Diaspora Disillusionment and the Politics of Expectation in Post-2018 Ethiopia

The political trajectory of Ethiopia since the 2018 reform era reveals a deep and often underexamined contradiction within segments of the Diaspora elite and activist class. In the immediate aftermath of the reforms led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, many Diaspora-based intellectuals, activists, and media personalities positioned themselves as central architects of change. Their narratives frequently amplified their own roles—through advocacy, social media mobilization, or international lobbying—as decisive forces that helped bring about the political opening. While it is undeniable that Diaspora engagement contributed to shaping discourse and applying pressure on the previous political order, the elevation of these contributions to near-deterministic significance reflects a disproportionate self-assessment rather than a balanced reading of events on the ground.

A closer examination suggests that the reform process was primarily driven by internal dynamics: widespread domestic unrest, fractures within the ruling coalition, and mounting pressure from Ethiopia’s youth movements. These factors created the conditions for leadership transition and reform, within which Abiy Ahmed emerged as a reformist figure. Against this backdrop, the claims of outsized Diaspora influence appear overstated and, in some cases, strategically constructed to secure political relevance in the post-reform landscape.

The subsequent fallout between the Prime Minister and several prominent diaspora figures—such as Eskinder Nega, Jawar Mohammed, Yonas Birru, Messay Kebede, Dawit Wolde Giyorgis, and Lidetu Ayalew—illustrates a critical turning point. Initially, many of these individuals expressed cautious optimism or outright support for the reform agenda. However, as political developments diverged from their expectations—whether in terms of power-sharing, ideological direction, or personal influence—their stance shifted dramatically toward sustained opposition.

This shift invites a more critical interpretation. While dissent and critique are essential components of any evolving political system, the intensity, consistency, and tone of some diaspora criticisms raise questions about underlying motivations. In several cases, critiques appear less grounded in systematic policy analysis and more aligned with personal grievances, unmet expectations, or perceived marginalization from the centers of decision-making power. The rhetoric often moves beyond constructive criticism into absolutist condemnation, suggesting a politicization driven as much by emotional response as by empirical assessment.

Furthermore, the framing of Ethiopia’s reform trajectory by these figures frequently overlooks tangible progress. Since 2018, Ethiopia has witnessed significant—albeit uneven—changes, including political liberalization, the return of exiled opposition groups, expanded media space, and efforts toward economic restructuring. While challenges remain profound—ranging from ethnic tensions to conflict and governance gaps—the characterization of the entire reform process as a failure ignores the complexity and incremental nature of political transformation in a country of Ethiopia’s size and diversity.

The persistence of adversarial campaigning by certain diaspora elites also reflects a broader struggle over narrative control. In an era where digital platforms amplify voices across borders, diaspora actors wield considerable influence over international perception. However, this influence can become problematic when it is exercised without proportional accountability to on-the-ground realities. The distance from Ethiopia’s lived conditions may, in some instances, contribute to rigid or absolutist positions that fail to accommodate nuance or evolving circumstances.

Ultimately, the post-2018 Ethiopian political landscape underscores the tension between expectation and reality. The reform process, while imperfect, represents a complex and ongoing attempt to recalibrate a deeply entrenched political system. The role of diaspora intellectuals and activists remains significant, but it is neither singular nor determinative. A more credible and constructive engagement would require a shift from personalized critique toward evidence-based analysis, recognizing both the achievements and shortcomings of the current trajectory.

In this context, the argument that much of the sustained opposition from certain diaspora elites is influenced by envy, frustration, or a desire for political relevance cannot be dismissed outright. While such motivations may not apply uniformly, they provide a plausible lens through which to interpret the intensity and persistence of their campaigns. A more balanced discourse—grounded in evidence, humility, and a genuine commitment to Ethiopia’s long-term stability—remains essential for moving beyond polarization and toward meaningful progress.

