OPEN LETTER TO PROFESSOR MESFIN WOLDEMARIAM:

In Memory of the 193 innocent individuals who were massacred by the Meles regime !

 Now that the dust is settling down and that a clearer picture is forming, I cannot help but indulge in trying to make sense out of this baffling situation. I am not sure if I can conclusively affirm, prove, or even attribute a sinister ulterior motive for some of the leadership of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) for pleading for pardon. Whatever that ulterior motive might have been, the result was the destruction of the CUD. This is very cynical a conclusion to entertain or contemplate. Again, we cannot deny the fact that that is exactly what happened. It seems to me that the reason for the incarceration of the CUD. leadership by the illegitimate government was to hold it responsible for causing the situation that resulted in the massacre of 193 innocent lives.

However shameful that may sound, that was the reason for the incarceration. The leadership was fully aware of this. Upon their release, however, many of us were curious and therefore hoping to learn why plea for pardon? The unofficial response was that the government was wrong for labeling it pardon and that the Shimagles/the elders would divulge or disclose it in due time. That did not happen. What has happened was the hasty decision to go abroad and begin the protracted and agonizing destruction of the CUD. It began as a plea for support to help restructure the CUD. The Diaspora began to be told that Eng. Hailu, the President of CUD, was dictatorial in his administration and feudal in his dealings with his associates, ergo, he has to go.

Now the question would be why come to America, Canada, or go to Europe, Australia, South Africa, the Middle East and the other parts of the world to find help to remove the engineer from power and restructure the CUD while this was the prerogative or the exclusive right of the Supreme Council (Lalay Mikirbet).  Legally speaking that was the only organ that could remove the engineer from his office and restructure the organization according to the wish of the general membership. No matter how much support the Diaspora provides to the organization, no matter how much sympathy there might be for the idea, there is very little the Diaspora can do to remove the engineer from office and restructure the organization. I do not think that those who were prosecuting the case were oblivious to this standard operating procedure (SOP) or were they ignorant of their own rules. Now then, if we take this as given, one cannot help but question what their motive was. It seems to me that may be, just may be, they might have sensed or come to the conclusion that the majority of the membership of the Supreme Council does not share their complaint and therefore would not see it their way. If that were to happen, then the question is what is next? 

I presume that there are three scenarios to choose. First, they could swallow their pride, stay in the Organization, and persevere, second they would consider it as defeat and perhaps end their association with the Organization altogether, or third they would look for a sympathetic ear and lament their problem. It seemed to me that they chose the third scenario. Hence, their hasty flight to the various parts of the world where, I am convinced, there had been sympathetic sentiment for their cause. The groundwork must have been done while they were still incarcerated. I say this because the royal and imperial reception they a provided and the amplification of their cause was an eloquent testimony. Nowhere, as far as I know, were they queried or challenged to account for why they pleaded for pardon or for the implication and ramification of their plea. All of a sudden Eng. Hailu, the leader who was once revered and equated with Mandela began to be demonized and condemned as a tyrant, feudal and a devil-incarnate. The natural progression of this despicable act was not only the destruction of CUD but also the polarizing of the Diaspora into the Hailu supporter’s camp and Birtukan supporter’s camp.

The filth that was gushing out of the mouth of some of Hailu haters was un-Ethiopian to say the least. as well, this was very evident in some of the pal-talk media that I had a chance to visit. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the CUD. Hence, I do not have a bone to pick nor do I have a chip on my shoulder. However, it saddens me all the same when a viable organization destroyed just because some do not like the way the leader operates. In any case, that is not the main objective of this essay. The objective of this essay is to hold these former “leaders” to account for why they agreed to share responsibility for the massacre of the 193 innocent Ethiopians who seemed to have been forgotten by all of us. Hence my open letter to Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam.

Dear Professor;

At the outset, I should admit that writing this letter has been an agonizing and a very difficult decision for me. It has been so because it I easily be interpreted or regarded as an infringement on personal decision. infringement on your right to make your decision without having to explain to anyone. A decision that you and perhaps your close relatives and family have to make. A decision that you would make after having made cost-benefit analysis to your health and to your legacy.

Professor, you have a legacy that you want to protect while you are still alive. It is a legacy, which you would not want to leave to your detractors and critics to have field day writing. It is a legacy, not only you but also your loved ones and close associates are proud of. You have a history unlike many. In addition, in this connection, I mean your political activism, which dates back to the time of the Emperor. Your love for your country, your concern, dedication and commitment to better the livelihood of Ethiopia’s poor are unparalleled. You have educated, God knows, thousands and thousands of Ethiopia’s students. Because of your role as a political activist and as a professor, you have been, for most of your life, a public person. This in itself is unique for the simple fact that not all professors are public persons. As much as there are those, who love and respect you so are there those who despise your guts. I presume this goes along with the territory in which one is operating.

I am one of those who respect and admire you. I should say my admiration for you reached its pinnacle when I, along with ten (10) other Addis Ababa University professors, selected by the university community to join with you to establish the Committee for Peace, Reconciliation and Democracy (CPRD) during the Tenth International Conference on Ethiopia in 1991. In the paper you presented to the Conference, you became the first to call on the then dictator Mengistu to relinquish power and entrust his presidency to a group of Elders to be elected by the Ethiopian people. In the same paper, you also called on all the secessionist forces to desist from their war and join in the national reconciliation you called for. That is not all. You became the first Ethiopian to establish the very first Human Rights Council to protect and defend our God given rights. As well, as stated in the Objectives of the Council, establishment of a democratic system, promoting the rule of law, and encouraging and monitoring the Respects for human rights are and have always been your vision and dream for your beloved Ethiopia. I have never heard or read any writings by you in which you advocate violence. As much as you abhor and therefore are opposed to violence perpetrated by those in power so are you by those who want to overthrow them.

