sovereignty

I Came to Addis to Defend Ethiopia and Represent the True Interests of the U.S.A.

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The short video above is a news story on my lecture at Addis Ababa University. The longer video below is an extensive interview with Prime Media.

Discussion with Lawrence Freeman: Africa, Ethiopia, and Geo-Politics

December 21, 2021

Why I Came to Ethiopia

I was on the ground in Addis Ababa, from November 28 – December 10, to defend Ethiopia and represent the true interests of the United States. During that time in Addis, I conducted sixteen interviews and gave a two hour lecture at Addis Ababa University. I came to Ethiopia as an American, who, knowledgeable of the origins of my country, knows that the current U.S. policy towards Ethiopia is wrong and dangerous.

Understanding the intent of the psychological warfare campaign conducted by Western nations, international media, and most especially, my own United States Department of State, I knew the most important place for me to be, was in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.

As I anticipated, all was calm and normal in this bustling city, with unending construction of new buildings. Through multiple media outlets I was able to expose the lies of the false narrative about Ethiopia and counter the psychological warfare campaign being waged against the Ethiopian people.

It was and remains my responsibility to defeat this campaign against Ethiopia and present what America’s true interest are in Africa.

Lawrence Freeman standing in front of the Addis Ababa skyline

Disinformation Campaign

The U.S. embassy sent out daily disinformation that Addis was in danger of attack from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) located in the town of Dessie, less than two hundred miles north of the city. Even after government forces pushed the TPLF out of Dessie, the U.S. embassy continued to encourage Americans to leave Addis and went as far as offering to buy their tickets to return home. Ned Price, press spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, attempted to create even more fear and hysteria, by officially announcing the U.S. would not be conducting a military airlift for Americans like it did in Afghanistan this past August.

Various news programs accompanied the State Department’s fraudulent comparison of Addis and Kabul with videos of an American plane taking off from the Kabul airport leaving desperate people behind on the runway. This disgusting and outrageous comparison between Addis and Kabul, was deliberately and knowingly untruthful.

Those who believe the U.S. has not taken “sides” do not comprehend political warfare. And do not understand the intent of geo-political forces in the administration of President Biden and other western governments for regime change of the duly elected Prime Minister, Dr. Abiy Ahmed.

Relaxing at a restaurant off Meskel Square, Addis Ababa

More ominously for Ethiopia than Ned Price, the New York Times, the premiere organ of the U.S. Establishment, articulated the geo-political intent for regime change. In a blatant “hit job,” advocating the necessity of removing the “sinister” Prime Minister Abiy at all costs, The Times published on December 15,  The Nobel Peace Prize That Paved the Way for War. This article maliciously portrays Prime Minister Abiy as a maniacal ruthless leader only bent on destroying the TPLF and caring nothing for Ethiopia. Its intent should obliterate any ambiguity regarding U.S. geo-political policy for Ethiopia.

It is vital for the Ethiopian government, its people, Ethiopian diaspora, and friends and allies, to understand the geo-political determination to weaken the authority of Prime Minister Abiy or remove him from office. However, simultaneously it is necessary to think beyond the current military campaign. The government should prepare now for what is required as soon as this conflict is over. It is imperative for the future of the nation that Ethiopia engage in two crucial missions:

  1. Articulate a comprehensive reconstruction plan that includes the economic development of all regions of the nation in building a prosperous Ethiopia. Farms, schools, hospitals, and all kinds of necessary infrastructure will need to be rebuilt and expanded in Tigray and across northern Ethiopia. Let us use this post war mission to unify the nation around a national economic mobilization to improve the conditions of life for all Ethiopians.
  2. Commence a national dialogue to discuss/debate the supremacy ofthe concept of being a citizen of a sovereign nation as opposed to membership in an ethnic group. Ethiopia’s national identity must be strengthened, and the partisan influence of ethnic dominated regionalism reduced.

Normal traffic in Addis Ababa

America’s Real Interests

America was not created to intervene against sovereign nations like Ethiopia. Today, we are still witnessing the death and destruction across the Sahel caused by President Obama’s military intervention ten years ago when the U.S. overthrew and killed Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

There is no objective reason for discord between the U.S. and Ethiopia. None! The conflict between the two nations exists entirely because President Biden has allowed his policy towards Ethiopia to be determined by the globalist-humanitarian-democracy cabal. They arrogantly believe they have the right to impose their so-called democratic-humanitarian construct on Ethiopia. Dictating how Ethiopia should be governed, and who should govern it.

The United States, created to be a Democratic-Republic, was founded on the economic theories of Alexander Hamilton, endorsed by President George Washington. These principles, known as the American System of Political Economy, have guided our more thoughtful U.S. presidents in conducting foreign and domestic policy.

The U.S. in its better moments, unlike the last few decades, has supported the right of governments to preserve the sovereignty of their nation. President Abraham Lincoln was prepared to continue the war, which costs the lives of 750,000 Americans, to defeat the efforts by the southern Confederacy to break up the Union. For President Lincoln, there was no greater importance than safeguarding the sovereign Union of the U.S., and no limit to his actions for that purpose.

The author giving a lecture at Addis Ababa University

As a result of Hamilton’s dominant influence, the U.S. was committed to economic development from its very inception and desired the same for all other nations. Sadly, the last U.S. president who understood the critical importance of economic development for African nations was President Kennedy–almost sixty years ago. To the detriment of the U.S. and the world, America has lost its mission and its vision to create a better future for humankind. The shining “city on the hill” has become a quite a bit dimmer.

The true underlying interests of the U.S. and the American people is exactly the same as that of Ethiopia and its people. All nations have the same shared-common goals:

  1. Improving the material standard of living for its citizens and ensuring a better future for their children and  grandchildren.
  2. Nurturing the creative potential of the mind of every child to enhance their ability to contribute to the development of humanity.

The foundation of a real American foreign policy should rest on these two pillars of statecraft. From this higher strategic perspective, Ethiopia, and the U.S., have no fundamental insurmountable disagreements that would prevent the two nations from engaging in policies that will mutually benefit its people now and for the future.

Read my earlier post: Biden’s Economic Warfare Only Hurts Ethiopians–Who Benefits?

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.

My website had a break-out year in 2021 with over 107,000 visitors. Please subscribe to my blog.

Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone the best during this holiday season

Biden Government Must Replace Regime Change for Ethiopia With Policy for Economic Development

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 22, 2021

In an interview with Addis Media Network, on November 18, 2021, I discuss how we must fight against efforts for regime change in Ethiopia, and instead promote a policy for economic development. I identify that the so called mainstream media are not objective truth seekers, but part of the propaganda arm of the political-economic elite–an oligarchy. The West refuses to respect the sovereignty of Ethiopia and the elected government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. President Joe Biden is pursuing a dangerous policy of economic and political warfare against Ethiopia and its people. The enemies of Ethiopia will use humanitarian concerns as an excuse to potentially deploy military forces under the pretext of protection the Ethiopian people from their own government. This doctrine, known as R2P-the responsibility to protect- was created by George Soros and Tony Blair. Samantha Power and others in the Obama administration used R2P to justify the overthrow of President Kaddafi and the destruction of Libya.