Opt. Strategic Hedging and Regional Order Formation in the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia’s Maritime Imperative in a Multipolar Red Sea

 

Abstract

The Horn of Africa is entering a phase of structured geopolitical competition centered on maritime access, corridor securitization, and recalibrated balances of power. Emerging alignments—loosely characterized by Egypt–Turkey–Gulf coordination and UAE–Israel–Ethiopia convergence—reflect transactional strategic behavior rather than rigid ideological blocs. At the core of this transformation lies Ethiopia’s pursuit of diversified sea access.

This paper argues that Ethiopia’s maritime strategy is best understood through structural realism and hedging theory, rather than narratives of expansionism. In an increasingly militarized Red Sea security complex, the sustainability of Ethiopia’s position will depend on its capacity to balance external pressures, prevent securitized escalation, and reinforce domestic cohesion.

 Introduction: From Fragmented Instability to Structured Competition

Historically, the Horn of Africa has been marked more by chronic instability than sustained geopolitical rivalry, as noted by Christopher Clapham. Recent developments, however, signal a transition toward structured multipolar competition centered on the Red Sea corridor. The securitization of maritime infrastructure and the convergence of Middle Eastern and African strategic theaters suggest systemic transformation rather than episodic crisis.

Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver’s Regional Security Complex Theory provides a useful interpretive framework. The Red Sea basin increasingly operates as an interconnected security complex linking Gulf rivalries, Nile hydropolitics, and state fragility across the Horn.

 Theoretical Framework: Structural Realism and Strategic Hedging

Structural realism, articulated by Kenneth Waltz, posits that state behavior is primarily shaped by systemic constraints and power distribution. In fluid regional systems, states seek security and autonomy by adjusting to evolving balances.

Two complementary lenses clarify current dynamics:

• Balance-of-Threat Theory, developed by Stephen M. Walt, which emphasizes perceived threats rather than aggregate power.
• Strategic hedging theory, advanced by scholars such as Cheng-Chwee Kuik and Evelyn Goh, whereby states diversify partnerships to avoid overdependence while minimizing direct confrontation.

Emerging alignments in the Horn resemble adaptive hedging coalitions rather than fixed alliances. They are pragmatic responses to uncertainty within a transforming regional order.

 

Maritime Access and the Securitization of Infrastructure

The Red Sea has evolved into a critical chokepoint connecting European, Asian, and Middle Eastern trade flows. An estimated 10–15% of global trade transits through the Bab el-Mandeb corridor, underscoring the strategic weight of maritime infrastructure.

Drawing on securitization theory developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, infrastructure can be reframed as a matter of national survival, legitimizing extraordinary policy measures. Gulf state port investments and Turkey’s military presence in Somalia exemplify this corridor securitization logic.

Infrastructure in the Horn is no longer neutral—it is embedded in geopolitical competition.

 Ethiopia’s Structural Vulnerability

Landlocked states face structural disadvantages in trade costs, supply-chain reliability, and bargaining leverage. Ethiopia’s reliance on a dominant maritime corridor constitutes systemic exposure.

From a neorealist perspective, diversified sea access represents a rational strategy to reduce dependency, consistent with Kenneth Waltz’s systemic logic. The Memorandum of Understanding with Somaliland can thus be interpreted as a hedging maneuver aimed at mitigating corridor monopoly risk.

This interpretation parallels middle-power hedging patterns observed in Southeast Asia, as analyzed by Cheng-Chwee Kuik.

 Egypt, Hydropolitics, and Containment Logic

The dispute surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam reflects hydro-hegemonic dynamics, conceptualized by Mark Zeitoun and Jeroen Warner. Control over upstream Nile flows alters bargaining power within the basin.

From a balance-of-threat perspective, a less-constrained Ethiopia—economically and logistically—could enhance negotiation leverage. Egyptian engagement in the Horn may therefore reflect strategic containment rather than imminent military confrontation. Hydropolitics and Red Sea positioning are increasingly interconnected theaters.

 External Great Powers and Selective Engagement

According to offensive realism as articulated by John J. Mearsheimer, great powers prioritize stability within strategically vital corridors.

