly touted reforms. He was widely embraced, both by Ethiopians who had resented the EPRDF’s authoritarian ways and by foreigners who eyed the commercial opportunities that would follow the privatization of state-owned telecommunications companies and banking. Internationally, he also won accolades—including, extravagantly, a Nobel Peace Prize in 2019—for a security pact that formally ended the war with neighboring Eritrea. But it soon became clear that those who lauded him mistook the icing for the cake.

Under the previous regime, Ethiopia’s various regions had been held together by a federal formula that aimed to maintain the country’s complicated ethnic mosaic under a strong government in Addis Ababa. Designed jointly by the EPRDF, the coalition of opposition forces that had defeated Mengistu, and the Oromo Liberation Front, which represented the largest of the country’s numerous ethnic groups—or “nations and nationalities,” as Ethiopians call them—this federal system undergirded a quarter century of stability.

But the approach had always been strained. As Ethiopia transitioned from an agrarian peasant society to a fast-developing capitalist economy in the new millennium, ethnic boundaries sometimes clashed with the growth of cities grew and with the movements of a mobile workforce. New intergroup tensions emerged. At first, Abiy promised to transcend those divisions, but then he switched to a divide-and-rule strategy that deepened them.

Despite his own Oromo background, Abiy’s first war was with the Oromo, whose youth movement had brought down his hapless predecessor, Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn. Because none of the leaders of the Oromo movement were members of parliament, they were ineligible to become prime minister when the position suddenly became vacant. Determined to consolidate his power, Abiy turned against those leaders, marginalizing some, detaining others, and using military repression against the guerrillas of the Oromo Liberation Front. As a result, although many among the Oromo elite are Abiy’s most powerful backers today, fighting continues to ravage many parts of Oromia.

But it was Abiy’s second war that caused true devastation. Egged on by his new ally, the dictator of neighboring Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki, Abiy confronted the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, which had formerly been the dominant party in the EPRDF. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front, for its part, upped the ante by holding regional elections and denying the legitimacy of Abiy’s government, but it was woefully underprepared for the joint military assault—which Addis Ababa euphemistically called a “law enforcement operation”—by federal and Eritrean forces in November 2020. Amid massacre, pillage, and starvation, Tigrayans formed a broad-based defense force that pushed out the occupying armies and then marched south, even threatening the capital. By the middle of the war, in July 2021, the international Famine Review Committee found that without a cease-fire and immediate large-scale aid, Tigray would descend into famine. The government’s response, however, was simply to deny the hunger crisis and divert food aid to other purposes.

FROM CONFLICT TO CHAOS

Although the November 2022 cease-fire agreement formally ended the Tigray war, few of its provisions have been honored. It has failed to restore civilian governance and economic stability in the region. Contrary to the agreement, many parts of the region are still under the control of Amhara militias and Eritrean troops, both of which supported the government in the war, and more than a million Tigrayans are in camps for the internally displaced. Most Tigrayan fighters remain in camps, awaiting promised demobilization packages. Meanwhile, some 2.4 million Tigrayans are on the brink of famine.

On the government side, the Ethiopian National Defense Forces suffered immense losses. Its generals have said that it suffered 393,000 fatalities over the two-year war. Such losses reduced most of the professional army to conscripts in uniforms. Other forces—the Tigrayans, the Eritreans, the Amhara militia—also suffered tens of thousands of deaths. As the national army was pummeled, each region’s own special police forces were expanded, provided with heavy weapons, and turned into de facto ethnic armies. They fought alongside the national army in Tigray but ultimately answered to their ethno-regional state governments. The newly formed elite Republican Guard also has a separate command directly answerable to the prime minister.

No sooner had the Tigray war ended than a new insurgency in the Amhara region erupted. Abiy had deployed Amhara militia, known as the Fano, to fight in Tigray, with promises of land, loot, and positions of power. But the Fano were not represented in the cease-fire talks. Its members felt betrayed, and when Abiy declared that all regional militia and special forces would come under central control or be demobilized, they rebelled. Having set the hounds loose, Abiy now faced their snarling jaws.

