Peace Talk?
========
Peace is a human right. As such, it should have been non-negotiable. But, rather unfortunately, it is often subject to negotiation. That said, peace cannot be forced. If forced, it becomes violence. Without justice, it is always incomplete, tentative, and fragile. An unjust peace is a latent (structural) violence waiting to explode.

Negotiated peace is always an incomplete peace, and in essence, a work in progress.

While gestures of negotiating peace suspend an overt display of violence in pro tem, unless it is done:

a) with the right parties;
b) under mutually accepted conditions;
c) at a mutually agreed place and time frame;
d) on substantive subjects jointly identified;
e) through a process facilitated by mutually acceptable, trusted, and neutral mediators; and
f) with a framework that can effectively and efficiently monitor and implement the agreement by deploying an impartial body;

will not achieve its goals.

In situations of mutual acts of delegitimatization (especially when overshadowed by (allegations of) serious mass atrocity crimes), the very issue of who qualifies to be a negotiating partner may be bitterly contested.

In the current context of Ethiopia, for example, I don’t believe Abiy and co—having already been implicated in mass atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, etc—can qualify to sit on the negotiating table. Having been the very creators of the problem, and still vowing to fight to eradicate their adversaries altogether, there is no way they can be seen as part of the solution in the peace equation.

To engage them in negotiation is only to legitimise and entrench them in their power. It’s giving a wrong signal that there is a possibility to condone their crimes. There shouldn’t be any such possibility.

There cannot be a just peace while negotiating with the arch criminal. I believe that the right place for Abiy and his associates is the dock, not the negotiating table. They must therefore be defeated, disarmed, tried, and held accountable for the multi-layered transgressions (constitutional, legal, political, diplomatic, and what not).

The talk about a “multi-track, simultaneous peace process” towards a “comprehensive peace plan,” which on the face of it sounds benign, is in fact a sinister strategy intended to shore up legitimacy for Abiy, if only on a piece meal basis. It must be rejected as such.

A genuinely comprehensive peace process that can bring about a more reliable transition can be achieved through a multilateral negotiation (of all parties, excluding PP), done ALL TOGETHER, under the auspices of the UN (or its agencies).

It’s the outcome of such a process, inclusive of all political forces (hence decidedly multilateral), and whose implementation is monitored by an international body, set up and overseen preferably by the UN, and also covering issues of transitional justice and post conflict reconstruction, that can be rightly called a comprehensive peace plan.

The EU-US scramble for some kind of pseudo peace process that entrenches Abiy (their preeminent strategic client) in his power so that they can edge out or stave off their potential competitors (such as China, Iran, Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc) in the horn region is going to exacerbate their initial strategic error of endorsing Abiy wholesale in 2018. Their (possibly induced) naivety (especially that of the US) in assuming that Abiy is a pro-US reformer, and their multi-pronged strategic blunder that emanated therefrom has had dire consequences for the peoples of the region. It may as well have changed the dynamics of the region for the worse—irreversibly and for good.

#Beware!

Cuunfaa oduu injifannoo wbo zoonii kibbaa konyaa gujii bahaa

Guyyaa 18/7/2022
Irree fi gaachanni ummata oromoo wbon zoonii kibbaa konyaa gujii bahaa keessa socho'u cibraan odaa adoolaa fi cibraan soddom booroo woliin tahuun aanaa gooroo doolaa ganda adaadii keessatti woraana diinaa kan aanaa irraa gara adaadii dhufe irratti lola cimaa Guyyaa sadiif gaggeessen loltu pp 26 battalatti ajjeesee 30 madeessuun meeshaa kilaashii 5 fi hidhanno 4 irraa hiikee galii mooraa qabsoo bilisummaa oromootiif godhee jira

Guyyaa 19/7/2022 cibraan odaa adoolaa aanaa gooroo doolaa ganda qaraaroo keessatti lola cimaa woraana pp irratti gaggeessen loltu diina 12 battalumatti du'aan yoo gaggeessu 14 madeesse reeffaa fi madoo konkolaata lamaan fe'atte gara aanaatti deebite jirti