In the Horn:

• The United States emphasizes maritime security and counterterrorism continuity.
• The European Union prioritizes migration governance and stability.
• China focuses on asset protection and Belt and Road continuity.

These actors exhibit selective engagement rather than transformative intervention. A status quo bias shapes external responses to regional reordering.

 Security Dilemma Dynamics

The Horn displays characteristics of an emerging security dilemma, as theorized by Robert Jervis. Defensive measures—such as port diversification—may be perceived as offensive encirclement by rival states.

Escalatory signaling risks proxy entanglement, particularly amid overlapping Gulf rivalries. The securitization of maritime access heightens misperception within an already fragile regional security complex.

 Domestic Cohesion and State Capacity

State capacity remains central to resilience in competitive regional systems. As argued by Charles Tilly, durable state power depends on institutional consolidation and resource extraction capacity.

External balancing strategies are sustainable only when supported by internal cohesion and administrative discipline. Fragmentation weakens bargaining leverage and increases exposure to coercive diplomacy. Domestic consolidation, therefore, is a prerequisite for effective hedging.

 Conclusion: Order Formation in a Multipolar Red Sea

The Horn of Africa is entering an early stage of regional order formation. Structural realist logic suggests that states act preemptively during periods of systemic uncertainty. Ethiopia’s maritime diversification strategy reflects an attempt to correct long-standing structural asymmetry rather than a revisionist territorial ambition.

Whether this strategy produces leverage or isolation will depend on calibrated non-alignment, disciplined statecraft, and strengthened domestic cohesion.

The emerging order in the Red Sea will ultimately be determined not by rhetoric, but by equilibrium management within an increasingly securitized maritime environment.

 

 

Ethiopia vs Egypt: Why Geography, Not Diplomacy, Will Decide the Nile

 For more than a decade, the Ethiopia–Egypt dispute over the Nile has been framed as a technical disagreement about water sharing. This framing is misleading. At its core, the conflict is about regional hierarchy—who sets the rules in Northeast Africa, and who must adapt to a changing balance of power.

Egypt’s position rests on preserving a 20th-century order built on colonial-era treaties, diplomatic privilege, and international sympathy. Ethiopia’s position rests on a 21st-century reality: it is upstream, populous, and economically unavoidable. These two positions are not equally sustainable.

 Egypt’s leverage is loud—but brittle

Egypt’s strategy relies on three tools: internationalization, delay, and alarm. By elevating the dispute to global forums, emphasizing existential risk, and projecting military signalling, Cairo has successfully shaped short-term narratives—particularly in Western capitals.

But this leverage has structural limits. Egypt controls none of the Nile’s sources. Over 85 percent of its waters originate beyond its borders, primarily in Ethiopia. Climate change, population growth, and economic stagnation only deepen this dependency. Military options are politically unacceptable and strategically reckless. Diplomatic pressure can slow projects—but it cannot reverse geography. Egypt is fighting to preserve a status quo that no longer exist.

 Ethiopia’s advantage is quiet—but irreversible

Ethiopia’s power is not rhetorical; it is physical. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is no longer a proposal or a bargaining chip—it is operational infrastructure. Power generation has begun. Each passing year normalizes its existence and erodes the credibility of claims that it can be undone.

Ethiopia’s broader advantages are equally structural: demographic scale, economic gravity, and upstream control. As the host of the African Union, Ethiopia also carries continental legitimacy that resonates far beyond the Nile Basin. While its diplomacy has often been reactive and inconsistent, its core leverage does not depend on messaging discipline. Rivers do not negotiate.

 Time favors Addis Ababa, not Cairo

In the short term, Egypt may continue to dominate headlines and diplomatic forums. In the medium term, however, international actors will adapt to facts on the ground. GERD will shift from being seen as a “crisis” to being treated as critical regional infrastructure—especially as power exports create shared economic interests.

In the long term, Egypt will face an unavoidable choice: technical cooperation or strategic decline. No amount of external advocacy can substitute for upstream reality.