Abiy’s response to the Amhara rebellion has been self-defeating. In April 2023, he announced a new “law enforcement operation” in the region, sending in federal troops that have used indiscriminate violence, including drone attacks, that have outraged local communities and stiffened their resolve. Helped by defecting army officers, the Fano have increasingly turned the Amhara countryside into no-go areas and are threatening major cities on the main highways leading to the capital.

Meanwhile, Ethiopia’s economy has been ravaged by rampant inflation, foreign exchange shortages, and widespread food insecurity. Much of this turmoil is due to the COVID-19 pandemic and oil price spikes, but vast military spending and continued fighting and security breakdown in many parts of the country have helped undo Ethiopia’s hard-won reputation for growth and stability. In 2023, Abiy trumpeted that Ethiopia had become a wheat exporter for the first time. But the credibility of his claims were undermined when USAID officials in Ethiopia uncovered what diplomats called the biggest ever theft of food aid, involving government officials diverting unknown quantities of American-provided wheat to flour mills for resale.

EMIRATI ENABLERS

Improbably, amid Ethiopia’s proliferating troubles, the capital city, Addis Ababa, has maintained a semblance of normality. Despite the economic crisis, Abiy has been investing lavishly in prestige projects, including a new national palace estimated to cost $10 billion. When pressed by parliamentarians about this spending, the prime minister has insisted that he raised the funds privately. In fact, the likely source of the funds is the outside power that has done more than any other to buttress Abiy’s rule: the United Arab Emirates.

Since Abiy came to power, the UAE has heavily backed his government to serve its own geopolitical interests. Abu Dhabi is seeking to become the dominant power in the Red Sea arena—the strategic and volatile domain between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean that includes the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It has used its financial muscle to win the support of military factions in Libya, Sudan, and southern Yemen, as well as governments such as Chad and South Sudan. As a new member of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) club, the UAE is also positioning itself as a broker of global dealings in oil and gold and has a fierce rivalry with its neighbor Saudi Arabia to become the leading power in the Red Sea. Alongside Egypt and Sudan, Ethiopia has become a major prize in this contest.

By turning Abiy’s Ethiopia into a client state, however, the UAE has helped feed the prime minister’s worst instincts. The Emiratis’ deep pockets and their predilection for moving fast with little heed for the consequences have encouraged Abiy’s recklessness and ambition. Central to the prime minister’s dreams of restoring Ethiopia’s greatness is regaining access to the sea, which the country lost with the independence of Eritrea 30 years ago. The EPRDF’s strategy was to invest in transport infrastructure that would join Ethiopia to its neighbors and facilitate trade. For Abiy, however, the prestige factor looms larger, and he wants to build a navy. The cease-fire in the Tigray war had barely been agreed to when Abiy began issuing new threats against Eritrea, his erstwhile ally in that war.

On January 1, 2024, Abiy upended decades of security policy toward Somalia by declaring a unilateral deal with the breakaway Republic of Somaliland. Abiy promised to formally recognize Somaliland’s independence from Somalia in return for an Ethiopian naval base on the Gulf of Aden. This was a direct provocation to the Somali leadership in Mogadishu and ratcheted up tensions between Somalia and Somaliland. In response to Abiy’s aggressive moves, Somalia and Eritrea have begun to create an informal alliance, backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, to encircle Ethiopia. The coalition may bring in Djibouti, too.

Abiy’s alliance with the UAE has ushered in a dangerous era of proxy war across the Horn.

Now, there is a risk that recurring clashes over a disputed border between Somaliland and the neighboring Somali region of Puntland could escalate further. In a new twist, in early April, the Puntland regional government angrily rejected a constitutional amendment pushed by Somalia’s federal president, Hassan Sheikh Mohammed. Ethiopia immediately reached out to Puntland, and Somalia responded by expelling the Ethiopian ambassador to Mogadishu.