Lolli ammasi itti fufee waan jiruuf adda baafanne booda wolitti deebina

IUOF

Share Press Release 19 July 2022 Civilian Executions in Begi, W Wallega.pdf

Peace Talk?
=========
Peace is a human right. As such, it should have been non-negotiable. But, rather unfortunately, it is often subject to negotiation. That said, peace cannot be forced. If forced, it becomes violence. Without justice, it is always incomplete, tentative, and fragile. An unjust peace is a latent (structural) violence waiting to explode.

Negotiated peace is always an incomplete peace, and in essence, a work in progress.

While gestures of negotiating peace suspend an overt display of violence in pro tem, unless it is done:

a) with the right parties;
b) under mutually accepted conditions;
c) at a mutually agreed place and time frame;
d) on substantive subjects jointly identified;
e) through a process facilitated by mutually acceptable, trusted, and neutral mediators; and
f) with a framework that can effectively and efficiently monitor and implement the agreement by deploying an impartial body;

will not achieve its goals.

In situations of mutual acts of delegitimatization (especially when overshadowed by (allegations of) serious mass atrocity crimes), the very issue of who qualifies to be a negotiating partner may be bitterly contested.

In the current context of Ethiopia, for example, I don’t believe Abiy and co—having already been implicated in mass atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, etc—can qualify to sit on the negotiating table. Having been the very creators of the problem, and still vowing to fight to eradicate their adversaries altogether, there is no way they can be seen as part of the solution in the peace equation.

To engage them in negotiation is only to legitimise and entrench them in their power. It’s giving a wrong signal that there is a possibility to condone their crimes. There shouldn’t be any such possibility.

There cannot be a just peace while negotiating with the arch criminal. I believe that the right place for Abiy and his associates is the dock, not the negotiating table. They must therefore be defeated, disarmed, tried, and held accountable for the multi-layered transgressions (constitutional, legal, political, diplomatic, and what not).

The talk about a “multi-track, simultaneous peace process” towards a “comprehensive peace plan,” which on the face of it sounds benign, is in fact a sinister strategy intended to shore up legitimacy for Abiy, if only on a piece meal basis. It must be rejected as such.

A genuinely comprehensive peace process that can bring about a more reliable transition can be achieved through a multilateral negotiation (of all parties, excluding PP), done ALL TOGETHER, under the auspices of the UN (or its agencies).

It’s the outcome of such a process, inclusive of all political forces (hence decidedly multilateral), and whose implementation is monitored by an international body, set up and overseen preferably by the UN, and also covering issues of transitional justice and post conflict reconstruction, that can be rightly called a comprehensive peace plan.

The EU-US scramble for some kind of pseudo peace process that entrenches Abiy (their preeminent strategic client) in his power so that they can edge out or stave off their potential competitors (such as China, Iran, Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc) in the horn region is going to exacerbate their initial strategic error of endorsing Abiy wholesale in 2018. Their (possibly induced) naivety (especially that of the US) in assuming that Abiy is a pro-US reformer, and their multi-pronged strategic blunder that emanated therefrom has had dire consequences for the peoples of the region. It may as well have changed the dynamics of the region for the worse—irreversibly and for good.

#Beware!