 The real risk—for Ethiopia

Ethiopia’s challenge is not Egypt’s opposition; it is self-inflicted error. Nationalist overreach, opaque communication, or regional isolation could convert a structural advantage into unnecessary vulnerability. To lock in long-term success, Ethiopia must depoliticize GERD internationally, expand data transparency, and bind neighbors through energy interdependence rather than rhetoric.

 Conclusion

Egypt is fighting to preserve yesterday’s order. Ethiopia is building tomorrow’s infrastructure. Diplomacy can delay change. It cannot cancel geography. The Nile’s future will be shaped less by conference rooms and more by concrete—and in that equation, Ethiopia already holds the decisive advantage.

 

 Deferent reality on the ground

While constructive dialogue among Ethiopians at home and abroad is always welcome, it is deeply regrettable that this gathering chose to adopt a tone of hostility and alarmism rather than one of engagement and national responsibility.

Over the past several years, Ethiopia has faced immense challenges—ranging from internal conflicts and global economic pressures to natural disasters that have strained national resilience. Despite these hardships, the Ethiopian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, has made consistent efforts toward peacebuilding, economic recovery, and institutional reform.

The Amsterdam statement’s portrayal of “collapse” and “dictatorship” grossly misrepresents the complex realities on the ground. The following clarifications are necessary:

1. On Political Governance:
   Ethiopia remains committed to constitutional order and the rule of law. National and regional elections have been conducted, and the government continues to engage opposition parties and civil society through established platforms for dialogue and reform. Genuine political transition can only occur through lawful and participatory means—not through foreign-hosted conferences that lack accountability or broad legitimacy.

2. On Security and Peace Efforts:
   The government has prioritized peace and reconciliation through inclusive processes such as the National Dialogue Commission, which invites all voices—regardless of ethnicity or political background—to contribute to a shared vision for the country. Military operations have been aimed not at suppressing dissent but at restoring stability and protecting citizens from violent insurgencies and extremist threats.

3. On Economic and Diplomatic Progress:
   Despite global inflation and post-conflict recovery challenges, Ethiopia’s economy continues to show signs of resilience through agricultural reform, infrastructure development, and investment in energy and technology. International partnerships remain strong, and Ethiopia continues to defend its sovereignty and national interests through diplomacy rooted in mutual respect.

4. On External Interference:
   Ethiopia’s future must be determined by Ethiopians themselves. Attempts to frame political outcomes through diaspora-led conferences or alliances with armed groups risk undermining national stability and the hard-earned progress toward peace.

The government and the Ethiopian people recognize the diversity of opinions among citizens and the diaspora. However, genuine concern for Ethiopia’s future must be expressed through constructive engagement, respect for constitutional processes, and commitment to peaceful dialogue, not through divisive rhetoric that serves narrow political agendas.

Ethiopia belongs to all its people. At this critical moment, what is required is unity, patience, and a shared commitment to rebuild and strengthen our nation—together.

 

Ethiopia as a Pie: A Nation Fractured by Ethnic and Political Divisions

 

At the heart of Ethiopia's political challenges lies the system of ethnic federalism, implemented in 1995 under the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). This framework divided the nation into ethnically based regions, granting them constitutional rights to secession. Although intended to empower ethnic groups and promote self-governance, ethnic federalism has often had the opposite effect. Instead of fostering unity, it has deepened divisions; encouraging competition and mistrust between communities, and fueling frequent clashes.

In today’s Ethiopia, ethnic identity has become the central currency in the struggle for political power. Many political parties are organized along ethnic lines, claiming to represent their respective communities. However, their actions often prioritize party interests or personal gain over the collective well-being of the nation. This dynamic has sparked violence, mass displacement, and growing alienation among citizens who yearn for stability and unity but find themselves caught in a political system more focused on maintaining power than addressing their needs.

Political office in Ethiopia is frequently seen as a pathway to personal enrichment rather than a platform for public service. This issue cuts across both pro-unity parties and ethnically organized opposition groups. Corruption, nepotism, and self-interest dominate the political sphere, with leaders exploiting ethnic grievances to carve out their share of the national “pie.” Some opposition leaders, rather than using power-sharing as an opportunity to foster unity, treat it as a means for personal gain, perpetuating the cycle of division.