And then there is Sudan’s civil war. Three years ago, a long-quiescent border dispute between Sudan and Ethiopia erupted into active hostilities. Abiy’s predecessors took a live-and-let-live approach, wanting to keep Sudan as an ally in light of the more strategic issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. Originally budgeted at $6 billion, it is now 95 percent complete, despite opposition from Egypt. But Abiy has not only reversed his predecessors’ circumspect Sudan policy but also sided with Sudan’s paramilitary insurgency, the Rapid Support Forces, providing them with bases in their fight against the Sudanese Armed Forces. Notably, the RSF’s leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as “Hemedti” is also backed by the UAE. In turn, the SAF leader, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has turned to Egypt and Turkey for support and has allied with Eritrea.

Thus, Abiy’s ambitions and his alliance with the UAE have ushered in a dangerous new era of proxy war and destabilization across the Horn of Africa. Over recent months, Egypt, Iran, and Turkey have been pouring arms into the region to undermine Emirati influence. Now, the standoff between Addis Ababa and Mogadishu threatens to develop into a larger conflagration. Already, it has imperiled Somalia’s security arrangements, which include Ethiopian contingents serving under an African Union flag. If Ethiopian forces withdraw, or are expelled, from those AU deployments, the Somalian militant group al Shabab will be the beneficiary and could threaten Mogadishu.

Meanwhile, numerous flashpoints in and around Ethiopia could explode at any moment. Tigrayan leaders have not taken a position in the unfolding rivalries among the encircling powers, but if Tigray’s humanitarian crisis descends into famine, they will come under pressure to use their military assets to break their region’s isolation by throwing their lot in with one side or the other. Abiy’s support for Sudan’s RSF could spark fighting with the Sudanese Armed Forces near the Ethiopian dam project. The insurgency in Amhara could escalate and pose a real threat to Abiy’s control over Addis Ababa. In the coming year, Ethiopia could also face food riots, mass hunger-induced migration, and a broader social and security breakdown.

WHERE IS WASHINGTON?

Although Ethiopia’s internal and external crises have been multiplying, the United States and other Western powers, distracted by the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, have so far largely ignored them. To begin with, Washington and other aid donors have not addressed the food emergency with anything close to the scale and urgency needed. Newly introduced external monitoring systems should allay concerns over aid theft and waste, and any concerns about aid mismanagement must now be overridden by the humanitarian imperative to save millions of threatened lives and livelihoods. Alongside the United States, the Gulf states should put some of their billions to humanitarian use by stopping Ethiopia’s slide into mass starvation.

The Biden administration also needs to lean on its Middle Eastern allies—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and, above all, the UAE—to stop funneling arms into the Horn of Africa. By now, most regional power brokers, including Saudi Arabia, have recognized the hazard that Abiy will pose if he is allowed to pursue his expansionist dreams, unmoored by concerns for regional stability. The UAE is the outlier: it must be persuaded to restrain Abiy and stop indulging him.

Ethiopia needs responsible leadership if it is to survive as a functioning state. Getting the country back on course will require the political elite to set aside their differences and recognize that their country may soon collapse. But here, too, the United States and its partners could help by encouraging the different political groups to take part in an inclusive and candid national dialogue based on the federal constitution. Once today’s spiraling crisis is arrested, Ethiopians can begin to talk their way toward a new political settlement. Abiy can have a voice in this process, but it cannot be louder than others’.

Fomenting instability in the Red Sea arena is in no one’s interest. The United States should be working with all its Middle Eastern allies—and with partners in Asia and Europe, as well as the African Union—on a formula for collective security on both shores of the Red Sea. Part of this formula must be an Ethiopian government that plays by the rules and is not offered powerful incentives to break them.

You are reading a free article.

Subscribe to Foreign Affairs to get unlimited access.

