Public confrence on tactical non-violent resistance against Ethiopian TPLF regime

                                                                                                                   
 On February 10,2015 we had a public confrence prepared by DCESON Radio, with Jamila Raqib who serves as the Executive Director of the Albert Einstein Institution and as a Research Affiliate of the Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  She works closely with Dr. Gene Sharp, the World’s foremost scholar on strategic nonviolent action.

       

Jamila joined the Albert Einstein Institution in 2002, focusing on the promotion and distribution of writings and translations, on the technique of nonviolent struggle and its potential in acute conflicts worldwide.  Her work involved consulting with translators to develop terminology for accurate dissemination of understanding about strategic nonviolent struggle in numerous languages.

As the conference we had in Oslo Norway, at the place of Batteriet ,we had 1hour confrence and we discuss about tactics in non violence resistance to use against Ethiopian regime.
In modern times, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest and revolutionary in social and political change, as  what the people of Ethiopia  are doing now inside the country as well even though the regime with the gun power still punishes, arrest and killing peacefull protestors.

The Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion ,which are
Formal Statements like..

-Public Speeches
-Group or mass petitions
-Letters of opposition or support

Communications with a Wider Audience
-Slogans and symbols
-Banners, posters, and displayed communications
-Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
-Newspapers and journals
-Records, radio, and television

Withdrawal from the Social System
-Stay-at-home
-Total personal noncooperation
-Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence
Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions
-Suspension of social and sports activities
-Boycott of social affairs
-Student strike
-Social disobedience
-Withdrawal from social institutions

With tangible situation in Ethiopia now and the regime which has been in the power for almost 23 years with gun power, if only non violence actions are enough?  their has been many questions raised from the confrence attendants in a violent government like TPLF with armed power and bad governance how can it be possible to avoid the regime by means of non violence resistance?
-when the regime arrested the peacefull protesters.
-when writing cricriticisms will get you to prison
-when medias and journalists considered as terrorists and instroment for terror actions.
-social Assemblies spied on and will be questiond...etc.

Jamila Raqib has explaind and shared her own difrrent experianses that no matter how the situation seem so hard but still non violence actions has peacefull outcomes and bring changes eventhough it takes time and it is a long ride, she also mentiond the Role of non violence resistanse in South Africa to avoid Apartheid. She suggested that our unity and togetherness can bring that solution we are longing for.

Daniel Alebachew

Ethiopia’s “Odious Debt” to the Odious World Bank

February 9, 2015

by Alemayehu G. Mariam

Ethiopia as “sovereign deadbeat” state due to debts incurred by the T-TPLF

In my last commentary, The World Bank and Ethiopia’s “Growth and Transformation”, I cryptically observed in passing, “… The USD$600 million is money the World Bank loaned to the Thugtatorship of the Tigrean Peoples Liberation Front (T-TPLF)  in the name of the People of Ethiopia. Future generations of Ethiopians will be asked to pay it back. Will they be legally obligated to do so!?! Umm!)” Are the people of Ethiopia responsible for the World Bank’s “odious debt” to the T-TPLF?

An “odious debt” may be defined as an “illegitimate national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation and therefore should not be enforceable against the people of the debtor nation.”

I submit the USD$600 the World Bank “loaned” to Ethiopia for the so-called “Protection of Basic Services Project” (PBS III) (and any other “loans” extended to Ethiopia by any government or international institution to be reviewed on a case by case basis) is an odious debt. I do not mean to suggest or imply that  any other “loans” provided  by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Chinese, Japanese, British Governments, the African Development Bank, or any member of the European Union are NOT “odious debts”. I believe they are highly likely to be odious, but that has to be determined on a case by case  basis. Here I want to focus on the “odiousness” of the PBS III loan because there is a mountain of clear and convincing evidence that the USD$600 million loan is unquestionably an “odious debt”.

Is Ethiopia’s “odious sovereign debt” to the odious World Bank legally enforceable? Are future generations of Ethiopians liable to the debts accumulated with the World Bank by the T-TPLF?

I shall argue in this commentary that neither this nor future generations of Ethiopians have a legal obligation to pay for the “odious debt” incurred in the implementation of PBS III by the corrupt, racketeering and benighted T-TPLF.

Ethiopia’s “Odious Sovereign Debt” to the World Bank: The BIG legal questions

The legal questions and issues related to Ethiopia’s debt to the World Bank in PBS III are myriad. I will only list just a few of them.

1) If the World Bank’s PBS III loan to Ethiopia could not be accounted for in whole or in part, or is shown to have been stolen, misappropriated, misspent, embezzled, swindled and corruptly used by those in power, their cronies and associates, are the people of Ethiopia liable for that debt under international law?

2) If the answer is in the affirmative to question 1, could it legally be argued that the loan is a private or personal debt of the T-TPLF leaders, their cronies and associates who looted and benefited from the loan in corrupt racketeering schemes?

3) If the answer to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, are the T-TPLF leaders, their cronies and associates jointly and severally responsible for these debts as personal debts?

4) If the answer is in the affirmative to question 1, do the people of Ethiopia have a legal cause of action against the World Bank for lending money it knows or should reasonably have known will be used by the T-TPLF in corrupt schemes or in the furtherance of organized racketeering activities?

5) Did the World Bank commit crimes against humanity by lending money to an illegitimate regime (a regime that claims election victory by 99.6 percent) which used the loan proceeds to engage in massive human rights violations including forced resettlements of indigenous populations?

6) Is the World Bank liable as an accessory (before and after the fact), accomplice and aider and abettor in the commission of a crimes against humanity against the indigenous Anuak people of Gambella who were forcibly transferred by the T-TPLF using World Bank PBS III loan money from their ancestral lands, relocated to infertile land which is unsuitable for farming, forced to live in villages without the basic necessities of life against their will and undergoing great pain, suffering and death in the process?

7) Are the people of Ethiopia liable to the World Bank for a loan that was used in willful disregard of the terms and conditions of the loan?

8) Are the people of Ethiopia liable to the World Bank for a loan that was administered by Bank  employees in depraved indifference and flagrant violations of the Bank’s own policies, guidelines, approved business practices and established and widely accepted banking practices?

9) Are the people of Ethiopia liable to the World Bank for a loan that was used for corrupt and criminal purposes under the domestic law and constitution of Ethiopia and international law?

10) Is a successor democratic government to the T-TPLF liable for the PBS III debt?

In short, are the people of Ethiopia legally entitled to repudiate the PBS III as an odious debt?

I do not aim to answer the foregoing questions in this commentary. Here, I will only address the general issues as part of my longstanding efforts to educate the Ethiopian public. I shall defer the more technical legal issues for future litigation when the rule of law and democracy rise and shine on Ethiopia and the people manage to “transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood” and sisterhood and stand up united to defend their rights.

The legal doctrine of “odious debt”

The basic idea in the “odious debt” legal doctrine simply stated is that the people of a country should not be responsible for debts incurred fraudulently in their name by a regime or a brute band of thugs  who corruptly converted and pocketed the loan money for their personal or private use. The idea is quite commonsensical and practical. For instance, if an identity thief or an embezzler fraudulently incurs a debt, should the victims be liable for the consequences of the criminal acts perpetrated against them? Is it fair to victimize the victims twice?

Likewise, if an illegitimate regime accumulates huge debts in the name of the people but converts the debt for the personal and private use of the regime leadership and cronies, should the people be victimized twice — once through the corrupt use of the money by officials which deprives the people of vital resources, and second by repaying a debt that was used to abuse and oppress them? Should the people be legally forced to assume the debts of a regime that squandered loans given in their name?