Ethiopia must be allowed to pursue its commitment to development and the elimination of poverty. We need a united Ethiopia, with a single conception of Ethiopian citizenry, not one based on ethnicity.  Unfortunately, U.S. President, Joe Biden, does not understand the true interests of the continent, and is allowing his administration to be used against the people of Africa and Ethiopia. Ethiopian diaspora should be united in defeating regime and allowing Ethiopia to once again lead Africa along the path of economic growth.   

 Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.

Promoting Economic Growth and Tranquility Should Replace Foreign Interventionism. The Case of Ethiopia 

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last U.S. soldier to leave Afghanistan

Promoting Economic Growth and Tranquility Should Replace Foreign Interventionism. The Case of Ethiopia 

Lawrence Freeman

September 2, 2021

As the United States was in the final days of evacuation from its twenty year old failed invasion of Afghanistan, the Washington Post called on President Joe Biden to impose more harsh penalties on the nation of Ethiopia. There are insights we can glean from the juxtaposition of these two events.

On August 27, the Washington Post editorial board called on President Joe Biden to issue additional sanctions against Ethiopia. The Post asserted that the government of Ethiopia is responsible for atrocities including civilian massacres, using rape as a weapon, and “causing the world’s worst hunger crisis in a decade.” No proof was provided other than reports from Amnesty International and comments by Samantha Power, Chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Readers of the Post editorial are expected to have accepted all the allegations by the media against Ethiopia over the last ten months as true and factual. However, a leaked video conversation by United Nations representatives in August, revealed an admission of no real evidence-data-to support the media’s unsubstantiated claim that Ethiopia used rape as a weapon of war.  Also, recent reports from USAID officials, indicate that the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) have been stealing food intended to feed Ethiopians.  

The editorial continued, “If Eritrean officials deserve sanctions, the U.S. government must consider them for Ethiopian government officials, too.” Conspicuously, while the Post asserts the alleged crimes of Ethiopia as genuine, they merely allude to “accusations” of atrocities by the TPLF. 

President Biden defends ending war in Afghanistan (courtesy of hindustaintimes.com)

Failed Foreign Interventions

Is President Biden foolish enough to allow Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Samantha Power, and others in his administration to lead the U.S. into another foreign disaster, after twenty years of failed interventions? This remains to be seen.

History often provides us with a real time juxtaposition of events that exposes an underlying reality, that might otherwise go unexamined by those who are habituated to regurgitating media induced popular opinion.

A week before the Washington Post publicly joined the liberal establishment’s campaign to weaken the government of Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed,in favor of separatist forces, Tony Blair defended the British-U.S. disastrous Afghanistan policy. Remember, Blair was British Prime Minister and Labor Party leader from 1997-2007.

In his wordy defense for geo-political motivated interventions, Blair castigated President Biden for pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Blair arrogantly insisted that it is the responsibility of the West to military intervene around the world in the guise of promoting so called democratic values. He wrote on August 21, “If the West wants to shape the 21st century, it will take commitment…we in the West represent values and interests worth being proud of defending.”

Blair attempts to justify a generation of Western intervention that has produced nothing but death, destruction, and suffering around the world.

Abetted by Blair, President George W Bush launched the invasion into Afghanistan, under the pretext of chasing down the terrorists responsible for the “9/11” bombings in the U.S. Except that the  majority of those responsible were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the geo-political ally of the U.S. in the Gulf region. Less than two years later, the U.S. invaded Iraq, led by Blair’s lies, searching for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. How many millions of men, women and children have lost their lives or suffered horrible conditions because of the ill-fated Western adventure to destroy Iraq, a then relatively stable nation in the region.

Former President Obama’s overthrow and elimination of President Muammar Gaddafi almost ten years ago, purportedly to protect the Libyan people, has led to untold suffering of millions of Africans across the Sahel. This reckless intervention by liberal Democrat Obama, transformed the nation of Libya into a failed state, and has led to an expansion of violent extremist movements throughout the nations of the Sahel; still ongoing today. Obama’s support for “regime change” against Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, has done nothing but create more devastation in the Middle East. 

Now asked yourself; how many nations dedicated to the principles of American republicanism were nurtured into existence during this generation of U.S. and Western intervention?

Tony Blair and George Soros, leading liberal architects for regime change (courtesy of pagesix.com)

Blair and Soros Promulgate “R2P”

Blair, who chastises President Biden’s withdraw from Afghanistan,  epitomizes the “liberal Imperialist.” Under the guise of promoting democracy and so called western values around the world, Blair advocates “regime change” with complete disregard for national sovereignty.

In a 1999 Chicago presentation, Blair publicly advocated his infamous doctrine “responsibility to protect-R2P,” which became the core of  British and American foreign policy for the next twenty years.

In 2012, I wrote:

“… the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine advocates discarding over three centuries of the lawful recognition of the supremacy of the sovereign nation state, established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended over a century and a half of religious warfare in Europe. Blair’s anti-nation state doctrine insists that the so-called international community has the right to use its more powerful militaries to eliminate governments under the amorphous notion of quote ‘humanitarian intervention.’”

Liberal Democrat George Soros creator of the Open Society, and super funder of liberal causes, supported and expanded Blair‘s new “R2P” doctrine. In his 2004 article in Foreign Policy Magazine, Soros wrote: 

“Sovereignty is anachronistic conception originating in bygone times… it became the cornerstone of international relations with the treaty Westphalia in 1648…The rulers of a sovereign state have responsibility to protect the state’s citizens. When they failed to do so the responsibility is transferred to the international community.”(emphasis added)

Who comprises this supercilious “international community” that decides to disregard the sovereignty of nations, and from whence did they acquire this entitlement?

Will Biden End Foreign Interventions?

President Biden’s August 31, address to the people of the United States, could portend the end of U.S. policy of mis-adventurism around the world, when he said: “This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.” If so, Biden’s presidency will be a turning point in modern history. This moment provides President Biden with a unique opportunity to define a fresh foreign policy approach.

Second filling of GERD that will generate electricity-economic growth for Africa (courtesy of burkena.com)

Let President Biden demonstrate his commitment to this new outlook by reversing his administration’s involvement in undermining the elected government of Ethiopia. The U.S. should be supporting and strengthening PM Abiy in his efforts to secure the nation-state of Ethiopia against separatist-rebels trying to dismember the nation.  Sanctions will not help Ethiopia. It is not in America’s interest to have a weakened Ethiopia. Sanctions are not an effective method of conducting relations with a sovereign nation that has provided stability in the region and been an ally to the U.S. There is no justification for the U.S. to turn against Ethiopia, its erstwhile partner in the Horn of Africa.

Sanctions should be repealed immediately. This will require President Biden curtailing his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken’s proclivities for interventionism and Samantha Power, a longtime supporter of “R2P” and George Soros.   

A new foreign strategy should not be predicated on intruding militarily  or applying political coercion to other nations under the pretext of imposing so called western democracy. Rather we should emulate one of our great U.S. presidents, John Quincy Adams, who said in his 1821 Fourth of July speech, “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

Instead of weakening nations through sanctions and the withholding funds for development, the U.S. should export republicanism. The U.S. was founded as republic with a government constitutionally mandated to provide for the “general welfare” of its citizens. All great U.S. presidents, regardless of party, understood that fostering economic growth, propelled by advancements in science and technology, was the proper means to ensure prosperity and tranquility.