  • Paywall-free reading of new articles and over a century of archives
  • Unlock access to iOS/Android apps to save editions for offline reading
  • Six issues a year in print and online, plus audio articles
Subscribe Now
Loading

Sunday, April 7, 2024

የቋንቋ ልዩነት እና ሕገ መንግሥታዊ እውቅና በኢትዮጵያ፡ የአንቀጽ 5 ትንታኔ::

የቋንቋ ልዩነት እና ሕገ መንግሥታዊ እውቅና በኢትዮጵያ፡ የአንቀጽ 5 ትንታኔ

 ኢትዮጵያ የባህሎች እና የቋንቋዎች ሞዛይክ ሆና ትቆማለች ፣ በዓለም ላይ ካሉት በቋንቋ ከተለያየ ህዝብ መካከል አንዷ ነች። ይህ ብዝሃነት በሀገሪቱ ህገ መንግስት በተለይም በአንቀጽ 5 ላይ ቋንቋዎች በፌዴራላዊ ሥርዓቱ ውስጥ ያላቸውን ደረጃና እውቅና በሚመለከት ተንጸባርቋል። ይህ ጽሁፍ በአገር አንድነት፣ በባህል ጥበቃ እና በአስተዳደር አስተዳደር ላይ ያለውን አንድምታ በመዳሰስ በአንቀጽ 5 ላይ ሰፊ ትንታኔ ይሰጣል።

 የቋንቋዎች ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ዕውቅና መስጠት

 የኢትዮጵያ ሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 5 አገሪቱ ለቋንቋ እኩልነት ያላትን ቁርጠኝነት የሚያሳይ ነው። ሁሉም የኢትዮጵያ ቋንቋዎች እኩል የመንግስት እውቅና ያገኛሉ የሚለውን መርህ ያስቀምጣል። ይህ ባህሪ በተለይ ከ80 በላይ ቋንቋዎች በሚነገሩበት ሀገር ውስጥ ትልቅ ቦታ የሚሰጠው ሲሆን እያንዳንዱም ልዩ የሆነ ባህላዊ ቅርስ እና ማንነትን የሚወክል ነው። የእኩልነት እውቅና አንቀጽ ለበርካታ ዓላማዎች ያገለግላል፡ የእያንዳንዱን ቋንቋ ባህላዊ ጠቀሜታ ያረጋግጣል፣ አካታችነትን ያበረታታል እና የትኛውንም የቋንቋ ቡድን መገለልን ለመከላከል ያለመ ነው።

 አማርኛ እንደ ፌደራል የስራ ቋንቋ

 ሁሉም ቋንቋዎች እኩል እውቅና ቢኖራቸውም አንቀጽ 5 አማርኛን የፌደራል መንግስት የስራ ቋንቋ አድርጎ አስቀምጧል። ይህ ምርጫ በታሪካዊ እና በተግባራዊ ጉዳዮች ላይ የተመሰረተ ነው. አማርኛ በኢትዮጵያ ለዘመናት የስራ ቋንቋ ሆኖ ሲያገለግል በተለያዩ ብሔርና ቋንቋዎች ተግባብቶ እንዲኖር አድርጓል። የፌደራል የስራ ቋንቋ ተብሎ መመረጡ ታሪካዊ ፋይዳውን ብቻ ሳይሆን ቀልጣፋ አስተዳደርና አስተዳደርን ለማረጋገጥ ተግባራዊ እርምጃ ነው። ነገር ግን ይህ ተግባራዊነት ሌሎች ቋንቋዎችን ከማክበር እና ከማስተዋወቅ አስፈላጊነት ጋር መመጣጠን አለበት፤ ይህ ደግሞ በግላቸው ወጪ አማርኛን ከፍ ለማድረግ አይደለም።