Leaders who are afraid of freedom and intellectuals who are similarly afraid of truth—the malaise of Oromo politics

ኦሮሞንና ሌሎቹን ግፉአን የኢትዮጵያ ሕዝቦች ያላማከለ ፖሊሲ : እነርሱን ታሳቢና አሳታፊ ያላደረገ የሰላም ሃሳብ ውጤታማ አይሆንም:: አደራዳሪዎችም ተደራዳሪዎችም ይሄን ሊረዱ ይገባል:: #Not_objects_anymore!

https://addisstandard.com/newsalert-un-rights-experts-due-in-ethiopia-next-week/
#NewsAlert: UN rights experts due in Ethiopia next week

Akka sabaatitti humna jabaa qabaachuun barbaachisaa dha. Waraana, poolisii seera kabachiisu fi humna tikaa ijaarun saba ijaaruu, biyya ijaaruu, dha. Waraana qabaachuun warra humnaan nu cabsuuf yaalu ofirraa ittisuu qofaaf utuu hin ta'iin nagaa fi tasgabbii waara fiduu dhaafis barbaachisaa dha. Humni waraanaa kabaja sitti hora. Siyaasa motummaan karaa lola waraanaatin adeemsisu karaa nagaatti (ykn siyaasa marii dhan ta'utti) deebisuun kan danda'amuu yoo humna qabaatanii kabajamanii argaman qofa dha.
Kaleessas, har'as, fuldurattis akkuma Haile Fiidaan jedhe san saba dammaqe, saba ijaaramee fi saba hidhate qofatu injifata.

Self-determination and Democracy come in a sequence, not simultaneously!
=================
Yes, democracy does not immediately emerge from the barrel of the gun of liberation movements. But genocide cannot be stopped by sitting back and appealing for the sympathy of the genocidaire either.

The quest for self-determination, especially in the context of genocidal wars targetting collective groups for their distinct identities, is first and foremost an act of self-defense conducted to secure one's survival.

The quest for collective agency is a pre-political, hence pre-democratic, process.

The immediate result of the struggle for self-determmination is freedom (collective as well as induvidual). It's freedom from domination (for the collective) and freedom from repression (for the individuals thereof), not democracy.

The immediate outcome of a struggle for self-determination (including that which is conducted by liberation armies) is reclaiming collective agency, securing independence within the context of which people decide the form/type of government under which they want to live.

To expect democracy to pop up in the wake of a bloody national struggle for self-determination is to have no grasp of priorities in this enterprise.

In deed, it's simply confusing the order of decisions that come as a series, decisions that ought to come one after the other (in the process of achieving emancipation through self-determination). It is treating independence and democracy as if they are one and the same thing, or two similar things that should happen together.

All existing literature in the field suggests that first comes the popular decision to determine one's political destiny. This is achieved through referendum. If the result of the referendum points in the direction of forming one's own independent state, then, there begins the work of state-building, only at which time democratic self-governance becomes a matter for consideration.

While we are at it, let us not forget that it is only free people who can enjoy and practice democracy.

The struggles, armed or otherwise, secure pre-political freedom. Once free, the nation, then, choses the mode of its governance.

Democracy being the timeless (and arguably the universal) political imperative, it becomes encumbent upon the politicians--not the fighters--from among the "liberators" to set up, inaugurate, and launch democratic institutions, its procedures, and the basic framework of its operations.

It is true that the work of democratizing a newly independent nation is a vitally important task. But it is the task that comes NEXT to achieving independence.

The task of liberation struggle is empowering people to exercise their right to self-determination, not necessarily (or immediately) to democratize it. It would be great if the two can happen simultaneously.

However, the fact that a liberation struggle does not automatically translate into a democratic system of governance in the newly independent state is not the measure of success of that struggle.The success of a liberation struggle is judged based on whether it has secured liberation/emancipation, not whether it has brought about (electoral) democracy.

An armed struggle for self-determination is said to have achieved its goal when it has prevailed over the oppressive (in the Ethiopian context, a genocidal) regime. Delivering democracy, formal-electoral or substantive, is the task, not of the armed fighters, but of the government to be created after independence.

So, why expect the guns of liberation fighters to produce democracy? Who said a resistance struggle's raison d'etre is generating and birthing democracy?

More importantly, why scare people away from self-determination by arguing that liberation struggle does not guarantee the emergence of a democratic dispensation? Is living quietly in a repressive and genocidal regime a gurantee for achieving democracy? (Plus, in this era of Trump-like madness which exposes the frailties of even "mature" (liberal) democracies, is a peaceful democratic process a

sure guarantee for democracy or its specific practices?