Ethiopia, although still an emerging nation, has distinguished itself by launching bold initiatives to drive economic development, particularly in the area of infrastructure. Let the basis for a renewed alliance and friendship between Ethiopia and the U.S., be grounded on policies that promote economic progress for Ethiopia’s 110 million citizens.    

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton

New U.S. Hostilities Against Ethiopia Threatens Horn of Africa

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo by Getty Images

New U.S. Hostilities Against Ethiopia Threatens Horn of Africa

Lawrence Freeman

May 24, 2021

On May 23, U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, announced visa restrictions “for any current or former Ethiopian or Eritrean government officials, members of the security  forces or other individuals …responsible for or complicit in undermining the resolution of the crisis in Tigray.” According to the State Department press statement, the Biden administration has “imposed wide-ranging restrictions on economic and security assistance to Ethiopia and will bring our defense trade control policy in line with them.” Although not explicitly stated by Blinken, the U.S. will suspend $130 million of U.S. security assistance to Ethiopia, originally paused by the Trump administration. Multiple government sources report that the Biden administration is in the process of taking additional punitive measures against Ethiopia, including pressuring the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to hold back funds already designated for programs in Ethiopia. Additional U.S. sanctions have not been ruled out.

With the announcement of  these bilateral and possible multilateral assaults against Ethiopia, the U.S. will not only reverse decades of cooperation between the two nations, but potentially could endanger the entire Horn of Africa, and beyond. Ethiopia has played an indispensable role in providing security and stability in East Africa. This new U.S. posture towards Ethiopia, meant to appease the international liberal establishment, is reckless and perilous.

These types of measures, usually reserved for enemies of the U.S., are being implemented against a longtime trusted ally. A nation that has vigorously collaborated with the U.S. under both Republican and Democratic Presidents in fighting terrorism and violent extremism in the region.

Expressing the gravity of this abrupt policy shift by President Biden, Cameroon Hudson, of the Atlantic Council said to Foreign Policy: “This is a major strategic shift in the Horn of Africa, to go from an anchor state for U.S. interests to become a potential adversary to U.S. interests.”

courtesy of aa.com.tr

This foolishness and lack of judgment by President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and the U.S. Congress, can potentially lead to a calamity for Africa, not seen since the disastrous decision by the Obama administration to overthrow the Libyan government in October 2011. Nations in the Sahel and millions of Africans living in that region are still suffering today from the misadventure by President Obama and his zealot regime change advisors, who removed President Kaddafi from office. Look at Libya today, and the affects almost a decade later on North Africa. Attempts to weaken Ethiopia through economic strangulation and political isolation, in this turbulent period of Ethiopian society, are downright dangerous and could cause severe harm for millions of Africans.

This draconian assault against Ethiopia by the U.S. can potentially lead to a weakening of the Ethiopian nation by encouraging more ethno-nationalist attacks on the government. Were that to happen, be forewarned, that like Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth, who lamented, “what, will these hands ne’er be clean,”–the blood stain of millions of Africans may never be removed from the hands of the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress.

There are evil forces, who would like to see Ethiopia devolve into a balkanized territory of hostile competing ethnic fiefdoms. This would be a disaster for Africa and the world, and is not in the self-interest of the U.S.

Changing the Narrative

Woefully, war is always ugly and always leads to atrocities, but let us remember the cause of the conflict in Tigray. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) conducted a surprise attack on the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) in Mekele in the early hours of November 4, 2020. They attacked the armed forces of the Federal government i.e., the nation state of Ethiopia. Like President Lincoln, who responded to the confederate attack on the Union’s Fort Sumpter, by declaring war, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed had no other choice, but to respond militarily. Otherwise, the nation of Ethiopia could have been dismembered by emboldened ethno-nationalist forces declaring their independence from the central government.

There have been attempts by numerous individuals and organizations in and outside of Ethiopia to falsely claim an equivalence between the TPLF, an ethno-regional organization, and the national government of Ethiopia located in Addis Ababa. Some even try to equate the ENDF with the TPLF militia.

Various news organizations have now intentionally resorted to blurring the actual cause of the war. A recent article by Associated Press referred to the TPLF attack in Mekele as an “allegation” even though TPLF leaders have proudly admitted their action. The New York Times claims that Prime Minister Abiy’s armed response was in reaction to TPLF “defiance” rather than the truth, which was the slaughter of ENDF troops by the TPLF.

Does the U.S. Congress Possess Intelligence?

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 97 (S.Res.97) on May 19, following multiple requests by the Foreign Relation Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives for sanctions to be imposed on Ethiopia.

There has been no official report of evidence by the U.S State Department or intelligence services verifying allegations of “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” by the Ethiopian government. It is pathetic, yet valuable to know that accusations against Ethiopia by the State Department, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, have in large part come from news organizations. Whatever happened to U.S. intelligence capabilities? Has U.S. intel gathering been so corroded that it has to rely on private organizations, who have their own agenda? Should the U.S. be making foreign policy decisions without independent knowledge of events? CNN brags in its own May 21st article that it was their news (sic) organization and a pro TPLF lobbying firm ,Von Batten-Montague-York, that was responsible for convincing U.S. Senators to support S.Res.97. The U.S. Senate, sometimes called, the world’s greatest deliberative body, was in fact led like lemmings, by CNN and a DC lobbying firm to condemn Ethiopia’s government. Is that what the founding fathers of this great republic contemplated when they created the Senate? I think not.

No Respect for Ethiopia’s Sovereignty

Despite the fact that very few, if any U.S. Senators have a deep-seated knowledge of the complexities of Ethiopian culture and society, they did not refrain from encroaching on Ethiopian sovereignty, which obligates the central government to act in the interest of safeguarding the nation.

S.Res.97, ignores the responsibility of Prime Minister Abiy to defend his nation, demanding instead: an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Tigray Region; strongly disapproving of the escalation of political tensions between the Government of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) into armed conflict; and most egregiously urges the government of Ethiopia to engage in a full cessation of hostilities.  In essence, S.Res.97, rebukes the Ethiopian government for defending its nation from an insurrection, and demands reconciliation with the insurgents.

Breaking up the Union, only weeks after President Lincoln took office, was the explicit intent of the southern states, who insisted that the U.S. government, no longer represented them. President Lincoln would not allow the republic to be divided. He waged a relentless war that ultimately led to the deaths of upwards of 750,000 Americans. He ignored all pleas to come to the peace table and negotiate with the enemy of the Union, who he would only refer to as “rebels.” The only negotiation President Lincoln would accept from the “rebels” was unconditional surrender. Under no condition would he allow some other country to dictate to him, the President of the United States of America, how to conduct the war to save the Union.