 የፌዴሬሽን አባላት መብት

 የኢትዮጵያ ፌዴሬሽን አባላት የራሳቸውን የስራ ቋንቋ የመወሰን ስልጣን ተሰጥቷቸዋል። ይህ ድንጋጌ የክልል መንግስታትን የራስ ገዝ አስተዳደር የሚያከብር እና ቋንቋ ለክልላዊ ማንነት እና ራስን በራስ ማስተዳደር ያለውን ጠቀሜታ እውቅና ይሰጣል። የቋንቋ ማህበረሰቦች በአፍ መፍቻ ቋንቋቸው የአካባቢ አስተዳደር፣ ትምህርት እና ህጋዊ ሂደቶችን እንዲያካሂዱ ያስችላቸዋል፣ ይህም ውጤታማ የህዝብ ተሳትፎ እና አስተዳደር እንዲኖር ወሳኝ ነው።

 የአማርኛ ሚና እንደ ቋንቋ "Lingua franca "

 የአማርኛ ቋንቋ የቋንቋ ደረጃ በህገ መንግስቱ ውስጥ የሌሎች ቋንቋዎች እኩል እውቅና ሳይሸራረፍ ተዘርዝሯል። ይህ በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ስላለው የቋንቋ ተለዋዋጭነት ግንዛቤን ያጎላል፣ አማርኛ በተለያዩ የብሔር ብሔረሰቦች መካከል እንደ ድልድይ ሆኖ የሚያገለግል ሲሆን አሁንም የብዙ ቋንቋዎችን ሥነ-ምግባር ያስተዋውቃል። ይህ ድርብ ሚና አገራዊ አንድነትን ሊያጎለብት ቢችልም አማርኛን ማስተዋወቅ የሌሎች ቋንቋዎችና ቀበሌኛዎች መሸርሸር እንዳይኖር ጥንቃቄ ማድረግን ይጠይቃል።

 እንግሊዝኛ በትምህርት እና ኦፊሴላዊ መቼቶች 

 በአካዳሚክ ተቋማት እና በሚኒስቴር መስሪያ ቤቶች ውስጥ የእንግሊዘኛ አጠቃቀም ስትራቴጂያዊ ምርጫ ነው. እንግሊዘኛ እንደ አለምአቀፍ ቋንቋ የሚያገለግል ሲሆን ብዙ ጊዜ ከአለም አቀፍ ንግድ፣ ዲፕሎማሲ እና አካዳሚ ጋር የተያያዘ ነው። በአንዳንድ የመንግስት መስሪያ ቤቶች እንግሊዘኛ የከፍተኛ ትምህርት ማስተማሪያ ቋንቋ እና የስራ ቋንቋ አድርጎ መተግበር ኢትዮጵያን ከአለም ኢኮኖሚ ጋር ለማስተሳሰር እና አለም አቀፍ ትብብርን ለመፍጠር ያለመ ነው። ቢሆንም፣ የአገር ውስጥ ቋንቋዎችን ከመተካት ይልቅ እንግሊዝኛ የሚያሟላበትን ሚዛን መጠበቅ በጣም አስፈላጊ ነው።

 የሌሎች የስራ ቋንቋዎች ፖሊሲ ትግበራ

 ሕገ መንግሥቱ ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ማሻሻያ ሳያስፈልግ የፌዴራል መንግሥት እንደ አፋን ኦሮሞ፣ ትግርኛ፣ ሶማሊኛ፣ አፋርኛ ያሉ ቋንቋዎችን ወደ የሥራ ቋንቋ ደረጃ የሚያደርሱ ፖሊሲዎችን ተግባራዊ እንዲያደርግ ይፈቅዳል። ይህ ለአገሪቱ የቋንቋ መልክዓ ምድራዊ አቀማመጥ ተለዋዋጭነት እና ምላሽ የሚሰጥ ወደፊት-አስተሳሰብ ነው። የፌደራል መንግስት በቋንቋ ፖሊሲ ላይ እንዲሰራ በመፍቀድ ኢትዮጵያ ከዲሞግራፊ ለውጥ እና ከህዝቦቿ ፍላጎት ጋር መላመድ ትችላለች።