Why dampen the generations quest for self-determination? Why do we have to discourage the generation's pursuit of their national aspiration?

I suspect that some of our leaders are simply looking for justification (ሰበብ) for their failure to imagine freedom and to work towards it.

This, among others, is why that I believe that #Leencoo_Lataa_is_wrong!

#JIRRA, One year in the business of being there for those most in need. Follow us at www.jirraa.org

ተያያዥነት ያላቸው ግን የተለያዩ ትግሎችን ባንቀላቅል!
==============
ለነጻነት መታገል ሌላ፣ ለዴሞክራሲ መታገል ሌላ። የነጻነት ትግል ዴሞክራሲን ካላዋለደ ስኬታማ አይደለም ብሎ መከራከር ወይ አላዋቂነት ነው፣ ወይ አውቆ ማደናገር ነው።

የነጻነት ትግል ግቡ፣ ነጻነትን መቀዳጀት፣ ለሕዝቦች መብትን ማጎናጸፍ ነው። የዴሞክራሲ ትግል ግቡ፣ የነጻ አገር ሕዝቦች በመረጡት መንግሥት መተዳደር እንዲችሉ የሚያደርግ ሥርዓት መገንባት ነው።

የነጻነት ትግል፣ እንደ ሕዝብ በወል፣ እንደ አገር በአንድነት፣ የመኖር መብትን ለማስከበር የሚደረግ ትግል ነው፤ የህልውና ትግል ነው።

የዴሞክራሲ ትግል፣ እንደ አንድ ነጻ ሕዝብ፣ እንደ አንድ ህልውናውና ሉዓላዊነቱ የተከበረ አገር ሕዝብ፣ የራሱን መንግሥት የሚያቆምበት፣ የሚቆጣጠርበት፣ ሳይስማማው ሲቀርም የሚሽርበት ሥርዓት ለመመሥረት የሚደረግ ትግል ነው።

የነጻነት ትግል የአገር ባለቤትነት ትግል ነው። የዴሞክራሲ ትግል የአስተዳደር ሥርዓት ምርጫ ትግል ነው።

የነጻነት ትግል፣ እንደ አስፈላጊነቱ የትጥቅ ትግልን ሊጠቀም ይችላል። በአብዛኛው የሚካሄደውም በትጥቅ ነው።

የዴሞክራሲ ትግል፣ ግን የዜጎች መብትና ነጻነት በተከበሩበት አውድ ውስጥ በሰላማዊ መንገድ ይካሄዳል።

የዜግነት መብትና መሠረታዊ የግለሰብ መብቶች ባልተከበሩበትና በማይከበርበት አገር ውስጥ የሚደረግ የዴሞክራሲ ትግል፣ ሰላማዊ ሆኖ መቀጠል ስለማይችል፣ ወዲያውኑ ከዴሞክራሲ ትግል እንቅስንቃሴ ወደ ነጻነት ትግል እንቅስቃሴ ይቀየራል።

የነጻነት ትግል ተቀዳሚ ዓላማ የወል ነጻነትን መጎናጸፍ ከመሆኑ አንጻር፣ ስኬቱም ሆነ ውድቀቱ የሚመዘነው፣ "ነጻነትን አቀዳጅቷል ወይስ አላቀዳጀም?" በሚለው መስፈርት ብቻ ነው እንጂ "ዴሞክራሲያዊ ሥርዓትን አስፍኗል ወይስ አላሰፈነም?" ከሚለው አንጻር አይደለም።

ለዚህ ነው "በትጥቅ የሚካሄድ የነጻነት ትግል ዴሞክራሲን ስለማያመጣ ሊቀነቀን አይገባውም" የሚለው የአቶ ሌንጮ ለታ ንግግር ትክክል የማይሆነው።