Read my earlier posts:

U.S. Senators’ Call for Postponing Ethiopian Election Is Foolish & Very Dangerous

Horn of Africa Endangered by Untrue Media Attacks on Ethiopia

Ethiopia’s Conflict: A War Won to Preserve the Nation-State

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton

U.S. Senators’ Call for Postponing Ethiopian Election Is Foolish & Very Dangerous

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ethiopia is scheduled to have parliamentary elections on June 5, 2021. (courtesy of Addis Standard Facebook)

U.S. Senators’ Call for Postponing Ethiopian Election is Foolish and Very Dangerous

May 7, 2021

Lawrence Freeman

On June 5, Ethiopia will conduct national parliamentary elections that will be decisive not only for Ethiopia, but the entire Horn of Africa.  On the eve of Special Envoy, Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman’s first trip to the Horn of Africa, five Democratic U.S. Senators sent him a letter, expressing their concerns about Ethiopia.  29 April 2021 letter to US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman,

Unfortunately, in their letter, Senators Ben Cardin, Tim Kaine, Jacky Rosen, Cory Booker and Ed Markey, displayed a shallow understanding, one might even say ignorance, about the conflict in Ethiopia. Furthermore, their suggestion that Ethiopia’s national elections should not go forward, is downright dangerous.

Putting Western arrogance aside, which believes it has supreme right to tell Ethiopia, a sovereign nation, when it should allow it citizens to vote, the letter displays no knowledge of the unique dynamics of Ethiopian society. One wonders if these senators have any knowledge of the last 125 year intricate history of Ethiopia. A period spans from the March 1, 1896 victory at Adwa by Emperor Menelik II against the Italian colonial army, to the present efforts by Prime Minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed to unify the Ethiopian nation through the newly created, non-ethnic based, Prosperity Party.  The senators appeared to have based their opinions about Ethiopia almost exclusively on news reports or from Amnesty International.

De-Legitimize the Election? 

The most egregious section of their letter is the following paragraph, which could be construed as election interference against a sovereign nation.

“The destabilizing potential of these trends should not be underestimated, especially in light of the national elections planned for June 5, 2021. These planned elections are not currently on track to meet international standards for freedom, fairness, and transparency. Already, several opposition political parties in Ethiopia have announced plans to abstain from the elections due to a lack of faith that they will be conducted credibly. This fear is based in part on the government’s detention of thousands of opposition leaders and supporters, some of whom have been deprived of due process, tortured, or even summarily executed, according to Amnesty International’s May 2020 Report. We worry that, if elections move forward without the reforms required to earn the trust of the Ethiopian public, growing ethnic and political tensions across the country will boil over into violence.”  (emphasis added)

It is outrageous for members of the U.S. Senate to suggest that a sovereign nation should  cancel their elections. To my knowledge, only one party, not several, has chosen to abstain. However, these U.S. Senators’ accusations are foolishly giving cover for more parties to withdraw.

Given the current climate of ethnic tension in Ethiopia, to suggest that violence would ensue if the nation proceeds with its election, could in fact, be encouraging more violence.

In response to this call to postpone its upcoming election, Ethiopia’s Ambassador to Washington, Fitsum Arega, replied on May 4, in his own letter to Ambassador Feltman:

“The upcoming June parliamentary election will be an historic milestone in the political transformation of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian National Electoral Board, which is [the most] independent electoral body in the history of the nation, has been established and is responsible for organizing, conducting, and oversighting, the election and election related activities. The Ethiopian Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure the election is free, fair, and transparent.”

Despite the best efforts by the Ethiopian government to conduct its most open and transparent election in the last 26 years, no doubt difficulties will occur in the voting process. However, opposition political parties will now be able to opportunistically claim the election is illegitimate, and contest the results, citing allegations from the U.S. Senator’s letter. This could fuel additional ethnic violence, thus making it more challenging for the government to unify the nation following the election.

Sovereign Obligation

The Ethiopian government, and the Ethiopian people are in full preparation for this critical election, which has already been postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It would be irresponsible for the government of Ethiopia to deprive its citizens and all the parties participating, the right to vote. Ethiopia, a sovereign nation, believes it is paramount that its citizens determine the future of their nation by electing its leaders at the ballot box.

The government insists it is vital to conduct these elections, even during these problematic times, striving to emulate the best practices of the U.S. It should be noted that the United States has never postponed a national election, despite severe dislocations of its people. Not during World War II, not during the Great Depression, not during the Spanish Flu, and not during the surge of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to the largest number of mail-in ballots in U.S. history. Even in 1864, while tens of thousands of Americans were imprisoned or fighting on the battlefield in the midst of the U.S. Civil War, the election was held, and Abraham Lincoln, the unfaltering defender of the Union, was re-elected.

(To the followers of my website. I did not post any articles in the last month because I was traveling Nigeria and Ethiopia.)

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton

Celebrate Ethiopia’s March 1, 1896 Victory at Adwa: Ethiopia is Fighting Another Battle Today to Protect its Sovereignty

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ethiopia’s victory against Italy at Adwa on March 1, 1896, profoundly shaped the future of Ethiopia.
Celebrate Ethiopia’s March 1, 1896 Victory at Adwa- A Victory For Africa and All Nations

February 28, 2021

This article below was first published in the March 2017. If you read the headlines of  the European press following Italy’s defeat on March1, 1896, you will see that this battle shook the foundations of European Imperialism to its core.

Today, Ethiopia is engaged in another battle for its sovereignty, no less vital than the Battle at Adwa 125 years ago. The Ethiopian nation-state is a physical unitary reality that embodies an essential concept of national identity, which transcends ethno-nationalism. Unfortunately, there are times when it is necessary to wage war to preserve the nation state, which represents the interests of all Ethiopians. Without a functioning sovereign nation-state, society cannot provide for its citizens and for future generations. In the spirit of the victory at Adwa, all Ethiopians should unite in pursing their shared common interest: the development of Ethiopia. When all Ethiopians, from all ethnic backgrounds join together to ensure the economic progress of their single homeland, then the preconditions will exist to end ethnic conflict and marginalization. The victory at Adwa belongs to and exist inside all Ethiopians. One Ethiopia! One Ethiopian identity! 

Victory at Adwa- A Victory for Africa

Lawrence Freeman

March 1, 2017

The battle of Adwa is probably the most renowned and historic battle in Ethiopian history. This celebrated victory by the Ethiopian army helped define the future of their nation, as one of only two non-colonized countries in Africa. The defeat of a European colonial empire by an African country, following the “Scramble for Africa” after the 1884-1885 Berlin conference a decade earlier, is not only a source of enduring pride and nationalism for Ethiopians, but also an inspiration to other Africans, who took up the fight for independence six decades later. Some historians suggest that this victory also led to the idea for the Pan-African movement. As a result, it is no surprise that on May 25 1963, Ethiopia under the rule of Emperor Haile Selassie was a founding member of the Organization of African States-OAS.

Adwa, also known as Adowa, and in Italian Adua, was the capital of the Tigray region in northern Ethiopia. A late comer to grabbing territory in Africa, Italy began colonizing Somaliland and Eritrea in the 1880s. It was from the vantage point of Eritrea from where Italy launched its campaign against Ethiopia. The immediate pretext of the invasion was a dispute of Article 17 of the 1889 Treaty of Wuchale. Italy insisted that the treaty stated that Ethiopia had to submit to its imperial authority, thus effectively making Ethiopia a colony of the Kingdom of Italy. The Ethiopians resisted Italy’s military enforcement of its version of the treaty, leading to the outbreak of war in December 1894, with the Italian imperialists occupying Adwa and moving further south into Ethiopian territory. On March 1, 1896, King Menelik II, who, commanded a force of over 70,000, defeated the Italian army, killing 7,000 of their soldiers, wounding 1,500, and capturing  3,000 prisoners, routing their enemy, and forcing them to retreat back to their colony of Eritrea. It has been speculated that, if Menelik had pursued the retreating Italian troops, and driven them off of the continent, it might have prevented a second Italian invasion. On October 3, 1935, Italy led by fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, launched its second military incursion into sovereign Ethiopia territory. Five years later in 1941, Ethiopia once again drove the Italian invaders out of their country. The 1896 defeat of a European nation, considered an advanced country, by Ethiopia, viewed as a backward Africa country, led to riots on the streets of Italy and well deserved consternation in the capitals of European powers.