  መደምደሚያ

 የኢትዮጵያ ህገ መንግስት አንቀፅ 5 ተራማጅ የህግ ማዕቀፍ ሲሆን የአገሪቱን የቋንቋ ብዝሃነት ተግዳሮት ሳይሆን እንደ ሀብት የሚቀበል ነው። ለሁሉም ቋንቋዎች እኩል እውቅና እና ተግባራዊ የፌዴራል ቋንቋ አስፈላጊነት መካከል ስስ ሚዛን ያስቀምጣል. የጽሁፉ አንቀጾች በቋንቋ ምርጫ ክልላዊ ራስን በራስ የማስተዳደር እና ከሕገ መንግሥት ማሻሻያዎች ውጭ ለፖሊሲ ማስተካከያዎች ያለው ግልጽነት ለቋንቋ አስተዳደር ተለዋዋጭ አቀራረብን ያሳያል። ኢትዮጵያ እያደገችና ከዓለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ ጋር ስትቀላቀል የአንቀጽ 5 ትግበራ በተሳካ ሁኔታ በተለያዩ የቋንቋ ማህበረሰቦች መካከል ቀጣይነት ያለው ውይይት በማድረግ የቋንቋ ፖሊሲው ሁሉን አቀፍ፣ ፍትሃዊ እና የሀገሪቱን የበለፀገ የባህል ታፔላ የሚያንፀባርቅ መሆኑን ማረጋገጥ ነው።

Friday, April 5, 2024

Implications of Somalia's Attempt to Close Ethiopian Consulates in Somaliland and Puntland on Horn of Africa Geopolitics .Ottawa, Canada , April 6,2024


Pictures: Mahmud Aydid Dirir, Puntland state minister of information ( above) Ambassador Rhoda  ,Somaliland dupity foreign Minister. 


Implications of Somalia's Attempt to Close Ethiopian Consulates in Somaliland and Puntland on Horn of Africa Geopolitics 
Ottawa, Canada 
April 6,2024.

Introduction:
The recent development of Somalia's federal government issuing warnings to close Ethiopian Consulates General in Hargeisa (Somaliland) and Garowe (Puntland) has sparked tensions in the Horn of Africa region. The dismissals of these warnings by authorities in Somaliland and Puntland signal a potential escalation in the geopolitical dynamics of the region.

Analysis:
The move by Somalia's federal government to demand the closure of Ethiopian Consulates in Somaliland and Puntland reflects the ongoing power struggles and disputes in the Horn of Africa. Somalia has historically contested the autonomy of Somaliland and Puntland, viewing them as integral parts of the country. By attempting to close Ethiopian diplomatic missions in these regions, Somalia is asserting its authority and challenging the de facto independence of Somaliland and Puntland.

The responses from Somaliland and Puntland authorities, dismissing Somalia's warnings as irrelevant and lacking jurisdiction, highlight the deep-seated tensions and divisions within Somalia itself. The inability of the federal government to exert control over these semi-autonomous regions underscores the fragility of Somalia's political unity and the complexities of governance in the country.

Ethiopia's role in this scenario adds another layer of complexity to the situation. As a key regional player with strategic interests in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia maintains close ties with both Somaliland and Puntland. The attempted closure of Ethiopian Consulates in these regions by Somalia could strain Ethiopia's relations with the federal government and potentially destabilize the fragile balance of power in the region.

Moreover, the involvement of external actors such as the United States, the European Union, and the African Union will likely play a crucial role in mediating the escalating tensions between Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, and Ethiopia. The international community's response to this situation will be critical in preventing further escalation and promoting peaceful resolution of the disputes.

Implications:
The standoff over the closure of Ethiopian Consulates in Somaliland and Puntland has significant implications for the geopolitics of the Horn of Africa. The escalating tensions between Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, and Ethiopia could exacerbate existing conflicts and create new fault lines in the region. The inability to resolve these disputes through diplomatic means may lead to further instability and undermine efforts for peace and development in the Horn of Africa.