On the eve of your joining and forming the political party called Kestedamena I called you to ask if you were serious about doing it. Moreover, you answered in the affirmative. You told me that if you had to join forces with like-minded people to help save Ethiopia from itself then you would gladly do it. We also talked about the political situation in Ethiopia when you were here in the States sometime right after the election. This conversation took place in Virginia in a hotel where you were bed-ridden. From my recollection, you sounded upbeat and confident about the evolution of the political process in Ethiopia. I had a different understanding of what was happening in Ethiopia. As I was about to depart, I left you with a copy of my article entitled A critical Analysis of Post Election Political Situation in Ethiopia. I asked you to read it. Unfortunately, the outcome of the election and what transpired there after was to lead to your and your colleagues’ incarceration and violation of your human rights. It is ironical for a man that had always been a paragon of peaceful struggle for freedom, democracy and human rights to end up in prison. What is bizarre and astounding about the whole affair is that the party leadership’s crime, and only crime at that, is the party might have possibly won that election. Many of your supporters also shared that feeling. In addition, in order to make sure that the vote they cast counted, they took to the streets. Meles by his own admission to the BBC, was the one who gave orders to the soldiers to do every thing “to prevent the over throw of the government.” In the shooting that took place, 193 innocent Ethiopians lost their lives. Now, to justify the massacre perpetrated by the government, it incarcerated you and the party leadership by alleging that you all have perpetrated acts of treason by wanton disregard for the rule of law and with sinister intention to overthrow the legally constituted government. Every one knew that was preposterous and rubbish. The leadership, justifiably, refused to defend itself for the simple reason that it had not Neither harbored any sinister desire nor perpetrated any action to overthrow the government by illegal means. At any rate, to make matters short, the kangaroo court, the so-called Federal High Court of Ethiopia, subservient to the authorities, found all of you guilty as accused and decided that you all will serve a prison sentence of ten years to life. After the leadership had served almost two years, twenty-one months to be exact in dungeon, it was pardon. Allegedly, you were willing to admit partial responsibility for causing the condition that contributed to the massacre of the 193 civilians. I know the leadership does not believe this to be the case. Most of all, professor you do not admit to this hogwash accusation. I can say this because I have known you to be a man of principle that does not compromise your integrity. I am not casting any aspersion or doubt on the integrity of your colleagues. They must be honorable men and women who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the betterment of our beloved Ethiopia. I have nothing but utmost respect for them. Unlike them, however, your activism and struggle against authoritarian, tyrannous, and dictatorship has a long history. As I have documented above, you had challenged the Haile Selassie, the Mengistu, and now the Meles regimes. All throughout your struggle, you have displayed unimaginable dedication and commitment to your people and country. In addition, I might add you had done all of these alone. Through your work, your activism, and your writings and in class you have taught your people what principle is and how to stand for them. It is because of your principle that you finally established the Ethiopian Human Rights Council. There has never been a time when you kowtow or capitulated to a government at the expense of your principle. Therefore, I find it paradoxical for you to ask for a pardon by admitting responsibility for something for which you are not responsible. Remember what this will do to your legacy. Socrates chose to die rather than to give up his teaching and criticizing the administration of society. He knew that the government’s decision and action were unjust. He did not think he could live without his conscience tormenting him. Mandela did not give-in to apartheid to gain his freedom. He made apartheid change to gain his freedom. When asked to denounce the ANC and the armed struggle to gain his freedom he responded to the government by writing the following:

“I am surprised at the conditions that the government wants to impose on me. I am not a violent man...It was only then, when all other forms of resistance were no longer open to us, that we turned to armed struggle. Let Botha show that he is different to Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd. Let him renounce violence. Let him say that he will dismantle apartheid. Let him un-ban the people’s organization, the African National Congress. Let him free all who have been imprisoned, banished or exiled for their opposition to apartheid. Let him guarantee free political activity so that people may decide who will govern them.

I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your (the people) freedom. Too many have died since I went to prison. Too many have suffered for the love of freedom. I owe to their widows, to their orphans, to their mothers, and to their fathers who have grieved and wept for them. Not only have I suffered during these long, lonely, wasted years. I am not less life loving than you are. However, I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free...What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested on a pass offense... What freedom am I being offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected?

Only freemen can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts...I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when you, the people, and I are not free. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated...”

Professor I am unmindful of your age and your health. I am very cognizant of both. However, at the same time I feel that the fact that you are at the age you are means that you would want to protect your legacy very jealously. A legacy that has already began to be questioned by some and attacked by others. You would want to leave a precedent that you want the next generation to follow. It is because of the dearth of people who are true to their belief, dedicated and committed to their principles that we go outside of our country to celebrate others. Yes, we have Emperor Menilik who stood up to the Italians and Abuna Petros who urged and beseeched his people to fight until they liberated their mother country. Nevertheless, both are of different time and therefore different context.

Professor I know this is too personal a decision to discuss publicly. If you feel that way and decide to remain silent, then I will understand. But do not forget that you are no longer a private person. You are a public person. The public will want to know what motivated your decision. I should say you owe it to history as well.

Solomon Terfa (PhD)
Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations (MVSU)
The author can be reach at : st2151@bellsouth.net