Without taking the time now to review the ninety years of Ethiopian history following this famous battle, the military defeat of Ethiopia’s dictatorial Derg Regime in 1991 brings us to the beginning of contemporary Ethiopia. When the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front-EPRDF assumed control of the government in 1991, it was led by the now deceased, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who initiated the economic policies that have guided Ethiopia for over 25 years. It was Meles Zenawi’s intellectual leadership, in particular his understanding of the indispensable role of the state in fostering economic development that distinguishes Ethiopia today from all other sub-Saharan African nations. For him the state was not “a night watchman,” but rather an active participant promoting economic growth for the benefit of its people. Ethiopia is a poor country. with a population approaching one hundred million, not endowed with rich mineral or hydrocarbon resources, and repeatedly struck by drought. Yet it has emerged in recent years with a rapidly growing economy. This is the result of Zenawi’s legacy that created a leadership with a self-conscious commitment to use the powers of the state to build an integrated infrastructure platform, which has served to drive the economy forward. This is clearly evident in Ethiopia’s Growth and Transformation Plans I and II, which set ambitious economic goals five years into the future, along with its proposed thirty year road construction plan. Since the EPRDF took over the responsibility of governing the nation, more than thirty new universities have been created, graduating more students that can be easily employed.

In collaboration with China, Ethiopia operates the first electrified train in sub-Saharan Africa, traveling 750 kilometers in seven hours from Addis Ababa to Djibouti, establishing a port to export Ethiopia’s products. Their highway system consisting of toll roads, highways, and all weather roads will connect their light manufacturing industries to the port in Djibouti via their new rail line.   As a result of coherent policy planning in energy infrastructure, the Gibe III hydroelectric power plant has now added 1,872 of megawatts to the country’s electricity grid, and over the next two years, the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam (GERD) will add an additional 6,000 megawatts, making Ethiopia the second largest producer of power in sub-Saharan Africa, behind South Africa.  The next step to develop the Horn of Africa is for Ethiopia, Sudan, and Kenya to extend their rails lines to become the eastern leg of an East-West railroad. Thus would transform Africa by connecting the Gulf of Eden/Indian Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean , creating an economic corridor that would literally revolutionize the economic power of the continent; contributing to the ending of poverty, hunger, and war.

One cannot deny the success of Ethiopia’s unique path of development, nor can one omit the important role contributed to this process by Ethiopia’s successful resistance to foreign occupation; thus never having to suffer the dehumanizing effects of colonialism.

Read my earlier posts:   Ethiopia’s Conflict: A War Won to Preserve the Nation-State ; Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party: A Revolutionary Necessity

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

Ethiopia’s Conflict: A War Won to Preserve the Nation-State

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ethiopia’s Conflict: A War Won to Preserve the Nation-State

November 29, 2020

By Lawrence Freeman

Today, the Ethiopian government is reporting that the National Defense Forces have taken control of city of Mikelle, the capital city of Tigray, as well as the airport. This portends the effective defeat of the opposition forces that violently rebelled against the nation over three weeks ago, and the liberation of the Tigray region

Notwithstanding criticisms by some spectators, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was obligated to respond with force to safeguard the sovereignty of Ethiopia, in a similar manner to U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s all-out war to preserve the Union.  The nation-state, which Prime Minister Abiy was defending, is not a coalition or association of separate states or semi-autonomous regions.  Rather it is a unique sovereign concept of self-governing that transcends various ethnic or religious beliefs. The nation-state is uniquely required to serve all its citizens and ensure the posterity of its people.  That is why throughout history, bloody wars have been fought to preserve the precious nation-state above all other considerations.  The military conflict was not a civil war, but more precisely, it was a war to preserve the integrity of the Ethiopian nation.

Prime Minister Abiy launched the now victorious military campaign against the leadership of the TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front), not against the people of Tigray. The immediate cause for the government’s offensive was in response  to an early morning attack by the TPLF on November 4, on the Northern Command post of Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) located in Mekelle. This assault, which murdered many soldiers and seized equipment and ammunition, was deemed by the Ethiopian government, as “crossing the red line.” The government was compelled to respond with full force to safe the nation. No nation could continue to exist if it allowed its armed forces to be slaughtered. A six month state of emergency for the Tigray region was declared by the Council of Ministers on November 6. The stated intent of the government is to arrest and bring to justice a small “TPLF criminal clique” that has been funding and mobilizing to destabilize the nation.” (1)

TPLF Rejects Abiy’s Reform

To understand the underlying origin for this conflict requires reviewing the modern history of Ethiopia. In 1991, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a coalition of forces, overthrew the fascist-Marxist Derg regime and took over control of the government of Ethiopia. For the next twenty-seven years, the TPLF not only governed the northern Tigray region, but as well, exerted unparalleled influence over the central government and the other ethnic regions of the country.

A year after he was selected by the EPRDF to become the new prime minister in April 2018, Prime Minister Abiy initiated a democratic-reform process that included replacing the countries narrowly focused ethno-national parties with a new nation-wide Prosperity Party.  Three regional parties that were part of the EPRDF coalition joined the new Prosperity Party as equals, in effect dissolving the EPRDF. However, the TPLF refused to accept losing its dominant political power. It voluntarily declined to join the new party, leaving the TPLF isolated with weakened political power.

 

Ethiopia’s constitution and its federation of a central government coexisting with regional ethnic states was formed as a compromise to various ethnic-nationalities that historically had been marginalized. This dubious arrangement indicates the ethnic pressures prevalent in Ethiopia, which must be overcome to unify the nation.  Consideration should be given to modifying the constitution following next year’s national elections. It is now imperative to reinforce a national Ethiopian identity that transcends ethnic-nationalism. This is what Prime Minister Abiy intended with his reforms and the creation of the non-ethnic Prosperity Party.  (Read: Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party: A Revolutionary Necessity). Confronted by open rebellion from the TPLF leadership, Prime Minister Abiy had no choice but to respond forcefully, otherwise the very existence of Ethiopia would be put in danger.

In harmony with his Medemer philosophy, Prime Minister Abiy proclaimed that all Ethiopians should accept responsibility for their past offenses, and all should be forgiven. He embraced the belief that the slate should be wiped clean of the past, in order for Ethiopian society to unite in a common pursuit of prosperity for all. (2)

Without concern for the future of Ethiopia, the TPLF rejected Prime Minister Abiy’s outlook and proceeded to commence an open rebellion against the Ethiopian nation.

Chair Persons of the eight parties who also represent eight Regions as governing parties worked under the umbrella of the EPRDF coalition signed a document for the establishment of Prosperity Party. Photo Credit OPM

Abiy Acted to Preserve Ethiopia 

Prior to attacking the soldiers of the ENDF in Mekelle, which the TPLF viewed as a foreign army, the TPLF disregarded national election law. After Ethiopia’s elected government-the House of People’s Representatives-postponed national elections in March of this year due to circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the TPLF conducted its own illegal elections in Tigray in September, violating the nation’s decree.