In conclusion, the latest developments regarding the attempted closure of Ethiopian Consulates in Somaliland and Puntland underscore the complex geopolitical dynamics at play in the Horn of Africa. The responses from various stakeholders in the region will shape the future trajectory of relations between Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, and Ethiopia, with far-reaching implications for peace and stability in the region. Diplomatic efforts and international mediation will be crucial in de-escalating tensions and finding a peaceful resolution to the ongoing disputes.

Pictures: Ambassador Rhoda (left), and Mahmud Aydid Dirir. Pictures Credits: Amba. Rhoda/Facebook, and Shabelle media.

The Prosperity Party Conundrum: When the Solution Becomes the Problem: Habtamu Nini Abino, Ottawa, Canada April 6,2024

The Prosperity Party Conundrum: When the Solution Becomes the Problem

In the political landscape of Ethiopia, the coming of the Prosperity Party was heralded as a beacon of hope, promising to mend the fractures of a nation marred by ethnic divisions, economic challenges, and a history of autocratic governance. However, as time has elapsed, a starkly different narrative has emerged. The Prosperity Party, rather than acting as a unifying force, appears to be at the epicenter of Ethiopia's multifaceted crises, casting long shadows over the country's future.

The lamentable state of Ethiopia today cannot be divorced from the actions and policies of the ruling Prosperity Party. The country is grappling with internal strife, governance issues, and constitutional quandaries—all of which have been exacerbated, if not spawned, by the very entity that promised liberation from such woes.

A glaring failure of the Prosperity Party has been its inability to uphold the supremacy of the constitution. The constitution, designed to be the ultimate custodian of the nation's unity and the guarantor of its citizens' rights, has been relegated to a mere paper tiger. The disregard for constitutional mandates has led to a governance vacuum, where rule of law is replaced by the whims of those in power.

The Amhara region's crisis is a poignant illustration of the party's shortcomings. The internal schisms within the Prosperity Party have spilled over into the region, igniting conflicts and fostering a climate of instability. The elites within the party, instead of bridging divides, have been accused of fanning the flames of discord for political gain.

Similarly, the Oromia region's ongoing turbulence is a testament to the Prosperity Party's failure to engage in meaningful dialogue and negotiation with opposition groups, such as the Oromo Liberation Army. The inability to create an inclusive political space has led to an escalation of tensions, further fracturing the country's social fabric.

In Tigray, the power struggle between the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) and former members of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), along with the contentious issue of land in the western Tigray region, underscores the party's inadequacy in handling delicate power dynamics and territorial disputes.

These crises are not isolated incidents but are interconnected symptoms of a deeper malaise—the Prosperity Party's flawed approach to governance, which is characterized by a lack of foresight, inclusivity, and adherence to democratic principles.

The Prosperity Party's narrative, which once resonated with the promise of unity and progress, is now mired in contradictions. They stand accused not only of failing to resolve the nation's longstanding issues but of being the very architects of the current state of disarray. In this context, the party's claim to be the solution is not just unconvincing; it is seen as a delusion.

The need for a new paradigm shift is more urgent than ever. Ethiopia requires a strategy that transcends the narrow political interests of any single party or group. This new approach must be rooted in genuine dialogue, respect for the rule of law, and an unwavering commitment to the democratic process. It must prioritize reconciliation, equitable representation of all ethnicities and interests, and a concerted effort to rebuild the nation's institutions.

In conclusion, as the Prosperity Party grapples with its identity as part of the problem rather than the solution, Ethiopia stands at a crossroads. Only through a collective, inclusive, and principled effort can the nation hope to emerge from the shadows of its current crises towards a future that reflects the aspirations of all its people. The Prosperity Party must either evolve to meet these demands or step aside for a new chapter in Ethiopian politics, one that promises prosperity not in name but in deed.