Head to Head: Mehdi Hasan with Getachew Reda
By Abera G Mariam
Below is my brief reflection on the interview Getachew Reda had with Mehdi Hasan. The views of the majority of Ethiopians were not represented in the interview. It only served the interests of narrow tribalists.
Getachew Reda has always been an interesting character. He has proved himself to be a very loose person prone to making blunder after blunder. Like Dr Birhanu Nega and Andargachew Tsige, he has no principled-stand at all. He always sells his soul to the highest bidder. His various interviews are inherently contradictory with one another. This interview, where he unsuccessfully toiled hard to defend the indefensible, is a case in point. The end result was, forget about defending PM Abiy, his utter incompetence put Abiy on the limelight as a genocider who killed millions of Ethiopians to the wider English speaking community.
The interview left the majority of Ethiopian’s views unrepresented. Why?
1. The cross- section of the panelists
The interview could have been more dynamic, vibrant and inclusive had the panelists were drawn from a wider cross section of Ethiopians. Unfortunately that was not the case.
There were three panelists. The first panelist, Mrs Tsedale, is a through and through Oromo tribalist. She is masqueraded as editor-in-chief of “an independent media” Addis Standard. But for any interested person who is willing to leaf through her “independent” media, would easily come to the conclusion that her media is hell bent on to advance narrow-oromo-tribalist agenda. Her media fosters hatred for the Ethiopian nation in general and the Amhara people in particular.
The second panelist, Kjetil Tronvoll, who is on the record before, during and after the Tigray war, is an ardent advocate and blind supporter of a narrow- Tigray- tribalist agenda by colluding with the TPLF.
The third panelist, Bisrat Lemessa, who is presented as independent panelist, is tacitly and mildly defending PM Abiy. Otherwise, he is the only panelist who highlighted the genocide committed not only by Abiy but the TPLF as well. He also rightly emphasized that PM Abiy inherited the very problem from TPLF.
One thing alarmingly missing from the panel was the voice of Ethiopian nationalists, the voice of non-Oromo and non-Tigray tribes, the Amhara and Afar people who were a party to the bloody war and to whom genocide was committed by the TPLF invasion. These excluded Ethiopians constitute an absolute majority of the people.
2. Beacon of hope or “Imperialist” Ethiopia?
Of course, for the white supermacists, Ethiopia is intentionally framed as “Imperialist”. They call Bismarck as unifier of Germany, Garibaldini as unifier of Italy,…,but when it comes to Ethiopia, they frame Kings Minilik and Hailesellasie as “Imperialists”.
For people like the late Henry Kissinger who was the archicitect of the US foreign policy, Ethiopia is a bad precedent for Africans that needs to be dismembered along ethnic and religious line.
But for Africans and colonised people all over the world, Ethiopia and King Menilik have always been a beacon of hope. The battle of Adwa, led by King Menilik, defeated Italy, a white European nation. The defeat sent shock waves to the very spine of white colonisers & forced them to accept black Ethiopia as their equals.
For Nelson Mandela, a trip to Ethiopia, the only non-colonised black country, is more than a trip to England, France and Germany combined. For our African brothers and sisters, King Haiesellasie is a much respected African father figure who was a founding father of African Union & who spearheaded the decolonisation of Africa. For Caribbeans, Ethiopia is a spiritual home.
However, Tigray & Oromo tribalists led by TPLF and OLF, were tacitly nurtured by white supermacists and colonisers to hate their culture, history and themselves. They were coached to denounce their great Kings as “Imperialists” and “Expansionists”. EPLF separatists are the only people in the whole wide world who takes pride for being colonised.
Had the panel was drawn from a wider pool to include Ethiopian nationalists who don’t subscribe to to the previaling “Federalism” along ethnic lines and who are proud of their Ethiopain heritage, Ethiopia would have been portrayed as inspiring for the colonised people, an embodiment of black independence & a symbol of black defiance. A journalist of Mehdi Hasan’s calibre should not be making such grave mistake.
3. Is TPLF is a centralist or federalist?
In light of who the interviewee and panellists were, it was no surprise when PM Abiy was branded as a centralist and assimilator while TPLF era, the worst culprit by any standard, was construed as advocates of federalism.
Let us scrutinise Tigray province, which is the tribal land of TPLF. Saho, Raya, Kunama, Irob, Afar, Agew, Amhara and Tigre tribes live in Tigray. During the TPLF “federal era” and even now, none of these tribes existence is acknowledged. Tigray is deliberately divided into Western/ Eastern/Southern/Northern/ Central regions blatantly attempting to erase the names of these indeginous people. This is how even the very existence of the different ethnic people in Tigray is denied.
None of the different ethnicities in Tigray are allowed to use their mother tongue at school, at courts and locally administer themselves. They were/still are ruled by people from the Tigre tribe & Tigre language is imposed on them.
Any questions of self-administration of the non-Tigre tribes in Tigray is violently suppressed by the TPLF till this date. Nevertheless, the people of Irob, Inderta, Aksum etc.have founded a party and registered to the Election Commission to fight for self governance, use their language at school. This is happening during the reign of Abiy.
As the saying goes, charity begins at home. Despite the rhetoric of the panelists and the interviewee, TPLF- run Tigray was and still is an embodiment of a heavy-handed centralist and assimilatory governance.
Let us now look at how the rest of Ethiopia was ruled under TPLF. To begin with, even on paper, TPLF’s version is not federalism but ethnic federalism, very much similar in substance with the then South Africa’s Apartheid bantustanisation.
TPLF’s Stanilist political programme was unashamedly copied and elevated to ethnic federalism constitution of the country at large.
It created ethnic apartheid bantustans that condemned many millions of Ethiopians, whose ethnicity is not from the bantustan in question, to a 2nd or 3rd degree citizens. No political representation at all. They can’t run for office and can’t get government job in the bantustan. This is exactly the fate of about 10 millions of non- Oromo Ethiopians, mainly Amharas, in oromo-tribal/ bantustan land.
We all know that TPLF used to rule these ethnic Bantustans through proxies. A viceroy from Tigray was appointed for each ethnic Bantustan. The Bantustans have no spine and no independent existence. They were there to facilitate the absolute will of TPLF.
Each Bantustan was at the mercy of TPLF. TPLF used to remove and arrest, including the Bantustan presidents, at any time if there is any slightest sign of disloyality. TPLF is federalist only in name but a heavy- handed centralist and assimilator in practice. Arguably more centralist and assimilator than the military Derg led by colonel Mengistu.
Although TPLF comes from Tigray region, which represents about 5% of Ethiopia, TPLF controlled more than 90% of the military, security & the economy. This was unheard of in Ethiopian history.
If these are not classical examples of a centralist and assimilator, what is it then?
Lastly if merely creating spineless ethnic Bantustans was a measure of being a “true federalist”, Abiy has created 4 more ethnic Bantustans than TPLF. Hence, per the panelists argument, does that mean Abiy government is more “federalist” than TPLF?
Related:
Mehdi Hasan debates Getachew Reda on his alliance
with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and justice for the war in Tigray (al jazeera)
A few points on Alex De Wall’s recent interview and article (Ethiofact)