Prime Minister Abiy charged the TPLF leadership of trying to derail his transition, making the country ungovernable by instigating religious and ethnic conflicts, and inciting violence against the central government in Addis Ababa.

Although, Prime Minister Abiy is an Oromo, and is the first non-Tigrayan to become prime minister since 1991, he is acting in the interest of all Ethiopians, not simply or narrowly on behalf of his ethnic origin. If, Prime Minister Abiy were to allow the TPLF to defy federal law and initiate an armed attack on the defense forces of the federal government without responding as he has, this would encourage other ethno-separatist movements to flout the authority of the nation. Thus, contrary to what people may have wanted to believe, Prime Minister Abiy’s military campaign to subdue the reckless TPLF leadership, was the best way to prevent the conflict from becoming a civil war.

Bronwyn Bruton of the DC based, Atlantic Council Africa Center, argued that intuitive calls for negotiations endangered the future of Ethiopia. In her blog post Ethiopia: Calls for Negotiation Are Driving Ethiopia Deeper Into War, written before the defeat of the TPLF, she wrote:

“The most effective means of discouraging the continuation of this conflict is to finally put pressure on TPLF leaders…to stand down…in the interest of protecting the local population. Abiy urgently needs to be persuaded that he can rely on the international community–and not only his army–to ensure that the TPLF will be prevented from returning to power. Counterintuitively, the fastest way for the international community to do that is to stop calling for negotiations, and to start demanding accountability for the TPLF.

Calling for negotiations, as so many are advocating, will only encourage TPLF leaders to believe that violence will permit them to fight their way to a bigger chair at the table. That is not only a losing strategy in Ethiopia–it sets up an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for the next armed insurgency that wants to challenge central authority.”

Ethiopia, East Africa’s leader in economic development and a key nation providing stability to the Horn of Africa. There are confirmed reports that the TPLF fired missiles across the border into Eretria, and on the Bahir and Gondar airports in Amhara, Ethiopia. Thus, it is clear that the TPLF posed an immediate danger not only to Ethiopia, but to the entire region, and had to be defeated.

President Abraham Lincoln meeting with his generals at Antietam, Maryland. (courtesy history.com)

Lincoln Waged War to Save the Union

U.S. history records a troubled and dangerous time when the Army of the Federal Government came under attack.

Six weeks after Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States on November 6, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, and demanded the removal of all federal troops. On December 26, 1860, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S Army in South Carolina, moved his 68 troops into Fort Sumter, an island in the Charleston Harbor. Immediately following his inauguration on March 4, 1861, President Lincoln was confronted with the threat of the dissolution of the United States. South Carolina, one of seven states that formed the Southern Confederacy on February 8, 1861, insisted that the Federal Fort Sumter belonged to them, and commenced a siege around the beleaguered federal troops.  President Lincoln had to make the most momentous decision of his two week old presidency, which he knew would impact the very existence of the United States; whether to send supplies to the troops or relinquish the fort. In the words of author Doris Goodwin:

“He [Lincoln] must make the decision between a surrender that might compromise the honor of the North and tear it apart, or a reinforcement that might carry the country into civil war.” (3)

On April 6, President Lincoln told the governor of South Carolina he would send provisions to the troops-no arms or ammunition. In response, Jefferson Davis, provisional president of the Confederacy, ordered Major Anderson to surrender the fort, which he refused. The Civil War officially began at 4:30 in the morning of April 12, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. President Lincoln rightly considered Fort Sumter as an outpost of the Federal Government, and thus an attack on the fort was an attack on the United States. Within days President Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to join the Union Army to defeat the Southern rebellion and secure the very existence of the nation.

In President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865, he discussed the reason for the federal government’s war against the rebel South. He remarked that while he was seeking to save the Union without war “insurgents were seeking to destroy it…seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects by negotiation.” The South, he said, “would make war rather than let the nation survive” and the North “would accept war rather than let it perish.”

President Lincoln made clear in this address, and throughout his entire tenure as president, that he would spare no effort, including the tremendous loss of life, to preserve the Union. The Confederacy, supported by the British, intended to abolish the Union, had to be defeated, even at the dreadful price of 750,000 soldiers perishing in combat. Americans and all people of the world should give thanks that President Lincoln was victorious, and that the United States of America survived as a sovereign nation.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (left) with former Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn

No Moral Equivalency

Throughout the entirety of the of the four year long war, President Lincoln would only describe the enemy of the Union as a “Southern Rebellion.” He never recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy of Southern States, because, to President Lincoln there was only one government representing all of the United States.

Former Ethiopian Prime Minister from 2012-2018, Hailemariam Desalegn espoused a correlated judgement in regard to the TPLF in his argument: Ethiopia’s Government and the TPLF Leadership Are Not Morally Equivalent. On November 24, he admonished the international community’s view of the conflict:

“The key problem…is the assumption of moral equivalence, which leads foreign governments to adopt an attitude of false balance and bothsidesism.” He continued: In the meantime, those who are advocating dialogue with the TPLF leadership should carefully consider the full implications of what they are calling for, as they will open a Pandora’s box that other ethnic-based groupings are ready to emulate. Those calling for talks should understand that the very prospect of negotiating with the TPLF’s current leadership is an error—as matter of both principle and prudence.”

While Prime Minister Abiy was not fighting a civil war, analogous to President Lincoln he was forced to make decisions that would determine the very existence of Ethiopia. Nations must be supported against separatist, ethnic or religious movements that attempt to tear apart the fabric of national sovereignty. All human beings, regardless of where we were born, are united by our universal innate potential of creativity. The power of our creative-soul is what makes us distinctively human, unique from all other species. It is our common heritage.  The nation-state exists to promote the creative potential of all its citizens from the past to the present and into the future.  Thus, its value to civilization is inimitable and must be safeguarded at all costs.

1 Updates on the unfolding developments of Ethiopia, Office of the Prime Minister, November 6, 2020

2 Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party: A Revolutionary Necessity

3 Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon and Shuster, New York, 2005

 Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

 

Ouattara Elected President: Cote d’Ivoire Poised for Progress

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ballot of the four presidential candidates

President Ouattara and wife after voting

Lawrence Freeman

November 12, 2020

On October 31, Alassane Dramane Ouattara was re-elected President of Cote d’Ivoire. The official vote for President Ouattara was 3,031,483, which was 94.5% of total votes cast, with 53.9% of registered voters participating. Observers for both the African Union and Economic Community of West African States validated the legitimacy of the election process. On November 9, he was sworn in for his third term as president of Cote d’Ivoire.

In the days leading up to the election, scores of widely circulated stories, with frightening headlines predicting “chaos, a dangerous election, civil war,” attempted to create the narrative that this election could potentially experience a repeat of the violent conflict that caused thousands of deaths in 2010-2011. This blatantly false storyline, spread by major news outlets in Britain, France, and the U.S., that was intended to create fear and inflame the emotions of the population; never materialized. There were acts of civil disobedience and conflicts in a few outlying districts. However, in Abidjan, the country’s port city, where 20% of the population resides, there was no evidence of any kind of violence and the city remained calm.