This zero-sum mentality has created a polarized political environment, where one group’s gain is perceived as another’s loss. Instead of building bridges, politicians often resort to divisive rhetoric and tactics, leaving the country fragmented and vulnerable. This short-term opportunism undermines long-term national progress, with little accountability for the damage caused.

The consequences of this fractured approach are devastating. Millions of Ethiopians endure cycles of poverty, displacement, and insecurity, as resources are diverted from development projects to fuel political power struggles. Critical areas such as infrastructure, healthcare, and education are often neglected. The ongoing conflicts in Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia underscore how deeply internal divisions have hindered the nation’s ability to advance.

Ethiopia’s youth, who represent the country’s future, are among the hardest hit. Frustrated by a lack of opportunities and persistent instability, many are drawn into cycles of violence. Some fall under the influence of leaders who exploit their discontent, making empty promises of change but delivering only destruction and loss. Tragically, these young people, whom such leaders claim to represent, bear the brunt of the suffering.

Ethiopia’s future depends on moving beyond the "pie-slicing" mindset. The nation needs leaders who view Ethiopia not as a resource to be divided, but as a shared home to be nurtured. Political parties must transcend ethnic boundaries, embracing inclusive policies that uplift all citizens, regardless of their background. Only by overcoming these divisions can Ethiopia achieve lasting peace and prosperity.

The Ethiopian government must prioritize peace-building efforts through dialogue, mediation, and inclusive negotiations among conflicting parties. Protecting civilians, addressing the root causes of conflicts, and holding violators accountable are critical steps. Investment in development and infrastructure can provide stability and lay the groundwork for long-term solutions. Regional and international partnerships will also play a key role in managing crises and promoting sustainable peace.

Reforming the ethnic federal system is essential to balancing unity with Ethiopia’s rich diversity. Meaningful dialogue and reconciliation are needed to heal wounds and rebuild trust among communities. Strengthening accountability mechanisms will ensure leaders prioritize national interests over personal ambitions.

Reforming the constitution in a way that ensures long-term stability, so it doesn't change with every government transition, is essential. Amendments should only occur with broad public support after thorough discussions and, if necessary, a referendum. To achieve this, the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission play a crucial role. The commission must carry out its duties swiftly, independently, and with transparency and honesty.

 

Conclusion

 

Ethiopia stands at a pivotal moment in its history. Its ancient heritage and vibrant culture hold the potential for a brighter future, but this vision can only be realized if the politics of division are replaced with a commitment to shared prosperity. The nation must abandon the pie metaphor and embrace a model of inclusion, where every Ethiopian feels valued and represented. The choice is clear: unity and progress or continued fragmentation and decline. The responsibility now rests with Ethiopia’s leaders and citizens to choose the path of reconciliation, unity, and national renewal.

 

 

Ethiopian Opposition Politicians and Activists: A Focus on Personal Gain or National Service?

Ethiopia, a country with a rich and complex history, has always been at the crossroads of transformation and adversity. From the fierce resistance against colonial forces to the turbulent political shifts of modern times, its political landscape has been shaped by a deep sense of national pride, yet also marked by enduring challenges. The role of opposition politicians and activists in Ethiopia has been crucial throughout history, often acting as the voices of dissent, striving to represent marginalized communities, and advocating for reforms. However, a growing criticism has emerged, questioning whether some of these figures have placed personal ambitions above the greater good of national service.

In any democratic society, the opposition plays an indispensable role in ensuring that governments remain accountable. Opposition politicians and activists challenge the status quo, advocate for underrepresented populations, and present alternative visions for the nation's future. In Ethiopia, these opposition figures have faced relentless struggles, including imprisonment, forced exile, and outright suppression, often paying a high price for their activism. Despite these challenges, they have remained central to Ethiopia's political evolution, especially in times of significant change and reform.