I was very pleased to witness hundreds of Ivorians peacefully standing in long lines waiting to vote, in Treichville, a poor section of Abidjan. This was one of the several polling centers I visited. As I walked around several voting locations, I observed a professional orderly voting procedure.

Ivorians at Treichville lining up to vote

Stability for the nation of Cote d’Ivoire following this election is not only important for 25 million Ivorians but is vital for all of West Africa and the Sahel. Cote d’Ivoire’s bordering neighbors, Mali, and Burkina Faso are being destabilized from attacks by violent extremists.

Cote d’Ivoire, a potential economic hub in West Africa, is already exporting energy to several nations in the region and transporting goods from its port via rail to landlocked Niger and Burkina Faso. With the modernized Abidjan port, Cote d’Ivoire offers a vital gateway for development in West Africa.

Respect Cote d’Ivoire’s Sovereignty  

It is universally recognized that President Ouattara, who was president from 2011-2020, created an economic recovery from the previous ten years of 2000-2010. In that period, referred to as the ‘lost decade,” Cote d’Ivoire was governed by President Laurent Gbagbo, and racked by a protracted and bloody civil war.

Originally, President Ouattara announced in March of this year that he would not run for office again. He threw his support behind the then Prime Minister, Gon Coulibaly, who unexpectedly died of a heart attack in July, compelling President Ouattara to reverse his decision.

Ivorians in Abidjan waiting to cast their votes in the presidential election

In an article published on Oct 28, in Modern Ghana, More than meets the eye, Mamadou Haidara, ambassador to the U.S., explains President Ouattara’s reasoning to seek the presidency again:

“This extraordinary circumstance left a major political party with the difficult task of identifying, vetting and putting forward an alternative candidate in a matter of days or weeks — an unrealistic timetable in any country, and especially so in this young and still somewhat fragile democracy…

“Confronted with this unforeseen predicament, President Ouattara’s decision to seek another term in office was the only viable path forward for his party and his country.” 

The nation’s Constitutional Council ruled on September 14, that in accordance with Cote d’Ivoire new constitution of 2016, it was permissible for President Ouattara to seek a third term. United States ambassador to Cote d’Ivoire, Richard Bell supporting the nation’s sovereign authority to conduct its election, responded in an interview  published in Fraternite Matin (October 17-18):

“Question: Of the 44 candidates, only 4 were deemed eligible to take part in the election. Do you have a comment on this situation?

Amb Bell: There are a lot of applicants who weren’t successful. I think the Constitutional Council ruled that they did not meet the criteria. In any country, there must be someone who decides. Who says the law in this country? There has to be a clear answer to this question. In Côte d’Ivoire, for questions of this kind, I believe that it is the Constitutional Council which decides. The United States respects the sovereignty of Côte d’Ivoire. I therefore find it hard to see my government contradicting what is said by the highest Ivorian authority.”

A voter registering to vote

 Destabilization Launched

Those seeking to destabilize Cote d’Ivoire, seized the ruling by the Constitutional Council to allow President Ouattara to seek a bid for a third term as a gambit to destabilize the nation.

In addition to the 78 year old President Ouattara, from the Rally of Houphouetists for Democracy and Peace party (RHDP), the Constitutional Council approved three other candidates to compete for the office of president.

  • Henri Konan Bedie, Democratic Party of Ivory Coast (PDCI), 86 years old, a former president Cote d’Ivoire from 1993-1999, before he was couped. He initiated ethnic conflicts when he introduced the notion that to be a “true” Ivorian both parents had to be Ivorian.
  • Pascal Affi N’Guessan, Popular Front Party (FPI), 67 years old, a former prime minister from 2000-2003 under President Gbagbo.
  • Kouadio Koana Bertin, running as an Independent, 52 years old, a former youth leader of the PDCI, who competed for president in 2015.

On October 15, candidates Bedie and N’Guessan, fearing they would lose, called on their supporters to boycott the election, in preparation to create the conditions to destabilize Cote d’Ivoire immediately following the vote. This calculated action, a mere 16 days before this critical election, which would impact the nation’s future, was intended to prepare the groundwork for a campaign to “delegitimize” the presidential election. Right on cue, as part of their scheme, Bedie, and N’Guessan, who received .99% and 1.66% of the vote respectively, characterized the election as illegal and illegitimate, as they had planned. The duo then nonsensically called for the creation of a “council of national transition.” In effect, these defeated candidates, who claim to support democracy, are advocating for the disenfranchisement of millions of Ivorians, who endured the heat and long lines to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Democracy at the ballot box

Sedition

N’Gueesan was arrested on November 7, and Bedi is under house arrest for calling for the formation of an unlawful-none-elected government. This may not seem serious to those unfamiliar with Cote d’Ivoire’s history of elections. However, Ivorians memories are deeply scarred from the violence that followed the 2010 presidential election, when President Laurent Gbagbo refused to leave the presidential palace after being defeated by President Ouattara. From December 2010 into March 2011, heavy fighting between opposing armies in Abidjan killed three-thousand people and displaced upwards of one million. For a young, emerging nation, recalling the horrors from a decade earlier, the actions of N’Ggueesan and Bedie are threatening to Ivorian society and its elected government.

Joining the opposition coalition that is attempting to overthrow the elected government of Cote d’Ivoire is Guillaume Soro. He served as prime minister under President Gbagbo from 2007 to 2012, and President of the National Assembly from 2012 to 2019, during  Ouattara ‘s presidency. He previously was an ally of President Ouattara and led the rebel forces against then President Gbagbo. It is important to recognize that prior to the election, Soro confirmed the opposition’s game plan, telling Le Monde, a major French newspaper:

“We have succeeded (sic) in discrediting the electoral process and in giving ourselves the means not to recognize Mr. Ouattara as President of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire after October 31.”

Soro, who was disqualified from running for president by the Constitutional Council for embezzlement and money laundering, is residing in Belgium after being found guilty in absentia. On November 4, four days after President Ouattara’s victory, Soro called for armed mutiny against President Ouattara. He posted on his face book an appeal for a military coup. He wrote:

“Turning now to our security and Defense forces…I’m asking you to disobey illegal orders and join the national transitional council…We cannot out of fear, allow dictatorship in Ivory Coast by Alassane Ouattara.”      

Bedie also failed when he tried to enlist the support of the U.S. to join his effort to subvert the election. On November 2, the U.S. Embassy in Abidjan issued the following statement:

“The United States Ambassador did not meet the candidate Bédié this weekend. The United States respects constitutional order in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, which President Ouattara still leads, and urges all to respect constitutional order and avoid violence.”

Showing international observer proof he voted with blue ink on his finger

 Time to Move Forward

With the election over, now is the time for Cote d’Ivoire to unite around the goals of fulfilling the nation’s potential, industrializing its economy, and providing for the wellbeing of all its people.

President Ouattara, in his acceptance speech on November 9, committed himself to resolving the country’s conflict:

“I would like to reaffirm my availability today, as I did yesterday, for a sincere and constructive dialogue with the opposition, while respecting the constitutional order.

 “I would like to invite my elder, President Henri KONAN BEDIE, President of PDCI-RDA, to a meeting in the next few days for a frank and sincere dialogue in order to restore confidence.

 “I ask all our fellow citizens, in a surge of peace of minds and hearts, to work to maintain and strengthen peace throughout our country. We have so much to do together, to build and consolidate our Nation.

“The time for electoral competition has passed.  Now is the time for action.  And for me, action is the “Côte d’Ivoire Solidaire” Project for which I was elected, and which will accelerate the economic and social transformation of our country, through more inclusive growth.”

President Ouattara’s administration has outlined in its Strategic Plan-2030, a vision for a prosperous and inclusive Cote d’Ivoire. Key goals of this plan include; reducing poverty from 39% to 20%, increasing life expectancy from 57 to 67 years of age, creating 8 million new jobs, and reducing child mortality by 40%.

It is in the interest of all Ivorians to move beyond this contentious election and work together to achieve a stable and blossoming nation. With peace, stability, and the right policies, Cote d’Ivoire, a lovely cultural melting pot of many nationalities, is capable of becoming an engine of growth for West Africa.

(The authored visited Cote d’Ivoire from October 23-Novemebr 3, 2020)

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

 

 

Are the British Fueling Violence in Ivory Coast Presidential Election?

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(courtesy of counrywatch.com)

October 10, 2020
The provocative title of the article, The Vengeance of old men- A dangerous election looms in Ivory Coast, published in the London Economist should not be viewed as simply reporting on the upcoming presidential election in the Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast). The Economist is the flagship publication of British intelligence that still believes it is their right to intervene around the world to shape events that will benefit British financial interests. This is especially true in Africa, where the British Colonial empire directly ruled over much of the continent until the liberation movements ended their imperial reign. beginning in the 1960s. Most striking in The Economist article, along with other western media, is their refusal to accept the legitimacy of the sovereignty of emerging nations, like the Ivory Coast.

Weeks before Ivory’s Coast presidential election, the 177  year old London based Economist proclaims in this threatening article that: “If by hook or by crook Mr. Ouattara wins, as seems probable, swathes of the electorate will view him as illegitimate. Even if violence is avoided, Ivory Coast will face a post-election crisis, says William Assanvo of the Institute for Security Studies. “(emphasis added)

Flouting its disregard for institutions of the Ivory Coast, The Economist writes: “President Alassane Ouattara, aged 78, made matters worse by deciding to run for a third term, seemingly in breach of the constitution, after his chosen successor died in July.” (emphasis added) The Ivory Coast’s Constitutional Council, declared on September 14, 2020, that President Ouattara was eligible to run in the October 31st presidential election. Why is this decision, ratified lawfully by a government institution, challenged because western nations, led by the British do not like it?  Should not the sovereignty of an emerging nation, only three generations old, be respected? This is typical of behavior by Western institutions and the media that dictate to African nations the “acceptable” criteria for their version of “good governance” and “democracy.”

The Economist supports the opposition’s call for civil disobedience, “to alarm foreign governments so much they feel obliged to intervene, as they have before.”  Why should governments be called to intervene before the election has even taken place? Does the colonial empire believe they are still in charge?

Commenting on the potential outcome of a victory by President Ouattara in the upcoming election, The Economist stokes the flames of a return to ethnic violence, which the nation suffered following the 2010 presidential election. “Were Mr. Ouattara to win, the opposition would surely reject the result. Violence, which many fear would take on an ethnic hue, could well erupt,” the magazine asserts.

Clearly there is a need for younger qualified leadership in many nations. The reference to the old men competing for office in the Ivory Coast is amusing to American voters. The Republican and Democratic primaries fielded four candidates running for president, who were in their 70s. The leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate is dominated by septuagenarians and octogenarians of both parties.

Read: A Dangerous Election Looms in Ivory Coast

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

Mali’s Future Depends on Development of the Sahel

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The northern two-thirds of Mali is in the desert. It is completely underdeveloped, and it is in this desolate region that the violent extremists are based

August 4, 2020

The letter below was sent on September 1, 2020 to the Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State. The letter does not express my full thoughts about what precipitated the coup and the polices necessary to ensure future of Mali. However, as a long standing member of the Mali Affinity Group, and fierce defender of Mali’s sovereignty, I support much of letter’s content.

A Way Forward for Mali

Background

After several months of daily massive anti-government demonstrations in the streets of Mali’s capital city, Bamako, the Malian military intervened during the week of August 17 to remove President Keita and his government. While there appears to be broad and intense popular support for the military’s move, it violates the constitution and international law. In response, the West African community (ECOWAS), the African Union (AU), the United States, and the European Union condemned the military’s actions and it triggered the suspension of economic and military assistance from donor governments, as well as from the international financial institutions. While in the custody of the military, President Keita tendered his resignation, and has been allowed to return to his personal residence.

The ECOWAS mediator delegation, headed by former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, had been working to end Mali’s internal political crisis for several weeks before the military takeover. This delegation is continuing to speak to the leaders of the military takeover, and to the different political factions, with the objective of returning the nation to civilian rule as soon as possible, through a brief transition, and new democratic elections.

The leaders of the military takeover are talking about a three year transition, revealing their total distrust of the Malian political elites. Such a long period of military rule is clearly unacceptable for a number of reasons, including the temptation to institute permanent military rule, as in the corrupt military dictatorship of General Moussa Traore, 1968-1991.

Here is what we recommend for U.S. policy toward the Republic of Mali at this time.

Recommendations

  • Continue to recognize and support the ECOWAS mediating mission as the lead international group to assist the Malians to establish an expeditious return to
    democratic government.
  •  Engage all stakeholders to implement the terms of the Algiers Accords without delay.
  • Through the U.S. Embassy Defense Attaché, encourage the Malian military commanders to immediately bring in civilian political persons to share planning and
    implementation of the transition. (N.B. The head of the military takeover group is Colonel Assimi Goita, who trained in the United States with American Special
    Forces.)
  •  Encourage a mixed civilian and military transition of no more than one year, followed by the organization of elections. The process should include civilian political
    leaders who are domestically or international known and respected for their democratic commitment to good governance, transparency, and free and fair elections
  • Provide assistance to American democracy institutions such as IRI and NDI to immediately send personnel to Mali to assist in the preparation of free and fair elections and reforms, and engage with civil society to address grievances around the political process with a special focus on combating corruption.
  • Inform the Malian takeover military leadership that economic and military assistance will be restored as soon as it is clear that the government is under civilian  control, and that preparations for elections are well advanced.
  • Consult closely with the French Foreign Ministry, and the French military to encourage continued support in the fight against “jihadist” terrorists in the north of Mali.
  • Begin to plan significant economic development projects for the north in order to deal with the socioeconomic causes of the insurgency.

_________________________________________________________________________________

In my brief interview below with CGTN, I discuss the effects on Mali of the the Western organized regime change against Muammar al Gaddafi in October 2011. The 2012 coup in Mali as well as the recent coup, have as their immediate cause, the destruction of Libya led by President Obama and his immediate circle of advisors. However, it is the failure over decades to develop the Sahel with basic infrastructure in rail, roads, water, and electricity that has systematically affected the Sahel, creating the conditions for the growth of violent extremism. The imposed underdevelopment of the African continent is the underlying cause for the majority of political and economic hardships that plague Africa today. 

Watch my interview below that begins at 11 minutes 40 seconds and ends at 14 minutes.   

 

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com