However, as Ethiopia grapples with its political transition, there is a rising concern that some opposition figures may be prioritizing their personal or partisan interests over the national interest. Criticism has mounted over actions and rhetoric that sometimes appear to be self-serving, rather than directed at achieving unity and addressing Ethiopia's most pressing issues.

Several underlying factors contribute to the perception that some Ethiopian opposition politicians and activists may be focusing on personal gain rather than the nation's well-being.

Ethiopian opposition groups often find themselves fragmented along ethnic, regional, or ideological lines. This fragmentation not only weakens their collective effectiveness but also leads to infighting within the opposition ranks. As factions within the opposition vie for power and influence, leaders have been accused of prioritizing their own factions’ interests, rather than working toward national cohesion. Such disunity has made it difficult for opposition groups to present a unified alternative to the government.

Ethiopia's unique federal system, which is structured around ethnic lines, has heightened tensions across the country, often fueling divisive politics. Some opposition figures have been accused of exploiting ethnic tensions to further their political careers, rather than seeking to create inclusive solutions that benefit all Ethiopians. This approach may resonate with their respective constituencies but risks deepening ethnic divides and undermining the potential for lasting national unity. The situation in the Tigray, Oromia, and Amhara regions serves as a clear example.

Many Ethiopian opposition movements receive support from diaspora communities and foreign governments. While this support is crucial for sustaining activism, it has also raised questions about the independence of these movements. Critics argue that the reliance on foreign funding and external backing can sometimes lead opposition leaders to prioritize donor interests over the actual needs of the Ethiopian people, shifting focus away from national issues and towards external pressures.

There is a tendency among some opposition leaders to focus on achieving immediate political wins, whether through protests, social media campaigns, or opportunistic alliances. This emphasis on short-term victories often undermines the creation of sustainable movements or political institutions that can bring about meaningful long-term change. The focus on quick wins can raise doubts about the true motivations of these leaders and their commitment to Ethiopia's future.

When political figures prioritize personal interests, the impact on the nation can be profoundly negative. This behavior erodes public trust in opposition movements, alienates potential allies, and exacerbates the divisions already present within the society. Moreover, it prevents the emergence of credible leadership alternatives to the ruling government, making it difficult for Ethiopia to move forward with meaningful reforms.

Given Ethiopia's challenges, economic hardship, ethnic conflict, and the need for systemic political reform, the stakes are incredibly high. It is imperative for opposition figures to focus on solutions that address the root causes of the nation's problems, rather than pursuing their own ambitions at the expense of collective progress.

To overcome the perception of self-serving politics, Ethiopian opposition politicians and activists must work toward greater transparency, accountability, and collaboration. Several key steps are necessary to restore faith in the opposition and shift the focus back to national service.

Opposition groups must put aside ethnic, regional, and ideological differences in order to present a unified front. This means prioritizing the nation’s interests over factional or personal agendas and working together to find solutions that benefit all Ethiopians, regardless of background.

Rather than relying on provocative rhetoric or antagonistic tactics, opposition figures should engage in meaningful dialogue with the government, civil society, and the Ethiopian people. Such dialogue will help build trust and foster a cooperative approach to solving Ethiopia's challenges.

Creating sustainable change requires more than just protesting or rallying support; it requires careful, long-term planning. Opposition leaders must focus on building robust political platforms and policies that can address Ethiopia's complex issues, including economic reform, ethnic reconciliation, and strengthening democratic institutions.

Opposition figures need to regain the trust of the Ethiopian people by demonstrating consistency, integrity, and a deep commitment to national service. By leading with transparency and ethical conduct, opposition leaders can inspire confidence among Ethiopians that they are working for the common good, not just for personal gain.

Educating citizens about their democratic rights and responsibilities is essential for fostering an informed electorate. By enhancing civic education, the opposition can empower Ethiopians to hold all political figures accountable, ensuring that both government and opposition leaders prioritize the country’s well-being above all else.

Conclusion:

Ethiopia’s path forward will be determined not just by the ruling government but by the collective efforts of its citizens, including opposition politicians and activists. While it is important to recognize valid criticisms of self-serving behavior, it is also essential to acknowledge the struggles and significant contributions of many opposition figures. By focusing on national service, fostering unity, and prioritizing long-term solutions, Ethiopian opposition leaders have the potential to play a transformative role in shaping a united, peaceful, and prosperous future for their country. The key lies in placing the nation’s well-being ahead of personal gain and embracing the broader vision of a harmonious and thriving Ethiopia.

 

Ethiopian court aquits Zone 9 beloggers (ESAT)

ESAT news (October 16, 2015) Reports from Addis Ababa indicated that Zone 9 bloggers were cleared from terrorism charges during the 38th trial on October 16, 2015. They were held for 18 months in detention. In late July 2015, the Ethiopian government released five Zone 9 bloggers and a journalist a week before President Obama visited the country. The Justice Ministry dropped all charges against Edom Kassaye, Zelalem Kibret, Asmamaw Hailegiworgis, Tesfalem Weldeyes, and Mahlet Fantahun without giving further legal justification. read more...

Ethiopian Zone 9 bloggers cleared of terrorism charges (BBC)

The decision means that terror charges have been dropped against all nine of the so-called Zone 9 bloggers, after five were cleared and released in July.
Their case inspired a sustained online campaign for their release by activists in Ethiopia and beyond.
Ethiopia has frequently been criticised for its record on human rights.read more...

አቡነ መቃሪዮስ – የዘመናችን አቡነ ጴጥሮስ (ይሄይስ አእምሮ) (ECADF)

ይሄይስ አእምሮ
እኛ ኢትዮጵያውያን በቁም መመሰጋገን ወይንም መወዳደስ ብዙውን ጊዜ ያቅተናል – ምክንያቱን በውል አላውቅም፡፡ ምናልባት ውዳሤ ከንቱ እንዳይመስልብን ከመፍራት አኳያ ይመስለኛል ሰውን በሕይወት ዘመኑ – እንደፈረንጆቹ – የማወደስ ባህላችን እስከዚህም የሆነው – ይህን የይሉኝታ እሥረኛ የሆነ ልማዳችንን ቅድስና ለመስጠት ታዲያ “ሆድ ያመስግን”፤ “ሙያ በልብ” የመሳሰሉ አባባሎች አሉን፡፡ ምናልባት “አመስጋኝ አማሳኝ” እንደሚባለው ተመስጋኙ የልብ ልብ እንዳይሰማውና እንዳይታበይ ታብዮም እንዳይበላሽብን ከመሥጋት አንጻርም ሊሆን ከቻለ የማናመሰግነው ይህንንም አላውቅም፡፡ ግን አንድ ሰው ከሞተ በኋላ የምሥጋናና የሙገሣ ዶፍ ከማዝነብ – ላያየው – በቁም እያለም አክብሮትንና ፍቅርን መግለጽ መልካም አጋጣሚ ይመስለኛል፡፡ ይህን በጎ ምግባር ብንለምደው አንድ ሰው ከዚህች ምድር ሲሰናበት ወይም ከተሰናበተ በኋላ በውዳሤ ለማንበሽበሽም ሆነ በዕንባ ጎርፍ ለመዘከር ከመጣደፍ የተሻለ አግባብነትና ጠቀሜታ አለው፡፡read more...

Breaking News: After 18 months in detention, charges against Zone 9 bloggers dropped (ECADF)

After 539 days in detention and 39 court appearances, Ethiopian courts today dropped the charges against the remaining imprisoned members of the Zone 9 blogging collective.  read more ...

ድል ለአርበኞች ግንቦት 7!” “ሞት ለወያኔ!” የሚሉ ፅሁፎች በኢትዮጵያ ከተሞች እየተሰራጩ ነው

የአርበኞች ግንቦት 7 ድምፅ
“ድል ለአርበኞች ግንቦት 7!” “ሞት ለወያኔ!” የሚሉ እና ሌሎች ፅሁፎች በአርባ ምንጭ ከተማ በዋና ዋና ቦታዎች ላይ በብዛት ተለጥፈው ታዩ፡፡ read more